Ways of knowing

(Image Source)

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him

He who knows not, and know that he knows not is a student; teach him

He who knows, and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him

He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise; follow him

(ancient saying)

What does it mean to “know” or to be “aware” of something ? This thought crossed my mind as i was sipping morning coffee today, sitting in my balcony overlooking a coconut tree.

Broadly speaking, we associate “knowing” with collecting “facts” about a particular object — its attributes, processes and relationships. If we may borrow some terms from computer software jargon, our learning involves coming up with “class definitions” for different kind of objects or phenomena we see around us. Lets take a simple example. A class definition of a coconut tree:

class coconut-tree {

contains classes roots, trunk, leaves, coconuts, …..;

attribute height of the tree, shape of the leaves, …… ;

process breathing { co2 in; o2 out; }

process absorb-minerals { … }

process absorb-water { … }

process photosynthesis { … }

……

}

.. you get the picture. And we can drill down this class to the level of biological units — the cells, analyze the chemical reactions occuring there, or go even further to the level of sub atomic particles. Any coconut tree we see, is an “instance” of this class, and assumes the attributes and processes that are defined in the class.

We humans started off with rudimentary class definitions through observation and maybe some experimentation and analysis. Over the last few hundred years, science has greatly improved our class definitions, through sophisticated experimentation and analysis. We now even have class definitions for things that escape our senses, like x-rays and atoms. So, by “learning”, we mostly mean coming up with more and more class definitions, and the relationships between the classes, and refining the content of the definitions. Ultimately, a collection of “facts” or “ideas” in the brain.

Anyway, as i sipped my coffee, i thought, “This approach is painstakingly slow ! There’s gotta be a better way”. I don’t think science will uncover and perfect all the class definitions in the universe, in my lifetime. Even if it does, it will take more than my lifetime to learn them. Even if i learn them, its not fulfilling ! Knowing “facts” or “truths” does not mean i experience them ! What do i mean ? Few examples: Science tells us the universe is immense .. has billions of galaxies. I understand intellectually, its a huge number, and its inspiring. But what difference does it make, in terms of imagining, between distance-to-the-moon and billions of galaxies ? How can i experience the difference ? Feel the immensity of the universe, not as a thought, but actually ? Science tells me that atoms are incredibly small. But how to actually experience it ? To be at the center of an atom, and “see” the electrons whizzing by ! Is that possible ? Science can tell me all about a bird .. its origins, its genes, its dietary habits etc etc. But can i actually take-on the consciousness of a bird, and experience what it means to be bird ? Let me give the simplest of examples. I see a hungry boy on the street. The fact that i “know” he is hungry is far cry from experiencing the hunger myself.

If we cannot connect with facts on a deeper level, all we end up doing, is bring down even profound truths to our level of being, as mere applications. Take ‘energy mass equivalence”. To most non-scientists, this profound knowledge only means nuclear electricity to power our tools, and nuclear bombs to fight wars. Perhaps this is what Einstein meant by saying “Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal”. Perhaps this what the whole debate on knowledge vs wisdom, is about.

Why are we unable to experience immense truths, even if we “know” them ? Or, is experiencing truths, beyond the realm of human consciousness and humans are “equipped” only to know facts intellectually ? I think we will find some pointers in Indian philosophy (I’ll use this generic term to represent enormous body of work that has come out of India, from ancient scriptures to recent philosophers).

One of the central concepts of Indian philosophy is that our thoughts create an illusion of “self” (subject or “I”), and the world outside as separate “objects”. This illusory division prevents us from experiencing the reality. That our thought-network acts as a barrier, makes both logical and intuitive sense to me. (If anyone is interested in exploring this angle, i suggest Krishnamurti’s works).

In terms of above discussion, i think the collection of scientific facts about “objects” outside, merely reinforces the illusory division. Atleast, it does not do much to erase that division. Scientific facts simply add to our thought-network, thus the “Subject” is still separated from the “Object”. Ofcourse, i do not mean scientific knowledge is useless. It’s quite useful for us to atleast intellectually appreciate the complexity of our world. But the lack of experiencing, still leaves a sense of void.

Now we can naturally segway to the other “way of knowing”. If thoughts create the illusion of “self”, Is it possible to quieten our mind, so that the incessant chatter of thoughts ceases ? What would such a quiet mind lets us “know” ?

I think the first of Patanjali yoga sutras (aphorisms), sums up this “way of knowing”:

Yogah chitta vritti nirodah

Rough translation: Yoga is the cessation of fluctuations (thoughts) of the thinking instrument.

Its indeed interesting that the traditional way of knowing involves collecting facts and ideas in the brain. The meditation way of knowing involves emptying the brain of thoughts.

[ Footnote: Needless to say, this is a complex topic, and there's much room for revisions and additions. For example, what are the implications of experiments in quantum mechanics, to this discussion ? I'll create an open "page" and leave the thread open for updates]