object is different from subject vs knowledge different form wisdom subject object vs knowledge and wisdom

Difference Between Knowledge and Wisdom | Difference Between ...

Knowledge vs Wisdom Knowledge is a noun that refers to the ...Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects ... I can tell you that somebody with all his life-long experience and also with relevant knowledge of the subject, ... Knowledge vs Wisdom Knowledge is a noun that refers to the information, understanding and skills that you gain through education or experience. It refers to the hard facts and the data that can be available to anyone if he has the right resources. For example, you can have practical, medical or scientific knowledge. You can also say that someone has a wide knowledge of, for example, the taxation system. Wisdom, on the other hand, is a noun that refers to the ability to make sensible decisions and give good advice because of the experience and knowledge that you have. Someone may have all the knowledge about a subject but may not have the wisdom to utilize this knowledge properly to be able to act in a sensible manner! That is why they say you can gain knowledge by educating yourself but you can gain wisdom only by experience. Knowledge also refers to the state of knowing about a particular fact or situation. For example, she sent the letter without my knowledge or the film was made with the Kings full knowledge and approval. Knowledge can also be used as an idiom . For example, something can be common or public knowledge implying that everyone in a particular group or community knows about it. For example, you can say someones dishonesty was common knowledge in the club.

Wisdom can also be used as referring to the sensibility of doing something. For example, you can say I question the wisdom of giving a child so much money. Wisdom also refers to the knowledge that a society or culture has gained over a long period of time. For example, the wisdom of the Native American people. Wisdom when used in the phrase conventional wisdom refers to the collective belief or view that a people or society can have.

Read more: Difference Between Knowledge and Wisdom | Difference Between | Knowledge vs Wisdom http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-betweenknowledge-and-wisdom/#ixzz2JQzNF4ti

Basic ideas of Yogacara Buddhism

3) Subsequently-attained wisdom is a pure form of knowledge that flows out of .... The eighth consciousness is "beyond the dualisms of subject and object, or ...

BASIC IDEAS OF YOGACARA BUDDHISM by Roger Zim

A Paper Prepared for Philosophy 772 "Yogacara Buddhism" San Francisco State University Fall, 1995

If we do not have in ourselves the Buddha mind, then where are we to seek Buddha? INTRODUCTION: The Yogacara school, also known as the "consciousness-only" school, is a fourth century outgrowth of Mahayana Madhyamika Buddhism. The Yogacaras, "by establishing a systematic presentation of mind,...a world-view based on their three-nature theory...and...a path system..." of Buddhist practice, conceived a new philosophical system that "brought Mahayana thought to its full scope and completion." Yogacara itself is not a specific meditative practice, but is meant to be applied as a descriptive tool to understand situations of action and intention. The final goal is the complete clarification of consciousness into wisdom. As Harvey says: The intention of the school...is not to propound a mere philosophical viewpoint, but to develop a perspective which will facilitate enlightenment. This paper is intended as a simple survey of Yogacara. Its purpose is to give a general schema and overview of Yogacara with a minimum of doctrinal analysis. Therefore, details of Yogacara history and the context of its development have not been included. Sanskrit terms also have been avoided, except where

there is no equivalent term in English. The paper is divided into numbered sections which describe the components of Yogacara theory. Since the components of Yogacara are like blocks that together make a unified structure, their order within the paper is arbitrary (ideally you should read all the sections simultaneously). The components are presented beginning with the simplicity of enlightenment through the increasing complexity of the process of consciousness. Terms, or components, not previously explained or defined are followed by a number in brackets [ ] that indicates a section with more information. 1/ THE MIND OF ENLIGHTENMENT The purpose and goal of human life is to reach enlightenment. Yogagcara considers enlightenment a state of True Suchness, or Thusness, meaning that it is the ultimate nature of all things. In reality enlightenment is the only truly existent state. In the perfect clarity of enlightenment there is total awareness and complete understanding. There is no discrimination between inside and outside, or internal and external. In enlightenment there is only the singular total truth of unity, which subsumes the "I" of the ego-differentiated self. After enlightenment the mind's process of seeking outside itself ceases, as does the process of sending energy out (in the form of attachments to the external conditional world). Rather, the mind is now contemplative absorbing energy for the benefit of itself and humanity, like a flower absorbing the rays of the sun. 2/ ENLIGHTENED WISDOM Although the enlightened mind is one, it is useful to classify its activities into four types of enlightened wisdom which are the functions of the Buddhic mind. These reflect the transformation of the eight consciousnesses [8] into fundamental wisdom [3] : 1. The five perceptual consciousnesses [13] become the wisdom of Successful Performance. "This wisdom is characterized by pure and unimpeded functioning (no attachment or distortion) in its relation to the (sense) organs and their objects." 2. The sixth consciousness [10] becomes the wisdom of Wonderful Contemplation which "has two aspects corresponding to understanding of the emptiness of self and of the emptiness of dharmas [7]." With this wisdom the Buddha knows all dharmas, without distortion or obstruction, and, in that way knowing the mental and physical condition of all beings,... [can] teach them most effectively." 3) The seventh consciousness [9] becomes the wisdom of Equality. which "understands the nature of the equality of self and other and of all beings." 4) The

eighth consciousness becomes the Great Mirror wisdom. This wisdom reflects the entire universe without distortion. Although the four wisdoms do not manifest completely until enlightenment, aspects of Wonderful Contemplation and Great Mirror wisdom begin to function in a lesser degree before enlightenment. 3/ THREE BUDDHIC BODIES The Buddha is said to have three bodies. Only the third, the Dharma body, is real. The Transformation and Enjoyment bodies are emanations of the Dharma body, and are relative expedient bodies corresponding to unenlightened consciousness. 1) The Transformation body, also called the Body of Self Mastery, refers to a physical body in the phenomenal world. This body is necessary for the Buddha to teach humanity the path to enlightenment. The Wisdom of Successful Performance is employed in this body so the Buddha can "function perceptually within that body." 2) The Enjoyment body is a luminescent, subtle, limitless form that the Buddha uses to teach Bodhisattvas, the beings at the final stage prior to enlightenment. There are many Enjoyment bodies, each having a heaven, or Pure Land, outside the normal world system, where "it is easy to hear and practice the dharma." The wisdom of Equality corresponds to this body. 3) The Dharma body has two aspects: a) The knowledge body, which is the inner nature shared by all Buddhas, manifests as omniscient knowledge, perfect wisdom, and the highest spiritual qualities. b) The self-existent body representing the ultimate nature of reality, thusness and emptiness. It is the transformed storehouse-consciousness [8] and is the body that is realized on attaining enlightenment. This body is equated with Great Mirror wisdom. 4/ THREE WISDOMS 1) Before enlightenment there is only applied wisdom which is discursive and is used in the everyday world. Once this knowledge is focused towards enlightenment, it becomes a preparation for acquiring fundamental wisdom. In the state of enlightenment there is only pure wisdom which has two aspects; fundamental wisdom and subsequently-attained wisdom. 2) Fundamental wisdom is the foundation. It is insight without distinction-making and is non-discriminative, so it is knowledge without subject/object duality. This is wisdom that is beyond words and concepts; it is pure contemplation that knows True Suchness is the basis of reality. Fundamental wisdom brings forth:

3) Subsequently-attained wisdom is a pure form of knowledge that flows out of non-distinction making, so it is "purified mundane knowledge." This is an expedient wisdom that can analyze dharmas without becoming attached, so it can "eliminate confusion about phenomena..." Although this discriminative knowledge is at a lower level than fundamental wisdom, it is used by the Buddha for the purpose of benefiting others; all the Buddha's teaching is attained wisdom. This kind of wisdom explains how, in enlightenment, a person can still deal with relative appearances in the everyday world.

5/ CONSCIOUSNESS

Consciousness is awareness of a "self". The fundamental doctrine of the Yogacara school is "that all phenomenal existence is fabricated by consciousness." Consciousness is the basis of all activities from birth to attaining enlightenment; "...all is based upon the coming into being and the ceasing to be of consciousness, i.e., of distinctions in the mind." Consciousness is the distinction making activity of the mind, both in making and having distinctions, including the states we consider the conscious as well as the unconscious. Consciousness, in making distinctions between self and other, becomes the subject which treats everything else as object. Consciousness itself is real. It exists as a series, or stream, of successive momentary awareness of events, each immediately replaced by consciousness in the next moment. Consciousness "has no substantiality ...and is dependent on the consciousnessof the preceding instant."

Since everything, until the attainment of wisdom in enlightenment, is consciousness, all objects in the external world are just "representations" in our consciousness. Since everything is just an aspect of consciousness, all phenomenal existence is without intrinsic nature . Therefore, the "I" is illusory and there is no "self" to be found; everything is just a phenomenon of consciousness. Eventually, consciousness that is attached to these

representations and makes distinctions has to be clarifiedinto wisdom which is free of all attachments.

There is nothing separate or independent from consciousness. The world is our perceptual construct and an analysis of the unenlightened mind will show different levels of perception which are based in a storehouse consciousness [8] containing the karmic seeds [6] of former actions.

6/ KARMA

The result of our intentional actions is karma. The consequences of these actions remain as traces or seeds planted in the storehouse consciousness. These seeds germinate over time and generate more seeds. Therefore, our lives, are driven by past actions which compel us to decisions about future actions. The theory of karma accounts for the "continuity of personality through death, or unconsciousness..." Once a seed produces its fruit, it is used up. However, new seeds come to fruition in each moment. Until the time of enlightenment, while we continue to believe in the reality of our perceptual framework, this process "...creates seeds that will ripen into further delusion."

Because of the similarity of karmic seeds, and the corresponding delusions they produce, our perception of the world matches that of other people. Consequently, in our samsara (the cycle of existence and rebirth that is the cause of suffering), we are usually in agreement with others about the external sensible world. We also experience interaction via our streams of mental phenomena, since one person's mental representations can effect those of another.

The karmic process has three stages: 1) Giving rise to delusion has one root in the sixth consciousness [10], whose actionslead to activity and therefore karma. 2) Creating karma involves planting seeds in the eighth consciousness [8]. The ongoing cycle of life, death, and rebirth draws the eighth consciousness back into the six levels of existence [15]. 3) Finally, undergoing retribution is the germination of karmic seeds; we reap what we have sown.

7/ DHARMAS

"Dharmas are the ultimate factors that support 'existence'...." They are basic interdependent patterns within the overall nature of reality. Each dharma is a mental-construct with a specific process that consists of a stream of momentary events. Dharmas are attachments to an illusory reality. In terms of process and events dharmas interact with all eight consciousnesses.

Yogacara posits one hundred dharmas, which can be categorized according to the three natures [14], since dharmas lack any real self-existence. There are five categories of dharmas (in descending order): First; the eight mind dharmas are supreme and manifest as the eight consciousnesses. Second; the fifty-one dharmas interactive with the mind supplement the mind dharmas and are subdivided into six categories: 1) five universally interactive (attention, conceptualization, etc.), 2) five particular states (desire, concentration, etc.), 3) eleven wholesome (faith, shame, renunciation, etc.), 4) six fundamental afflictions (greed, anger, etc.), 5) twenty derivative afflictions (deceit, jealousy, torpor, lack of shame, etc.), and 6) four unfixed (sleep, regret, etc.). The afflictions and wholesome dharmas represent further categorizations of distinctions in the sixth consciousness. Third; the eleven form dharmas (sounds, flavors, objects of touch, etc.) are shadows of the first and second categories. Fourth; the twenty-four dharmas not interactive with the mind (time, birth, distinction, etc.) are positions not found in the first, second, or third categories. Fifth; the six unconditioned dharmas (empty

space, extinction of feeling, thinking, etc.) are dharmas revealed by the first four categories.

The realization that all dharmas are nothing but mental-constructs is an essential step on the path to enlightenment. In that final state the wisdom of Wonderful Contemplation "understands without distortion the individual and universal dharmas...."

8/ EIGHTH CONSCIOUSNESS

In Yogacara theory everything is "mind only" and this consciousness is divided into eight sections. The principal part of consciousness is the alaya or "storehouse consciousness" which is the basis of the seven other consciousnesses. All eight comprise the mind dharmas and the fifty dharmas that interact with the mind.

The alaya consciousness is also known as the "repository of impressions." From the alaya arise all of our ideas of self, ego, and their respective functions in the external world. If the alaya is imagined as a vast ocean, then the seven other consciousness are waves on its surface. The seven are not separate from the eighth, nor do they disturb the stillness of its depths; all eight are essentially one.

The eighth consciousness is "beyond the dualisms of subject and object, or existence and non-existence," so it does not have any purposive activity and is unaware of objects. Since it does not make distinctions, and is neither good or bad, the eighth consciousness is said to have the state of equanimity.

The alaya consciousness is the "karmic" storehouse which contains seeds generated by our unenlightened actions. Although it does not create karma, the alaya functions as the subject of retribution for past intentional activities. The process of ripening of seeds, thinking, and perception of objects is all subjective and "neither the process nor its results have any real existence." Because of the "...karmic activity of the seven consciousnesses" the alaya continues developing karmic seeds which, in their fruition, influence future attachments and activities via the three realms [16] and the nine grounds [17].

Final freedom from the samsaric process occurs when all "the defiled seeds are replaced by pure seeds created by pure deeds." The alaya also contains "intrinsically pure seeds" which are the source of our motivation towards enlightenment. Upon enlightenment the eighth consciousness becomes empty of ripening seeds and is transformed into the Great Mirror wisdom.

The alaya has two divisions; the perceiving (the subject) and the perceived (the object). The former is linked to the seventh consciousness [9], while the latter is linked to the sixth consciousness [10] and the five perceptual consciousnesses [13]. When the perceived division is transformed during enlightenment it becomes subsequently-attained wisdom [3]. 9/ SEVENTH CONSCIOUSNESS The seventh consciousness obscures a person's true nature with the ego concept of "I". It is also known as the "defiling/transmitter consciousness" because it is the home of the illusory "...ego individuality with which it defiles the first six consciousnesses..." by obscuring them with its concepts of self. The seventh consciousness also defiles the eighth consciousness by attributing to it characteristics of a real "self" that exists in space and time.

The seventh's mode of knowledge is fallacy [11] caused by its innate attachments [21]. Since the seventh consciousness bases its decisions on relative, defiled knowledge from the dharma of

judgment, it is built on false assumptions which give it four types of delusion; pride of self, self-love, self-delusion, and self-conceit. It also supports the eight major-grade derivative afflictions (laziness, distraction, lack of faith, etc.). 10/ SIXTH CONSCIOUSNESS Cognition and perception take place in the sixth consciousness. The sixth, along with the five perceptual consciousnesses [13], perceives worldly phenomena. The sixth takes "manifestations of the five aggregates (the five "heaps" of dharmas) as object...[and] generates various non-continuous concepts of self." This process also includes its interaction with the fifty-one dharmas interactive with the mind.

The sixth consciousness distinguishes between good and evil and makes moral determinations about the input of the five perceptual consciousnesses. It also uses the dharmas of the basic and subsidiary afflictions along with the three natures [14] and the three modes of knowledge [11] which pervade the three states [12]. In these processes the sixth consciousness creates karma by its examination and decisions which then lead to physical activity.

In the eighth ground [17] "the sixth's...attachment to the perceiver division of the eighth...consciousness...is abandoned, so there is no longer attachment to self, only dharmas."

11/ THREE MODES OF KNOWLEDGE Distinction making, which is used by the sixth consciousness, involves subject and object. The subject has three types of knowledge: 1) Direct veridical perception, functioning with the five perceptual consciousnesses, gives a truthful picture of reality, for example: The apple is red.

2) Inference is assumptions based on perception: The apple will taste good.

3) Fallacious knowledge is our dreams, imaginings, and hallucinations: This apple will cure my dandruff.

12/ THREE KINDS OF STATES

The second part of distinction making, refers to the objects of perception:

1) The natural state is perceived aspects of consciousness undistorted by attachments to self, others, or dharmas. This stateis unconditioned by mental causation and corresponds to the perceptual consciousnesses, for example: You see a dog.

2) State of solitary impressions refers to imagined categories in the sixth consciousness: It is a good dog.

3) State of transposed substance are the distortions of false thinking generated by the concept of "self": The dog likes my good vibes.

13/ PERCEPTUAL CONSCIOUSNESSES

The fifth through first consciousnesses are the perceptual consciousnesses. They comprise the visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile senses. These senses arise from the perceived division of the eighth consciousness. Each organ of perception has two parts: 1) its physical substance (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, or body) and the nerves connecting it to the

perceived division and 2) its mental component. They can appear in any order or all at once, depending on the situation; for instance, an illness or shock can stop their operation. The five perceptual consciousnesses interact with the thirty-one dharmas interactive with the mind and work in conjunction with the sixth consciousness which processes their input to construct a mental picture of reality. After perceptions from the first five consciousnesses are assimilated in the sixth consciousness, they are introduced into the seventh consciousness, which puts these cognitions into the eighth as though the latter were a real "self". This continual process plants more karmic seeds in the eighth consciousness.

None of the five perceptual consciousnesses contain the potential for making moral distinctions, so they are of indeterminate nature [19]. All five function on the first of the nine grounds, while eyes, ears, and body also occupy the second ground. None of them arise after the second ground - the first dyhana [17]. The five perceptual consciousness are:

Fifth consciousness: This is consciousness of the body, or tactile feeling. It perceives through contact, i.e.; touch.

Fourth consciousness: Tongue consciousness or tasting also perceives through contact. After the second ground this perception ceases to function.

Third consciousness: Nose consciousness, or smelling, perceives through contact. After the second ground this perception also ceases.

Second consciousness: Ear consciousness or hearing perceives at a distance.

First consciousness: Eye consciousness or seeing perceives at a distance.

14/ THREE NATURES

The theory of the three natures is one of the central concepts of Yogacara philosophy. Although there is just one world it can be perceived in three ways, hence three natures also known as the "three characteristics". The three natures are a perspective on experience "...both a type of real or supposed knowledge, and a degree of reality that this knowledge relates to." All three natures are involved in direct perception and "...represent all states of entities without exception."

1) The imaginary nature is constructed of subject/object discriminations. It is the nature that accepts the reality of the "self". In Yogacara theory all objects, internal and external, are constructs which only exist as part of our awareness, so their nature is imaginary. There is no reality in this nature, it is just illusion. This nature accepts the validity of the illusory, i.e., that happiness depends on having a new car. The imaginary nature believes in the reality of the the water in a mirage.

2) The other-dependent or interdependent nature is the basis from which the imaginary nature arises and the perfected nature appears. The other-dependent nature is produced by "...the flow of changing mental phenomena...that arise from causes and conditions." These dharmas are real (as conditional things), but "because we impose an imaginary 'self-existence' upon our

experience of them, we come up with distorted images...[of] things...." This causes suffering (samsara), since our mental constructs do not match reality. The other-dependent nature is the mirage itself.

3) The perfected or fulfilled nature is the ultimate nature; the only one that is absolutely real. However, it is "...neither the same as, nor different..." from the other-dependent. The perfected nature is devoid of duality and sees the world as "representation only". Since it is always exactly the same, it is the "thusness" of all. The perfected nature knows it is seeing a mirage.

To see the inter-relationship of our mind processes (i.e.; the otherdependent nature) as being without real objective qualifications of their own (imaginary nature) is to be enlightened (perfected nature). Once the false concept of "I" and "object" is removed, the result is "things-as-they-are", which is nirvana.

15/ SIX LEVELS OF EXISTENCE Depicted as the wheel of existence, the six destinies, or the Wheel of Becoming, these are the possible types of reincarnation:

1) Gods - residing in heaven

2) Asuras - spirits or titans

3) Humans

4) Animals

5) Hungry ghosts - spirits of suffering

6) Beings in hell

16/ THREE REALMS

The distinctions made by the sixth consciousness cause the manifestation of the six levels of existence in the three realms:

1) Realm of Desire

2) Realm of Form - the four dhyanas

3) Formless Realm - four samadhis [17]

17/ NINE GROUNDS The nine bodhisattva grounds are stages, within the three realms, of spiritual attainment:

REALM OF DESIRE

First ground: This is the phenomenal world which includes the destinies of the six levels of existence and the six desire "heavens".

REALM OF FORM

Second ground: The Joyful Stage of Leaving Production is the first dhyana, a level of deep awareness, contemplative calm, and onepointed concentration. The four dhyanas are meditative techniques which produce a state of mental emptiness (samadhi). This is the first formal level on the path to enlightenment and is marked by happiness, joy, clear reasoning, and the state of investigation and examination.

Third ground: The Joyful Stage of the Arising of Samadhi is the second dhyana of joy and pleasure, but now free of investigation and examination. At this stage sexual desire has ceased.

Fourth ground: The Stage of Wonderful Bliss of Being Apart from Joy is the third dhyana of happiness and equanimity, but now without joy.

Fifth ground: The Stage of Renouncing Thought is the fourth dhyana which is the purity of equanimity without pain or pleasure.

FORMLESS REALM

The Four Stations of Samadhi, or emptiness:

Sixth ground: Infinite Space. Meditation with characteristics was used until this point but now meditation without characteristics becomes predominant, and continues in the next three grounds.

Seventh ground: The Far-Reaching Ground or Infinite Consciousness. At this level the seventh consciousness breaks its attachment to the eighth consciousness as being the "self" and is transformed into the wisdom of Equality. In the first through seventh grounds, "...the sixth and seventh consciousnesses [are being] transformed into their respective wisdoms."

Eighth ground: The Unmoving Ground or Nothing Whatsoever. Here all outflows "from the sixth and seventh consciousnesses [stop]... and the wisdom of Wonderful Contemplation proceeds spontaneously...."

Ninth ground: Neither Cognition nor Non-cognition. In this ground is the samadhi of the extinction of feeling and cognition.

18/ THREE KINDS OF FEELING These three typify the basic emotional and perceptual experiences we undergo, so they are an "analysis of experiential effect." Any experience must fall into one of these categories:

1) Pleasure 2) Pain 3) Neutral feelings 19/ THREE MORAL NATURES

The activities of the sixth consciousness can be characterized as having one of the three moral natures which are "an analysis of causal activity" and change from moment to moment.

1) If an action is beneficial it is considered to be wholesome. It is the result of the fruition of "good" karmic seeds from wholesome activity in the past. Wholesome activity is accompanied by the eleven wholesome dharmas.

2) The opposite is true for unwholesome action; it will generate further unwholesome seeds, so "...the dharmas of affliction arise in conjunction with it."

3) Indeterminate actions are neutral; they are neither beneficial nor not beneficial. These actions are found in the five perceptual consciousnesses.

20/ THE PROCESS OF CONSCIOUSNESS Enlightenment is not achieved through only "conceptual understanding." Since everything prior to wisdom is consciousness, enlightenment requires an internal transformation of consciousness. Initially, if we can begin to distinguish that there is a difference between the constructs of the relative, conditioned mind and the pure, absolute enlightened mind, then we can "...leave the former and dwell in the latter." For to "...ascend to the wisdom of enlightenment necessitates negating samsaric reality, while aspiring to the nirvanic ideal."

The process of the transformation of consciousness is threefold:

1) The seeds of past actions automatically ripen into the form of mental phenomena which we believe to be external events. This is the retribution process that occurs in the eighth consciousness. The ongoing sprouting of karmic seeds gives us belief in the "reality"

of our senses, of our body, and the external world which we "know" via a process of five mental operations: 1) the connection between the exterior object and the sense organ, 2) the mind focusing on the object, 3) our experience of the object, 4) recognizing and categorizing the object, and 5) making a judgment about the object.

2) The seventh consciousness, which deals with cognition and mentation, believes in a "self" represented by the eighth consciousness. Since the eighth contains all the seeds, the seventh takes it as its object.

3) The six other consciousnesses are responsible for perception via the five modes of perception and their mental assimilation.

21/ TYPES OF ATTACHMENT TO SELF We have attachments to self and to dharmas which create obstacles that prevent realization. Attachments are divided into two types:

1) Innate attachments are present at birth. They are subtle and exist in all sentient beings. Innate attachments are found in both the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. When the state of no outflows (enlightenment) is reached innate attachments are eliminated.

2) Distinguished attachments are learned. They are less subtle and more obvious than innate attachments and come from the distinction making process of the fifth and sixth consciousnesses.

22/ FIVE STAGE PATH

Yogacara recognizes a five stage process, or path, to enlightenment:

1) Resources, or gathering provisions, is the stage of subduing the phenomenon of duality based on learned attachments toself and dharmas. This helps us see our life experience with increased understanding, so we can act in ways that lead us in the direction of enlightenment. By applying Yogacara theory to everyday activities we can replace subjective concepts with more objective information about consciousness. In this stage, and the next, applied or provisional wisdom, which is dependent on mental constructs, is utilized. For example, the dharmas of resolution (remorse and shame) and the dharmas interactive with the mind help us deal with our conditioned nature.

2) Application is the stage of using meditations to enter into the four dhyanas. This process is completed when the seeds in the eighth consciousness, that ripen into concepts of subject and object, are eliminated. Neither in resources nor applicationis there a manifestation of pure wisdom.

3) Vision is the beginning of the transformation of consciousness into wisdom. This process begins with entrance into the first of the nine Bodhisattva grounds where conditional applied wisdom, that is dependent upon distinctions, is gradually superseded by fundamental and attained wisdom.

4) Meditational development covers the eight remaining grounds while eliminating all the seeds of the innate attachments to self and to dharmas. In the second through seventh grounds all three types of wisdom are still used; applied wisdom to deal with attachments still present, subsequently-attained wisdom in meditation that have characteristics, and fundamental wisdom in meditations

without characteristics. In the last three grounds just fundamental wisdom (in meditation) andsubsequently attained wisdom (for actions) are utilized.

5) Perfection is the final stage of completion. There one resides in the state of contemplation of pure wisdom and enlightenment. Wisdom of the Upanishads The mind comprehends the world or objects through the power or light or intelligence of.... The subject of knowledge 'I who know' can never become its object; ... Wisdom of the Upanishads by Swami Sivananda IGNORANT people identify themselves with the body, mind, Prana and the senses on account of nescience or Avidya. They mistake these false perishable limiting adjuncts or vehicles for the pure immortal Atman and so they are caught in the round of births and deaths. But some wise people abandon this false identification, separate themselves from these limiting adjuncts through enquiry, discrimination, Anvayavyatireka Yukti and practice of 'Neti-Neti' doctrine (I am not this body, I am not this Prana, I am not this mind, I am not the senses), identify themselves with the all-pervading, immortal, pure Brahman, obtain knowledge of Brahman and attain immortality. One becomes immortal by renouncing all desires. In this world man always talks of 'my son', 'my wife', 'my house', etc. The wise abandon all such worldly talks and worldly desires and attain immortality by meditation on Brahman who is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, etc. The Sruti says, Not by works, not by offspring, not by wealth, but by renunciation alone is immortality attained. When all desires are abandoned here they attain the Brahman. Having turned his senses inward for desire of immorality, the wise man attains Brahman. Just as water in a cup borrows it heat from sun or fire, so also the mind, Prana and senses borrow their light and power from

Atman. Atman is the source for all these organs. The ear hears through the light of the Atman, the tongue speaks through the power of Atman, the mind thinks through the intelligence of Atman and Prana performs its function through the power of Atman only. Mind and these organs are inert and non-intelligent. They appear to be intelligent thought the light and power of the Atman. Brahman or the Atman gives to the ear the power of hearing, the mind the power of thinking, the tongue the power of speaking, the eye the power of seeing and the power of life to the Prana. It is therefore said that it is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, etc. There is a director for the ears, eyes, tongue, mind and life-force who is distinct from the ear, mind and Prana. The ears, eyes, mind and Prana exist for his use just as the house exists for the use of the owner. The director is Brahman or Atman. The eye and the organs cannot go to the Brahman. They cannot approach Him for one cannot go to one's own Self. How can the eyes see the seer of sight? The eye is an object of perception for the mind and Atman. However clever and acrobat may be, he cannot jump on his own shoulders. So is the case with the senses. The eye can only see the external objects of the universe. That is its only function. How can it know or reach its source which is extremely subtle? It is not possible to go to one's own self. Similarly, speech cannot go there. When you utter the word cow, that word enlightens the object 'cow' denotes by it. Then it is said that the word goes to the object. The source or support or abode or resting place for the word and the organ that utters it is Brahman. Therefore the word or the speech or the mouth does not go there, i.e., approach Brahman. The mind also cannot go there. How can it know the knower? Just as fire that burns and enlightens other objects cannot either burn or enlighten itself, so the mind which knows the external objects through the avenues of the senses, cannot know the Atman or Brahman, because Brahman is the source for the mind also, and the mind is gross, inert and finite. How can the finite know the Infinite? The gross impure mind

cannot approach Brahman. But the subtle, pure mind only can go there, for pure mind is Brahman itself. Speech cannot reveal or illumine Brahman. Brahman is beyond the organs of speech. The tongue speaks through the power or light of Brahman. Speech is infinite. How can the finite speech reveal the infinite Brahman. Brahman only illumines speech and its organ Vak which is presided over by fire (Agni); so Brahman is speech of speech, tongue of tongue. The Vajasaneyaka says, Brahma is within speech and directs speech. This Atman is Brahman or Bhuma (infinite or the unconditioned). Brahman is unsurpassable, big, great, highest of all, all-pervading. So He is called Brahman. The mind is connected with all organs. It is the commander or the chief. The Srutis say, Desire, volition, deliberation, faith, negligence, courage, timidity, shame, intelligence, fear, etc., are mind. Mind is the Drik or seer, the objects are the Drishya or visible objects. Atman or Brahman is the Drik, mind is the Drishya. The mind cannot approach Brahman. The mind is enlightened by the intelligence of Brahman shining within. The mind functions through the light and power of Brahman. The mind is pervaded by the Brahman. So say the knowers of Brahman. The interior intelligence of the mind is Brahman. The mind comprehends the world or objects through the power or light or intelligence of Brahman. The senses carry the sense impressions or images of objects to the mind. The mind presents them to the Self or Atman or Purusha. The Purusha beholds them, gazes and fixes His seal and returns them back to the mind, just as the king puts his seal on papers and returns them back to the prime minister. Then only comprehension of objects becomes perfect. Brahman directs the eye towards form. Brahman cannot be seen by the eye, as He is not an object of perception. Eye is a finite instrument to carry the impressions of objects viz., colour, shape, form size, etc., to the mind. Eye derives its power of seeing from Brahman only who is its source. The eye is made

to move towards its objects by the enlightening intelligence of Brahman. Brahman is the real unseen seer of sight. He is the silent witness of the activity of the eye. by the light of the Brahman, connected with the activities of the mind, man beholds the activity of the eye. The activity of the eye varies according to the activity of the mind. Brahman is the Lord or Proprietor of this mental factory. The eyes, ears, etc., are the ordinary clerks. Mind is the head clerk. Intellect (Buddhi) is the managing director. Brahman directs the ear towards sound. Ear is a finite instrument. It carries the impressions of sound to the mind. The activity of the ear is connected with the activity of the mind. It derives its power of hearing from Brahman only its source. The ear is made to move towards sound, music, etc., by the enlightening intelligence of Brahman. Brahman is the real unheard hearer. He is the silent witness of the activity of the ear.

