Direct Knowledge

[Guest guest]

The Direct Knowledge, in contrast to " indirect knowledge " , referred to in

GURU VACHAKA KOVAI verses 529-533 is that Knowledge which is non other than

abiding as the pure awareness, ie as the Self.

 

Knowledge which is derived from experience and knowledge which is derived

from books and study are both types of Relative knowledge.

 

We experience the sun rising, moving across the heavens and setting. This

direct experience and its knowledge, namely that the Sun moves round the

earth, is illusory. It has only a relative reality. We now 'know' it is the

earth spinning which gives the illusion that the sun rises and sets and

that, actually, the earth travels round the sun, not vice versa. In this

particular case our 'intellectual understanding' is a more accurate (right

knowledge) as to the true nature of events than our direct 'experiential

knowledge'.

 

Experiential knowledge and intellectual understanding both have their

strengths and weakness. Knowledge of the chemical composition of water is

unlikely to help us learn how to swim - for that we need to enter the water

itself - and such knowledge is not of much use to a drowning man!

Likewise, knowing how to swim is unlikely to be of any use to people dying

for lack of fresh drinking water and where the rivers, streams and water

supplies are all polluted. The person with the intellectual understanding

of the chemical constitution of water and matter is likely to be more

helpful there.

 

The Sages explain that our experience of the world in whatever state of

consciousness is based on ajnana (ignorance of our true nature) which

results in the misperception of ourselves and others as limited beings.

Hence we perceive others, the world and god as separate from ourselves. So

we might say that any knowledge - experiential or intellectual - that arises

as a result of our identification with the body-mind and which is part of

our experience of the world of duality is only 'relative knowledge' at best.

 

In " Forty Verses on Reality " (Ulladhu Narpadhu), Sri Ramana states:

 

Knowledge is never and nowhere in the world separate from ignorance;

neither is ignorance at any time and for anyone separate from knowledge;

true knowledge is the Awareness of the original Self,

which becomes manifest by the Quest 'Who is this I to whom belong both of

these,'

nothing else. (verse 10)

 

This is not meant to mean that there is an " original Self " separate from us

which we become aware of. " Awareness " *is* the nature of the Self which is

Sat-chit, or existence-consciousness. " I am " is Sat-Chit and is neither an

object of perception and knowledge nor an object of experience. As Sri

Ramana says in " Talks " :

 

" The Self is the basis of all the experiences. It remains as the witness

and the support of them all. The Reality is thus different from the

three states, the waking, the dream and the deep sleep. "

(Talk 617)

 

In other words, all experiences belong to one or other of the three states

mentioned above. The Self is pure Awareness, it is not " a state " .

 

In Vedanta and in Sri Ramana's talks and writings the word " experience " is

used in two different ways. Sometimes it refers to experiences associated

with the three states of waking, dream and sleep. Such experiences may be

material, supersensuous or spiritual. These all have the characteristic of

an 'I' who has an experience. Such experiences, like all experiences, do not

last and are therefore of the nature of the 'unreal'.

 

" What matters is only that which is natural.

Such must be eternal and cannot be experienced.

That which is born must die; that which is acquired

must be lost. Were you born? You are ever existent.

The Self can never be lost. " (Talk 20)

 

In other words while experiences come and go - whether good or bad, profound

or superficial - the Self, the 'I am' (Sat-chit, existence-consciousness) is

ever present, unborn and undying.

 

At other times the word " experience " or " direct experience " is used to refer

to a direct knowing, or realisation. For example:

 

" The egoless 'I am' is not thought. It is realisation.

The meaning or significance of 'I' is God.

The experience of 'I am' is to Be Still. " (Talk 226)

 

'I am' is our own awareness and is not something other than ourselves to be

gained or experienced. As Sri Ramana explains:

 

" Can anything be as direct as the Self - always experienced

without the aid of the senses? Sense-perceptions can only be indirect

knowledge, and not direct knowledge. Only one's own awareness is

direct knowledge, as is the common experience of one and all. No aids

are needed to know one's own Self, i.e., to be aware. " (Talk 92)

 

" " I am " alone is; and not " I am so and so " , or " I am such and such " .

When existence is absolute it is right; when it is particularised it is

wrong.

That is the whole truth. " (Talk 363)

 

 

Peter