We seldom realise how easily we pass judgment on things. It does not take a moment to declare, “This is not right”, “That’s bad” or “That’s good”. Our tendency to judge things goes deeper than just “right” or “wrong”. The choices that we make in our daily lives, from selecting a soap to choosing a colour, are subtly based on the same propensity. The question is, “Where do all these choices and judgments come from - and what is their basis?” One decision has to be made against the other. Once choice has to be made against the other. If we call something “good” it has go against something that we consider as “bad” in comparison. If we look closely, we will realise that much of the things we do in our daily lives revolve around making these choices. We like and dislike things. We make selections and decision based on what suits us. What is their foundation? How do we validate a judgment? The concept of “knowledge” is closely related to our tendency to judge, make choices and form opinions.

As children, much of our information comes from the early days of learning – at home, day-care centres, pre-school, school and circle of friends, not forgetting the influence of media, games, books and other tools of information that come along. In the same context, our upbringing is generally influenced by the prevailing culture, environment, socio-economical conditions and traditional values passed on by the family. Before we come to the age of maturity and decision-making, much of our personality, opinions, preferences and attitude are already formed with a potential for further enhancement and consolidation as we look to choose the career paths and lifestyles, set ambitions and define our individual stand in the society. We all have different personalities, different opinions, different beliefs and different approaches to the life for the simple reason that the mix of conditions was different for different people. As grownups, we tend to make friends and social environments that match our personality. Where does, then, “knowledge” come into the equation? How do we distinguish “information” from “knowledge”? Before we answer these questions however, we have to first know what “knowledge” really means. It can mean different things to different people. To some, to know how to play poker can be a kind of “knowledge”. To some others, how things work in a car, or a computer, can also be “knowledge”. If we were to look within ourselves and try to identify what we consider as “knowledge”, we will face a crude dilemma. The fact that we have involuntarily developed our own mind-sets in the process of life, everything we think, analyse or rationalise will go through that spectrum. Since the conditioning of mind, or personality, is subjective, each person will make his or her own judgments based on their own pool of information or logic. The problem compounds when we do not recognise the conditioning process of the mind and start believing that what we “know” is true and correct.

The Oxford dictionary (source: http://www1.oup.co.uk/elt/oald/bin/oald2.pl) defines the word “knowledge” as;

know•ledge / n l d ; AmE n l-/ noun ~ (of / about sth)

1 [U, sing.] the information, understanding and skills that you gain through education or experience: practical / medical / scientific knowledge He has a wide knowledge of painting and music. There is a lack of knowledge about the tax system.
2 [U] the state of knowing about a particular fact or situation: She sent the letter without my knowledge. The film was made with the Prince's full knowledge and approval. She was impatient in the knowledge that time was limited. I went to sleep secure in the knowledge that I was not alone in the house. They could relax safe in the knowledge that they had the funding for the project. He denied all knowledge of the affair.

None of the two definition point toward an inward knowledge or self-realisation. In fact, both the definitions refer to external experiences based on “information”, “understanding” or a “situation”. The definitions in other dictionary will not be different. The point here is that if look at the world in a literal sense, even the definition of “knowledge” does not match with our own understanding or perception of the same. Can we term a logical interpretation of information as “knowledge”? What do we mean when we say, “I know”. It is most likely that we mostly say “I know” out of habit or simply because we have come across the same information.

Alan Watts has quoted;

There was a young man who said,
“Though I know that I know, what I would like to see
is that “I” that knows “me” when
I know that I know that I know.”

(Quotation taken from the MBA thesis available in the “Spirit at Work” on this site)

When someone is promising to provide “knowledge” of something, they are most probably providing “information”. According to our mind-sets and beliefs, we interpret that information as knowledge. If enhances if the given information matches with the pre-conceived, pre-formed ideas already in our minds. If you “believe” strongly in “soul” and by some means if I can show you where this soul resides in the body, somewhere you always thought it does, you will be exhilarated. From that time on, you will be saying, “I know where the soul is in the body”. Without actually having the actual knowledge – which would have been a spiritual insight through self-realisation – the information is conveniently taken as knowledge by the thinking mind. In the same sense, a spiritual master will not answering these sorts of questions from his pupils, for he would know that the mind, and the ego, requires nothing but information. The information, and the sensations that go with it, create a false sense of achievement and knowledge. The mind likes to be stimulated, excited by the information, creating an illusion of knowledge.

Dr. D.T Suzuki, in his book, “The Zen Doctrine of No-mind” commented, “Students of Zen have to guard themselves against committing these faults (of conceptualisation). What leads them to pitfall is the attempt to substitute an intellectual or conceptual understanding of an experience for the genuine Zen experience itself. This false proceeding is the source of all grave errors.” (Suzuki, 1972, p81). The spiritual masters have talked about “Prajna” or “Pragnya”, the natural, word-less, thought-less transcendental knowledge that dawns in the thoughtless state of mind. Great Zen master Hui-Neng said,

“As long as there is a dualistic way of looking at the things there is no emancipation. Light stands against darkness; the passion stands against enlightenment. Unless these opposites are illuminated by Prajna, so that the gap between the two is bridged, there is no understanding of the Mahayana.” He described Prajna as an illuminating light that occurs in the thoughtless state of mind – or seeing into one’s Self-nature.

Famous Spiritual master J. Krishnamurthi said while describing the state og thoughtlessness, “This is the state of Pragnya. There is no residue of the thoughts. Since there are no thoughts, all the presumptions, possibilities, predictions, prejudices, reservations, fears etc. are washed away. The brain is free from time and its limitations.”

Rao Maharaj has quoted Saint Eckhart, “Thoughtless (Pragnya-bound) now moment is the gate of the heaven. The infinitesimal way that leads towards it is the way to true life. Ego or “I” has no way to emanate, if the awareness is witnessed in Pragnya within the now moment.”

How can a thinking mind go into a state of thoughtlessness has always remained a mystery for the intellectuals, for the Self-nature is beyond the thoughts and concepts. If we have the slightest ability to look within ourselves and meditate, we should be able to see that most of what we consider as “knowledge” is mostly standing on the basis of some information. And we keep re-using the available information to generate new information that appears as knowledge. By dissecting, filtering and assimilating various information we turn them into new information. There are, indeed, personal experiences in various aspects of our lives but those experiences remain ineffective, not creating any true realisation, as the thinking mind creates a barrier between the Self-nature and the live world.

If should be sufficient to say, “I do not know”. It will be a good start. J. Krishnamurthi also said that you to be aware of the tricks of the mind. Even if mind understands itself but is not emptied of things (thoughts, concepts etc.), it will be caught in its own illusion. The liberation, then, will again be an illusion.” So much for the knowledge.

***

References:

Suzuki, D.T. 1972, The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind, Samual Weiser Inc., York Beach
Watts A., 1966, The Book, Pantheon Books, New York

Close Window