Brahman cannot be an object of perception, because He is partless, attributeless, bodiless, extremely subtle. He is beyond the reach of senses, (Atindriys, Adrishya). He can only be intuitively realised through meditation. The senses and the mind can perceive only the external objects of the universe. You can explain to others about objects that are cognised by the senses by giving a description of their attributes, class, modes of activity, etc. But Brahman is without attributes, class, etc. So it is not possible to teach about Brahman to the disciples. To define Brahman is to deny Brahman. Sat-ChitAnanda is also a provisional definition. That is the reason why Srutis explain Brahman through 'Neti-Neti' doctrine. The preceptor should exert very much in giving instruction. The disciple should possess a subtle, sharp, pure and onepointed intellect. It is not possible to make the pupil believe in the Atman by instruction, by the evidence of the senses and other proofs,

but it is quite possible to make him believe and understand by the aid of Srutis or scriptures. Brahman cannot be known like the objects of the world. It cannot be explained also by mere words just as you explain to others the nature of objects by words. Brahman is the only reality. He is the basis or source for everything. Brahman is not an object. He is all-pervading, mysterious, incomprehensible, Chaitanya or pure consciousness. He must be known through intuition or selfcognition. It is very difficult to understand the nature of Brahman. It is very difficult to explain the nature of Brahman, because there is no means or language. The Rishis of yore tried their level best to make the disciples understand Brahman by various ways of expression. Those who are endowed with pure and subtle intellect can easily grasp the subtle ideas of the Upanishads. For the passionate and the worldly-minded who are endowed with an impure, outgoing mind, Upanishad is a sealed book. Everything is Greek and Latin for them. As Brahman is beyond the reach of senses and the mind, the aspirant should at first have a comprehensive understanding of Brahman through the study of Upanishads and the instructions of an illumined preceptor. He should equip himself with the four means and practise constant meditation. Then he will attain knowledge of Brahman and realise Brahman. Then all doubts and delusions will vanish. That which is distinct from both the known and the unknown is Brahman or Atman. The knowledge of Brahman has been traditionally handed down from preceptor to disciple. Gaudapada taught the Brahman-Vidya to Govindapada; Govindapada to Sankara; Sankara to Padmapada and so on. Brahman can be known only by instruction from an illumined teacher or a realised sage and not by logical discussions nor by intelligence, vast learning, expositions, austerity or sacrificial rites, etc. May the light of supreme knowledge illumine your intellect! II

The miseries of Samsara are beyond description. Ignorance is the root-cause for all human sufferings. It is very hard to suffer birth, old age, death and disease. If a man knows Brahman, there is immortality for him. If he does not known Brahman, he is caught in the round of births and deaths. Therefore, real aspirants who thirst for liberation abandon the erroneous notion of 'I' and 'Mine' and turn away with disgust from this world as everything here is perishable, illusory and transitory. They practise meditation on the Self and behold the one essence of the Atman i.e., the Brahman in all objects of this world, movable and immovable. They realise the oneness of the Self or unity of the Atman in all and become immortal i.e., become Brahman Itself. The Mundaka Upanishad says, He who knows that highest Brahman, becomes Brahman Itself. He who lives in Brahman and he who has realised the Atman really leads a true life. Mundane life or sense life is untruth. It is illusory. Knower of Brahman attains liberation while living. As soon as ignorance which is the cause of bondage is dispelled, by attainment of knowledge of Brahman, one gets liberation at once. Those who are endowed with the four means and who are pure and intelligent can understand the teachings of Upanishads. Many misunderstand and mistake the limiting adjuncts viz., body, mind, egoism, etc., for the Atman, even though they study Upanishads and hear the Srutis from sages, as they are not proper Adhikaris or qualified persons. Prajapati instructed Virochana and Indra: This Purusha who is seen in the eye is the immortal and fearless Brahman. Both misunderstand and misinterpreted this teaching and took the body for Brahman as the faults in them were not purged and their minds were impure and gross. Indra stayed with Prajapati for 101 years, removed his faults and impurities through Tapas, faith and celibacy and comprehended the very Brahman at the fourth time only, even though it was taught to him previously trice.

Even in the world if fifty students receive instructions from the same teacher, some understand rightly, some misinterpret the teaching, some interpret it contrary to the expressed view and some do not understand at all. If this is the case with the secular science, what more need we say of the knowledge of Brahman. Which is subtle and beyond the reach of intellect?

Immortality (Amrita) is the very nature of Brahman, just as heat is the very nature of fire. Brahma Jnana or knowledge of the Self destroys ignorance just as light destroys darkness and thus reveals one's inherent immortal nature. The aspirant separates himself from the thoughts and mental modifications, identifies himself with the witness of all cognitions, thoughts and all states of consciousness. Srutis emphatically declare Brahman is eternal, pure, selfluminous, undecaying, existence absolute, knowledge absolute, bliss absolute. This is possible only if Brahman be the witness of all states of consciousness. The knowledge that the Atman is the witness of all states of consciousness gives immortality. Brahman is not an object of perception. Knowledge of Brahman is intuitive self-awareness. Of everything which may become an object of knowledge, a perfect or definite knowledge is possible; but not so of a thing which cannot become such an object. This is Brahman for he is the knower and the knower may well know other things, but not make himself the object of his knowledge. The subject of knowledge 'I who know' can never become its object; for having become object, it ceases to have the nature of subject, in the same way as fire can burn other things, but not itself. Nor it be said that Brahman may be made the object of the knowledge of another; for beside him, none that knows exists. If it is further said, the nature of everything is that, by which it is defined; Brahman is especially defined by consciousness, which does neither refer to the external senses, nor to the internal sense, but merely refers to Brahman; therefore,

Brahman is consciousness. There is no knower other than that.

In reality Brahman has no forms. The attributes by which Brahman is defined may be said to be its form. Srutis says, Brahman is knowledge and bliss Brahman is dense with knowledge, Prajnana Ghana, Vijnana Ghana, Chid Ghana, Brahman is existence, knowledge, infinity, Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam. The form of Brahman has thus been defined. Those attributes are the prop in the beginning. You will have to fix the mind on these attributes in the beginning of your spiritual practice. These attributes will drop by themselves gradually and you will merge yourself in Brahman eventually. The preceptor can make his disciples understand Brahman through these attributes only. Brahman is defined in these attributes not on account of its own essence but for the sake of the above two purposes. According to its essence it is unknown to those who know and known to those who do not know.You cannot know Brahman just as you know an object. Brahman is known or realised not as an object but as pure selfconsciousness through intuition or direct inner experience or illumination. In this spiritual experience there is no objective consciousness. Subject and object are one in the spiritual experience. Brahman is not the unknown and unknowable of the agnostics thought it is said, Brahman is incomprehensible. Brahman cannot be known or seen. Brahman is beyond the reach of mind, intellect and senses. It is more than known as it is realised by one's own Self. Brahman is always the silent, witnessing consciousness. He is the subject, knower and seer. Anything perceived by the senses and conceived by the mind cannot be Brahman. An object of the world only can be perceived by the senses and thought of by the mind. The seer can never be seen. The knower can never be known (by the intellect or the mind). Brahman is unknowable in the objective sense. Brahman is unknowable by the mind, intellect and senses. He is certainly knowable through direct

intuitive perception in Samadhi as the Self or Atman by the pure mind which is Brahman itself.

Till you attain the highest Nirvikalpa state wherein you will find and feel, All indeed is Brahman, there is nothing but the Self (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman) you will have to practise again and again, enquiry, reflection and meditation. You must feel His presence in all names and forms. This is a sublime, soulstirring experience that cannot be either imagined or described in words. You will have to experience it yourself in Samadhi when the mind, intellect and the senses cease functioning. The knower of Brahman only possesses tremendous spiritual strength. Real strength comes through knowledge of the Self. The knower of Brahman becomes absolutely fearless. He knows that his Self will not be affected in the least by external conditions. He is fully aware that the Self is invincible and invulnerable. The knower of Brahman can move the whole world. It is the well-defined meaning of all writings on Vedanta, that the Self or soul of every one who knows is Brahman. Glory to such exalted personage!

May you ceaselessly meditate on the sublime truths contained in the sacred Upanishad of the seers of yore!

Philosophy - Words of Wisdom

If we take away the subject (Humans), or our senses in general, Philosophy of ....When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, ... It is clear, then, that wisdom is knowledge having to do with certain principles and causes.

Famous Philosophy Quotes / Quotations on Truth, Reality & Wisdom

Hello. This web page has lots of lovely quotes from many wise and beautiful minds of human history. To begin you will find below some of our favourite Wisdom Quotes, followed by an Introduction to this website and our work on the Philosophy, Metaphysics and Physics of the Wave Structure of Matter. This is then followed by our detailed selection of Wisdom Quotes sorted by subject and philosopher (see page headings / links on the side of this page). At a fundamental level, Wisdom comes from knowing the truth (not being deluded in our thoughts and actions). And since Truth ultimately comes from physical reality, it follows that to be truly wise we must know reality. That is the ultimate purpose of this website, and our philosophical belief that reality is correctly described by the Wave Structure of Matter - the source of not only Wisdom, but a correct understanding of how we all exist as matter in space (a very profound thing!). We hope you find it interesting ...

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living. (Jules Henri Poincare) The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists. (Schrodinger) And is there anything more closely connected with wisdom than truth? (Plato) Those whose hearts are fixed on Reality itself deserve the title of Philosophers. (Plato) When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato) The society we have described can never grow into a reality or see the light of day, and there will be no end to the troubles of states, or indeed, my dear Glaucon, of humanity itself, till philosophers are kings in this world, or till

those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands. (Plato) What is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight of error to the truth, that climb up into the real world which we shall call true philosophy.(Plato) Suppose, then, that all men were sick or deranged, save one or two of them who were healthy and of right mind. It would then be the latter two who would be thought to be sick and deranged and the former not! (Aristotle) It is clear, then, that wisdom is knowledge having to do with certain principles and causes. But now, since it is this knowledge that we are seeking, we must consider the following point: of what kind of principles and of what kind of causes is wisdom the knowledge? (Aristotle) (Albert Einstein - Ideas and Opinions, 1954) To inquire after the meaning or object of one's own existence or that of all creatures has always seemed absurd from an objective point of view. And yet everybody has certain ideals which determine the direction of his endeavors and judgments. In this sense I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves-this ethical basis I call the ideal of a pigsty. The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty and Truth. Without the sense of kinship with men of like mind, without the occupation with the objective world, the eternally unattainable in the field of art and scientific endeavors, life would have seemed to me empty. The trite objects of human efforts-possessions, outward success, luxury-have always seemed to me contemptible. My passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility has always contrasted oddly with my pronounced lack of need for direct contact with other human beings and human communities. I am truly a 'lone traveler' and have never belonged to my country, my home, my friends, or even my immediate family, with my whole heart; in the face of all these ties, I have never lost a sense of distance and a need for solitude-feelings which increase with the years. One becomes sharply aware, but without regret, of the limits of mutual understanding and consonance with other people. No doubt, such a person loses some of his innocence and unconcern; on the other hand, he is largely independent of the opinions, habits, and judgments

of his fellows and avoids the temptation to build his inner equilibrium upon such insecure foundations. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, 1954) The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. (Albert Einstein,The Merging of Spirit and Science) A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. ... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.(Albert Einstein) There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. (Albert Einstein, 1954) What the individual can do is to give a fine example, and to have the courage to uphold ethical values.. in a society of cynics. (Albert Einstein, letter to Max Born.) Everything harmonises with me which is harmonious to thee, O Universe. Nothing for me is too early or too late, which is in due time for thee. Everything is fruit to me which thy seasons bring, O Nature: from thee are all things, in thee are all things, to thee all things return. (Marcus Aurelius)

Frequently consider the connection of all things in the universe. (Marcus Aurelius) We should not say I am an Athenian or I am a Roman but I am a citizen of the Universe'. (Marcus Aurelius) The noblest kind of retribution is not to become like your enemy. (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations) Indeed in general I hold that there is nothing truer than happiness, and nothing happier and sweeter than truth. (Leibniz, 1670) It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions. This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty. (Leibniz, 1670) ...a distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much rein must not be given to a man's imagination under pretext of its being a clear and distinct intellection. (Leibniz, 1670) Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670) I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. (Leibniz, 1670) All our philosophy is dry as dust if it is not immediately translated into some act of living service.(Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi) We have to treat others as part of who we are, rather than as a them with whom we are in constant competition. (Robert Bellah) The crisis that threatens our planet, whether seen from its military, ecological, or social aspect, derives from a dysfunctional and pathological sense of self. It derives from a mistake about our place in the order of things. It is a delusion that the self is separate and fragile that we must delineate and defend its boundaries, that it is so small and so needy that we must endlessly acquire and endlessly consume, and that it is so aloof that as individuals, corporations, nation-states, or species, we can be immune to what we do to other beings. ..This view of human nature is not new. Many

have felt the imperative to extend self-interest to embrace the whole. (Joanna Macy, World as Lover World as Self) Those sciences which govern the morals of mankind, such as Theology and Philosophy, make everything their concern: no activity is so private or so secret as to escape their attention or their jurisdiction. (de Montaigne) There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. (Erwin Schrodinger) Life itself is neither a good nor an evil: life is where good or evil find a place, depending on how you make it for them.(Seneca) The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. (Erwin Schrodinger) We must not wait for things to come, believing that they are decided by irrescindable destiny. If we want it, we must do something about it. (Erwin Schrodinger) Speech devoted to truth should be straightforward and plain (Seneca) He who has a true idea, knows at that same time that he has a true idea, nor can he doubt concerning the truth of the thing. (Spinoza, Ethics, 1673) .... we are a part of nature as a whole, whose order we follow. (Spinoza, Ethics, 1673) .. all excellent things are as difficult as they are rare. (Spinoza, Ethics, 1673) Never by hatred is hatred appeased, but it is appeased by kindness. This is an eternal truth. (Buddha) The world is continuous flux and is impermanent. (Buddha)

Transient are conditioned things. Try to accomplish your aim with diligence. (Buddha's last words) I will teach you the Truth and the Path leading to the Truth. (Buddha) One is ones own refuge, who else could be the refuge? ..The wise man makes an island of himself that no flood can overwhelm. (Buddha) My dear children: I rejoice to see you before me today, happy youth of a sunny and fortunate land. Bear in mind that the wonderful things that you learn in your schools are the work of many generations, produced by enthusiastic effort and infinite labour in every country of the world. All this is put into your hands as your inheritance in order that you may receive it, honour it, and add to it, and one day faithfully hand it on to your children. Thus do we mortals achieve immortality in the permanent things which we create in common. If you always keep that in mind you will find meaning in life and work and acquire the right attitude towards other nations and ages. (Albert Einstein talking to a group of school children. 1934.) To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old questions from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science. (Albert Einstein) THE TEACHER AS A NECESSARY EVIL. Let us have as few people as possible between the productive minds and the hungry and recipient minds! The middlemen almost unconsciously adulterate the food which they supply. It is because of teachers that so little is learned, and that so badly. (Nietzsche, 1880) ...for the object of education is to teach us to love beauty. (Plato) Since philosophy is the art which teaches us how to live, and since children need to learn it as much as we do at other ages, why do we not instruct them in it? (de Montaigne) If you want it to be so, history can be a waste of time; it can also be, if you want it to be so, a study bearing fruit beyond price. (de Montaigne) To begin with our knowledge grows in spots. ..What you first gain, ... is probably a small amount of new information, a few new definitions, or

distinctions, or points of view. But while these special ideas are being added, the rest of your knowledge stands still, and only gradually will you line up your previous opinions with the novelties I am trying to instill, and to modify to some slight degree their mass. ..Your mind in such processes is strained, and sometimes painfully so, between its older beliefs and the novelties which experience brings along. (William James, Pragmatism) ... Of the same class of virtues with courage is that undisturbed philosophical tranquility, superior to pain, sorrow, anxiety, and each assault of adverse fortune. Conscious of his own virtue, say the philosophers, the sage elevates himself above every accident of life; and securely placed in the temple of wisdom, looks down on inferior mortals engaged in pursuit of honours, riches, reputation, and every frivolous enjoyment. These pretensions, no doubt, when stretched to the utmost, are by far too magnificent for human nature. They carry, however, a grandeur with them, which seizes the spectator, and strikes him with admiration. And the nearer we can approach in practice to this sublime tranquility and indifference (for we must distinguish it from a stupid insensibility), the more secure enjoyment shall we attain within ourselves, and the more greatness of mind shall we discover to the world. The philosophical tranquility may, indeed, be considered only as a branch of magnanimity. (David Hume, 1737) The sweetest and most inoffensive path of life leads through the avenues of science and learning; and whoever can either remove any obstructions in this way, or open up any new prospect, ought so far to be esteemed a benefactor to mankind. And though these researches may appear painful and fatiguing, it is with some minds as with some bodies, which being endowed with vigorous and florid health, require severe exercise, and reap a pleasure from what, to the generality of mankind, may seem burdensome and laborious. Obscurity, indeed, is painful to the mind as well as to the eye; but to bring light from obscurity, by whatever labour, must needs be delightful and rejoicing. (David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, 1737)
Words of Wisdom by Philosophers (Alphabetical Order by Surname) - Words of Wisdom on Truth and Reality - Words of Wisdom on the Importance and Love of Philosophy - Words of Wisdom on Understanding New Ideas - Words of Wisdom on Education - Top of Page

Words of Wisdom by Philosophers

Famous Philosophy Quotes on Wisdom from Truth and Reality
(Socrates) 'Wars, factions, and fighting,' said Socrates as he looked forward from his last hour, 'have no other origin than this same body and its lusts... We must set the soul free from it; we must behold things as they are. And having thus got rid of the foolishness of the body, we shall be pure and hold converse with the pure, and shall in our own selves have complete knowledge of the Incorruptible which is, I take it, no other than the very truth.

Words of Wisdom Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC Suppose, then, that all men were sick or deranged, save one or two of them who were healthy and of right mind. It would then be the latter two who would be thought to be sick and deranged and the former not! (Aristotle) It is clear, then, that wisdom is knowledge having to do with certain principles and causes. But now, since it is this knowledge that we are seeking, we must consider the following point: of what kind of principles and of what kind of causes is wisdom the knowledge? (Aristotle) The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. (Aristotle) ...The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest. (Aristotle)

... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity. (Aristotle) Demonstration is also something necessary, because a demonstration cannot go otherwise than it does, ... And the cause of this lies with the primary premises/principles. (Aristotle) Some philosophers have fallen into this opinion in the same way that they have into other paradoxes. They are confronted by an esoteric argument, find it impossible to refute and end up by giving in to it and accepting its conclusion! This explains the confusion of some, ... the basis of the cure is definition. Now a definition arises from the necessity that words have some meaning; for the definition is the account of which the word is the sign. Rather, they start this, displaying it to the senses, .... and go on to offer more or less rigorous demonstrations of the per se attributes of their proprietary genera. This sort of procedure is inductive and it is as plain as a pikestaff that it does not amount to a demonstration of essence or of what it is to be a thing. (Aristotle) ... a science must deal with a subject and its properties. (Aristotle) ... the science we are after is not about mathematicals either (none of them, you see, is separable). (Aristotle) But also philosophy is not about perceptible substances (they, you see, are prone to destruction). (Aristotle) However, there is a science higher than natural science. For in truth nature is but one genus of that which is. It is the principles and causes of the things that are that we are seeking, and clearly it is their principles and causes just as things that are.... It is, however, vital not to overlook the question of what it is to be a thing and the definitional account of how it is what it is. If we leave these out, scientific inquiry is mere shadow boxing.... the science of it is First Philosophy - and such a science is universal just because it is first.(Aristotle) Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what follows from them. (Aristotle, Metaphysics) The life of theoretical philosophy is the best and happiest a man can lead. Few men are capable of it (and then only intermittently). For the rest there is a second-best way of life, that of moral virtue and practical wisdom. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

Words of Wisdom Bradley, 1846-1924 We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first

principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.(Bradley)

Words of Wisdom Albert Einstein, 1928, 1954 According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended ... thus the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part. In order that thinking might not degenerate into "metaphysics", or into empty talk, it is only necessary that enough propositions of the conceptual system be firmly enough connected with sensory experiences and that the conceptual system, in view of its task of ordering and surveying sense experience, should show as much unity and parsimony as possible. Beyond that, however, the "system" is (as regards logic) a free play with symbols according to (logically) arbitrarily given rules of the game. All this applies as much (and in the same manner) to the thinking in daily life as to the more consciously and systematically constructed thinking in the sciences. By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also- though through no fault of his- created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful "fear of metaphysics" arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. However, I see no "metaphysical" danger in taking the thing (the object in the sense of physics) as an independent concept into the system together with the proper spatio-temporal structure. ... .it finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without "metaphysics". (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1954 - On Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge.) Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality

characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts (Particles) which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. The subtlety of the concept of space was enhanced by the discovery that there exist no completely rigid bodies. All bodies are elastically deformable and alter in volume with change in temperature. (Albert Einstein, 1920) The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. (Albert Einstein,The Merging of Spirit and Science) A human being is part of the whole called by us universe , a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.(Albert Einstein) Somebody who only reads newspapers and at best books of contemporary authors looks to me like an extremely near-sighted person who scorns eyeglasses. He is completely dependent on the prejudices and fashions of his times, since he never gets to see or hear anything else. And what a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of other people is even in the best case rather paltry and monotonous. There are only a few enlightened people with a lucid mind and style and with good taste within a century. What has been preserved of their work belongs among the most precious possessions of mankind. We owe it to a few writers of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that the people in the Middle Ages could slowly extricate themselves from the superstitions and ignorance that had darkened life for more than half a millennium. Nothing is more needed to overcome the modernist's snobbishness. (Albert Einstein, 1954) ... knowledge must continually be renewed by ceaseless effort, if it is not to be lost. It resembles a statue of marble which stands in the

desert and is continually threatened with burial by the shifting sand. The hands of service must ever be at work, in order that the marble continue to lastingly shine in the sun. To these serving hands mine shall also belong. (Albert Einstein, On Education, 1950) When, after several hours reading, I came to myself again, I asked myself what it was that had so fascinated me. The answer is simple. The results were not presented as ready-made, but scientific curiosity was first aroused by presenting contrasting possibilities of conceiving matter. Only then the attempt was made to clarify the issue by thorough argument. The intellectual honesty of the author makes us share the inner struggle in his mind. It is this which is the mark of the born teacher. Knowledge exists in two forms - lifeless, stored in books, and alive, in the consciousness of men. The second form of existence is after all the essential one; the first, indispensable as it may be, occupies only an inferior position. (Albert Einstein, 1954) Numerous are the academic chairs, but rare are wise and noble teachers. Numerous and large are the lecture halls, but far from numerous the young people who genuinely thirst for truth and justice. Numerous are the wares that nature produces by the dozen, but her choice products are few. We all know that, so why complain? Was it not always thus and will it not always thus remain? Certainly, and one must take what nature gives as one finds it. But there is also such a thing as a spirit of the times, an attitude of mind characteristic of a particular generation, which is passed on from individual to individual and gives its distinctive mark to a society. Each of us has to his little bit toward transforming this spirit of the times. (Albert Einstein, 1954) Communities tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness. Yet, as a general rule, intellectual work in moderation, so far from retarding cure, indirectly helps it forward, just as moderate physical work will. (Albert Einstein, 1954) We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. And those who have an interest in keeping the machinery of war going are a very powerful body; they will stop at nothing to

make public opinion subservient to their murderous ends. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Words of Wisdom Michael Faraday, 1830 I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space. (Faraday) When a mathematician engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formulae? If so, would it not be a great boon to such as well to express them so --- translating them out of their hieroglyphics that we might also work upon them by experiment? (Michael Faraday, to James Clerk Maxwell in 1857)

Words of Wisdom David Hume, Treatise Concerning Human Understanding, 1737 Accuracy is, in every case, advantageous to beauty, and just reasoning to delicate sentiment. In vain would we exalt the one by depreciating the other. Besides, we may observe, in every art or profession, even those which most concern life or action, that a spirit of accuracy, however acquired, carries all of them nearer their perfection, and renders them more subservient to the interests of society. And though the philosopher may live remote from business, the genius of philosophy, if carefully cultivated by several, must gradually diffuse itself throughout the whole society, and bestow a similar correctness on every art and calling. The politician will acquire greater foresight and subtlety, in the subdividing and balancing of power; the lawyer more method and finer principles in his reasoning; and the general public more regularity in his discipline, and more caution in his plans and operations. (David Hume, 1737) ... if you insist that the inference is made by a chain of reasoning, I desire you to produce that reasoning. The connection between the two is not intuitive. There is required a medium, which may enable the mind to draw such an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning and argument. What that medium is, I must confess, passes my comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it, who assert that it really exists, and is the origin of all our conclusions concerning matter of fact.(David Hume, 1737)

Be a philosopher; but, admidst all your philosophy, be still a man. (David Hume, 1737) We find in the course of nature that though the effects be many, the principles from which they arise are commonly few and simple, and that it is the sign of an unskilled naturalist to have recourse to a different quality in order to explain every different operation. (David Hume, 1737) When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. There is required a medium, which may enable the mind to draw such an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning and argument. What that medium is, I must confess, passes my comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it, who assert that it really exists, and is the origin of all our conclusions concerning matter of fact. This question I propose as much for the sake of information, as with an intention of raising difficulties. I cannot find, I cannot imagine any such reasoning. But I keep my mind still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it upon me. (David Hume, 1737) The supposition that the future resembles the past, is not founded on arguments of any kind, but is derived entirely from habit. (David Hume, 1737) ..all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect; that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience; and all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. .... Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. (David Hume, 1737) And as this is the obvious appearance of things, it must be admitted, till some hypothesis be discovered, which by penetrating deeper into human nature, may prove the former affections to be nothing but modifications of the latter. All attempts of this kind have hitherto proved fruitless, and seem to have proceeded entirely from that love of simplicity which has been the source of much false reasoning in philosophy. (David Hume, 1737)

The difference between a man who is led by opinion or emotion and one who is led by reason. The former, whether he will or not, performs things of which he is entirely ignorant; the latter is subordinate to no one, and only does those things which he knows to be of primary importance in his life, and which on that account he desires the most; and therefore I call the former a slave, but the latter free. (David Hume, 1737) The simplest and most obvious cause which can there be assigned for any phenomena, is probably the true one. (David Hume, 1737)

Words of Wisdom Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781 Natural science (physics) contains in itself synthetical judgments a priori, as principles. Space then is a necessary representation a priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions. (Immanuel Kant, 1781) Time is not an empirical concept. For neither co-existence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. (Immanuel Kant, 1781) Here I shall add that the concept of change, and with it the concept of motion, as change of place, is possible only through and in the representation of time. & Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something movable. But space considered in itself contains nothing movable; consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience -in other words, is an empirical datum. (Immanuel Kant, 1781) Upon the solution of this problem, or upon sufficient proof of the impossibility of synthetical knowledge a priori, depends the existence or downfall of metaphysics. (Immanuel Kant, 1781) Time was, when she (Metaphysics) was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honor. Now, it is the fashion of the time to heap contempt and scorn upon her; and the matron mourns, forlorn and forsaken, .... her empire gradually broke up, and intestine wars introduced the reign of anarchy; while the sceptics, like nomadic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of living, attacked from time to

time those who had organized themselves into civil communities. But their number was, very happily, small; and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted in raising new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan.(Immanuel Kant, 1781) This can never become popular, and, indeed, has no occasion to be so; for fine-spun arguments in favour of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths. On the other hand, since both inevitably force themselves on every man who rises to the height of speculation, it becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough investigation of the rights of speculative reason, and thus to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)

Words of Wisdom Gottfried Leibniz, Philosophical Investigations, 1670 Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general. (Leibniz, 1670) I hold that the mark of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be proved, either a priori by conceiving its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is in fact in nature. (Leibniz, 1670) Indeed in general I hold that there is nothing truer than happiness, and nothing happier and sweeter than truth. (Leibniz, 1670) I agree with you that it is important to examine our presuppositions, throughly and once for all, in order to establish something solid. For I hold that it is only when we can prove all that we bring forward that we perfectly understand the thing under consideration. I know that the common herd takes little pleasure in these researches, but I know also that the common herd take little pains thoroughly to understand things. (Leibniz, 1670)

It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions. This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty. (Leibniz, 1670) ...a distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much rein must not be given to a man's imagination under pretext of its being a clear and distinct intellection. (Leibniz, 1670) But it is the knowledge of necessary and eternal truths which distinguishes us from mere animals, and gives us reason and the sciences, raising us to knowledge of ourselves and God. It is this in us which we call the rational soul or mind. (Leibniz, 1670) When a truth is necessary, the reason for it can be found by analysis, that is, by resolving it into simpler ideas and truths until the primary ones are reached. It is this way that in mathematics speculative theorems and practical canons are reduced by analysis to definitions, axioms and postulates. (Leibniz, 1670) ..This is why the ultimate reason of things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the differentiation of the changes only exists eminently as in their source; and this is what we call God. (Leibniz, 1670) Thus God alone is the primary Unity, or original simple substance, from which all monads, created and derived, are produced. (Leibniz, 1670) Now this connection or adaption of all created things with each, and of each with all the rest, means that each simple substance has relations which express all the others, and that consequently it is a perpetual living mirror of the universe. (Leibniz, 1670) 1. The monad, of which we shall speak here, is nothing but a simple substance which enters into compounds; simple, that is to say, without parts. (Leibniz, 1670) 2. And there must be simple substances, because there are compounds; for the compound is nothing but a collection or aggregatum of simples. (Leibniz, 1670) 3. Now where there are no parts, there neither extension, nor shape, nor divisibility is possible. And these monads are the true atoms of nature and, in a word, the elements of things. (Leibniz, 1670) 5. There is no way in which a simple substance could begin in the course of nature, since it cannot be formed by means of compounding.

(Leibniz, 1670) 9. Indeed every monad must be different from every other. For there are never in nature two beings, which are precisely alike, and in which it is not possible to find some difference which is internal, or based on some intrinsic quality. (Leibniz, 1670) 10. I also take it as granted that every created thing, and consequently the created monad also, is subject to change, and indeed that this change is continual in each one. (Leibniz, 1670)

Words of Wisdom Hendrik Lorentz, 1906 I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. (Lorentz) Indeed one of the most important of our fundamental assumptions must be that the ether not only occupies all space between molecules, atoms, or electrons, but that it pervades all these particles. We shall add the hypothesis that, though the particles may move, the ether always remains at rest. (Lorentz, 1906) (Albert Einstein on Hendrik Lorentz, 1954) Everybody felt his superiority, but nobody felt oppressed by it. Though he had no illusions about people and human affairs, he was full of kindness toward everybody and everything. Never did he give the impression of domineering, always of serving and helping. He was extremely conscientious, without allowing anything to assume undue importance; a subtle humor guarded him, which was reflected in his eyes and in his smile. (Albert Einstein, 1954) In order to explain this absence of any effect of the Earth's translation (in the Michelson/Morley experiment), I have ventured the hypothesis, that the dimensions of a solid body undergo slight change, of the order of v2/c2, when it moves through the ether. & From this point of view it is natural to suppose that, just like the electromagnetic forces, the molecular attractions and repulsions are somewhat modified by a translation imparted to the body, and this may very well result in a change of dimensions. & The electrons themselves become flattened ellipsoids. .. This would enable us to predict that no experiment made with a terrestrial source of light will ever show us an influence of the Earth's motion. (Lorentz,1906)

It is clear that, since the observer is unconscious of these changes, (the contraction of a measuring rod in the direction of motion), relying on his rod, he will not find the true shape of bodies. He will take for a sphere what really is an ellipsoid. & Attention must now be drawn to a remarkable reciprocity that has been pointed out by Einstein. ... Let us now imagine that each observer (one is moving with constant velocity relative to the other) is able to see the system to which the other belongs, ... It will be clear by what has been said that the impressions received by the two observers would be alike in all respects. It would be impossible to tell which of them moves or stands still with respect to the ether. & His results concerning electromagnetic and optical phenomena agree in the main with those which we have obtained in the preceding pages, the chief difference being that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. By doing so, he may certainly take credit for making us see in the negative result of experiments like those of Michelson, Rayleigh and Brace, not a fortuitous compensation of opposing effects, but the manifestation of a general and fundamental principle. Yet, I think, something may also be claimed in the favor of the form in which I have presented the theory. I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree ofsubstantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. (Lorentz, 1906)

Words of Wisdom James Clerk Maxwell, 1876 In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy. (James Clerk Maxwell)

Words of Wisdom Friedrich Nietzsche, The Greeks, Beyond Good and Evil, 1890 Greek philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the proposition (of Thales) that water is the origin and mother-womb of all things. Is it really necessary to stop there and become serious? Yes, and for three reasons: firstly, because the proposition does enunciate something about the origin of things; secondly, because it does so

without figure and fable; thirdly and lastly, because it contained, although only in the chrysalis state, the idea :everything is one. ..That which drove him (Thales) to this generalization was a metaphysical dogma, which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together with the ever renewed endeavors to express it better, we find in all philosophies- the proposition: everything is one! If it comes to pride with a philosopher then it is a great pride. His work never refers him to a public, the applause of the masses, and the hailing chorus of contemporaries. To wander lonely along his path belongs to the nature of the philosopher. His talents are the most rare, in a certain sense the most unnatural and at the same time exclusive and hostile even to kindred talents. The wall of his self sufficiency must be of diamond, if it is not to be demolished and broken, for everything is in motion against him. His journey to immortality is more cumbersome and impeded than any other and yet nobody can believe more firmly than the philosopher that he will attain the goal by that journey. He has truth; the wheel of time may roll whither it pleases, never can it escape from truth. It is important to hear that such men have lived. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) There is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value. This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the will to not allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious, dangerous, or fatal to be deceived. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) What if God were not exactly truth, and if this could be proved? And if he were instead the vanity, the desire for power, the ambitions, the fear, and the enraptured and terrified folly of mankind? (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) Do not allow yourselves to be deceived: Great Minds are Skeptical. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) With the strength of his spiritual sight and insight the distance, and as it were the space, around man continually expands: his world grows deeper, ever new stars, ever new images and enigmas come into view. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) Heraclitus was proud; and if it comes to pride with a philosopher then it is a great pride. His work never refers him to a "public", the applause of the masses, and the hailing chorus of contemporaries. To

wander lonely along his path belongs to the nature of the philosopher. His talents are the most rare, in a certain sense the most unnatural and at the same time exclusive and hostile even toward kindred talents. The wall of his self-sufficiency must be of diamond, if it is not to be demolished and broken, for everything is in motion against him. His journey to immortality is more cumbersome and impeded than any other and yet nobody can believe more firmly than the philosopher that he will attain the goal by that journey-because he does not know where he is to stand if not on the widely spread wings of all time; for the disregard of everything present and momentary lies in the essence of the great philosophical nature. He has truth; the wheel of time may roll whither it pleases, never can it escape from truth. It is important to hear that such men have lived. Never, for example, would one be able to imagine the pride of Heraclitus as an idle possibility. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) THE CHIEF DEFICIENCY OF ACTIVE PEOPLE - Active people are usually deficient in the higher activity, I mean the individual activity. They are active as officials, merchants, scholars, that is, as a species, but not as quite distinct separate and SINGLE individuals; in this respect they are idle. It is the misfortune of the active that their activity is almost always a little senseless. For instance, we must not ask the money making banker the reason for his restless activity, it is foolish. The active roll as the stone rolls, according to the stupidity of mechanics. All mankind is divided, as it was at all times, and is still, into slaves and free men; for whoever has NOT two thirds of his day for himself is a slave, be he otherwise whatever he likes, statesmen, merchant.. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) THE SLOW ARROW OF BEAUTY. The noblest kind of beauty is that which does not transport us suddenly, which does not make stormy and intoxicating impressions (such a kind easily arouses disgust) but that which slowly filters into our minds. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) THE SUFFERING OF GENIUS AND ITS VALUE. The artistic genius desires to give pleasure, but if his mind is on a very high plane he does not easily find anyone to share his pleasure; he offers entertainment but nobody accepts it. That gives him, in certain circumstances, a comically touching pathos; for he has no right to force pleasure on men. He pipes, but none will dance: can that be tragic? (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890)

The complete irresponsibility of man for his actions and his nature is the bitterest drop which he who understands must swallow. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) But she does not want truth: What is truth to a woman! From the very first nothing has been more alien, repugnant, inimical to woman than truth- her great art is the lie, her supreme concern is appearance and beauty. .. Where neither love nor hate is in the game a woman is a mediocre player. .. The sexes deceive themselves about one another: the reason being that fundamentally they love and honour only themselves (or their own ideal, to express it more pleasantly). Thus man wants woman to be peaceful - but woman is essentially unpeaceful, like the cat, however well she may have trained herself to present an appearance of peace. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) O sancta simplicitas! What strange simplification and falsification mankind lives on! One can never cease to marvel once one has acquired eyes for this marvel! How we have made everything around us bright and free and easy and simple! How we have known how to bestow on our senses a passport to everything superficial, on our thoughts a divine desire for wanton gambling and false conclusions! how we have from the very beginning understood how to retain our ignorance so as to enjoy an almost inconceivable freedom, frivolity, impetuosity, bravery, cheerfulness of life, so as to enjoy life! (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890)

Words of Wisdom Plato, Republic, 380BC Those whose hearts are fixed on Reality itself deserve the title of Philosophers. (Plato) One trait in the philosopher's character we can assume is his love of the knowledge that reveals eternal reality, the realm unaffected by change and decay. (Plato) When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it

seems to lack intelligence. (Plato) The society we have described can never grow into a reality or see the light of day, and there will be no end to the troubles of states, or indeed, my dear Glaucon, of humanity itself, till philosophers are kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands. (Plato) What is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight of error to the truth, that climb up into the real world which we shall call true philosophy.(Plato) And isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are. (Plato) The philosopher is in love with truth, that is, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion, but with the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge. (Plato) Truthfulness. He will never willingly tolerate an untruth, but will hate it as much as he loves truth... And is there anything more closely connected with wisdom than truth? (Plato) The object of knowledge is what exists and its function to know about reality. (Plato) I don't know anything that gives me greater pleasure, or profit either, than talking or listening to philosophy. But when it comes to ordinary conversation, such as the stuff you talk about financiers and the money market, well, I find it pretty tiresome personally, and I feel sorry that my friends should think they're being very busy when they're really doing absolutely nothing. Of course, I know your idea of me: you think I'm just a poor unfortunate, and I shouldn't wonder if your right. But then I dont THINK that you're unfortunate - I know you are. (Plato)

Words of Wisdom Erwin Schrodinger, What is Life? 1967 The question is only whether from now on we shall have to refrain from tying description to a clear hypothesis about the real nature of the world. There are many who wish to pronounce such abdication even today. But I believe that this means making things a little too easy for oneself. ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity,

imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.(Erwin Schrodinger, 1967)

Words of Wisdom Lee Smolin, Life of the Cosmos, 1997 A successful unification of quantum theory and relativity would necessarily be a theory of the universe as a whole. It would tell us, as Aristotle and Newton did before, what space and time are, what the cosmos is, what things are made of, and what kind of laws those things obey. Such a theory will bring about a radical shift - a revolution - in our understanding of what nature is. It must also have wide repercussions, and will likely bring about, or contribute to, a shift in our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the rest of the universe. (Lee Smolin, 1997) It can no longer be maintained that the properties of any one thing in the universe are independent of the existence or non-existence of everything else. It is, at last, no longer sensible to speak of a universe with only one thing in it. (Lee Smolin, 1997) The revolution which began with the creation of quantum theory and relativity theory can only be finished with their unification into a single theory that can give us a single, comprehensive picture of nature. (Lee Smolin, 1997) But in spite of the obvious effectiveness of mathematics in physics, I have never heard of a good a priori argument that the world must be organised to mathematical principles. (Lee Smolin, 1997) Any two particles in the universe attract each other through the gravitational interaction. (Lee Smolin, 1997) Just like an ordinary guitar string, a fundamental string can vibrate in different modes. And it is these different modes of vibration of the string that are understood in string theory as being the different elementary particles. (Lee Smolin, 1997)

Words of Wisdom Spinoza, Ethics, 1673 .... we are a part of nature as a whole, whose order we follow. (Spinoza, Ethics, 1673) A substance cannot be produced from anything else : it will therefore be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence appertains to the nature of it. (Spinoza, Ethics, 1673)

But if men would give heed to the nature of substance they would doubt less concerning the Proposition that Existence appertains to the nature of substance: rather they would reckon it an axiom above all others, and hold it among common opinions. For then by substance they would understand that which is in itself, and through itself is conceived, or rather that whose knowledge does not depend on the knowledge of any other thing.(Spinoza, Ethics, 1673) No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist. It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely. For it would then be limited by some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two substances would be granted having the same attribute, which is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely.(Spinoza, Ethics,1673) He who has a true idea, knows at that same time that he has a true idea, nor can he doubt concerning the truth of the thing. (Spinoza) No one doubts but that we imagine time from the very fact that we imagine other bodies to be moved slower or faster or equally fast. We are accustomed to determine duration by the aid of some measure of motion.(Spinoza, Ethics, 1673) For the wise man, in so far as he is regarded as such, is scarcely at all disturbed in spirit, but being conscious of himself, and of God, and of things, by a certain eternal necessity, never ceases to be, but always possesses true acquiescence of his spirit. If the way which I have pointed out as leading to this result seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be discovered. Needs must it be hard, since it is so seldom found. How could it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labour be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected? But all excellent things are as difficult as they are rare. (Spinoza, Ethics, 1673)

Words of Wisdom Milo Wolff, Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe, 1994 The Wave Structure of Matter (the Structure of fundamental 'Particles') evolved over five years. It began with a simple speculation that waves in Space could explain the de Broglie wavelength. It continued to agree with more laws and observations than I first expected and I was

amazed. The 'Particle' is two identical spherical waves travelling radially in opposite directions so that together they form a spherical standing wave. The wave which travels inward towards the center is called an In-Wave, and the wave travelling outward is an Out-Wave. The nominal location of the Particle is the Wave-Center, but as must be true for any charged Particle, it has presence everywhere in Space because the charge forces extend throughout the Universe. Solid Bodies from Waves - The solid crystal array is a matrix of atoms held rigidly in space. How are the atoms suspended in space? We must conclude that the crystals rigidity derives from fixed standing waves propagating in a rigid wave medium. Calculations for diamonds and nuclear structure yields an enormous rigidity. This is really a separate argument about the rigidity of space, which is one of its properties. Light 'Photons' - Two Spherical Standing Waves (SSW) oscillators exchange energy much like classical coupled oscillators, such as electric circuits or joined pendulums. The coupling provided by the non-linear centers of the resonances (high mass-energy density of space Wave-Centers) allows them to shift frequency patterned by the modulation of each other's waves. Since significant coupling can only occur between two oscillators which possess the same resonant elements, the frequency (energy) changes are equal and opposite. This we observe as the law of conservation of energy. When opposite changes of frequency (energy ) takes place between two resonances, energy seems to be transported from the center of one resonance to another. We observe a loss of energy where frequency decreases and added energy where it increases. The exchange appears to travel with the speed of the In-Waves of the receiving resonance which is c, the velocity of light. When large numbers of changes occur together, we can sample part of it and see a beam of light (which causes the continuous electromagnetic waves of Modern Physics). When single exchanges occur we see "photons" as discrete Standing Wave interactions. Thus the transitory modulated waves travelling between two resonances create the illusion of the 'photon particle'.
Words of Wisdom by Philosophers (Alphabetical Order by Surname) - Words of Wisdom on Truth and Reality - Words of Wisdom on the Importance and Love of Philosophy - Words of Wisdom on Understanding New Ideas - Words of Wisdom on Education - Top of Page

Words of Wisdom on Truth and Reality

...a distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much rein must not be given to a man's imagination under pretext of its being a clear and distinct intellection. (Leibniz, 1670) But it is the knowledge of necessary and eternal truths which distinguishes us from mere animals, and gives us reason and the sciences, raising us to knowledge of ourselves and God. It is this in us which we call the rational soul or mind. (Leibniz, 1670) When a truth is necessary, the reason for it can be found by analysis, that is, by resolving it into simpler ideas and truths until the primary ones are reached. It is this way that in mathematics speculative theorems and practical canons are reduced by analysis to definitions, axioms and postulates. (Leibniz, 1670) There is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value. This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the will to not allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious, dangerous, or fatal to be deceived. (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) What if God were not exactly truth, and if this could be proved? And if he were instead the vanity, the desire for power, the ambitions, the fear, and the enraptured and terrified folly of mankind? (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890) And isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are. (Plato, 380BC) The philosopher is in love with truth, that is, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion, but with the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge. (Plato, 380BC)

Truthfulness. He will never willingly tolerate an untruth, but will hate it as much as he loves truth... And is there anything more closely connected with wisdom than truth? (Plato, 380BC) Then may we not fairly plead in reply that our true lover of knowledge naturally strives for truth, and is not content with common opinion, but soars with undimmed and unwearied passion till he grasps the essential nature of things with the mental faculty fitted to do so, that is, with the faculty which is akin to reality, and which approaches and unites with it, and begets intelligence and truth as children, and is only released from travail when it has thus reached knowledge and true life and satisfaction? (Plato, 380BC) What is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight of error to the truth, that climb up into the real world which we shall call true philosophy. (Plato, 380BC) The object of knowledge is what exists and its function to know about reality. (Plato, 380BC) And those whose hearts are fixed on Reality itself deserve the title ofPhilosophers. (Plato, 380BC) When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato, 380BC) 'But surely "blind" is just how you would describe men who have no true knowledge of reality, and no clear standard in their mind to refer to, as a painter refers to his model, and which they can study closely before they start laying down rules about what is fair or right or good where they are needed, or maintaining, as Guardians, any rules that already exist.' 'Yes, blind is just about what they are' (Plato, 380BC) One trait in the philosopher's character we can assume is his love of the knowledge that reveals eternal reality, the realm unaffected by change and decay. He is in love with the whole of that reality, and will not willingly be deprived even of the most insignificant fragment of it just like the lovers and men of ambition we described earlier on. (Plato, 380BC)

Words of Wisdom by Philosophers (Alphabetical Order by Surname) - Words of Wisdom on Truth and Reality - Words of Wisdom on the Importance and Love of Philosophy - Words of Wisdom on Understanding New Ideas - Words of Wisdom on Education - Top of Page

Words of Wisdom on The Importance and Love of Philosophy

The life of theoretical philosophy is the best and happiest a man can lead. Few men are capable of it (and then only intermittently). For the rest there is a second-best way of life, that of moral virtue and practical wisdom. (Aristotle, Metaphysics) The society we have described can never grow into a reality or see the light of day, and there will be no end to the troubles of states, or indeed, my dear Glaucon, of humanity itself, till philosophers are kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands, while the many natures now content to follow either to the exclusion of the other are forcibly debarred from doing so. This is what I have hesitated to say so long, knowing what a paradox it would sound; for it is not easy to see that there is no other road to happiness, either for society or the individual. (Plato, 380BC) ...there are some who are naturally fitted for philosophy and political leadership, while the rest should follow their lead and let philosophy alone. (Plato, 380BC) 'But the man who is ready to taste every form of knowledge, is glad to learn and never satisfied - he's the man who deserves to be called a philosopher, isn't he?' (Plato, 380BC) 'Then who are the true philosophers?', he asked 'Those whose passion is to see the truth.' 'Suppose the following to be the state of affairs on board a ship or

ships. The captain is larger and stronger than any of the crew, but a bit deaf and short-sighted, and doesn't know much about navigation. The crew are quarrelling with each other about how to navigate the ship, each thinking he ought to be at the helm; they know no navigation and cannot say that anyone ever taught it them, or that they spent any time studying it; indeed they say it can't be taught and are ready to murder any one who says it can. They spend all their time milling around the captain and trying to get him to give them the wheel. If one faction is more successful then another, their rivals may kill them and throw them overboard, lay out the honest captain with drugs and drink, take control of the ship, help themselves to what's on board, and behave as if they were on a drunken pleasure-cruise. Finally, they reserve their admiration for the man who knows how to lend a hand in controlling the captain by force or fraud; they praise his seamanship and navigation and knowledge of the sea and condemn everyone else as useless. They have no idea that the true navigator must study the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the winds and other professional subjects, if he is really fit to control a ship; and they think that it's quite impossible to acquire professional skill in navigation (quite apart from whether they want it exercised) and that there is no such thing as an art of navigation. In these circumstances aren't the sailors on any ship bound to regard the true navigator as a gossip and a star-gazer, of no use to them at all?' 'Yes, they are,' Adeimantus agreed 'I think you probably understand, without any explanation, that my illustration is intended to show the present attitude of society towards the true philosopher' (Plato, 380BC) And tell him it's quite true that the best of the philosophers are of no use to their fellows; but that he should blame, not the philosophers, but those who fail to make use of them. (Plato, 380BC) To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can do for those who study it. (Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy) Oddly, things have now reached such a state that even among men of intelligence philosophy means something fantastical and vain, without value or usefulness, both in opinion and practice. The cause lies in chop-logic which has captured all the approaches. It is a great mistake to portray Philosophy with a haughty, frowning, terrifying face, or as inaccessible to the young. Whoever clapped that wan and frightening mask to her face! There is nothing more lovely, more happy and gay- I

almost said more amorously playful. What she preaches is all feast and fun. A sad and gloomy mien shows you have mistaken her address. (de Montaigne) Philosophical discussions habitually make men happy and joyful not frowning and sad. (de Montaigne) The soul which houses philosophy must by her own sanity make for a sound body. Her tranquility and ease must glow from her; she must fashion her outward bearing to her mould, arming it therefore with gracious pride, a spritely active demeanour and a happy welcoming face. The most express sign of wisdom is unruffled joy: like all in the realms above the Moon, her state is ever serene. Her aim is virtue, which is not (as they teach in schools) perched on the summit of a steep mountain, rough and inaccessible. Those ho have drawn nigh her hold that on the contrary she dwells on a beautiful plateau, fertile and strewn with flowers; from there she clearly sees all things beneath her; but if you know the road you can happily make your way there by shaded grassy paths, flower-scented, smooth and gently rising, like tracks in the vaults of heaven. (de Montaigne) She (philosophy) is equally helpful to the rich and poor: neglect her, and she equally harms the young and old. (Horace) Those sciences which govern the morals of mankind, such as Theology and Philosophy, make everything their concern: no activity is so private or so secret as to escape their attention or their jurisdiction. (de Montaigne) Knowledge is a very weighty thing: they sink beneath it. Their mental apparatus has not enough energy nor skill to display the noble material and to apportion its strength, to exploit it and make it help them. Knowledge can lodge only in a powerful nature: and that is very rare. Feeble minds, said Socrates, corrupt the dignity of philosophy when they handle it; she appears to be useless and defective when sheathed in a bad covering. (de Montaigne, 1592)

Words of Wisdom by Philosophers (Alphabetical Order by Surname) - Words of Wisdom on Truth and Reality - Words of Wisdom on the Importance and Love of Philosophy - Words of Wisdom on Understanding New Ideas - Words of Wisdom on Education - Top of Page

Words of Wisdom on the Understanding of New Ideas

We are like people looking for something they have in their hands all the time; we're looking in all directions except at the thing we want, which is probably why we haven't found it.(Plato, 380BC) 'That is the story. Do you think there is any way of making them believe it?' ' Not in the first generation', he said, 'but you might succeed with the second and later generations.' (Plato, 380BC) 'We will ask the critics to be serious for once, and remind them that it was not so long ago that the Greeks thought - as most of the barbarians still think - that it was shocking and ridiculous for men to be seen naked. When the Cretans, and later the Spartans, first began to take exercise naked, wasn't there plenty of material for the wit of the comedians of the day?' 'There was indeed' 'But when experience showed them that it was better to strip than wrap themselves up, what reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye. Which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.' (Plato, 380BC) Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. (Charles Darwin) All crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research. .. Or finally, the case that will most concern us here, a crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance. (Thomas Kuhn, 1962) Although as a rule the absurd culminates, and it seems impossible for the voice of the individual ever to penetrate through the chorus of

foolers and fooled, still there is left to the genuine works of all times a quite peculiar, silent, slow, and powerful influence; and as if by a miracle, we see them rise at last out of the turmoil like a balloon that floats up out of the thick atmosphere of this globe into purer regions. Having once arrived there, it remains at rest, and no one can any longer draw it down again. (Arthur Schopenhauer, 1819) To begin with our knowledge grows in spots. ..What you first gain, ... is probably a small amount of new information, a few new definitions, or distinctions, or points of view. But while these special ideas are being added, the rest of your knowledge stands still, and only gradually will you line up your previous opinions with the novelties I am trying to instill, and to modify to some slight degree their mass. ..Your mind in such processes is strained, and sometimes painfully so, between its older beliefs and the novelties which experience brings along. (William James, Pragmatism)

Words of Wisdom by Philosophers (Alphabetical Order by Surname) - Words of Wisdom on Truth and Reality - Words of Wisdom on the Importance and Love of Philosophy - Words of Wisdom on Understanding New Ideas - Words of Wisdom on Education - Top of Page

Words of Wisdom on Education

My dear children: I rejoice to see you before me today, happy youth of a sunny and fortunate land. Bear in mind that the wonderful things that you learn in your schools are the work of many generations, produced by enthusiastic effort and infinite labour in every country of the world. All this is put into your hands as your inheritance in order that you may receive it, honour it, and add to it, and one day faithfully hand it on to your children. Thus do we mortals achieve immortality in the permanent things which we create in common. If you always keep that in mind you will find meaning in life and work and acquire the right attitude towards other nations and ages. (Albert Einstein talking to a group of school children. 1934.) To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old questions from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science. (Albert Einstein)

Somebody who only reads newspapers and at best books of contemporary authors looks to me like an extremely near-sighted person who scorns eyeglasses. He is completely dependent on the prejudices and fashions of his times, since he never gets to see or hear anything else. And what a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of other people is even in the best case rather paltry and monotonous. There are only a few enlightened people with a lucid mind and style and with good taste within a century. What has been preserved of their work belongs among the most precious possessions of mankind. We owe it to a few writers of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that the people in the Middle Ages could slowly extricate themselves from the superstitions and ignorance that had darkened life for more than half a millennium. Nothing is more needed to overcome the modernist's snobbishness. (Einstein, 1954) ... knowledge must continually be renewed by ceaseless effort, if it is not to be lost. It resembles a statue of marble which stands in the desert and is continually threatened with burial by the shifting sand. The hands of service must ever be at work, in order that the marble continue to lastingly shine in the sun. To these serving hands mine shall also belong. (Albert Einstein, On Education, 1950) When, after several hours reading, I came to myself again, I asked myself what it was that had so fascinated me. The answer is simple. The results were not presented as ready-made, but scientific curiosity was first aroused by presenting contrasting possibilities of conceiving matter. Only then the attempt was made to clarify the issue by thorough argument. The intellectual honesty of the author makes us share the inner struggle in his mind. It is this which is the mark of the born teacher. Knowledge exists in two forms - lifeless, stored in books, and alive, in the consciousness of men. The second form of existence is after all the essential one; the first, indispensable as it may be, occupies only an inferior position. (Albert Einstein, 1954) Numerous are the academic chairs, but rare are wise and noble teachers. Numerous and large are the lecture halls, but far from numerous the young people who genuinely thirst for truth and justice. Numerous are the wares that nature produces by the dozen, but her choice products are few. We all know that, so why complain? Was it not always thus and will it not always thus remain? Certainly, and one must take what nature gives as one finds it. But there is also such a thing as a spirit of the times, an attitude of mind characteristic of a particular generation,

which is passed on from individual to individual and gives its distinctive mark to a society. Each of us has to his little bit toward transforming this spirit of the times. (Albert Einstein, 1954) The development of science and of the creative activities of the spirit in general requires still another kind of freedom, which may be characterised as inward freedom. It is this freedom of spirit which consists in the independence of thought from the restrictions of authoritarian and social prejudices as well as from unphilosophical routinizing and habit in general. This inward freedom is an infrequent gift of nature and a worthy objective for the individual. ..schools may favor such freedom by encouraging independent thought. Only if outward and inner freedom are constantly and consciously pursued is there a possibility of spiritual development and perfection and thus of improving man's outward and inner life. (Albert Einstein, 1954) Communities tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness. Yet, as a general rule, intellectual work in moderation, so far from retarding cure, indirectly helps it forward, just as moderate physical work will. (Albert Einstein) I believe, indeed, that overemphasis on the purely intellectual attitude, often directed solely to the practical and factual, in our education, has led directly to the impairment of ethical values. I am not thinking so much of the dangers with which technical progress has directly confronted mankind, as of the stifling of mutual human considerations by a 'matter-of-fact' habit of thought which has come to lie like a killing frost upon human relations. Without 'ethical culture' there is no salvation for humanity.(Albert Einstein, 1953) The school has always been the most important means of transferring the wealth of tradition from one generation to the next. This applies today in an even higher degree than in former times, for through modern development of the economic life, the family as bearer of tradition and education has been weakened. The continuance and health of human society is therefore in a still higher degree dependent on the school than formerly. Sometimes one sees in the school simply the instrument for transferring a certain maximum quantity of knowledge to the growing generation. But that is not right. Knowledge is dead; the school

however, serves the living. It should develop in the young individuals those qualities and capabilities which are of value are of value for the welfare of the commonwealth. But that does not mean that individuality should be destroyed and the individual become a mere tool of the community, like a bee or an ant. For a community of standardised individuals without personal originality and personal aims would be a poor community without possibilities for development. On the contrary, the aim must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals, who, however, see in the service of the community their highest life problem. To me the worst thing seems to be for a school principally to work with methods of fear, force and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity, and the self-confidence of the pupil. It produces the submissive subject. it is no wonder that such schools are the rule in Germany and Russia. ..the desire for the approval of one's fellow-man certainly is one of the most important binding powers of society. In this complex of feelings, constructive and destructive forces lie closely together. Desire for approval and recognition is a healthy motive; but the desire to be acknowledged as better, stronger, or more intelligent than a fellow being or scholar easily leads to an excessively egoistic psychological adjustment, which may become injurious for the individual and for the community. Therefore the school and the teacher must guard against employing the easy method of creating individual ambition, in order to induce the pupils to diligent work. (Albert Einstein, 1954) We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. And those who have an interest in keeping the machinery of war going are a very powerful body; they will stop at nothing to make public opinion subservient to their murderous ends. (Albert Einstein, 1954) ...for the object of education is to teach us to love beauty. (Plato) .. we shall not be properly educated ourselves, nor will the guardians whom we are training, until we can recognise the qualities of discipline, courage, generosity, greatness of mind, and others akin to them, as well as their opposites in all their manifestations. (Plato)

Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool. (Plato) Since philosophy is the art which teaches us how to live, and since children need to learn it as much as we do at other ages, why do we not instruct them in it? (de Montaigne) But in truth I know nothing about education except this: that the greatest and the most important difficulty known to human learning seems to lie in that area which treats how to bring up children and how to educate them. (de Montaigne) In his commerce with men I mean him to include- and that principallythose who live only in the memory of books. By means of history he will frequent those great souls of former years. If you want it to be so, history can be a waste of time; it can also be, if you want it to be so, a study bearing fruit beyond price. (de Montaigne) We readily inquire, Does he know Greek or Latin? Can he write poetry and prose? But what matters most is what we put last: Has he become better and wiser? We ought to find out not who understands most but who understands best. We work merely to fill the memory, leaving the understanding and the sense of right and wrong empty. Just as birds sometimes go in search of grain, carrying it in their beaks without tasting it to stuff it down the beaks of their young, so too do our schoolmasters go foraging for learning in their books and merely lodge it on the tip of their lips, only to spew it out and scatter it on the wind. (de Montaigne) Their pupils and their little charges are not nourished and fed by what they learn: the learning is passed from hand to hand with only one end in view: to show it off, to put into our accounts to entertain others with it, as though it were merely counters, useful for totting up and producing statements, but having no other use or currency. Apud alios loqui didicerunt, non ipsi secum [They have learned how to talk with others, not with themselves] (de Montaigne) Whenever I ask a certain acquaintance of mine to tell me what he knows about anything, he wants to show me a book: he would not venture to tell me that he has scabs on his arse without studying his lexicon to find out the meaning of scab and arse. All we do is to look after the opinions and learning of others: we ought to make them our own. We closely resemble a man who, needing a

fire, goes next door to get a light, finds a great big blaze there and stays to warm himself, forgetting to take a brand back home. What use is it to us to have a belly full of meat if we do not digest it, if we do not transmute it into ourselves, if it does not make us grow in size and strength? (de Montaigne) Learned we may be with another mans learning: we can only be wise with wisdom of our own: [I hate a sage who is not wise for himself] (Euripides) What use is knowledge if there is no understanding? (Stobaeus) non vitae sed scholae discimus. [We are taught for the schoolroom not for life] (Seneca) Now we are not merely to stick knowledge on to the soul: we must incorporate it into her; the soul should not be sprinkled with knowledge but steeped in it. (Seneca) And if knowledge does not change her and make her imperfect state better then it is preferable just to leave it alone. Knowledge is a dangerous sword; in a weak hand which does not know how to wield it it gets in its masters way and wounds him, ut fuerit melius non didicisse [so that it would have been better not to have studied at all] (de Montaigne quotingCicero) Learning is a good medicine: but no medicine is powerful enough to preserve itself from taint and corruption independently of defects in the jar that it is kept in. One man sees clearly but does not see straight: consequently he sees what is good but fails to follow it; he sees knowledge and does not use it. (de Montaigne) But in truth I know nothing about education except this: that the greatest and the most important difficulty known to human learning seems to lie in that area which treats how to bring up children and how to educate them. (de Montaigne) Teach him a certain refinement in sorting out and selecting his arguments, with an affection for relevance and so for brevity. Above all let him be taught to throw down his arms and surrender to truth as soon as he perceives it, whether the truth is born at his rivals doing or within himself from some change in his ideas. (de Montaigne)

As for our pupils talk, let his virtue and his sense of right and wrong shine through it and have no guide but reason. Make him understand that confessing an error which he discovers in his own argument even when he alone has noticed it is an act of justice and integrity, which are the main qualities he pursues; stubbornness and rancour are vulgar qualities, visible in common souls whereas to think again, to change ones mind and to give up a bad case on the heat of the argument are rare qualities showing strength and wisdom. (de Montaigne) As a man who knows how to make his education into a rule of life not a means of showing off; who can control himself and obey his own principles. The true mirror of our discourse is the course of our lives. (de Montaigne quoting Cicero) Chess permits freedom of permutations within a framework of set rules and prescribed movements. Because a chess player cannot move absolutely as he likes, either in terms of the rules or in terms of the exigencies of the particular game, has he no freedom of move? The separate games of chess I play with existence has different rules from your and every other game; the only similarity is that each of our games always has rules. The gifts, inherited and acquired, that are special to me are the rules of the game; and the situation I am in at any given moment is the situation of the game. My freedom is the choice of action and the power of enactment I have within the rules and situation of the game. (Fowles, 1964. The Aristos) Our present educational systems are all paramilitary. Their aim is to produce servants or soldiers who obey without question and who accepts their training as the best possible training. Those who are most successful in the state are those who have the most interest in prolonging the state as it is; they are also those who have the most say in the educational system, and in particular by ensuring that the educational product they want is the most highly rewarded. (Fowles, 1964. The Aristos) Every serious student of the subject knows that the stability of a civilisation depends finally on the wisdom with which it distributes its wealth and allots its burdens of labour, and on the veracity of the instruction it provides for its children. We do not distribute the wealth at all: we throw it into the streets to be scrambled for by the strongest and the greediest who will stoop to such scrambling, after handing the lions share to the professional robbers politely called owners. We cram our children with lies, and punish anyone who tries to enlighten them.

Our remedies for the consequences of our folly are tariffs, inflation, wars, vivisections and inoculations venegances, violences, black magic. (George Bernard Shaw)

THE TEACHER AS A NECESSARY EVIL. Let us have as few people as possible between the productive minds and the hungry and recipient minds! The middlemen almost unconsciously adulterate the food which they supply. It is because of teachers that so little is learned, and that so badly. (Nietzsche, 1880) Wisdom
Jump to To Think or not to Think?: Your knowledge of the object becomes direct, intuitive ... appearance, subject and object duality or separateness as ...

THE WISDOM OF EMPTINESS

'I am not, I will not be. I have not, I will not have. This frightens all children, And kills fear in the wise.' Nagarjuna

CONVENTIONAL AND ULTIMATE WISDOM

Although Albert Einstein was certainly not a Buddhist, these statements sound much like it: "A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affectation for a few people near us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." From Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh: "Enlightenment for a wave in the ocean is the moment the wave realises that it is water." Wisdom in Buddhism can refer to two types of insight: conventional wisdom and ultimate wisdom:

Conventional wisdom relates to understanding the conventional world, or the world as we know it. Traditionally it refers to understanding the way in which karma functions; to understand which actions bring us happiness and which bring us suffering. Conventional wisdom covers all understanding of the world as it functions, including science, with the exception of ultimate wisdom. Ultimate wisdom (jana in Sanskrit) refers to a direct realisation which is non-dualistic, and contradicts the way in which we ordinarily perceive the world. The experience of ultimate truth or emptiness is beyond duality. It is important to remember that emptiness here does not refer to nothingness or some kind of nihilistic view. Emptiness refers to the fact that ultimately, our day-to-day experience of reality is wrong, and is 'empty' of many qualities that we normally assign to it. Describing this non-dual experience in words is not really possible, as language is based on duality and contrasts. Trying to explain this experience - which contradicts our normal perception - is a bit like explaining colors to someone who is born blind; difficult to say the least.

WHY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT?

"...I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance. People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction. Yet true happiness comes from a sense of peace and contentment, which in turn must be achieved through the cultivation of altruism, of love and compassion, and elimination of ignorance, selfishness, and greed..." His Holiness the Dalai Lama If it can not really be explained in words, why bother? According to the Buddha, as long as we do not realise emptiness directly - especially of our idea of how our "I" or 'self' exists - we do not properly understand how the world functions and we will continue to create causes for our own misery. "How much suffering and fear, and How many harmful things are in existence? If all arises from clinging to the "I", What should I do with this great demon?" Shantideva Merely starting to doubt our perception of the world is invaluable if we ever hope to break the bondage to uncontrolledcyclic existence and suffering. In order to familiarise ourselves with this all-important experience, we can try to familiarise ourselves with it on an intellectual level. When we would experience emptiness, we would then be able to recognise it. Instead of believing we have suddenly gone mad, recognition would encourage us to enhance the experience and achieve liberation from suffering. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche explained it in Pointing Out the Dharmakaya: We cannot get rid of suffering by saying, "I will not suffer." We cannot eliminate attachment by saying, "I will not be attached to anything," nor eliminate aggression by saying, "I will never become angry." Yet, we do want to get rid of suffering and the disturbing emotions that are the immediate cause of suffering. The Buddha taught that to eliminate these states, which are really the results of the primary confusion of our belief in a personal self, we must get rid of the fundamental cause.

But we cannot simply say, "I will not believe in the personal self." The only way to eliminate suffering is to actually recognize the experience of a self as a misconception, which we do by proving directly to ourselves that there is no such personal self. We must actually realise this. Once we do, then automatically the misconception of a self and our fixation on that "self" will disappear. Only by directly experiencing selflessness can we end the process of confused projection. This is why the Buddha emphasized meditation on selflessness or egolessness (emptiness). However, to meditate on egolessness, we must undertake a process that begins with a conceptual understanding of egolessness; then, based on that understanding, there can be meditation, and finally realization.
^Top of Page

INTERDEPENDENCE
The wisdom of emptiness refers to a lack of something: 'inherent existence'. 'Inherent existence' means that things appear to exist independently, in- and out of themselves, from the side of the object, by way of its' own character, self-powered, autonomous. Ultimately however, things exist in dependence upon causes and conditions. For example, a human being ceases to exist in a vacuum, we would instantly die when all conditions for life are suddenly gone. On another level, a human being needs to come into existence by the combination of a sperm from the father joining an egg from the mother and all the right conditions to grow into an embryo. So, considering ourselves as independently existing, fully autonomous is a mere illusion and does not accord with ultimate reality. Ultimate wisdom can be compared to eco-thinking in biology: a century ago, biology focused mainly on categorising species of animals and plants and describing their specific aspects. Plants and animals were cut to ever smaller pieces to analyse how they function. However, nature also functions at a completely different level; as relations and processes between living beings. Ecology appeared as a new branch of biology, more dealing with relations, cycles and interdependence of animals, plants and surroundings. This is somewhat similar to the view of emptiness. Instead of focusing on differences and individuality, the realisation of emptiness is about realising that nothing exists by itself alone, but depends on other things. Just as all living beings rely on other living beings - at least their ancestors, so do even inanimate objects depend on other objects, conditions, parts and processes to arise and disappear. The fact that we normally do not realise emptiness and the relatedness of things is directly related to our perception. As soon as we perceive something in the outside world, it feels different from our own body or mind. We feel as if other things are "out there", separate from "my self", which is "in here". But are they really separate? To begin with, if the outer object would not somehow "relate" to us in the form of sound, smell, light etc., we would be unable to perceive it. So our perception of objects depends on interaction, rather than the fact that we are separate. To put it simple, our perception of the world is only possible because of interaction, interrelation, dependence and exchange of information. From the Avatamsaka Sutra: "Far away, in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all

directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each eye of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now look closely at any one of the jewels for inspection, we will discover that in its polished surface are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflection process occuring. This symbolises our world where every sentient being (and thing) is inter-related to one another." His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, from The Compassionate Life: "All events and incidents in life are so intimately linked with the fate of others that a single person on his or her own cannot even begin to act. Many ordinary human activities, both positive and negative, cannot even be conceived of apart from the existence of other people. Even the committing of harmful actions depends on the existence of others. Because of others, we have the opportunity to earn money if that is what we desire in life. Similarly, in reliance upon the existence of others it becomes possible for the media to create fame or disrepute for someone. On your own you cannot create any fame or disrepute no matter how loud you might shout. The closest you can get is to create an echo of your own voice. Thus interdependence is a fundamental law of nature. Not only higher forms of life but also many of the smallest insects are social beings who, without any religion, law, or education, survive by mutual cooperation based on an innate recognition of their interconnectedness. The most subtle level of material phenomena is also governed by interdependence. All phenomena, from the planet we inhabit to the oceans, clouds, forests, and flowers that surround us, arise in dependence upon subtle patterns of energy. Without their proper interaction, they dissolve and decay."
^Top of Page

PERCEPTION AND OBJECTIVITY

When we perceive an object, we automatically tend to label it (like nice, bad, wet, dry, light, dark, etc.). As soon as our mind puts a label on an object, the label takes the place of the actual object in our mental processes. As our mental image or label can never represent all the different qualities and characteristics of any object, it is always just a simplified, usually exaggerated, subjective snap shot. However, our mind reacts on the basis of our own mental label of an object. No wonder we tend to react simplistic, exaggerated and subjective in many situations. All perceived objects are conditioned by our senses and our own mind. This leads to the dramatic conclusion that we are not and by definition can never be objective! Or, as the famous physicist Werner Heisenberg said, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning"....
^Top of Page

SEPARATENESS
Our labelling leads to problems like anger and attachment, but also to the more basic problem that we think we are somehow separate from the outside world. But are we separate from the outside world? When we see something - for example a table - it appears to be separate from the rest of the world, just standing there by itself, but is that correct? How could the table stand there without the ground supporting it? How could the table exist without a carpenter making it from pieces of wood? The pieces of wood come from a tree, which comes from a seed, water, soil, air, the sun and its nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms etcetera.... Every object needs causes and conditions to exist, just like we need our parents, food, air, clothes and many more things to exist. Apart from that, our perception of an object is strongly coloured by our own senses, mental state and memories. In this way, it becomes impossible to maintain that 'I' am separate from the outside world, however much it feels that way. "Monks, we who look at the whole and not just the part, know that we too are systems of interdependence, of feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and consciousness all interconnected. Investigating in this way, we come to realize that there is no me or mine in any one part, just as a sound does not belong to any one part of the lute." -Samyutta Nikaya, from "Buddha Speaks" "It is important to remember always that the principle of egolessness does not mean that there was an ego in the first place, and the Buddhists did away with it. On the contrary, it means there was never any ego at all to begin with. To realize that is called 'egolessness'." Sogyal Rinpoche
^Top of Page

THE PHILOSOPHY OF EMPTINESS

The Prasangika Madhyamila philosophical school of Buddhism teaches that things are: 1. Dependent on their parts 2. Interrelated, not isolated 3. Merely labelled To prevent misunderstanding, we must avoid the "two extremes", that is, believing that: 1. Things are permanent, independent of their parts, and independent of our labelling 2. Things do not exist at all (nihilism).

HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO ME?

This view has consequences when it is applied to whatever I call "I" and "mine":

I am not isolated from my surroundings and other living beings. I "create" the world with my own concepts and ideas.

The world is like an illusion: how I see the world depends on my own ideas/projections. This world is "my" film, "my" projection, I run the show, so I can change my experience of the world. I can change the world, if I start with my own mind. I can change, as "I" is only a concept, impermanent and dependent on causes and conditions, just like all phenomena (even emptiness itself). Although I can understand this intellectually, I don't perceive the world that way until I directly realise emptiness!

"Sometimes, the thought of "I" suddenly arises with great force....The situation is like that of a rock or a tree seen protruding up from the peak of a hill on the horizon: From afar it may be mistaken for a human being. Yet the existence of a human in that rock or tree is only an illusion. On deeper investigation, no human being can be found in any of the individual pieces of the protruding entity, nor in its collection of parts, nor in any other aspect of it. Nothing in the protrusion can be said to be a valid basis for the name "human being." Likewise, the solid "I" which seems to exist somewhere within the body and mind is merely an imputation. The body and mind are no more represented by the sense of "I" than is the protruding rock represented by the word "human." This "I" cannot be located anywhere within any individual piece of the body and mind, nor is it found within the body and mind as a collection, nor is there a place outside of these that could be considered to be a substantial basis of the object referred to by the name "I"." The Second Dalai Lama (1475-1542), in Samuel Bercholz's 'Entering the Stream'. ...when we talk about the notion of self in Buddhism, it is important to bear in mind that there are different degrees or types. There are some types of sense of self which are not only to be cultivated but also to be reinforced and enhanced. For instance, in order to have a strong determination to seek Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings, one needs a very strong sense of confidence, which is based upon a sense of commitment and courage. This requires a strong sense of self. Unless one has that identity or sense of self, one will not be able to develop the confidence and courage to strongly seek this aim. In addition, the doctrine of Buddha-nature gives us a lot of encouragement and confidence because we realize that there is this potential within us which will allow us to attain the perfection that we are seeking. However, there are different types of sense of self which are rooted in a belief in a permanent, solid, indivisible entity called "self" or "I." There is the belief that there is something very concrete or objective about this entity. This is a false notion of self which must be overcome. From Healing Anger by His Holiness the Dalai Lama Please do take 5 minutes to look at this enjoyable video on YouTube with smooth music from Sakya Mipham, that has a remarkable message - think about it!
^Top of Page

HOW TO INTEGRATE EMPTINESS INTO DAILY LIFE By Lama Thubten Yeshe

What is emptiness? Emptiness (shunyata) is the reality of the existence of ourselves, and all the phenomena around us. According to the Buddhist point of view, seeking reality and seeking liberation amount to the same thing. The person who doesn't want to seek reality doesn't really want to seek liberation, and is just confused.

If you seek reality and you think that it has to be taught to you by a Tibetan Lama, that you have to look for it outside yourself, in another place - maybe Shangrila! - then you are mistaken. You cannot seek reality outside yourself because you are reality. Perhaps you think that your life, your reality was made by society, by your friends? If you think that way you are far from reality. if you think that your existence, your life was made by somebody else it means that you are not taking the responsibility to understand reality. You have to see that your attitudes, your view of the world, of your experiences, of your girlfriend or boyfriend, of your own self, are all the interpretation of your own mind, your own imagination. They are your own projection, your mind literally made them up. If you don't understand this then you have very little chance of understanding emptiness. This is not just the Buddhist view but also the experience of Western physicists and philosophers - they have researched into reality too. Physicists look and look and look and they simply cannot find one entity that exists in a permanent, stable way: this is the Western experience of emptiness. If you can imagine that then you will not have any concrete concepts; if you understand this experience of physicists then you will let go of your worldly problems - but you don't want to understand. It seems to me that we twentieth century people are against nature, against reality, the very opposite of reality. Each moment we build up our artificial, polluted ego; we cover ourselves with heavy ego blankets - one, two, ten, one hundred blankets against nature, against reality. Modern life is the product of the intellectual mind, and we create it. The intellectual mind is superstition. We don't understand reality, and the intellectual life that we lead keeps us far from reality. So we don't accept who we are. We are always looking to cover ourselves with thick blankets and say "this is me". We hide our own reality and run away from natural beauty, completely neglecting it. By not touching our reality, our modern life becomes so complicated and we create problems with our superstition. We are like a spider spinning his web, climbing on his thread then falling down; climbing up again and falling down again. In the same way we build our own intellectual web, a way of life, that is so complicated, that doesn't touch reality, that is so difficult to live in. This construction arises from our own mind and does not arise from anything else. If I told you that you are nothing, you are zero, that you are nothing that you think you are, then you would be shocked. "What is this monk saying?" But what if I say that it is the truth! In fact you are non duality, non self existence. You do not exist, relatively or absolutely, as you think you do. If you really understood this then you would become more realistic and you would really gain satisfaction and peace. But as long as you hold on to the fantasy, concrete conception of yourself and project this wrong conception onto your environment, then no way will you understand reality. In Western cities nowadays, you can see, the older you are the more problems you have. When we are young, not so many problems, but then there are drugs and sex, and eventually they become dissatisfying, then more depression, more depression. So, as your body becomes bigger and your brain becomes wider, you have more and more problems and become more and more depressed. The more money you have the more problems come. You can see this. You only take care of your body, you never take care of your mind, and the result of this imbalance is depression. For most western people this is the case: only the body is reality and they don't care about the existence of the mind, the soul, the consciousness. They don't believe they can change their minds. They can change their nose through an operation, but they don't believe they can change their mind. And when you believe this, then no way can you resolve your depression. Our thoughts, our mind or consciousness are mental energy and cannot be localised in the body. It cannot be touched; it has no form and does not travel in time and space. We cannot touch it or grasp it. What is important to understand is that the view you have of yourself and the view you have of your environment are based on your own mind; they are the projection of your mind and

that is why they are not reality. I will give you a good example. When a western man or woman looks for a girl or boyfriend, there is this research energy from both sides and when suddenly they see each other they make up an incredible story. "Oh, so beautiful! Nothing wrong inside or outside". They build up a perfect myth. They push and push., the mind makes it all up. If they are Christian they say, "Oh, he looks just like Jesus. She looks just like an angel. So nice, so pure". Actually, they are just projecting their own fantasies onto each other. If she is Hindu, then he would say, "Oh, she looks like Kali, like Mother Earth, like my universal mother"...and if you are Buddhist you fold your hands and say, "Oh, she is a dakini and she is showing me the true nature of all things". You understand? "When I am near her she gives me energy, energy. Before, I was so lazy, I couldn't move, I was like a dead person. But now whenever I go near her I can't believe my energy!" I tell you all this is superstitious interpretation. You think that she is your spiritual friend and all she does is really perfect, even her kaka and pee pee are so pure! Excuse me, perhaps I shouldn't talk like this - I am a Buddhist monk! But when we speak about Buddhism, about reality then we have to speak practically, from daily life, about what is earthy, what we can touch and see, not just get caught up in concepts. What I mean is this: you should recognise how every appearance in your daily lift is in fact a false projection of your own mind. Your own mind makes it up and becomes an obstacle to touching reality. This is why, our entire life, no matter what kind of life we have, it is a disaster. If you have a rich life, your life is a disaster. If you have a middle class life, your life is a disaster. If you have a poor life, your life is even more of a disaster! You become a monk and your life is a disaster. If you become a Christian your life is a disaster. A Buddhist, disaster... Be honest. Be honest with yourself. In fact reality is very simple. The simplicity of the mind can touch reality, and meditation is something that goes beyond the intellect and brings the mind into its natural state. We have the pure nature already, this reality exists in us now, it is born with us... The essence of your consciousness, your truth, your soul is not absolutely negative, it does not have an essentially negative character. Our mind is like the sky and our problems of ego grasping and self pity are like clouds. Eventually they all pass and disappear. You should not believe, "I am my ego, I am my problems, therefore I cannot solve my problems". Wrong. You can see. Sometimes we are so clear in our life we are almost radiating. We can have this experience right now. Now! So it is wrong to think that we are always a disaster. Sometimes we are clean clear, sometimes we are a disaster. So, stay in meditation, just keep in that clean clear state as much as possible. All of us can have that clean clear state of mind. Actually, maybe this is the moment to meditate. My feeling is to meditate now. So, close your eyes, don't think, "I am meditating", just close your eyes and whatever view is there, whatever view is there in your mind, just be aware. Don't interpret good, bad. Just be like a light - light doesn't think "I like this, I like that". It is just a light. Whatever is in your consciousness, whatever experience, just be aware. That is all. Whatever your experience at the moment, whatever your colour, whatever appearance is there, just stay aware. Be aware. If it's black energy, then that black energy is clean clear. If it's white energy, just feel that clean clear state. Be aware of whatever is happening. No interpretation ... Don't try to hold onto something or to reject something. Excerpt from Lama Yeshe's talk at VajraYogini Institute, France, September 5, 1983.
^Top of Page

HOW TO PRACTISE?
To realise emptiness, externally we need a qualified teacher, and internally we need enough merit (or karma), purification, practice of ethics, keeping our vows and generating singlepointed concentration. In the Tibetan tradition: first one tries to intellectually understand it, then later the realisation can ripen in the well-prepared field of our mind. It is advised to analyse the "I" first, and then later one analyses other phenomena in the same way, for example using the "fourfold analysis": 1. Identify object of negation: inherently existent "I" 2. Determine possibilities of how the "I" exists: is it the body, the mind, both or different? (We can say, "I have have a body and a mind", which would indicate that the "I" is something different from the body and the mind, but is that possible?) 3. Is the "I" same as body and/or mind? 4. Is the "I" other than body and mind? "While you are meditating there is an "I" (representing the Self) which appears to exist from its own side. Right on top of that think, 'the I is merely labelled'. Just meditate on the meaning of the I being merely labelled. I is a name; a name does not exist from its own side, a name is given, imputed by the mind. We can completely agree with that. This I is merely labelled; concentrate on just that. Try to feel that. This automatically eliminates eternalism, the view of a truly existent I." Lama Zopa Rinpoche "The real glory of meditation lies not in any method but in its continual living experience of presence, in its bliss, clarity, peace, and most important of all, complete absence of grasping. The diminishing of grasping in yourself is a sign that you are becoming freer of yourself. And the more you experience this freedom, the clearer the sign that the ego and the hopes and fears that keep it alive are dissolving, and the closer you will come to the infinitely generous "wisdom of egolessness." When you live in the wisdom home, you'll no longer find a barrier between "I" and "you," "this" and "that," "inside" and "outside;" you'll have come, finally, to your true home, the state of non-duality." Sogyal Rinpoche "Intelligent Practice always deals with just one thing: the fear at the base of human existence, the fear that I am not. And of course I am not, but the last thing I want to know is that. I am impermanence itself in a rapidly changing human form that appears solid. I fear to see what I am: an ever-changing energy field. I don't want to be that. So good practice is about fear. Fear takes the form of constantly thinking, speculating, analyzing, fantasizing. With all that activity we create a cloud to keep ourselves safe in make-believe practice. True practice is not safe; it's anything but safe. But we don't like that, so we obsess with our feverish efforts to achieve our version of the personal dream. Such obsessive practice is itself just another cloud between ourselves and reality. The only thing that matters is seeing with an impersonal spotlight: seeing things as they really are. When the personal barrier drops away, why do we have to call it anything? We just live our lives. And when we die, we just die. No problem anywhere." Charlotte Joko Beck, in 'Everyday Zen' "Our exaggerated sense of self and our compulsion to find happiness for this larger-than-life self we have fabricated cause us to ignore, neglect and harm others. Of course, it is our right

to love and take care of ourselves, but not at the expense of others. While "As long as I'm alright" is our motto, we have no hesitation in acting with total disregard for others." From: The Three Principal Aspects of the Path: An Oral Teaching by Geshe Sonam Rinchen For a funny practical teaching; click on the Snowman to download this self-extracting Flash file (it is 256kB, so may take a couple of minutes to download).
^Top of Page

TO THINK OR NOT TO THINK?

One issue which can create much confusion is about our dualistic mind. Normally, our mind functions on a very dualistic level, which means that we continuously make distinctions, like black and white, good and bad, hard and soft. This level of mind reasons and is the basis for our ability to think logical using concepts. However, the goal of the teachings on emptiness is to lead to a non-dualistic experience (realisation) of emptiness. Different schools may approach this problem differently; for example, the Zen schools tend to emphasise first achieving a non-dualistic state of mind in meditation, the Tibetan schools first emphasise proper dualistic, inferential, logical understanding of the subject, and then meditating on it to achieve the direct realisation. A question was put to to His Holiness Dalai Lama: "How does one go from inferential knowledge to nonconceptual knowledge? Since analysis is used to arrive at total inferential knowledge any more analysis would still be inferential." His Holiness' answer: "Among meditations there are many different types and in special situations such as certain levels of Highest Yoga Tantra for example, analysis is discouraged. The general mode of procedure on the Buddhist path is that through constant reflection on the knowledge which is initially inferential, through various stages of familiarisation, reflection and contemplation, that knowledge which is initially inferential could eventually become nonconceptual. The engagement of that knowledge in relation to the object becomes subtler and subtler, eventually the knowledge becomes direct and unveiled. Generally speaking it is very true that there must be a correlation between cause and its effects. Any cause can not give rise to any effect. There must be some causal relationship and connection but that does not mean that every effect must have completely similar causes. Take for instance the omnisicent mind of the Buddha; if we insist that its cause must be completely similar in characteristics with its effect which is omniscient mind, then we will have to maintain that within us we possess the seed for attaining Buddha's omniscient mind and wisdom. Then we must possess within us, even to a slight degree some form of Buddha's omniscient mind which cannot be maintained. As far as non-conceptual awareness or wisdom of Arya beings is concerned, the causes need not be such high states of realisation. Therefore regarding the non-dualistic awareness or wisdom of Arya beings, their causes can be said to exist even within ordinary beings. If we examine our mind, as long as we remain in an ordinary state of existence, our mind is characterized by dualistic perceptions, dualistic experiences. Within this dualistic experience and perception we must be able to seek some kind of seed which would give rise to non-dual wisdom and awareness. Therefore in the initial stage of knowledge, it is inferential, dualistic and characterized by duality between subject and object. As you train your mind and constantly reflect and cultivate your familiarity with that object, then that subject and object

duality will gradually diminish in its intensity. Gradually it will lead you to realization. Your knowledge of the object becomes direct, intuitive and non-conceptual. When we talk of non-dual awareness in the context of dualistic appearances or dualism, one must bear in mind that there are many different meanings of the term. Dualistic experience could be understood in terms of a multitude of ways: conventional appearance as dualistic appearance, subject and object duality or separateness as being dualistic appearance; or as a generated image through which we can conceive as object, that image can be seen as dualistic appearance. Similarly when we come across the term non-conceptuality we do not have the notion that there is only a single meaning which is universal in every single context. Nonconceptuality will have different meanings in different contexts."
^Top of Page

WISDOM AND COMPASSION

With this explanation, you may be tempted to think that emptiness is all about playing with words and doing complicated mind games. However, it is said that realising emptiness directly can solve all our problems, as all our problems are caused by our misunderstanding of the world. As all our communication is based on words which cannot express the ultimate truth, please try to discover the real meaning behind the words for yourself! Another thing that should be kept in mind is that when one directly experiences emptiness, the mind cannot perceive anything dualistic, meaning it cannot perceive anything of the "normal" world. That does not mean there is no perception at all, but we would perceive the world very different. Perhaps comparable as if everyone would have an eye-defect and see all things as blue. When a medicine becomes available to cure this defect, nothing would look familiar, as the colors all appear to unfamiliar and strange. This is why discussions on emptiness often tend to go astray and may have an "otherworldly" feel to them, from the ultimate view of emptiness, all our normal perception and thinking about reality is flawed. It is said that only a fully realised Buddha can experience emptiness and ordinary existence simultaneously. Now a few words on the combination of wisdom and compassion. In Tibetan Buddhism, these are considered the two most important aspects of practice. Just like a bird needs two wings to fly; a very compassionate person without wisdom is only a likeable fool, and a person with wisdom and no compassion is like a lonely hermit in an ivory tower... Both will reinforce each other: once we realise how interrelated we all are, it is hard not to feel some level of compassion, and once we feel compassionate to others we realise our interrelatedness. "Recently I am emphasizing that due to the modern economy, and also due to information and education, the world is now heavily interdependent, interconnected. Under such circumstances, the concept of 'we' and 'they' is gone: harming your neighbor is actually harming yourself. If you do negative things towards your neighbor, that is actually creating your own suffering. And helping them, showing concern about others' welfare -- actually these are the major factors of your own happiness. If you want a community full of joy, full of friendship, you should create that possibility. If you remain negative, and meantime want more smiles and friendship from your neighbors, that's illogical. If you want a more friendly neighbor, you must create the atmosphere. They they will respond." His Holiness the Dalai Lama (from an interview in the November issue of the Shambala Sun)

"The one thing to be attained is essentially void and compassionate. Let me explain. The realisation of voidness is the absolute spirit of enlightenment; it is seeing that all things are unborn. Compassion is the relative spirit of enlightenment; it is reaching out in love to all beings who have yet to realise that they are unborn. Those who follow the Mahayana path should develop these two forms of the spirit of enlightenment." Drom Tonpa "The supreme goal of the teachings is the emptiness whose nature is compassion." Atisha "Know emptiness, be compassionate." Milarepa Samadhi Raja Sutra Know all things to be like this: A mirage, a cloud castle, A dream, an apparition, Without essence, but with qualities that can be seen. Know all things to be like this: As the moon in a bright sky In some clear lake reflected, Though to that lake the moon has never moved. Know all things to be like this: As an echo that derives From music, sounds, and weeping, Yet in that echo is no melody. Know all things to be like this: As a magician makes illusions Of horses, oxen, carts and other things, Nothing is as it appears. The Buddha

Wisdom and knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Is wisdom more valuable than knowledge or vice versa? q2. How does... One learns about a specific subject and grows wiser about what one learns. ....Material objects which aren't alive are put in motion by an external force.

Subject: Wisdom and knowledge What is wisdom and what is knowledge? In order to understand what those are, a distinction must be drawn between the two. q1. Is wisdom more valuable than knowledge or vice versa?

q2. How does wisdom differ from knowledge?

One learns about a specific subject and grows wiser about what one learns. But we don't call a cook that is learned in a subject of making food a wise cook. I understand that we can call a man wise generally and not by the virtue of mastery of a specific art one is experienced in. I will answer my own questions as detailed as possible: q1: Is wisdom more valuable than knowledge or vice versa?

Knowledge is valuable when the subject of that knowledge is applicable in a certain situation which requires that knowledge. A specialist narrows down the knowledge of his subject to the point that he knows many aspects of his very limited subject. So in the end it could be said that he knows everything about nothing.

Wisdom, among other things, is a virtue which enables the one who posses it to live life in harmony with oneself and others, which is the same as being beneficial to oneself and beneficial to others. It is also the knowledge of life. Which is, to narrow it down, the understanding of human condition. A wise man knows himself and through that understanding knows others(or knows by which principles human behavior is governed).

So to answer my own question: I am convinced that understanding of oneself(wisdom) is more important than understanding of external subject(knowledge).

q2:How does wisdom differ from knowledge?

Knowledge is directed towards a specific, concrete phenomena or entity. Wisdom is, on the other hand, directed towards a universal underlying principle which governs specific entities and phenomena which requires abstraction from specifics.

Or, to put it shortly, one who has knowledge understands specific thing, entity or phenomena, while one who has wisdom understands an abstract principle by which specific things, entities and phenomena are governed. And it really makes sense to me, since philosophy is "Love of Wisdom" we all in one way or another are gaining understanding of general principles in order to comprehend things from outside world objectively and adequately.

What I want to ask, to put it in a nutshell, is do you agree with these premises and if not can you explain why and, preferably, answer these two questions in an accessible manner(that being q1 and q2)? Or give your own explanation of what is knowledge and, whats more important to me, what is wisdom? Overman88 Nietzchean

Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 16, 2012 Location: CA

Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 17 #2 - Permalink

Posted 03/21/12 - 9:42 AM:

Great post!

I agree with your points!

I find that both are important, it is hard to say one is more important than the other. I, however, find that Self wisdom is extremely important, along with the knowledge of the Eternal. One must understand the Eternal Self, the Will, then one will ultimately find out that the Eternal is everywhere and is living within them. Thus,the knowledge of the Eternal leads to the realization of the self. They go hand in hand. The knowledge of self-understanding and realization will lead to great wisdom.

Sorry, I cannot think of something too constructive to say for your second question, for you said it all. I agree completely, that is actually what I have been thinking for some time.

The best example I can think of is, the comparison between the philosopher and the mathematician. Both are intelligent, however, will different fields. The philosopher is wise, for he can uses abstract knowledge, and intuition. Whilst, the mathematician uses concert quantum data.

Edited by Overman88 on 03/21/12 - 10:00 AM Banno Tiff's bit of wruff.

Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Aug 16, 2004 Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 338 Total Posts: 18545 #3 - Permalink

Posted 03/21/12 - 9:59 AM:

Meh. Not impressed. Take this line: ...one who has knowledge understands specific thing, entity or phenomena, while one who has wisdom understands an abstract principle by which specific things, entities and phenomena are governed.

So one who throws a single stone has knowledge, but one who can describe the process is wise? Or one who knows how to throw a

ball has knowledge, but one who understands Newton's law of universal gravitation is wise?

Seems to me that while knowledge tells you what you can do, wisdom tells you what you ought do.

And I know far too many foolish philosophers to agree with Overman88's ( ) conclusion.

Edited by Banno on 03/21/12 - 10:14 AM The Great Whatever Ecclesiastes 2:26

Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 01, 2011

Total Topics: 32 Total Posts: 2504

#4 - Permalink Posted 03/21/12 - 10:09 AM:

I've always associated knowledge with the accumulation of information within an accepted framework and wisdom as the ability to change the framework itself, or adopt an appropriate one to begin with.

Overman's distinction seems to hearken back to Aristotle's division between nous (what he is calling wisdom) and episteme (what he is calling knowledge)but Aristotle thought that the philosopher needed both (sophia)... Overman88 Nietzchean

Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 16, 2012 Location: CA

Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 17 #5 - Permalink

Posted 03/21/12 - 10:24 AM:

The Great Whatever wrote: I've always associated knowledge with the accumulation of information within an accepted framework and wisdom as the ability to

change the framework itself, or adopt an appropriate one to begin with.

Overman's distinction seems to hearken back to Aristotle's division between nous (what he is calling wisdom) and episteme (what he is calling knowledge)but Aristotle thought that the philosopher needed both (sophia)...

Yes, we do need both. Like I said for self-understanding, knowledge and wisdom go hand in hand. Also, like I posted earlier, its hard to determine which is more important. It really depends on the individual.

Thatwhichis Resident

Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 11, 2011

Total Topics: 16

Total Posts: 392

#6 - Permalink

Posted 03/21/12 - 9:50 PM:

Overman88 wrote: Great post!

I agree with your points!

I appreciate your feedback Overman.

Overman88 wrote: I, however, find that Self wisdom is extremely important, along with the knowledge of the Eternal.

Yes. Wisdom includes knowledge of the self. And eternal knowledge as well because if wisdom is to be complete it has to be universal(eternal, which is relevant anytime and anywhere). I do agree that wisdom is universal and eternal as opposed to something changing depending on circumstances from situation to situation. In fact wisdom is applicable in any situation, because it is relevant anywhere and anytime. Wisdom is all encompassing and not limited by the specific subject.

Banno wrote:

So one who throws a single stone has knowledge, but one who can describe the process is wise?

Well if a thrower is an athlete and the one who can describe how the stone is thrown properly (describe the process) is a trainer than a trainer is more learned in a subject of throwing than an athlete hence trainer is "wise in throwing" and the question you posed is self-explanatory.

Banno wrote: Seems to me that while knowledge tells you what you can do, wisdom tells you what you ought do.

That seems to be one of the possible definitions. Because a wise man doesn't need anyone to tell him what he ought to do, for his wisdom "tells" him what to do.

The Great Whatever wrote: I've always associated knowledge with the accumulation of information within an accepted framework and wisdom as the ability to change the framework itself, or adopt an appropriate one to begin with.

Yes, because if accumulated information within a framework and the framework itself are fundamentally different than framework embraces all information within it. Hence understanding of the framework(wisdom) captures the underlying principle which binds all knowledge accumulated within the framework. Which, as I see it, also requires abstraction from specific accumulated knowledge.

I will demonstrate an example(perhaps a limited one) of that abstraction I am talking about: Humans are species of animals. All animals are alive. All living things are material objects. No material object is inert or stationary. Material objects which aren't alive are put in motion by an external force. Consequently, all living things are material objects which are put in motion by an internal force.

The Great Whatever wrote: Overman's distinction seems to hearken back to Aristotle's division between nous (what he is calling wisdom) and episteme (what he is calling knowledge)but Aristotle thought that the philosopher needed both (sophia)...

But "sophia" means wisdom. And if "sophia" combines "nous" (what he calls wisdom) and "episteme" (what he calls knowledge) than I see it as "Wisdom (sophia) combines knowledge(episteme) and wisdom(nous)". Which is the same as "Wisdom combines knowledge and itself(wisdom)". Could you explain please because I didn't understood your meaning.

Overman88 wrote: Also, like I posted earlier, its hard to determine which is more important. It really depends on the individual.

But wouldn't knowledge of universal principles(wisdom) be of use(important) to any individual? The Great Whatever Ecclesiastes 2:26

Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 01, 2011

Total Topics: 32 Total Posts: 2504

#7 - Permalink Posted 03/21/12 - 10:20 PM:

But "sophia" means wisdom. And if "sophia" combines "nous" (what he calls wisdom) and "episteme" (what he calls knowledge) than I see it as "Wisdom (sophia) combines knowledge(episteme) and wisdom(nous)". Which is the same as "Wisdom combines knowledge and itself(wisdom)". Could you explain please because I didn't understood your meaning.

Sure. By "he" I meant Overman, not Aristotle. Nous is something like "mind," which is the intuitive grasp of first principles - similar to what overman was calling "wisdom." Episteme is knowledge or science, the ability to draw correct conclusions from principles something like what overman called knowledge. Sophia like you said is closer to "wisdom," which combines both (having correct first principles and then using them to reach proper conclusions).

So Aristotle's conception of the philosopher's wisdom involves both of the qualities overman mentioned. Overman88 Nietzchean

Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 16, 2012 Location: CA

Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 17 #8 - Permalink

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/21/12 - 11:45 PM:

But wouldn't knowledge of universal principles(wisdom) be of use(important) to any individual?[/quote]

Indeed, of course it is! I am sure you know, however, those people who can care less of knowledge; how just think of the pleasure of their senses. Therefore, knowledge of universal principles is not on their list of priorities.

The heights of great wisdom will reached by few and avoided by many.

Sapientia Allured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jan 12, 2010 Location: England

Total Topics: 150 Total Posts: 7806 #9 - Permalink 2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 03/22/12 - 12:14 AM:

Banno wrote: Seems to me that while knowledge tells you what you can do, wisdom tells you what you ought do.

Knowledge "tells" one more than what one can do; and knowing what one ought to do, doesn't necessarily, in itself, make one wise. Knowing what one ought to do, and doing what one ought to do, on the other hand, seems closer to the mark. On 03/22/12 - 9:35 AM, Banno responded: Fair enough.

On 03/22/12 - 9:58 AM, Dragon_Lance responded: Absolutely. Fiammetta Apotropaically Abstruse

Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Apr 21, 2006 Location: Northern Illinois

Total Topics: 13 Total Posts: 192 #10 - Permalink

Posted 03/22/12 - 12:27 AM:

I have always felt that knowledge is the knowing of things, and wisdom is the ability to see how those things can relate to one another in the best way. One can know quite a lot about any given subject, but widsom is the way to find and then see how it is interconnected and the effects that the connected parts move each other.

Both can be extremely beneficial, and one can be knowledgable on a subject and not wise. But one rarely can be wise about a subject without knowledge. While one must also possess an open mind and a tempered ego to gain wisdom, any man can gain knowledge. Knowledge is easy, knowing how to apply it correctly is wisdom.

Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes; "Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." ~Bertrand Russell Wisdom versus knowledge
[The sage must distinguish between knowledge and Wisdom. ... Similarly, there should be one cause of the multiple objects of the world, ... the Higher Knowledgerefers to the actual realisation of the subject matter taught in the Sruti (Vedas).

Wisdom Versus Knowledge The Mundaka Upanishad [The sage must distinguish between knowledge and Wisdom. Knowledge is of things, acts and relations. But Wisdom is of Brahman (Supreme Reality) alone; and beyond all things, acts, and relations, He abides forever. To become one with Him is the only Wisdom. - Swami Prabhavananda]. From The Mundaka Upanishad Translations and explanations by Swami Nikhilananda Sri Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York Saunaka, the great householder, approached Angirasa in the proper manner and said: Revered Sir, What is that by the knowing of which all this becomes known? (I.i.3) Angirasa answered to Saunaka: To him he said: Two kinds of knowledge must be known that is what the knowers of Brahman tell us. They are the Higher Knowledge and the lower knowledge. -Mundaka Upanishad (I.i.4) [Note: The Hindu philosophers observed that by knowing the nature of clay one knows the nature of everything made of clay, by knowing the nature of iron or gold one knows the nature of everything made of iron or gold. Is there not likewise, they asked, something that is the basic material of the universe, by the knowing of which everything in the universe will be known? Similarly, there should be one cause of the

multiple objects of the world, by the knowing of which its effects could be known. According to Non-dualistic Vedanta an effect has no real existence apart from its cause. Therefore when a man knows the cause, he also should know that the effect has no reality independent of it. Brahman is the ultimate cause of the universe. When one knows Brahman, one also knows that the universe has no reality independent of Brahman. "Higher Knowledge": The Knowledge of the Supreme Self, which is beyond duality. "lower knowledge": The lower knowledge is the knowledge of the phenomenal world. In reality it is ignorance, for it does not lead to the Highest Good. The seer of the Upanishad asks the aspirant to acquire both the knowledge of the relative world and the Knowledge of Ultimate Reality. When by the pursuit of the former he fails to attain true freedom and immortality, he cultivates the latter. The lower knowledge includes the knowledge of righteous actions (dharma) and unrighteous action (adharma) and their results.] The two kinds of knowledge: Of these two, the lower knowledge is the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Atharva-Veda, siksha (phonetics), kalpa (rituals), vyakaranam (grammar), nirukta (etymology), chhandas (metre) and jyotis (astronomy); and the Higher Knowledge is that by which the Imperishable Brahman is attained. -Mundaka Upanishad (I.i.5) [Note: Sri Shankaracharya explains that the Higher Knowledge refers to the actual realisation of the subject matter taught in the Sruti (Vedas). It primarily means the experience of the Imperishable Brahman taught in the Upanishads, and not the mere words contained in them. "Siksha, kalpa." : These six, known as the Vedangas, are ancillary to the Vedas. Without the knowledge of them a proper understanding of the Vedas is impossible. "Is attained": In the case of the Higher Truth, attainment and knowledge are identical. This attainment is the same as the destruction of

ignorance. The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.] ________________ Top <To top of this page Index Alphabetical [Index to Pages] Education for human excellence Education as training of the mind and not stuffing of the brain -Swami Ranganathananda (Belur Math) The first aim and function of all education should be to bring enlightenment to the students. Stuffing the student`s mind with facts and formulae is not education, because it does not bring enlightenment nor confer energy. Training of the mind, and not stuffing of the brain, is what we need. Thus alone will the student be able to acquire a luminous mind and increased energy of personality. This is what our ancient Upanisads proclaim as the objective of education.This is conveyed to us in one of the famous verses known as Shanti Paath or `Peace chant' occuring in the Katha and some other Upanisads. Sir Julian Huxley, the British biologist, wrote to Swami Ranganathananda: "Swami, you have given a splendid definition of what education ought to be, and sometimes is. But my visits to India showed me that the aim of a large number of Indian undergraduates was not to enjoy an education of this sort, but to pass examinations and obtain a degree, which is useful in getting jobs." Educational significance of the Shanti Paath of the Upanishads The 'Peace chant' reads: Om, Sahanavavatu; sah nau bhunaktu; saha viryam karavavahai; Tejaswinavadhitamastu; ma vidvisavahai. Om shantih, shantih, shantih. `Om. May Brahman (the one divine Self in all) protect us both (student and teacher); may Brahman nourish us both; may we both acquire

energy (by this education); may we not hate each other. Om. Peace, Peace, Peace.' This peace invocation contains many beautiful sentiments which have inspired Indian education-secular and religious-for a few thousand years. Teacher and student engaged in the pursuit of knowledge and excellence of character is education The invocation expresses the idea of education as the achievement of knowledge and excellence of character in the context of a harmonious relationship between teacher and student. The giving and receiving of knowledge, leading to the making of man, depends on the stimulus of such teacher-student relationship. The teacher gives and the student receives, not only ideas and information, but inspiration as well. In all the true education, teacher and student are not mere individuals, but personalities. Education, according to the Indian sages, is the lighting of one lamp from another lamp. 'May we acquire energy' says the verse. Every step in education helps man to reach out to newer and newer energy resources within him. All energy is within man, says Vedanta. But they lie in deeper and deeper layers. 'Atmana vindate viryam'- `By the knowledge of the Atman, man gets infinite energy,' says the Kena Upanisad. Education helps man to secure access to the greater and greater energy resources within him. An uneducated rustic youth, timid and helpless, changes, through a few years in school, into a youth with a measure of fearlessness and self-confidence. His education continued further, helps that youth to develop a sense of his own individual identity. It is this Rising to the status of the individuality from the state of the preindividual mass man that gives man the capacity to take independent decisions, the courage to stand by them and take the consequences, and the ability to deal with the world, and his position in it, as a mature human being. This psychic maturity is one of the important criteria of education; and it comes only from an education that trains the mind and not merely stuff the brain The mental immaturity of a large number of people world-wide is a big problem. It is here that the failure of many education systems is writ

large. It does not impart that psychological maturity to many.Swami Vivekananda referred to all such as Moustached Babies! They are physically very mature, but mentally they are like babiesdependent, weak, demanding, and bereft of the sense of personal dignity and responsibility. . They have not developed that human energy resource that can identify human problems and rise above them themselves and take their society also with them. Behind these immature traits in all such people lies the lack of that luminosity or enlightenment which the Upanisads present as the second fruit of true education as mentioned in the peace chant.:Tejasvinau Adhitam Astu `may we be enlightened by this study, by this education'. This is the significance of knowledge being compared to light. The logo or the emblem of our society depicts books plus Jnana-Dipa, the light of knowledge. The Upanisads describe the Atman, the Self, asJnana-svarup or Chit-svarup, of the very nature of knowledge, of the very nature of consciousness. All awakening to knowledge, to consciousness, is, therefore, the manifestation of the Atman, in varying degrees. This spiritual growth into personality is what twentieth-century biology calls the psycho-social evolution of man. It is man rising above organic evolution, to the spiritual and cultural levels. This is what Swami Vivekananda calls Man-Making Education. ________________ Top <To top of this page Index Alphabetical [Index to Pages] From Chhandogya Upanishad Translations and comments by Swami Nikhilananda Sri Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York Narada approached Sanatkumara (as a pupil) and said: Venerable Sir, please teach me. Sanatkumara said to him: Please tell me what you already know. Then I shall tell you what is beyond.

Narada said: Venerable Sir, I know the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Atharva-Veda as the fourth, the epics (Puranas) and ancient lore (Itihasa or history) as the fifth, the Veda of the Vedas (i.e. grammar), the rules of the sacrifices by which the Manes are gratified, the science of numbers, the science of portents, the science of time, logic, ethics, etymology, Brahma0vidya (i.e. the science of pronunciation, ceremonials, prosody, etc.), the science of elemental spirits, the science of weapons, astronomy, the science of serpents, and the fine arts. All this I know, venerable Sir. But, venerable Sir, with all these I know words only; I do not know the Self. I have heard from men like you that he who knows the Self overcomes sorrow. I am one afflicted with sorrow. Do you, venerable Sir, help me to cross over to the other side of sorrow. Sanatkumara said: Whatever you have read is only a name. Verily, a name is the Rig-Veda; (so also) are the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Atharva-Veda as the fourth (Veda), the epics and the ancient lore as the fifth, the Veda of the Vedas (i.e. grammar), the rules of the sacrifices by which the manes are gratified, the science of numbers, the science of portents, the science of time, logic, ethics, etymology, Brahma-vidya, the science of elemental spirits, the science of weapons, astronomy, the science of serpents, and the fine arts. Meditate on the name. He who meditates on a name as Brahman can, of his own free will, reach as far as the name reaches- he who meditates on a name as Brahman. Narada said: Venerable Sir, is there anything greater than a name? Sanatkumara said: Of course there is something greater than a name. Narada said: Please tell that to me, venerable Sir. Speech as Brahman Sanatkumar said: Speech is, verily, greater than a name. Speech makes one understand the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Atharva-Veda as the fourth, the epicsthe science of serpents, and the fine arts, as well as heaven, earth, air, space, water, fire, gods, men, cattle, birds, herbs, trees, animals, together with worms, flies and ants

as also righteousness and unrighteousness, the true and the false, the good and the bad, the pleasant and the unpleasant. Verily, if there were no speech, neither righteousness nor unrighteousness would be known, neither the true nor the false, neither the pleasant nor the unpleasant. Speech, verily, makes us know all these. Meditate upon speech. He who meditates on speech as Brahman can, of his own free will, reach as far as speech reaches- he who meditates on speech as Brahman. Narada said: Venerable Sir, is there anything greater than speech? Mind as Brahman Sanatkumara said: Of course there is something greater than speech. Mind is verily greater than speech. Just as the closed fist holds two amalakas, or two plums, or two aksha fruits, so does the mind hold speech and a name. For when a man thinks in his mind that he would read the sacred hymns, then he reads them. When he thinks in his mind that he would perform actions, then he performs them. When he thinks in his mind that he would have sons and cattle, then he desires them. When he thinks in his mind that he would have this world and the other, then he desires them. Mind, indeed, is the Self; mind is the world; mind is Brahman. Meditate on the mind. He who meditates on mind as Brahman can, of his own free will, reach as far as mind reaches- he who meditates on Brahman. Will as Brahman Will (samkalpa) is verily, greater than mind. For when a man wills, then he thinks in his mind, then he utters speech, and then he employs speech in (the recital of) a name. The sacred hymns are included in a name, and all sacrifices are included in the sacred hymns. Will, indeed, is the goal of all these (beginning with mind and ending in sacrifice); from will they arise and in will they all abide. Heaven and earth willed, air and space willed, water and fire willed. Through the will (of heaven and earth etc.) the rain wills; through the will of the rain, food wills; through the will of food, the pranas will; through the will of the

pranas, the sacred hymns will; through the will of the sacred hymns, the sacrifices will; through the will of the sacrifices, the world wills; through the will of the world, everything wills. Such is will. Meditate on will. He who meditates on will as Brahman can, of his own free will, reach as far as will reaches- he who meditates on will as Brahman. Consideration as Brahman Consideration (chitta) is, verily, greater than will. For when a man considers, then he wills, then he thinks in his mind, then he utters speech, then he engages speech in (the recitation of) a name. The sacred hymns are included in a name, and all sacrifices are included in the sacred hymns. Consideration is, indeed, the goal of all these (beginning with mind and ending in sacrifice); from consideration they arise and in consideration they all abide. Therefore if a person is without consideration, even though he possesses much knowledge, people say of him that he is nothing, and whatever he knows (is useless); for if he were really learned, he would not be so inconsiderate. But if a person is considerate, though he knows but little, to him people are eager to listen. Consideration, indeed, is the goal of all these; consideration is the Self; consideration is the support. Meditate on consideration. He who meditates on consideration as Brahman, He, being permanent, firm, and undistressed, obtains the worlds which are permanent, firm and undistressed; he can, of his own free will, reach as far as consideration reaches- he who meditates on consideration as Brahman. Meditation as Brahman Meditation (Dhyana) is, verily, greater than consideration. Earth meditates, as it were. The mid-region meditates as it were. Heaven meditates, as it were. The waters meditate, as it were. The mountains meditate, as it were. The gods meditate, as it were. Men meditate, as it were. Therefore he who, among men, attains greatness here on earth seems to have obtained a share of meditation. Thus while small people are quarrelsome, abusive, and slandering, great men appear to have obtained a share of meditation. Meditate on meditation.

He who meditates on meditation as Brahman, can, of his own free will, reach as far as meditation reaches- he who meditates on meditation as Brahman. Understanding as Brahman Understanding is, verily, greater than meditation. Understanding makes one understand the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Atharva-Veda as the fourth, the epicsand the fine arts; heaven, earth, air, space, water, fire, gods, men, cattle, birds, herbs, trees; animals, together with worms, flies and ants; and also righteousness and unrighteousness, the true and the false, the good and the bad, the pleasant and the unpleasant, food and taste, this world and yonder (world). Meditate on understanding. He who meditates on understanding as Brahman attains the worlds of understanding and knowledge and can, of his own free will, reach as far as understanding reaches- he who meditates on understanding as Brahman. Strength as Brahman [Note: Strength: the power of the mind produced from food.] Strength is, verily, greater than understanding. One strong man causes a hundred men of understanding to tremble. When a man is strong he can rise. If he rises he can attend (on the teachers). If he attends on them he can become their intimate companion (as a pupil). If he is their intimate companion he can watch (their conduct), listen to their instructions, reflect on what he hears, become convinced of what he reflects on, act, and enjoy the result of action. By strength the earth stands firm, by strength the mid-region, heaven, mountains, the gods and men, cattle and birds, herbs and trees and animals, together with worms, flies and ants, by strength the world stands firm. Meditate upon strength. He who meditates on strength as Brahman can, of his own free will, reach as far as strength reaches- he who meditates on strength as Brahman. Food as Brahman

Food is, verily, greater than strength. Therefore, if a man abstains from food for ten days (or longer periods), even though he might live, yet he would not be able to see, hear, reflect, become convinced, act or enjoy the result. But when he obtains food, he is able to see, hear, reflect, become convinced, act, and enjoy the result. He who meditates on food as Brahman obtains the world rich in food and drink; he can, of his own free will, reach as far as food reaches- he who meditates on food as Brahman. Water as Brahman Water is, verily, greater than food. Therefore if there is not sufficient rain, then living creatures are afflicted with the thought that there will be less food. But if there is sufficient rain, then living creatures rejoice in the thought that there will be much food. It is water that assumes the form of this earth, this mid-region, this heaven, these mountains, these gods and men, cattle and birds, herbs and trees, and animals, together with worms, flies and ants. Water indeed is all these forms. Meditate on water. He who meditates on water as Brahman obtains all his desires and becomes satisfied; he can, of his own free will, reach as far as water reaches- he who meditates on water as Brahman. Fire as Brahman Fire is, verily, greater than water. For, having seized the air, it warms the space9Akasa). Then people say: It is hot, it burns; it will rain, Thus does fire first manifest itself and then create water. Furthermore, thunderclaps roll with lightning upward and across the sky. Then people say: there is lightning, there is thunder; it will rain. Here also does fire first manifest itself and then create water. Meditate on fire. He who meditates on fire as Brahman becomes radiant himself and obtains radiant worlds, full of light and free from darkness; he can of his own free will, reach as far as fire reaches- he who meditates on fire as Brahman. Akasa (space) as Brahman

The akasa (space) is, verily, greater than fire. For in the akasa exist both the sun and the moon, lightning, stars, and fire. It is through the akasa that a person calls another; it is through the akasa that that the others hears; it is through the akasa that the person hears back. In the akasa we rejoice (when we are together), and in the akasa we rejoice not (when we are separated). In the akasa everything is born, and toward the akasa all things grow. Meditate upon the akasa. He who meditates on the akasa as Brahman obtains the worlds extending far and wide, luminous, free from pain, and spacious; he can, of his own free will, reach as far as the akasa reaches- he who meditates on the akasa as Brahman. Memory as Brahman Memory is,verily, greater than the akasa. Therefore, even when many people assemble, if they had no memory they would not hear anyone at all, they would not think, they would not understand. But surely, if they had memory, they would hear, think, and understand. Through memory, one knows ones sons, through memory ones cattle. Meditate on memory. He who meditates on memory as Brahman can, of his own free will, reach as far as memory reaches- he who meditates on memory as Brahman. Hope as Brahman Hope is, verily, greater than memory. Kindled by hope, (a person endowed with ) memory reads the sacred hymns, performs sacrifices, desires sons and cattle, desires this world and the other. Meditate on hope. He who meditates on hope as Brahman- all his desires are fulfilled through hope, his prayers are not in vain; he can, of his own free will, reach as far as hope reaches- he who meditates on hope as Brahman. Prana (vital force) as Brahman The prana is, verily greater than hope. As the spokes of a wheel are fastened to the nave, so are all these (beginning with the name and ending with hope) fastened to the prana. The prana moves by the

prana. The prana gives prana to the prana. The prana is the father, the prana is the mother, the prana is the brother, the prana is the sister, the prana is the teacher, the prana is the brahmin (priest). [Note: The prana is the self of all, and includes action, the agent, and the result of action. It manifests itself in three principal forms: the body of Hiranyagarbha, the external air, and the principal vital breath in a living creature. The self (atman) dwells in the body with the support of the prana. When the prana departs from the body, the Self, too, gives it up. The Self, of which the prana forms an upadhi (limiting adjunct), and the consciousness which is behind the body of Hiranyagarbha are both non-different from the Supreme Self. All entities- beginning with names and ending in hope- are fastened to the prana. Of these, the name is the effect and speech the cause; speech is the effect and mind the cause. The cause is greater than the effect. All these entities, bound by the chain of hope, are fastened to the all-pervading prana, which is greater than hope.] If one says something unbecoming to a father, mother, brother, sister, teacher, or brahmin (priest), then people say: Shame on you! Verily, you are a slayer of your father, a slayer of your mother, a slayer of your brother, a slayer of your sister, a slayer of your teacher, a slayer of a brahmin. But if, when the prana has departed from them, one shoves them together with a poker and burns every bit of them, no one would say: You are slayer of your father, a slayer of your mother, a slayer of your brother, a slayer of your sister, a slayer of your teacher, a slayer of a brahmin. The prana, verily, is all these. He (i.e. the knower of the prana) who sees this, reflects on this, is convinced of this, becomes an ativadi (superior speaker). If people say to such a man: You are an ativadi, he may say: Yes, I am an ativadi; he need not deny it. [Note: The word ativadi means, literally, superior speaker. It refers to a person who knows not only all the entities that should be known- that is to say, from names to hope- but also the prana, or conscious Self, which is beyond them.] The knowledge of the Truth

But in reality he is an ativadi who has become an ativadi by the knowledge of the True. Narada said: May I, venerable Sir, become an ativadi by the knowledge of the True? Sanatkumara said: But one should desire to know the True. Narada said: Venerable Sir, I desire to know theTrue. [Note: True means that which transcends all phenomena and is infinite.] Truth depends upon Understanding Sanatkumara said: When one understands the True, only then does one declare the True. One who does not understand the true does not declare It. Only one who understands It declares the True. One must desire to understand this understanding. Narada said: Venerable Sir, I desire to understand. Understanding depends upon reflection Sanatkumara said: When one reflects, only then does one understand. One who does not reflect does not understand. Only one who reflects understands. One must desire to understand this reflection. Narada said: Venerable Sir, I desire to understand reflection. [Note: Reflection includes reasoning about the object on which one reflects.] Reflection depends upon Faith Sanatkumara said: When one has faith, only then does one reflect. One who does not have faith does not reflect. Only one who has faith reflects. One must desire to understand faith. Narada said: Venerable Sir, I desire to understand faith. Faith depends upon single-mindedness Sanatkumara said: When one is single-minded (in ones devotion to the teacher), only then does one have faith. One who does not have single-

mindedness does not have faith. Only one who has single-mindedness has faith. One must desire to understand single-mindedness. Narada said: Venerable Sir, I desire to understand single-mindedness. Single-mindedness depends upon concentration Sanatkumara said: when one performs ones duties (i.e. practises concentration), only then does one have single-mindedness. One who does not perform his duties does not have single-mindedness. Only one who performs his duties has single-mindedness. One must desire to understand the performance of duties. Narada said: Venerable Sir, I desire to understand the performance of duties. Concentration depends upon bliss Sanatkumara said: When one obtains bliss, only then does one perform ones duties. One who does not obtain bliss does not perform his duties. Only one who obtains bliss performs his duties. One must desire to understand bliss. Narada said; Venerable Sir, I desire to understand bliss. The Infinite is bliss Sanatkumara said: The Infinite is bliss. There is no bliss in anything finite. Only the Infinite is bliss. One must desire to understand the Infinite. Narada said: Venerable Sir, I desire to understand the Infinite. The Infinite and the finite Sanatkumara said: Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else- that is the Infinite. Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something elsethat is the Infinite. The Infinite is immortal, the finite (is) mortal. Narada said: Venerable Sir, in what does the Infinite find Its support? Sanatkumara said: In Its own greatness- or not even in greatness.

[Note: Where one sees There exists no seer or organ of seeing other than the non-dual Infinite, or Brahman. All empirical differentiations are absent in the experience of the Infinite. Immortal means changeless. In Its own If one wishes to know the support of the Infinite, then it may be said to rest in its own greatness. But the fact is that the Infinite is without support; It is non-dual.] [It is said that the Infinite rests on Its own greatness. How then can It be without a support?] Sanatkumara said: Here on earth people describe cows and horses, elephants and gold, slaves and wives, fields and houses, as greatness. I do not mean this, for in such cases one thing finds its support in another. But what I say is: Instruction about the Infinite That Infinite, indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north The Infinite, indeed, is all this. Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to I: I, indeed, am below. I am above. I am behind. I am before. I am to the south. I am to the north. I am. indeed, all this. [Note: That Infinite Now is explained why the Infinite does not rest upon anything. It is because there is nothing apart from the Infinite on which It could rest. The Infinite Itself is everything. Therefore It does not rest upon anything. Next follows.. The purpose of the text is to show the oneness of the Infinite and the Jiva (individual soul). [To the ignorant the word I signifies the body. But here it signifies the Atman, or Self.] Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to the Self: The Self, indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Self, indeed, is all this. Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this, and understands this delights in the Self, sports with the self, rejoices in the self, revels in the Self.

(Even while living in the body) he becomes a self-ruler. He wields unlimited freedom in all the worlds. But those who think differently from this have others for their rulers; they live in perishable worlds. They have no freedom in all the worlds. [Note: He who sees this: That is to say, who knows the Self to be unborn, all-pervading, and free. Delights in the Self: All his love is centred in the Self alone. Rejoices in the Self: The pleasure which ordinary people derive from the company of others is enjoyed by the wise from the Knowledge of the Self. Revels in the Self: He does not derive any joy from the objects of the senses. He self-ruler: His freedom is unlimited. Perishable worlds: Worlds of diversity.] Self-knowledge For Him who sees this, reflects on this, and understands this, the prana springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory springs from the self, the akasa (space) springs from the Self, fire springs from the Self, water springs from the Self, appearance and disappearance spring from the Self, food springs from the Self, strength springs from the Self, understanding springs from the Self, meditation springs from the Self, consideration springs from the Self, will springs from the Self, mind springs from the Self, speech springs from the Self, the name springs from the Self, the sacred hymns spring from the Self, the sacrifices spring from the Self- ay, all this springs from the Self. [Note; All this: All things perceived to exist.] [Prior to obtaining the Knowledge of the true Self, one believes that all entities, from the name to the prana, spring from and disappear into something other than the Self. But when one has realised the Self, one knows that all things appear from and disappear into the Self alone.] On this there is the following verse: "The knower of Truth does not see death or disease or sorrow. The knower of Truth sees everything and obtains everything everywhere. He (the knower) is one (before the creation), becomes three, becomes five, becomes seven, becomes nine; then again he is called eleven, one hundred and ten, and one thousand and twenty.

[Now is described the discipline for inner purification by which SelfKnowledge is attained]: When food is pure, the mind becomes pure. When the mind is pure the memory becomes firm. When the memory is firm all ties are loosened. The venerable Sanatkumara showed Narada, after his blemishes had been wiped out, the other side of darkness. They call Sanatkumara Skanda, yea, Skanda they call him. [Note: The knower of Truth: That is to say, he who sees all things in the Self. Becomes three: That is to say, fire, water and earth. Becomes seven etc: The various numbers are intended to show the endless variety of forms the Self assumes after the creation. Again, at the time of dissolution, the self returns to Its pristine unity. Food: The Sanskrit word dhara in the text means anything that is taken in (ahriyate) by the senses, that is to say, sounds, sights, smells, etc. Mindpure: Free from aversion, attachment, or delusion. Memory: That is to say, the memory that He is the Infinite Self. All ties etc: Ties created by ignorance, which have accumulated through numerous births and which reside in the heart. Darkness; Ignorance. Venerable Sanatkumara: He who knows the origin, the end, the birth and death (of all beings), and also ignorance and Knowledge- such a one is called venerable (bhagavan). (As explained by Sri Sankaracharya). Skanda: The dictionary meaning of this word is "wise man"] Divine light and human wisdom: Transcendental elements in ...
Thus, given the premise that there is such certain knowledge, it follows that, if it can't be justified through the object or the subject, either alone or together, there ... Divine light and human wisdom: Transcendental elements in Bonaventures illumination theory, International Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 48, no. 2, June 2008, 175-185 Divine Light and Human Wisdom: Transcendental Elements in Bonaventures Illumination Theory John R White, Franciscan University of Steubenville 1. Introduction

The title of this paper reflects my growing sense that structural elements of Bonaventures illumination theory significantly parallel Kantian and post-Kantian transcendental philosophy. Such a claim might seem an exercise in pure anachronism and the nature of the parallel can only be clarified in the process of the paper. By way of introduction, however, I suggest that transcendental philosophies exemplify patterns of thought also to be found in pre-Kantian philosophies such as Bonaventures Kants claims to a radical break from tradition notwithstanding. Thus, the question of whether and what elements of transcendental thought might be found in Bonaventures philosophy may be instructive both as a tool for understanding medieval influences on later transcendental philosophy and for provoking the important philosophical question of why substantially similar premises and thought-patterns result in substantially different solutions. I will begin my analysis by defining what I mean by transcendental philosophy and how I justify that definition. I will then turn to Bonaventures illumination theory, highlighting thought patterns that is to say premises and procedures parallel to transcendental philosophy, which emerge in Bonaventures epistemology. Finally, I will conclude by discussing how Bonaventures and Kants differing conclusions help us to understand the variations in medieval and modern solutions to what is sometimes termed the

transcendental problem. I should stress that the value of an analysis of this kind consists not so much in comparing theories as in comparing the thought patterns embedded in the theories. In other words, the interest here arises not so much from theoretical similarity, e.g., between Bonaventure and Kant, but from the fact that the thought processes by which our authors deal with the relevant problems are similar in spite of significant differences in theoretical assumptions and conclusions. It is therefore primarily at the level of pattern and procedure rather than theory that I shall be developing my points here.

2. Transcendental philosophy Defining the nature of a philosophical tradition and its specific way of thinking poses a significant challenge. One provisional way of doing so is to examine its historical genesis, focusing in particular on philosophically significant experiences which seem to motivate the new philosophy and describing the original way of thinking produced by these experiences. Now the commonly accepted birth of transcendental philosophy is in Kants Critique of Pure Reason, a work so significant that even its generally a-historically-minded author felt with many of his colleagues that he had initiated a new historical era in philosophy.i To understand why Kant and others felt this way, we need to understand the philosophically significant events and

experiences of Kant (and others) which engendered this new way of thinking and the sense of its producing a new era in philosophy.ii I would suggest that a central motivation for Kant was the problem of whether the intentionalist analysis of cognition was sufficiently capable of grounding what the tradition calls metaphysics. By intentionalist analysis I designate the idea that knowledge is analyzable into two terms usually termed the subject (i.e., the human knower) and the object (i.e., what is known) plus the cognitive relation between the terms. As a rule, late scholastic thinkers tended to take this analysis of cognition for granted and consider it unproblematic: indeed, this analysis seems to have functioned as a kind of conceptual primitive for late scholastic thinkers, in need of no further analysis.iii But what appeared unproblematic in the Scholastic period becomes problematic in early Modern philosophy. There are perhaps many factors which contribute to this new-found suspicion of intentionalist analysis, but two are important for our purposes. First of all, to many it appeared that the intentionalist analysis was inadequate for metaphysics, given the limits of sensuous knowledge. For if we assume that cognition begins in the senses, sensuous knowledge must be robust enough to include the basis of metaphysical thinking. But the senses, it began to be thought, can only yield physical properties of entities and are therefore inadequate for

meta-physical knowledge, i.e., the knowledge of a being which transcends its physical properties. As is evident enough, this criticism may itself be a function of other problems. For example, what a Modern philosopher might interpret as a purely physical property, a Medieval thinker might look at as expressive of and thereby indicative of the metaphysical nature of an underlying substance. Also, there may be other analytical issues at stake here, such as the assumption that the sensuous basis of cognition is really only a mediating efficient cause for the intellectual act of cognition, rather than the earlier Medieval view that cognition is a function of a set of ordered causes in which senses and intellect co-operate in sensuous cognition a point to which we shall return in a moment. For our purposes what is important is that the perceived limits of sensuous knowledge seem to early Modern philosophers to preclude intentional cognition as a sufficient basis for metaphysical knowledge. Here Hume perhaps more than others crystallizes this trend of thought.iv A second factor motivating suspicion of intentionalist analysis and one more difficult to articulate is that the characterization of the senses in the Modern period undergoes something of a paradigm shift. For Aristotle, sight is the paradigmatic case of sensuous experience and therefore, when he analyzes the senses in general, he derives many of his general theses from the specific analysis of sight. This is so important for Aristotle, in fact, that central philosophical concepts such

as his notion of nous as well as form are connected with this paradigm.v As the Modern period reaches its zenith in the 18th century, sight is no longer the basic paradigm for analysis of the senses; the paradigm case has shifted to touch. This is evident in language shifts, such as the talk of sensuous experience in terms of sensation. Unlike sight, where sensations are usually indications of a malfunctioning of the sense, as when one goes from a dark room out into the sunlight, in touch sensations typically accompany the sense experience. It is therefore plausible to assume sensations to be the actual data of sensuous cognition when touch is the paradigm, whereas sensations are far less likely to be interpreted this way if sight is the paradigm. Now if it is already suspected that the senses are unable to ground metaphysical knowledge, the interpretation of the senses in terms of the paradigm of touch will be the final nail in the coffin. For whereas sight is experienced as giving its object without causing mediating or accompanying sensations, touch is always and straightforwardly causally related to the body with accompanying sensations. This new paradigm renders sensuous experience both passive and the effect of a causal relationship. Passive, because the senses are seen as mere receptors of sensations, rather than as cooperating principles with the intellect; causal, because sensations are indeed effects whose causes are determinable. But if it is causal, there appears no necessary reason to assume either that the mind contacts

an object in itself, as Kant would put it, or that sensation as a mediating cause communicates anything of the being which causes it, since there are no grounds to assume that the effect resembles the cause in any material way.

This admittedly sweeping analysis of early Modern philosophy, I suggest, helps set the framework for Kants Critique of Pure Reason. In the face of the trend of thought just analyzed, Kant appears something of a philosophical conservative, because he seeks to retain at least some of the functions of metaphysics in spite of it. Rather than reject the possibility of metaphysics because of the problems associated with intentional cognition, Kant draws the very different conclusion that intentional cognition requires something extrinsic to it to explain why it works. Kant posits, therefore, a third term, i.e., a term outside the logic of subject and object to resolve the problems of intentional cognition. Kant and his tradition call this third term different things in different phases of its thought, but I will just choose one which fits my project and call it transcendental consciousness. Transcendental consciousness can be described variously in Kant but we can say that it at least consists in the idea that some nonintentional function of the mind both informs the concepts through which we think about the experienced world and projects corresponding, formative structures into the objects of cognition

insofar as they are experienced. On this account, then, Kant can argue that though sense experience intentionally conceived could never yield the kind of principles which are necessary for philosophical (and other a priori kinds of) knowledge, the obscure but real activity of transcendental consciousness can justify such intentional knowledge. For the same activity which lends necessity, universality and certainty to our thinking also projects necessity, universality and the basis of certainty into our experiencing.vi We therefore have a genuine cognition, at least to the extent that cognition amounts to a knowledge correlating to experienced contents, but it is also a cognition which transcends the limits of sensuous experience and its purely causal system. Intentionality, which had seemed problematic, is no longer so, Kant thinks, because transcendental consciousness, the third term, confers upon the terms of the intentional relationship what they do not have of themselves. My purpose here is not to evaluate the merits or demerits of the Kantian solution to this issue. My point is to draw out what I take to be the thought pattern which emerges in this admittedly schematic analysis of Kants transcendental problem, a pattern which appears with variations in other philosophers as well. I would formulate the thought pattern in four steps: 1. a given thinker believes that the intentional analysis of cognition is inadequate for justifying ultimate kinds of

inquiry, e.g., metaphysics, religion, philosophical knowledge etc.; 2. this thinker infers that the problem in question, however, is not the inquiry as such, but the assumption that intentionalist analysis is sufficient to ground such inquiry; 3. in answer to these doubts, the thinker then posits a third term extrinsic to the intentional situation, in terms of which these forms of inquiry can be justified; 4. that third term is characteristically seen to be either itself a subject of ultimate inquiry or at least the condition of the possibility of such inquiry. If this more or less defines the pattern we are after, we can say that much of the post-Kantian philosophical tradition, especially of the Continental European variety, continues in this same pattern, though both the nature of this third term and what counts as ultimate inquiry will vary. Indeed, the precise nature of the third term is often the most important and defining feature for the philosophy in question. Thus for German idealists, like J. G. Fichte, the third term is the transcendental ego or, in G. W. F. Hegels case, the Idea or (World) Spirit, in either case a third term realizing itself in intentional human consciousness; for Karl Marx, the third term is the economic system which explains why capitalists and laborers perceive the world in different value terms: i.e., the economic system determines the

differing intentional experience of value. For Edmund Husserl, in at least one stage of his career, the third term is pure consciousness; for Max Scheler the third term is personal love which illuminates the world through the values loved; for Martin Heidegger, it is the Being of beings or at least its interpretation; for transcendental Thomists like Karl Rahner, it is the horizon of Being; for the early Maurice MerleauPonty, it is the body; for various hermeneutic, deconstructionist and many analytic kinds of thinking, the third term is language; and for Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, approached philosophically, we can say the third term may be the psyche or the unconscious. These cases are, of course, not only quite different from each other but, qua theories, often incompatible with each other. The commonality here is not to be found so much in the theoretical assumptions and conclusions but in the thought pattern which I suggest defines transcendental ways of thinking. In each case the intentional analysis of cognition is not taken as primitive and unproblematic, as late Scholasticism interpreted it, but as derived and problematic. The solution to how intentional cognition transcends its intrinsic limits, for transcendental thinkers, is to posit a third term, a term which sufficiently conditions the thinking and experiencing of the knower in intentional experience that an intentional basis for philosophy (or other anthropologically-based thinking such as psychoanalysis) can be justified in terms of it.

3. Bonaventures illumination theory Now if we accept these steps as defining the pattern of transcendental philosophy, it is evident that this style of thinking actually precedes Kant. We might just as well, e.g., interpret Parmenides articulation of Being or Platos development of the Ideas along similar lines. Whether this suggests that transcendental philosophies are more traditional than Kant thought or rather that we require some taxonomic categories to differentiate modern types of transcendental philosophies from pre-modern is not essential to my point. What is important is that we highlight the thought pattern in question in order to show that Bonaventures illumination theory exemplifies the same pattern. The Fourth Question of the Disputed Questions on the Knowledge of Christ (DQKC) illustrates this transcendental pattern particularly well. The DQKC is a scholastic disputation in Christology, focusing on the nature of the knowledge of Christ, the God-man. Its opening three questions discuss the nature of divine knowledge, the second three questions human knowledge, and the final question knowledge in the God-man. Question four asks Whether that which is known by us with certitude is known in the eternal reasons themselves?vii Bonaventure poses the issue in terms of natural or

philosophical knowledge, not in terms of mystical knowledge, the latter being a quite different kind of illumination. Bonaventure begins the respondeo of this question by articulating two positions that he considers extremes between which his own position will be a mean.viii The first position resembles what was called ontologism in the 19th century, the idea that knowledge is exclusively a function of the relation of the mind to the divine light, a kind of cognitive participation of human knowledge in the divine wisdom. Among Bonaventures reasons for rejecting this is that it violates his assumption that cognition includes both intellectual and bodily dimensions.ix The other extreme position is a familiar one: it is one attributed to Albert and Aquinas.x According to this theory, as Bonaventure understands it, the influence of the divine light on our cognition is only indirect, i.e., it influences only through the essences of things which become objects of knowledge, insofar as these latter are created according to and in the light of the divine principle. Bonaventure rejects this second position too, but at first for a nonepistemic reason: Bonaventure thinks that this position does not do justice to the nobility of philosophical knowledge or to the dignity of the human knower.xi For the influence attributed to the divine in this circumstance, Bonaventure suggests, is no different from, say, that wealth or fertility of the soil are gifts of God: there is nothing distinctly human about the manner of divine giving if we interpret philosophical

knowledge in this way. Thus Bonaventures objection at this point is more axiological than epistemic, based on the idea that it would follow that Gods relation to human beings as knowers is in no way superior to his relation to human beings or any other being in non-cognitive situations. Bonaventures own theory lies between these two positions. On his teaching, certain knowledge is a function of two different relationships: one relationship is, like the Albert-Aquinas position, an intentional relationship to the object known. The second relationship is not really intentional, but in some measure is like the ontologistic position, in that it amounts to a cognitive participation in the divine light, i.e., in the divine Idea. In other words, Bonaventures own position rejects what he takes to be the weaknesses of each of the two theories but includes elements of both. Certain knowledge is a function of both intentional and participatory relationships, rightly understood.xii

After this introduction, Bonaventure turns to the properly epistemic arguments in favor of this two-fold cognitive relationship.xiii Bonaventure takes it as given that human knowers possess a knowledge charged with certainty, namely, philosophical knowledge. But such cognition, Bonaventure thinks, cannot be explained either through the nature of the object nor the nature of the subject. And if

neither of the terms can explain it, the intentional relationship between them cannot explain it either. For the object to explain certain knowledge sufficiently, Bonaventure maintains, it would have to be immutable. Though Bonaventure says little more than this about the issue, his suggestion is that any kind of mutability on the part of the object can in principle render a knowledge-claim about it false, since the object in question could alter or be altered. Thus, to use a more modern example, one might think that one understands the nature of a cat, only to find out that cats have evolved into something quite different from what one thought one knew. Since a knowledge-claim charged with certainty cannot be verified by the object known because of its mutability, this object cannot be the basis of certain cognition.xiv I should note here that Bonaventures use of immutability seems closely equivalent to Kants notion of necessity, at least when the latter is attributed to an experienced object rather than to judgments. Similarly, the knowing subject cannot be the ground of certainty. This is so for several reasons, all of which boil down to the fact that human knowers are as mutable as their objects. Neither the human soul nor its contents such as knowledge are free of mutability. Lack of immutability means a lack of infallibility, since infallible cognition would at least require that the meaning and structure of human knowledge could not change, even in principle.xv It follows from this,

Bonaventure maintains, that neither the object nor the subject is sufficiently free from mutability and its consequences to found certain knowledge. Thus, given the premise that there is such certain knowledge, it follows that, if it cant be justified through the object or the subject, either alone or together, there must be some other factor which explains the justification of certain knowledge. Permit me here to underline parallels between Bonaventures and Kants style of argument outlined above. Bonaventure, like Kant, thinks that philosophical cognition requires both (1) a knowledge characterized by certainty and (2) has reference to immutability, a factor which I suggest is equivalent to Kants notion of necessity. Both also think that when philosophical cognition is analyzed in intentionalist terms, such knowledge appears unjustified. And in both cases, the object known and the structure of the knowing subject seem to pose the limits that make the intentionalist analysis inadequate for philosophical purposes. Finally, both turn to a third term to explain the validity of this intentionalist cognition. For Kant, the third term is transcendental consciousness; for Bonaventure, it is illumination.

Now there are manifold senses of illumination in Bonaventure. The kind of illumination Bonaventure speaks of in this passage is a specifically natural illumination, in that it is not predicated on faith or grace or on a specific act of God. There are, of course, kinds of

illumination which would fit that latter description, but they are of another, mystical order.xvi Indeed, it would be more proper to describe philosophical illumination in Bonaventure as a consequence of the purification of the mind whereby one sees a light which is always already there, in the world.xvii Understanding this kind of illumination requires thinking carefully about the illumination symbol. For example, visual perception is a kind of intentional experience, but one which supposes a third term which conditions its success, namely, light. No matter how clear and evident a potential object of visual perception might be in itself and no matter how perfectly ones eyes are functioning, light and the relative quality of the light will affect the perception, though it is not itself intrinsic to the perception. Light therefore conditions the perception and also, in some measure, mediates the success of the perception. Moreover, insofar as any visual perception is occurring, it is because light is conditioning it. Further, we need not reflect on light in order to have the visual perception indeed, typically, we do not reflect on the light at all, except when we are lacking sufficient light to see. Successful illumination, therefore, tends to breed ignorance or denial of the light, because in perceptual experience we are, by definition, focusing on an object, not on the conditions of the perception of the object. Furthermore, it should be noted, that weakness of the organ of vision refers first and foremost to the manner in which light can enter it.

Hence failed perception need not be because of the lack of light, but could also be because of the lack of a flourishing visual organ. All of these elements of the visual situation are transformed into the language symbol illumination; Bonaventure thereby extends these elements of the symbol to intellectual understanding and cognition. Thus, whatever this intellectual light refers to, it is something which conditions philosophical cognition and illuminates that cognition; however, analogous to natural light, it is not typically experienced in an intentionalist mode. But though we do not generally relate to this light intentionally, it nonetheless conditions our intentional knowledge, rendering the latter in some measure justified. One should hear the echoes of Johns Gospel here: it is the light that enlightens all human beings and not just Christians.xviii And though that light is always present, it is easy to overlook it, because we are focusing on the object of our cognition, not on its conditions. To understand illumination, therefore, we cannot use intentionalist language, as if the light were the object in an intentional situation. It is rather, as I suggested above, a conditioning cognitive participation in divine light, which in turn renders possible the intentional understanding of objects: it acts as a third term. This point perhaps elucidates why Bonaventure uses axiological arguments against the Albert-Aquinas teaching. Bonaventure stakes human dignity on the idea that human beings, made in the image of

God, in some manner participate in the divine light. If we assume only an indirect illumination, as Bonaventure interprets the Albert-Aquinas teaching, we lose a source of human dignity.xix Philosophical knowledge is not just any old knowledge, on Bonaventures account, but an expression of the peculiar dignity possessed only by human beings because they are in the image of God. This dignity is in fact so high that, for Bonaventure, it in some measure consists in participatory cooperation with the divine.xx How does this cognitive participation render philosophical cognition possible? It does so by giving the archetypal source of both the being of the object and the subjects knowledge. For Bonaventure, the divine Ideas are not self-standing entities, along the lines of typical interpretations of Plato, but are themselves the divine Logos, though looked at from a human standpoint.xxi The Ideas are not autonomous, independent or separate but appear as such through the limited perspective of the human mind; in fact, however, they are the Logos itself. But because all things are created both by the divine and also through the divine, the creator creates according to the Ideas as exemplary ways through which finite being partakes of the perfection of the divine Logos. In other words, it is because the Ideas are perfect exemplars of things because they are actually the Logos itself they also illuminate the imperfect imitations of the Logos. The key issue, then, is not only that the Logos is the principle of all being and knowing

but that specifically its perfection renders both the subject and the object capable of knowing and being known with certainty. I conclude from this analysis that Bonaventure, like Kant, thinks that there must be some third term which explains the relative value and validity of the intentional cognition in the case of philosophical knowledge. But a great difference arises with respect to their conclusions. At least in the Critique of Pure Reason, the third term is transcendental consciousness, which informs both sides of the subjectobject relationship by conferring the predicates of necessity, universality and certainty on them appropriately. In contrast, Bonaventure considers the third term not transcendental consciousness but cognitive participation in the divine light, i.e., in the divine Logos. This participation influences the human knower by giving an immutable and perfectly intelligible principle of the object, in the light of which the being and the knowing of the mutable and imperfectly intelligible object can be rendered certain. Though the premises and the thought patterns are closely parallel, the conclusions and the metaphysical principles of Bonaventure and Kant seem to differ substantially.

4. Conclusion This comparison of Bonaventure and Kant has paved the way for future discussions about the choices, appropriateness, and assumptions of

philosophical method from one historical epoch to another. It has also at least disclosed the following points of substantive philosophical importance. First, the similarity of premises and thought pattern but difference in conclusion highlights quite different assumptions in Bonaventure and Kant a point not to be marveled at, to be sure. But what those assumptions consist in remains obscure until we recognize the issues to be bound up with the dual problematics of the critique of intentional experience in both Bonaventure and Kant and, second, a correct understanding of Bonaventures illumination theory. Regarding the critique of intentional experience, what Bonaventure and Kant agree on is that philosophical cognition and rationality is not explicable purely in terms of intentionality, but requires some power on the part of the knower to partake of an order of being and knowing outside the logic of intentionality, which does not admit of intentional objectification. What is explicit in Bonaventure but remains problematic in Kant is whether and how this transcendental order is ultimately linked to the divine. For Bonaventure, cognitive participation in the divine seems the only option for resolving the limits of intentional experience with regard to philosophical knowledge. And one could read Kants claim that understanding and sensibility may spring from the same though unknown rootxxii and the later developments of the Opus postumum positing a transcendental ego as

linking the transcendental to the divine. One could surely read German Idealisms gloss on Kant as tending in this direction. But whether and how the divine informs the transcendental third term for Kant remains obscure and, in any case, does not seem to him necessary to justify synthetic a priori cognitions. Thus the divine can remain hidden behind the limits of sensuous experience even while the transcendental third term is informing intentional cognition. On the other hand, correctly interpreting Bonaventures illumination theory is also essential. Once we see illumination theory as positing a cognitive participation in the divine Logos, the sharp differences of theory between Bonaventure and Kant appear. For Bonaventure, axiological factors can be epistemic in nature: divine perfection, and the philosophers cognition in its light, results in understanding the ultimate meaning of the being, a meaning discovered in the light of the Logos. Kant is perhaps groping for something like this when he says that a priori knowledge attains far more excellent, and in their purpose far more lofty [knowledge], than all that the understanding can learn in the field of appearances,xxiii a distinctly axiological way of describing a priori knowledge. But the obscurity of transcendental consciousness and limits in Kants axiological notions certainly make it impossible for him to parallel Bonaventures construal of wisdom as partaking cognitively more or less directly in the divine goodness and perfection.

Indeed, the ultimate difference between Bonaventures and Kants transcendental philosophies, if I may be so bold as to call them both such, may consist precisely in this relationship to the divine Good. The third term of Bonaventures analysis is the human spirits participation in the divine being, goodness and light, whereas the most Kant can grant concerning the divine is that it acts as an endpoint of moral reasoning. For Bonaventure, all arguments for Gods existence, as he puts it in the Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, are really exercises of the intellect rather than proofs that provide evidence and make the truth manifest as proven,xxiv because the divine is always already present to the human cognitive subject and therefore always the epistemic condition of the rationality that makes such proofs possible. The divine presence to speculative reason, which Kant must exclude based on the analysis of the first Critique, is in fact the source of philosophical knowledge for Bonaventure: human wisdom, for Bonaventure, is always conditioned by cognitive participation in the divine light.

Traditional Wisdom and Modern Knowledge / rdhamma1.htm

What we have first to understand is that the knowledge or wisdomtalked of ... Rational knowledge is derived from the experience we have of objects and events in .... According to the Buddha, everything is subject to change Traditional Wisdom and Modern Knowledge / rdhamma1.htm What we have first to understand is that the knowledge or wisdomtalked of ... Rational knowledge is derived from the experience

we have of objects and events in .... According to the Buddha, everything is subject to change. Traditional wisdom and modern knowledge have profound and subtle distinctions. Before studying the parallels between them , we have to deal with the question of how we can make any effective comparison with our limited language and expressions. Traditional wisdom is based mainly on spiritual disciplines and meditation and insists on the fact that the insight cannot be communicated verbally. Here what we need to study are the statements made by modern scientists and ancient sages about their knowledge of the world. What we have first to understand is that the knowledge or wisdom talked of by ancient Upanishadic sages, Chinese thinkers and Buddhist monks from Nalanda University and the forest caves is not the same thing as the knowledge referred to by scientists from modern universities. It has generally been accepted that human mind is capable of two kinds of knowledge, or two types of consciousness, which have often been termed the rational and the intuitive, and have traditionally been associated with science and religion respectively. In the West the intuitive and religious type of knowledge is often devalued in favour of rational, scientific knowledge, whereas the traditional Eastern attitude is in general just the opposite. Two great thinkers about knowledge, from the West and the East, typify the two attitudes. The first, Socrates, the Greek philosopher, made the famous statement "I know

that I know nothing", and secondly the Chinese thinker Lao Tzu said Not knowing that one knows is best". The Upanishads speak about a higher and a lower knowledge and the lower knowledge is associated with various sciences and the higher knowledge with religious awareness. Buddhists talk about "relative and absolute knowledge" or about "conventional truth and transcendental truth ". Chinese thinkers always emphasized the complementary nature of the rational and intuitive knowledge of Yin andYang which formed the basis of Chinese thought. Thus two complementary philosophical traditions- Taoism and Confucianism - have developed in Ancient China to deal with the two kinds of knowledge. Rational knowledge is derived from the experience we have of objects and events in our everyday environment. It belongs to the realm of the intellect whose function it is to discriminate, divide, compare, measure and categorise. In this way, a world of intellectual distinction is created of opposites which can only exist in relation to each other, which is why Buddhists call this type of knowledge relative or conventional. The realm of rational knowledge is the realm of science which measures and quantifies, classifies and analyses. According to Buddhist thought the knowledge which comes direct from experience is called "absolute knowledge" or "wisdom",because it does not rely on the discriminations, abstractions and classifications of the intellect which as we have experienced are always relative and approximate. The

Buddhist teaching is of the direct experience of undifferentiated, undivided, indeterminate "suchness" (Tathata). Complete apprehension of' this suchness is not only the core of Eastern thought but is the central characteristic of all mystical experience. The traditional Eastern thinkers repeatedly insist on the fact that ultimate reality can never be an object of reasoning or of demonstrable knowledge. It cannot be described by words because it lies beyond the realm of the senses and of the intellect from which our words and concepts are derived. The ancient Kena Upanishadstated: There the eve goes not, Speech goes not, nor the mind. We know not, we understand not. How one would teach it. The Chinese thinker Lao Tzu called this reality "the Tao" and said "he who speaks of the Tao does not know; he who knows does not speak". He also said that the Tao expressible in words is not the eternal Tao; a name that can be spoken is not that of eternal Tao. The truth cannot be described in positive language, as the Buddha told us in negative words: "There is, monks, an unborn, a not-become, a not-made, a notcompounded...etc." and the Buddha said: "That which is selfless, hard it is to see, Not easy is it to perceive the truth. But who has ended craving utterly Has naught to cling to, he alone can see".

The main aim of the traditional Eastern wisdom is the direct experience of reality, and since this experience is naturally religious, it is inseparable from religion. Each religious tradition of the East has a unique teaching according to its own practices and experiences. Hinduism is one of the great and ancient religions of the East. The connection between philosophy and religion is particularly strong in Hinduism. It has influenced India's intellectual, social and cultural life for many centuries. Hinduism cannot be called a philosophy, nor is it a well defined religion. It is indeed a large and complexsocio-religious organism consisting of innumerable sects, cults and philosophical systems and involving various rituals, ceremonies and spiritual disciplines, as well as the worship of countless gods and goddesses. The spiritual source of Hinduism is based on the Vedas, a collection of ancient scriptures. The Vedas have remained the highest religious authority for most sections of Hinduism. Any philosophical system which does not accept the authority of Vedas is considered to be unorthodox. Subsequent parts or the last part of the Veda called Upanishads elaborates their philosophical and practical contents. The Upanishads contains the essence of Hinduism's spiritual message. They have been recognised by India's great minds for the last twentyfive centuries. Taking as a bow the great weapon of the Upanishad, One should put upon it an arrow sharpened by meditation.

Stretching it with a thought directed in the essence of that. Penetrate that Imperishable as the mark, my friend." Mundaka Upanishad People in India have received the teaching of Hinduism not through the Upanishads, but through a large number of popular tales collected in huge epics which represent the vast and colourful Indian Mythology. One of them is the Mahabharata which contains a favourite religious text, the Bhagavad Gita. in which the dramatic setting of the battlefield is beautifully revealed. It is the spiritual battle of human nature in search of enlightenment. Krishna, the Lord advises Arjuna: "Kill, therefore, with the Sword of Wisdom the doubt born of ignorance that lies in thy heart. Be one in self-harmony in Yoga. and arise, great warrior, arise". Hinduism teaches that the multitude of things and events around us are but different manifestations of the same ultimate reality, called Brahman. Brahman, the ultimate reality is understood as the soul or inner essence of all things. It is infinite and beyond all concepts; it cannot be comprehended by intellect nor can it be adequately described in words. Brahman is beginningless, supreme, beyond what is and beyond what is not. This supreme soul is unlimited, unborn, not to be reasoned about, unthinkable. The various aspects of devine gods and goddesses are worshiped by the Hindus. However the scriptures

make it clear that all these gods and goddesses are reflections of the one ultimate reality, Brahman. The Brihadaranya Upanishad said: "This that people say, worship this god! worship that god! one after another- this is his (Brahman's) creation indeed! and he himself is all the gods". The manifestation of Brahman as a human soul is called Atman. Thus, Atman, the individual soul and Brahman, ultimate reality are one. The meditation and spiritual practices are directed towards the development of a highest wisdom through which one can identify oneself as Brahman. This experience is called "Moksha" or "liberation", it is the very essence of Hinduism. Buddhism has, as Hinduism in India, been the dominant spiritual tradition for many centuries in most parts of Asia. Buddhist principles, culture, artistic life and philosophy strongly influenced India culture and thought as well as that of most parts of Asia. Unlike Hinduism, Buddhism goes back to a single founder, Gotama,the Buddha, who lived in India in the middle of the 6th century B.C. At that time there were many spiritual and philosophical teachers propounding their doctrines including Confucius and Lao Tzu in China, Zarathustra in Persia, and Pythagoras and Heraclitus in Greece. The Buddha was not interested in satisfying human curiosity concerning the origin of the world. He was concerned exclusively with human situation, human suffering. His doctrine therefore was not

originally one of metaphysics but one of psychotherapy. At the very beginning the Buddha pointed out the origin of human frustrations and suffering, and showed the way to overcome them. According to the Buddha, everything is subject to change. If one understand the nature of change through one's own experience then one will understand the frustration and suffering of life. This kind of understanding is called "insight" or "Wisdom". Whatever suffering we experience in our life is because of our own craving. If one understand with direct experience that everything is impermanent, suffering (dukkha) and absence of eternal soul, one will be free from craving and ignorance. When the Buddha gave his first sermon at Isipatana deer park, he announced that the universe (life) is founded on suffering and established on suffering. Yes, the suffering of life no-one can deny or ignore, but we have to accept it and investigate what it really means. Buddhism, therefore, begins with the investigation of the nature of life. The Buddha instructed' us to eradicate the cause of suffering and develop and practice the Eightfold Noble Path, the Middle Way, so that we can experience and realize the ultimate reality, Nibbana. He did not develop his doctrine into a consistent philosophical system but regarded it as a means to achieve enlightenment. He did not want the people to become involved in philosophical speculations but he wanted us to be free from human suffering, and to develop the highest wisdom. The Buddha spoke of transcendental wisdom or enlightened

consciousness, by which one can experience the ultimate truth of Nibbana which is uncompounded, unborn reality, beyond all kinds of concepts and reasoning. A few centuries after the passing away of the Buddha, Buddhism became divided into various schools, mainly into the Mahayana and Theravadin schools. Because of this, Buddhism offers its adherents a great variety of methods and teachings and philosophies. Great thinkers and philosophers appeared in India and developed the philosophy of absolute reality, using highly sophisticated dialectical methods. These philosophers demolished the metaphysical propositions of time and of ultimate reality. It cannot be grasped with concepts and ideas. This reality they named Sunnata "the void" or "emptiness" and Tathata "suchness". The views of Mahayana Buddhism presented so far reflect its intellectual, speculative side. This is however, only one part of Buddhism. Complementary to it is the religious consciousness which involves faith, love and compassion. True enlightened wisdom is seen in Mahayana Tradition as being composed of two elements. They are Prajna which is transcendental wisdom and karuna, compassion. Accordingly the essential nature of all things is described in Buddhism not just by the abstract metaphysical terms, "Suchness" and "Void" but also by the term Dhammakaya, the body of being, which describes reality as it appears to the Buddhist religious consciousness. The

Dhammakaya is similar to the Brahman in Hinduism. It pervades all material things in the universe and it is also reflected in the human mind as Bodhi, enlightened wisdom. It is spiritual and material at the same time. Thus, the Buddhist sages proclaim that the ultimate reality only can be experienced through transcendental wisdom not through the wisdom that we commonly use and understand. Chinese culture and philosophy reached its early culmination around 500B.C. At that time the two side of Chinese philosophy developed into two distinct philosophical schools, Confucianism and Taoism. Confucianisim was the philosophy of social organization and practical knowledge; it provided Chinese society with a system of education and with strict conventions of social etiquette. Taoism, on the other hand, was concerned primarily with the observation of nature, and the discovery of its way, or Tao. Human happiness according to the Taoist is achieved when one follows the natural order and trusts one's intuitive knowledge. Buddhism arrived in China during the first century C.E.. Within a few centuries Chinese society had accepted Buddhism, and subsequently Chinese thought and philosophical systems developed and became more profound. The Chinese mind combined Confucian scholarship with a deep understanding of Buddhism and Taoism and incorporated elements from all three traditions and their phylosophical systems. Thus, Chinese thinkers developed and taught

transcendent wisdom through which one can experience the ultimate nature of the universe. In conclusion, modern knowledge is generally acquired through the process of scientific research which can be seen to proceed in three stages. The first stage consists of gathering expremental evidence about the phenomena to be explained, in the second stage the experimental facts are correlated with mathematical systems, and in the third stage a model is formulated in ordinary language which interprets the mathematical systems. This means that modern knowledge is based on objects, reasonings, classifications and definitions but traditional wisdom arises through direct experience. On the other hand traditional wisdom is based on spiritual discipline. It is universally recognized that Buddhism can claim to be the most ethical of religio - philosophical systems of the world. It is said Buddhsim is ethical idealism. The Upanishad thinkers had also discovered and formulated the main principals of moral behaviour in conformity with their respective view of life. Early Hinduism had established a rigit and static morality by ritual and by its insistance on the universality of the ritual act. Hence the actual morality inculcated did not go beyond what was practically necessary in the conduct and successful performance of the sacrifice. Thus evolved a conception of dharma (dhamma) originally meaning "ritualistic duty", and its ethical correlates, such as sraddha, the faith needed in bestowing gifts (dakshina) and alms

(dana) to the priesthood who were mediators between man and his gods. The Upanishadic ethics started with compromises with ritualism, and an attempt was progressively made to conceive a higher kind of morality. The Buddha also taught sila, moral conduct, samadhi, concentration and panna, wisdom. Sila, moral conduct, is the foundation of concentration and wisdom, without which wisdom cannot be developed. The Eastern traditional wisdom is based on morality and spiritual discipline. May all beings be well and happy

On Knowledge Without Wisdom

Suitably enough, he chose ontology to be the principal subject matter of Metaphysics.... or ceased to exist; what makes something concrete or abstract, real or ideal, ... of the autonomous self, its separateness from the world, and a subject-object ... the role of philosophy is to bridge the gap between knowledge and wisdom.

On Knowledge Without Wisdom - shunya

The Greeks understood philosophy as the love of wisdom. They valued theoretical knowledge to the extent it contributed to practical wisdom. Inside Platos Academy was a grove of olive trees dedicated to Athena, the goddess of wisdom. But philosophy today, at least as pursued by much of the Anglo-American academy, is markedly different. For the most part, its concerns have shrunk to sub-disciplines in epistemology, paving the way for the acquisition of theoretical knowledge as an end in itself. The pursuit of wisdom seems to have left the academy and alighted on the stormy shores of self-help aisles. The First Philosophy Aristotle described his major work, Metaphysics (not his term for it but of a later editor), as first philosophy and called it a study of being qua being or the first causes of things. In it Aristotle sought to explore the issues that were most fundamental and most general, and which framed all other investigations. Suitably enough, he chose ontology to be the principal subject matter

of Metaphysics. Ontology is the study of the nature of being, existence, and reality. It explores the most fundamental of questions: what does it mean to be and to exist; what standards do we use to distinguish what is from what is not; what properties identify a thing; how do we decide whether a thing has merely changed or ceased to exist; what makes something concrete or abstract, real or ideal, independent or dependent; what interrelationships, boundaries, and classifications do we assign to things; do numbers exist; what is the relation between language and reality; and so on.

How we answer such questions shapes, and is shaped by, the basic concepts through which we conceive our world, concepts like force, energy, motion, nature, impermanence, truth, language, space, time, history, god, mind, evil, suffering, possibility, reason, spirit, etc. These ontological concepts arise from a combination of our senses, imagination, and our being in the world, and they influence what we make of the world, as well as how we investigate it. The Greeks, Gnostics, Aztecs, Confucians, and the Hindus all differed in their ontological assumptions. Not all concepts were shared by them or were given the same interpretations. For instance, many (but not all) ancient Hindus saw reality as a ceaselessly unfolding divine play (lila), with its countless veils of illusion (maya) that duped us into seeing reality in dualistic terms: mind/body, self/other, good/evil, etc. Time was cyclical, not linear. The natural world was not something apart from usit was inseparable from us. Many Hindus saw their moods and passions reflected in the phenomenal world, which came to bear on the deepest concerns of human life, woven as it was into an intricate web of life. This view of reality was perhaps not the most congenial for scientific inquiry (but it was for practical reason and reflection). Science has flourished where at least a strong sense of the autonomous self, its separateness from the world, and a subject-object schema of analysis have taken hold. Similar examples can be drawn from other traditions. In Aristotles day natural philosophers and their modern successors, natural scientists, have also investigated our world. It is worth noting that the basic structures, boundaries, and subject matter of what a scientific field studies also fall out of ontologythat is, scientific domains require prescientific ontological concepts (such as energy, force, motion, space, time, etc.) to conduct their investigations, and which allow investigators to both anchor that domain and extract objective facts from itthese concepts are not so much the result of objective facts as their precondition. This is why science is said to have metaphysical foundations, and perhaps why Aristotle called metaphysics the first philosophy.

Many problems once seen as metaphysical by some traditions are now under the purview of science (in cosmology, for instance) but while the boundary between science

and metaphysics remains in flux, a lot of metaphysical problems still remain inaccessible to science and include some of the thorniest problems to have confronted humanswhy is there something rather than nothing; can we perceive matter as it really is; do we have free will; can natural phenomenon always be reduced to a sum of its parts; what is the relationship between the mind and the body; what is the source of consciousness; does the cosmos have a purpose. Apart from metaphysics, many other philosophical questions seem impervious to science: how to live, what to aspire to; how to think about justice, ethics, and beauty; how to cope with that nameless anxiety we often feel in the gut; what ideals to prefer: liberty or order, pleasure or virtue, self or others, observation or action, temporal or spiritual, apathy or care, pessimism or optimism, self-effacement or self-assertion. Philosophy tackles all these and other ought questions, becoming a larger inquiry in light of the sciences and in light of everyday experiences. As in ancient Greece, the role of philosophy is to bridge the gap between knowledge and wisdom. Objective Truths and Science Modern science is often identified with the scientific method, but its less clear what that means. Science has no unique methodology, says Karl Popper, who sees science as one of many human activities concerned with problem solving. What then demarcates science from non-science, such as logic, metaphysics, or psychoanalysis? Like Hume, he rejects inductive verification (e.g., lab testing) as a criterion, replacing it with falsifiabilityi.e., a theory is scientific only if it can be refuted by empirical observationswhile admitting that this too is not sufficient to separate science from non-science (e.g., is String theory falsifiable?). Further, theories are never proven true, only held as provisionally true until falsified. We may prefer theories that have survived the test of time, but only our reasoning, and not a method, provides the grounds for retaining a theory as plausible, such as our estimation of its explanatory force and predictive power. Moreover, saying that a theory is non-science is not necessarily to say that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless. Popper even admits the worth of primitive myths in facilitating our understanding of the nature of reality.

Other philosophers of science besides Popper, such as Michael Polanyi, Hilary Putnam, and Thomas Kuhn, have variously argued that the reality revealed by science depends in part on the scientist, developing further the Kantian distinction between the noumena and the phenomena. The observations of scientists are selective, and their theories are also a function of subjective factorstheir interests, expectations, and wishesas well as of what is objectively real. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote, the proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds.... In one, solutions are compounds, in the other mixtures. One is embedded in a flat, the other in a curved, matrix of space. Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction. Kuhn pointed out the semantic incommensurability of paradigms, taxonomic and lexical, and how the meaning of scientific terms is anchored in a wider web of meaning (meaning holism). Semantic gaps also appear if we consider the practice of science in different societies. For instance, what pictures of the world do Indian scientists bring to the table? In Alternative Sciences (no, it doesnt posit an Indian science), Ashis Nandy studies two major 20th century Indians, JC Bose and Ramanujan, and sheds new light on the role of ontology in shaping how the observer sees the objects of science and math. (A short summary here would not do the study justice.)

To illustrate the central role of the observer, Putnam used a simple analogy: Lets say I see a cop at a street corner and I mention this fact to a friend. Now if an indigenous tribal man with no policemen in his society is brought in, he may only see a man in a blue dress. Both observations are entirely factual but they reveal reality in different ways. A fact is one thing, the picture of the world built upon it using words is quite another, which opens the door to a more nuanced understanding of the phrase objectively true. In short, what science enables is a new existential conception of realityanchored in the facts revealed by science but much else besides. Nietzsche noted that there are no facts-in-themselves, for a sense must always be projected into them before there can be facts. How scientists obtain and describe the facts of science is inevitably shaped by their pre-scientific ontology, paving the way for even more subjective interpretationssuch as the social implications of the facts revealed by sciencewhich helps explain why scientists are no more trustworthy or better representatives of reason in public policy debates than lawyers, politicians, or accountants. Analytic Philosophy and Science

The awesome success of science as a means of knowledge and shaping of our world has led many to approach philosophy too like a branch of natural science. Analytic philosophy arose in 1900s Europe, in Cambridge and developed further by the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle, who vehemently despised metaphysics for its non-empirical, unverifiable content, and saw it as wholly dispensable. They focused on language and logical analysis of propositions, rather than understanding the nature of human experience and existence. They aspired to a science free from metaphysics to propel a purely scientific conception of our world. Decades later, it dawned on some of their successors that, like it or not, all scientific understanding is parasitic upon a prior view of the world, which led them to change course and embrace the study of metaphysics. But despite Quines critique in Two Dogmas of Empiricism, the foundational instincts lived on. Like a congenital tick, Analytic philosophersnow dominating philosophy departments in the Anglophone worldapproached philosophical problems as science did, with no reference to their history or the social context in which they arise: they reduced philosophy to technical thinking. How-to-live questions that did not reduce to empirical investigation were deemed meaningless. Is it surprising that the best known Analytic ethics is utilitarianism? And by looking up to science for intellectual affirmation, they not only shrank their canvas and exposed their lack of self-confidence but, as Putnam noted, also flirted with scientism. Thankfully, in reaction, a post-Analytic philosophy has begun to crawl out of their frog-wells in recent decades, onto a wider field and utilizing new approacheswhich include embracing Continental thinkers like Heideggerand led by folks such as Rorty, Kuhn, Putnam, Rawls, Cavell, Feyerabend, Taylor, and others.

Our scientists, however, could not care less for philosophy and the humanities today, as Bohr, Einstein, and Schrdinger once did. At the Beyond Belief conference in 2007, which I watched in its entirety, Peter Atkins, author of nearly 60 science books, proclaimed the coming reign of science and the impending demise of not only metaphysics but all philosophy: Weve got to get rid of philosophy because it is really such a ball and chain on progress ... a philosopher is really just a nuisance. All why questions were meaningless, he declared, and should be abandoned in favor of how questions. An audience member pointed out that Atkins proclamation was not scientific but philosophical, which only served to irritate him. Curiously enough, the theme of the conference was Enlightenment 2.0. Whats even worse is that Atkins fitted right in with several invited luminaries, and he was invited back in 2008 to deliver the closing lecture. I was reminded of Einsteins observation from 1944: So many people todayand even professional scientistsseem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight isin my opinionthe mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. Given the pivotal role of science in society today, it is an urgent task to humanize our scientists, so they can be more than a new class of mere technicians and knowledge workers, Brahmins 2.0. Many conflate the two, but a scientific temper is not synonymous, and is often at odds, with practical reasonwhile related, the former is concerned more with matters of fact and justified belief, the latter more with estimations of value and good judgment. In my view, our scientist class suffers not from too much rationality, but from too little. Doing the Continental

Im inclined to agree with Simon Critchley that Continental philosophy seems truer to the drama of life, to the stuff of human hopes and fears, and the many little woes and weals to which our flesh is prone. He finds it revealing that its enthusiastic reception in the English-speaking world has largely taken place outside philosophy departments. It may well be that some in the Continental vein employ terms that are obscure or too general, or seemingly flirt with anti-science irrationalism. This is unfortunate, not the least because they also detract from the serious, insightful, and science-friendly work of others in the tradition.

Continental philosophy, to paraphrase Critchley, is best understood as a series of rational critiques, each on our present condition that is seen to contain a crisis, a reevaluation of the ideas that have led us to the crisis, and a new approach that offers emancipation from the deadening wood of the presenta new way of seeing, then, far closer to the

mission of philosophy. Notable examples of such crises include the crisis of faith (Kierkegaard), of bourgeois capitalism (Marx), of nihilism (Nietzsche), of losing touch with being (Heidegger), and of the human sciences (Foucault). A key trend in 20th century Continental philosophy was a return to the primary concern of Aristotles first philosophy: the study of being. Heidegger observed that we have lost touch with being, the very thing that is at the heart of all awareness. We have run into a false and technical conception of being. InBeing and Time, notes Bill Blattner, Heidegger argues that meaningful human activity, language, and the artifacts and paraphernalia of our world not only make sense in terms of their concrete social and cultural contexts, but also are what they are in terms of that context. The subject-object model of experience, in which we see ourselves as distinct from the world and others, does not do justice to our experience, that it forces us to describe our experience in awkward ways, and places the emphasis in our philosophical inquiries on abstract concerns and considerations remote from our everyday livesit is to us we must return, to reflect on our pre-cognitive modes of existing and relating to the world, to uncover the pre-theoretical layer of human experience upon which our theoretical conception of the world rests. This is no simple task and is the chief subject matter of phenomenology.

Phenomenology, besides impacting almost every contemporary academic discipline (lately even analytic philosophy), as well as pop culture through one interpretation of it called existentialism, has also explained why scienceconfronting the immersive, holistic nature of our relation to the world that resists reductionist proddinghas had limited success and keeps running out of descriptive and predictive steam when studying the human mind, morality, psychology, aesthetics, and our social world; why the central hypothesis of cognitive science seems incorrectthat thinking consists of discrete representations in the mind and computations that operate on them; why we should stop talking of the mind as software running on hardware, etc. (See my related article on Artificial Intelligence.) Continental philosophers in the 20th century expounded on history, culture, and society with the aim of awakening a critical consciousness of the present. They have also studied science as the privileged discourse it has become, the social construct of Reason and its limits and dangers, the human factors outside science that influence scientific debates, and the nexus between science and capitalism and how they shape a technological view of us and our society. Such an autonomous realm lies at the heart of all great philosophy and we need a lot more of it today, especially in the Anglophone spheres. I think Aristotle would surely have agreed.

Knowledge, Wisdom, & Insight.

What are the main differences between Knowledge, Wisdom, & Insight? ... something or someone; there's always a subject/object relationship.
Knowledge, Wisdom, & Insight.
What are the main differences between Knowledge, Wisdom, & Insight? And through what process can each one be attained? Thank you. Well, here's my take: Knowledge is information gained by effort, things you learn by reading, practicing, etc. Wisdom is what you learn from experience, the ideas that shape world view and character. Insight is a deep understanding of something or someone; there's always a subject/object relationship.I would say that that wisdom is the cumulative effect of knowledge, insight, and experience. Knowledge can be gained from any number of places and is merely the raw material for insight. Insight is the application of knowledge to life, seeing things that happen in a more revealing light. knowledge is what you learn wisdom is what you learned from all you learned insight is what you know instinctively from what you learned from all you learned Knowledge. Everything you know. Can attain it by simply learning things. Wisdom. The knowledge of what is "right and wrong" and smart and practical and just. Very hard to acquire, you must have a natural inclination, or develops over a long period. Insight. The ability to see the real truth. Also hard to acquire, must have it naturally, although I suppose it is possible to acquire on some degree and over time. Knowledge: Objective knowledge which can be learned either academically or empirically. Insight: Subjective knowledge which is colored by things like empathy. It also has an element of comprehending complex interactions. It implies the filtration of knowledge through a mindset. Wisdom: The real-world application of the above knowledge; and understanding the ripple effects such an application will have on affairs.

Subjectobject problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The subjectobject problem, a longstanding philosophical issue, ... "We consciously experience many different things, and we can think about the things that we ... Isknowledge of the world 'public' and 'objective', and knowledge of

our own ... of a scientific theory could take the form: All events p are determined by other ...

Subjectobject problem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The subjectobject problem, a longstanding philosophical issue, is concerned with the analysis of human experience, and arises from the premise that the world consists of objects (entities) which are perceived or otherwise presumed to exist as entities, by subjects(observers). This division of experience results in questions regarding how subjects relate to objects. An important sub-topic is the question of how our own mind relates to other minds, and how to treat the "radical difference that holds between our access to our own experience and our access to the experience of all other human beings", known as the epistemological problem of other minds.[1] The subjectobject problem has two primary aspects. First is the question of "what" is known. The field of ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. The second standpoint is that of "how" does one know what one knows. The field ofepistemology questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and to what extent it is possible for a given entity to be known. It includes both subjects and objects. Contents [hide] 1 Subjective-objective dichotomy 2 Subjective-objective correlations 3 Complementary descriptions 4 In early philosophy

 5 In 18th and 19th century philosophy 6 In 20th and 21st century philosophy 7 In science o 7.1 In physics o 7.2 In mathematics o 7.3 In clinical trials o 7.4 In psychology 8 Other approaches 9 In Vedas 10 See also 11 References 12 Bibliography 13 External links

[edit]Subjective-objective dichotomy The world "out there" is perceived by the mind, and so also is the interior world of conscious events. The relation between the two is much debated: "We consciously experience many different things, and we can think about the things that we experience. But it is not so easy to experience or think about consciousness itself...Does the world have an observer-independent existence (realism) or does its existence depend in some way on the operation of our own minds (idealism)? Is knowledge of the world public and objective, and knowledge of our own experience private and subjective?"[2] Max Velmans, Understanding Consciousness p. 3

"There is a common philosophical tendency...to conceive of the realm of belief and attitude as clearly distinct from the world of objects and events. This separation is typically presented in terms of a distinction between subjective and objective ..."[3]

J. E. Malpas, Donald Davidson and the Mirror of Meaning: Holism, Truth, Interpretation p. 192 The objective aspects of experience often are considered to lie within the domain of science. Science has practical impact upon technology and our understanding of interconnections. However, there are areas where science so far has had little impact. So there exists a difference in optimism about science, with one view opining that science will gradually extend to everything,[4] and the opposite view opining that won't happen. For example, the statement is found in many books: "...consciousness is a biological process that will eventually be explained in terms of molecular signaling pathways used by interacting populations of nerve cells.."[5] Eric R. Kandel, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind This approach is the foundation of the 'blue brain' project, an effort to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain. On the other hand, a contrary view is that aspects of mind are inherently subjective, and lie outside the reach of a scientific approach based upon objective observation by a detached observer: "Epistemically, the mind is determined by mental states, which are accessible in First-Person Perspective. In contrast, the brain, as characterized by neuronal states, can be accessed in Third-Person Perspective. The Third-Person Perspective focuses on other persons and thus on the neuronal states of others' brain while excluding the own brain. In contrast, the First-Person Perspective could potentially provide epistemic access to own brain...However, the First-Person Perspective provides access only to the own mental states but not to the own brain and its neuronal states." [6]

Georg Northoff , Philosophy of the Brain: The Brain Problem, p. 5 One set of difficulties facing an objective study of subjective phenomena are summed up in the easy problem of consciousness and thehard problem of consciousness: "What we do not understand is the hard problem of consciousness the mystery of how neural activity gives rise to subjective experience. Crick and Koch have argued that once we solve the easy problem of consciousness, the unity of consciousness, we will be able to manipulate those neural systems experimentally to solve the hard problem."[7] Eric Kandel, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind, p. 382 The subjective aspects of science extend beyond the "hard problem", however. The formulation of a scientific theory is a mental process, not simply a matter of observation, although observation is involved. This realization takes the subjective-objective distinction to a more general level than arguments over the prospects of success in bringing certain areas of experience within the grasp of science. For example, a statement of a scientific theory could take the form: All events p are determined by other events P . In order to be consistent with science today, and avoid oversimplification, one has to be very clear about how the events (p, P) are defined. One also has to replace "determined" by something like "logically imply". "a theory is deterministic if, and only if, given its state variables for some initial period, the theory logically determines a unique set of values for those variables for any other period."[8] Ernest Nagel, Alternative descriptions of physical state This quote indicates the need for great care in defining "events" and what is meant by "determined". Their meaning involves detailed descriptions of what constitutes an "event" and how one is said to "determine" another. A Popper-like view emerges with an "event" as some kind of formalized "state" and the relationship "determines" phrased as a "logical implication" of connection between states, all combined as parts of one or another abstract theory.[9] That

formalization puts a lot of emphasis upon mental constructions.[10] From the stance of a Duhem, or a Popper, or a Hawking, the use of an intermediary, elaborate mental construction is a meld of the subjective and objective. It is used to determine connections about objective events, but the form of the theoretical construct is a product of subjective activities, and its particular form may well be more about the brain than anything else. Perhaps some aspects of the universe's operation can be expressed in terms of mental constructs in an analogy with the expression of a computer algorithm in terms of assembly language instructions peculiar to a particular computer, a translation by a compiler of the general statement of an algorithm into specific tiny steps that particular computer can handle.[11] Lest this apparatus be thought of as an entirely formal understanding, some among us actually do have an intuitive grasp of these creative abstractions, perhaps analogous to the fact that some among us hear music in ambient sounds. Quoting Feynman about his creative process: "It is impossible to differentiate the symbols from the thing; but it is very visual. It is hard to believe it, but I see these things not as mathematical expressions but a mixture of a mathematical expression wrapped into and around, in a vague way, around the object. So I see all the time visual things associated with what I am trying to do."[12] Richard P. Feyman, As quoted by Schweber: QED and the men who made it: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga This comment could be paralleled by others about the intuitions of musicians and mathematicians.[13] The point is that the creation of scientific theories is subjective, and the very concepts of determinism are themselves subjective and mutable creations of the human mind. What is in charge here: the intuition conceiving the theory, or the theory that results; or is it an unending back-and-forth spiral from one to the other? "When stated at a general level, the subjective/objective dichotomy is recognized by most social scientists as one of the enduring metatheoretical dilemmas in the social sciences..."[14]

David Swartz, Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, p. 55 "It is not possible to resolve which of the subjective or physical universes ultimately contains the other."[15] Alec Rogers, Cognitive Set Theory, p.85 The development of a theory is something of a bootstrapping process that might never converge.[16] A rather different aspect of the subjective-objective divide is the role of social inhibition, a factor at work from the times of the Roman Inquisition and Galileo to the Scopes trial and Kennewick Man. A more recent concern is the structure of the educational system and the control over financing of research.[17][18] There is a concern about the intrusion of societal elements into what is supposed to be an objective matter.[19] [edit]Subjective-objective correlations See also: Qualia and Behavioral neurology Some subjective personal experiences have aspects that fall squarely into the realm of objective fact, and have implications that can be objectively verified. An example is the experience of pain, an entirely subjective matter, [20] but one that sometimes (but not invariably) can be related to the objectively observable operation of receptors, communication channels and brain activity. The consequence is that the subjective sense of pain is sometimes empirically connected to observable events, but the fundamental experience of pain itself is subjective. Other examples are addiction and psychological disorders. Besides the subjective and objective aspects, one may discuss the mechanisms connecting subjective experiences and objective observables, and the role of programming upon these connections, such as psychiatric treatment, conditioning, and evolutionary limits. In some instances, it is debatable as to which is the epiphenomenon, the subjective event or its observable correlate. For example, there is

debate over whether the placebo effect indicates a mental influence over the body.[21] As technology advances, the ability of humans to detect what is happening around them advances. This progress in observational technique extends to the brain and possibly the mind, and to our perceptive abilities. An example is the use of the PET scan in observing correlations between addiction and dopamine activity in the brain.[22] "Most PET (Positron Emission Tomography) studies of drug addiction have concentrated on the brain dopamine (DA) system, since this is considered to be the neurotransmitter system through which most drugs of abuse exert their reinforcing effects. A reinforcer is operationally defined as an event that increases the probability of a subsequent response, and drugs of abuse are considered to be much stronger reinforcers than natural reinforcers (e.g. sex and food). The brain DA system also regulates motivation and drive for everyday activities. These imaging studies have revealed that acute and chronic drug consumption have different effects on proteins involved involved in DA synaptic transmission. ... chronic drug consumption results in marked decrease in DA activity which persists months after detoxification and which is associated with deregulation of frontal brain regions."[23] Nora D Volkow, Joanna S Fowler, and Gene-Jack Wang , The addicted human brain: insights from imaging studies, p. 1061 These advances in observational technique require associated interpretation and theoretical models that explain what the observations mean. For example, when Galileo advanced the use of the telescope to observe the moons of Jupiter, skeptics doubted that the telescope actually showed reality.[24] This old example only scratches the surface of relating scientific instruments to reality. After all, one could extrapolate from mundane terrestrial uses of the telescope, where its veracity could be directly examined, to more distant objects like Jupiter. The introduction of the microscope had a similar struggle for acceptance.[25] Today however, only a few among us can understand the complexity of observations made with the hadron collider, and we rely upon certification by carefully selected experts. The importance of extremely technical theory in the experts' interpretation is obvious to all, and these theories, while

supported by experimental observation, are products of the human subjective imagination. To what extent our mental creations are limited by the innate functioning of our brain/nervous system (what might be called our "factory settings") and to what extent they mirror the real world is discussed in the field of psychological nativism, and is connected with the philosophers Kant, Schopenhauer, Popper, Chomsky, Pinker, Hawking and others.[26] The subjective aspect of scientific theories has led to a need to assess theories, to be able to choose one theory as preferable to another without introducing cognitive bias.[27] Several criteria were proposed by Colyvan:[28] 1. It is elegant (Formal elegance; no ad hoc modifications) 2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements (Simplicity/Parsimony) 3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations (Unificatory/Explanatory power) 4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out. 5. Boldness/fruitfulness: the emphasis by Colyvan is not only upon prediction and falsification, but also upon a theory'sseminality in suggesting future work. The goal here is to make the choice between theories less arbitrary. Nonetheless, these criteria contain subjective elements, and areheuristics rather than part of scientific method. It also is debatable whether existing scientific theories satisfy all these criteria, and they may represent goals not yet achieved, a set of "New Year's resolutions", if you like. For example, Item 3: explanatory power over all existing observations, is satisfied by no one theory at the moment. [29] Whatever might be the ultimate goals of some scientists, science, as it is currently practiced, depends on multiple overlapping descriptions

of the world, each of which has a domain of applicability. In some cases this domain is very large, but in others quite small.[30] E.B. Davies , Epistemological pluralism, p. 4 The desiderata of a "good" theory have been debated for centuries, going back perhaps even earlier than Occam's razor,[31] which often is taken as an attribute of a good theory. Occam's razor might fall under the heading of "elegance", the first item on the list, but too zealous an application was cautioned by Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."[32] The falsifiability item on the list is related to the criterion proposed by Popper as demarcating a scientific theory from a theory like astrology: both "explain" observations, but the scientific theory takes the risk of making predictions that decide whether it is right or wrong:[33][34] "It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience." "Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the game of science." Karl Popper, The logic of scientific discovery, p. 18 and p. 280 Thomas Kuhn argued that changes in scientists' views of reality not only contain subjective elements, but result from group dynamics, "revolutions" in scientific practice and changes in "paradigms".[35] As an example, Kuhn suggested that the Sun-centric Copernican "revolution" replaced the Earth-centric views of Ptolemy not because of empirical failures, but because of a new "paradigm" that exerted control over what scientists felt to be the more fruitful way to pursue their goals (Colyvan's requirement of "fruitfulness"). [edit]Complementary descriptions The subjective and objective correlates of some phenomena (like addiction or mental disorder) actually might describe the same phenomena from distinct perspectives; in other words, they might be complementary views: ...for each individual there is one 'mental life' but two ways of knowing it: first-person knowledge and third-person knowledge. From

a first-person perspective conscious experiences appear causally effective. From a third person perspective the same causal sequence can be explained in neural terms. It is not the case that the view from one perspective is right and the other wrong. These perspectives are complementary. The differences between how things appear from a first-person versus a third-person perspective has to do with differences in the observational arrangements(the means by which a subject and an external observer access the subject's mental processes)."[36] Max Velmans, How could conscious experiences affect brains?, p. 11 Niels Bohr also believed there were differences between first-person and third-person perspectives, an outgrowth of his experience in atomic physics. However, in his view the two descriptions are irreconcilable because of the disturbance of the subject's first-person mental state by the third-person act of observation itself: "...On the contrary, the recognition of the limitation of mechanical concepts in atomic physics would rather seem suited to conciliate the apparently contrasting viewpoints of physiology [that is, neuroscience] and psychology [mental phenomena]. Indeed, the necessity of considering the interaction between the measuring instruments and the object under investigation in atomic mechanics exhibits a close analogy to the peculiar difficulties in psychological analysis arising from the fact that the mental content is invariably altered when the attention is concentrated on any special feature of it."[37] Niels Bohr, Light and Life Some indirect support for this analogy is found in observations of the neural correlates of mental states, in particular, the connection between objectively observable bodily movements and subjective initiation and control of these movements: "...it is important to be clear about exactly what experience one wants one's subjects to introspect. Of course, explaining to subjects exactly what the experimenter wants them to experience can bring its own problems...instructions to attend to a particular internally generated experience can easily alter both the timing and he content of that

experience and even whether or not it is consciously experienced at all."[38] Susan Pockett, The neuroscience of movement, p. 19 [edit]In early philosophy The question of what is objective and what is subjective, and whether one or the other is more "real" has been a topic of philosophy since its earliest days. In Western philosophy it can be found in Plato, who considered our perceptions to be mere approximations to the world of ideal Forms, in the way that circles we encounter in nature are mere approximations to the ideal circle. The world of Forms was accessible only by the mind, not the senses. Contrary views were held by Aristotle, who would hold the "ideal" circle is only an abstraction from its many real-world examples, and without those examples the ideal circle simply would not exist. See this discussionabout "instantiation". These two views of how the concepts of the mind relate to the perception of the world resurface again and again in later centuries, rephrased in novel terminologies. Some of these later treatments of the subject-object relationship were tied to theological issues. A not-so-serious example is the formulation of George Berkeley (1685-1753), who posed the famous question: "Does a tree fall in the forest when no-one can hear it?" He proposed that objects exist only when perceived by a conscious being, and to avoid the absurdities of this view posited that because God was omnipresent, things existed because they were in His consciousness.[39] There once was a man who said 'God Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad.' Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd:

I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since observed by yours faithfully, God.[39] Twentieth century limerick quoted by Nigel Warburton, A Little History of Philosophy, p. 91 According to a famous anecdote, Samuel Johnson responded to Berkeley's views by kicking a stone and saying 'I refute it thus.'.[40] [edit]In 18th and 19th century philosophy To say it simply, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) pointed out that we all shape our experience of things through the filter of our mind, a view sometimes called epistemological solipsism. The mind shapes that experience, and among other things, Kant believed the concepts ofspace and time were programmed into the human brain, as was the notion of cause and effect.[41] We never have direct experience of things, the noumenal world, and what we do experience is the phenomenal world as conveyed by our senses, this conveyance processed by the machinery of the mind and nervous system. Kant focused upon this processing. Kant believed in a priori knowledge arrived at independent of experience, so-called synthetic a priori knowledge. In particular, he thought that by introspection some aspects of the filtering mechanisms of the mind/brain/nervous system could be discovered.[41] The following observations summarize Kant's views upon the subject-object problem, called Kant's Copernican revolution: "It has hitherto been assumed that our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to ascertain anything about these objects a priori, by means of conceptions, and thus to extend the range of our knowledge, have been rendered abortive by this assumption. Let us then make the experiment whether we may not be more successful in metaphysics, if we assume that the objects must conform to our cognition. This appears, at all events, to accord better with the possibility of our gaining the end we have in view, that is to say, of arriving at the cognition of objects a priori, of determining something

with respect to these objects, before they are given to us. We here propose to do just what Copernicus did in attempting to explain the celestial movements. When he found that he could make no progress by assuming that all the heavenly bodies revolved round the spectator, he reversed the process, and tried the experiment of assuming that the spectator revolved, while the stars remained at rest. We may make the same experiment with regard to the intuition of objects."[42] Immanuel Kant, English translation by J. M. D. Meiklejohn of The Critique of Pure Reason (1781) Kant's successors Fichte (1762-1814), Schelling ( 1775-1854) and Hegel (1770-1831) also raised the issue of the relationship between the subject and the object, or what perceives and what is perceived, and stressed the importance of the subject as paramount, a view sometimes called metaphysical solipsism. Fichte placed the demands of the individual self or ego as the starting point of all philosophical reflection. He transformed Kant's view, that the laws of rationality are set by forms of human understanding, instead into demands of the individual will.[43] Hegel also rejected Kant's view that there was a noumenal world causing our experiences and instead proposed that the mind-shaped phenomenal world is the world. Hegel proposed that 'truth' was approached by a dialectical method, that is, a clash of an idea and its opposite, a succession of thesis and antithesis, followed by a synthesis of the two, and on, and on, a picture he felt described the evolution of history in an everupward spiral to 'truth'.[44] Although a popular figure, many other philosophers found Hegel unintelligible, with Bertrand Russell suggesting Hegel's work as a model of the imprecise use of language, and A.J. Ayerdeclaring that most of Hegel's sentences said nothing at all.[44] Schopenhauer (1788-1860) claimed that everything that exists for knowledge, and hence the whole of this world, is only object in relation to the subject, perception of the perceiver, in a word, representation.[45] According to him there can be "No object without subject" because "everything objective is already conditioned as such in manifold ways by the knowing subject with the forms of its knowing, and presupposes these forms; consequently it wholly disappears when the subject is thought away.".[46] Schopenhauer

also asserted that the 'principle of sufficient reason' does not apply between subject and object, but only between objects. Therefore, Fichte was mistaken when he posited that the subject produces or causes the object.[46] Realism and Materialism also are wrong when they assert that the object causes the subject.[47] [edit]In 20th and 21st century philosophy In his lecture "Mind and Matter," Erwin Schrdinger stressed the distancing of the knowing subject from its 'objective' formulation of the world around us: "By this I mean the thing that is so frequently called the 'hypothesis of the real world' around us. I maintain that it amounts to certain simplifications which we adopt in order to master the infinitely intricate problem of nature. Without being aware of it... we exclude the Subject of Cognizance [knowing subject] from the domain of nature that we endeavor to understand. We step with our own person back into the part of an onlooker who does not belong to the world, which by this very procedure becomes an objective world."[48] Erwin Schrdinger, Mind and Matter He claimed that we are unaware "of the fact that a moderately satisfying picture of the world has only been reached at the high price of taking ourselves out of the picture, stepping back into the role of a non-concerned observer."[49] As a result, in formulating the concept of the object, the subject is not considered at all. Schrdinger continues: "So we are faced with the following remarkable situation. While the stuff from which our world picture is built is yielded exclusively from the sense organs as organs [that is, agents] of the mind, so that every man's world picture is and always remains a construct of the mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence, yet the conscious mind itself remains a stranger within that construct, it has no living space in it, you can spot it nowhere in space...To learn that it [the personality of a human being] cannot really be found there [in the interior of a human body] is so amazing that it meets with doubts and hesitation, we are very loath to admit it."[48] Erwin Schrdinger, Mind and Matter

These observations are supplemented by those of Northoff mentioned above.[6] The knowing subject can be brought into the discussion by considering how it colors its own observations. As stated by Schopenhauer: " The world is my representation: this is a truth which holds good for everything that lives and knows, though man alone can bring it into reflective and abstract consciousness. If he really does this, he has attained to philosophical wisdom. It then becomes clear and certain to him that he does not know a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world which surrounds him is there only as representation, in other words, only in reference to another thing, the consciousness, which is himself."[50] Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, p. 3 Like Kant, Noam Chomsky raised the issue of the mind's inherent programming. Chomsky selected as a particular example the acquiring of language by children.[26] Of course, language is indispensable in the formulation and communication of our perceptions of the objective world: "People do not think in English or Chinese or Apache; they think in a language of thought. This language of thought probably looks a bit like all these languages;...But compared with any given language, mentalese must be richer in some ways and simpler in others."[51] Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct, p. 72 Chomsky marshaled evidence that a child's rapid mastery of the complexity of language indicated an innate ability programmed into the development of the human mind from birth that could not be explained by the "blank slate" view of the infant mind. Rather, the mind has a built-in propensity to process symbolic representations. The origins of this ability were sought by Steven Pinker in a Darwinian struggle that established the survival value of the ability to communicate.[52] According to Pinker, Charles Darwin himself "concluded that language ability is 'an instinctive tendency to acquire an art', a design that is not peculiar to humans but seen in other

species such as song-learning birds." This observation is strongly supported by research on crows.[53] These ideas still are under examination. Among the modern essays into the subject-object problem are the fields of cognitive psychology, behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology. [edit]In science [edit]In physics There are related concerns in philosophy of physics where observers are claimed to affect a result, e.g. certain interpretations inquantum mechanics, in a way which defies the conventional assignment of an object role to experimenter, with everything else as a subject. Otherwise, physics is uncontroversially agreed upon as describing a reality that exists independent of observation. [edit]In mathematics Cognitive science of mathematics raises some similar concerns with philosophy of mathematics. Among them, the assignment of subjective status to mathematical objects as in Platonism, although they are formalisms used in a linguistic fashion for communications between living beings, and thus subject to the same subjectobject problems as other forms of such communication. This raises some concerns, dating back as far as Eugene Wigner's 1960 observations on the matter, that what we call foundations of mathematics andcosmology may be not observable or discoverable absolutes, but rather, aspects of humanity and its cognition. Nick Bostrom in 2002 addressed this concern with a theory of anthropic bias. [edit]In clinical trials One of the purposes of blinding clinical trials is to avoid the introduction of bias caused by investigators beliefs about the therapy being tested influencing perceptions, measurements, and actions. Making effective decisions and ensuring patient care while investigators remain unaware of what treatment particular patients receive has been a continuing problem in the design of clinical trials.

The phenomenon of adaptive designs - designs whose characteristics can change mid-trial based on the information obtained so farhas created further problems in avoiding bias. Using data monitoring committees to alter the parameters of a clinical trial through an adaptive design could introduce bias into the trial if investigators speculated about the reasons for change.[54] Increasing the sample size mid-trial, for example, could signal to investigators that the product under trial was proving to be less efficacious than originally hoped. The authors expressed concern that participant-observer bias would need to be assessed and addressed in order to ensure the reliability of adaptive designs.[54] [edit]In psychology A cognitive bias, as studied in experimental psychology, demonstrates how human judgment deviates in particular situations. For example, the confirmation bias is the tendency of an individual to perceive an event such that it coheres with his previous views. [edit]Other approaches Analytic philosophy discusses various aspects of the problem of subject and object such as the mind body problem, first-person versus third-person perspective and also issues of non-referential use of I presented by G. E. M. Anscombe. Robert M. Pirsig's philosophy of the Metaphysics of Quality is largely concerned with the subjectobject problem. Sun Myung Moon's philosophy, Unification Thought, treats subject and object in a way different from classical ideas of Hegel and Marx. Philosopher Ken Wilber has written extensively on this, calling the omniscient view (or subjectobject distinction) the fundamental modernist paradigm, and cataloging its effects on society, and in the way many subjects have been compressed into a "flat" view by this perspective [edit]In Vedas The subjectobject problem was also discussed in several sections of the Vedas, the earliest sacred texts of Hinduism, and in several

schools of Indian philosophy such as Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. According to the Vedas, subject is transcendental, while object is either different (material) or of same category - spiritual: "The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. .. In the relative world the knower is different from the known, but in the Absolute Truth both the knower and the known are one and the same thing." [55] Experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill of some thing or ...has a slightly different implication, connoting the coherency of life's experiences. ... as to the purported wisdom gained in subsequent reflection on those events or ... Physical experience occurs whenever an object or environment changes. Experience From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Experience (disambiguation). Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event. [1] The history of the word experience aligns it closely with the concept of experiment. For example, the word experience could be used in a statement like: "I have experience in fishing". The concept of experience generally refers to know-how or procedural knowledge, rather than propositional knowledge: on-the-job training rather than book-learning. Philosophers dub knowledge based on experience "empirical knowledge" or "a posteriori knowledge". The interrogation of experience has a long tradition in continental philosophy. Experience plays an important role in the philosophy of Sren Kierkegaard. The German term Erfahrung, often translated into English as "experience", has a slightly different implication, connoting the coherency of life's experiences. A person with considerable experience in a specific field can gain a reputation as an expert. Certain religious traditions (such as types of Buddhism, Surat Shabd Yoga, mysticism and Pentecostalism) and educational paradigms with, for example, the conditioning of military recruit-training (also known as "boot camps"), stress the experiential nature of human epistemology. This stands in contrast to alternatives: traditions of dogma, logic or reasoning. Participants in activities such as tourism, extreme sports and recreational drug-use also tend to stress the importance of experience. Contents [hide] 1 Types of experience 1.1 Physical experience 1.2 Mental experience 1.3 Emotional experience

1.4 Spiritual experience 1.5 Religious experience 1.6 Social experience 1.7 Virtual experience and simulation gaming 1.8 Immediacy of experience 1.9 Subjective experience 2 Contexts of experience 3 Changes in experience through history 4 Alternatives to experience 5 Writing 6 Art 7 See also 8 References [edit]Types of experience The word "experience" may refer, somewhat ambiguously, both to mentally unprocessed immediately perceived events as well as to the purported wisdom gained in subsequent reflection on those events or interpretation of them. Some wisdom-experience accumulates over a period of time,[2] though one can also experience (and gain general wisdom-experience from) a single specific momentary event. One may also differentiate between (for example) physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, vicarious and virtual experience(s). [edit]Physical experience Main article: Physical Property Physical experience occurs whenever an object or environment changes. [3] In other words, physical experiences relate to observables. They need not involve modal properties nor mental experiences. [edit]Mental experience Main article: Mind Mental experience involves the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will[citation needed] and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term can refer, by implication, to a thought process. Mental experience and its relation to the physical brain form an area of philosophical debate: some identity theorists originally argued that the identity of brain and mental states held only for a few sensations. Most theorists, however, generalized the view to cover all mental experience.[4] Mathematicians can exemplify cumulative mental experience in the approaches and skills with which they work. Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover and experience it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. This point of view regards only one sort of mathematics as discoverable; it sees triangles, right angles, and curves, for example, as real entities, not just the creations of the human mind. Some working mathematicians have espoused

mathematical realism as they see themselves experiencing naturally-occurring objects. Examples include Paul Erds and Kurt Gdel. Gdel believed in an objective mathematical reality that could be perceived in a manner analogous to sense perception. Certain principles (for example: for any two objects, there is a collection of objects consisting of precisely those two objects) could be directly seen to be true, but some conjectures, like the continuum hypothesis, might prove undecidable just on the basis of such principles. Gdel suggested that quasi-empirical methodology such as experience could provide sufficient evidence to be able to reasonably assume such a conjecture. With experience, there are distinctions depending on what sort of existence one takes mathematical entities to have, and how we know about them.[citation needed] [edit]Emotional experience Main article: Emotion Humans can rationalize falling in (and out) of love as "emotional experience". Societies which lack institutional arranged marriages can call on emotional experience in individuals to influence mate-selection.[5] The concept of emotional experience also appears in the notion of empathy. [edit]Spiritual experience Main article: Religious experience Newberg and Newberg provide a view on spiritual experience.[6] [edit]Religious experience Main article: Religious experience Mystics can describe their visions as "spiritual experiences". However, psychology and neuropsychology[7] may explain the same experiences in terms of altered states of consciousness, which may come about accidentally through (for example) very high fever, infections such as meningitis, sleep deprivation, fasting, oxygen deprivation, nitrogen narcosis (deep diving), psychosis, temporallobe epilepsy, or a traumatic accident. People can likewise achieve such experiences more deliberately through recognized mystical practices such as sensory deprivation or mind-control techniques, hypnosis, meditation, prayer, or mystical disciplines such as mantra meditation, yoga, Sufism, dream yoga, or surat shabda yoga. Some "primitive religions" encourage spiritual experiences through the ingestion of psychoactive drugs such as alcohol and opiates, but more commonly with entheogenic plants and substances such as cannabis, salvia divinorum, psilocybin mushrooms, peyote, DXM, ayahuasca, or datura. Another way to induce spiritual experience through an altered state of consciousness involves psychoacoustics, binaural beats, or light-and-sound stimulation. [edit]Social experience Main article: Socialization Growing up and living within a society can foster the development and observation of social experience.[8] Social experience provides individuals with the skills and habits necessary for participating within their own societies, as a society itself is formed[citation needed] through a plurality of shared experiences forming norms, customs, values, traditions, social roles, symbols and languages. [edit]Virtual experience and simulation gaming

Main articles: Virtual Reality and Simulation Game Using computer simulations can enable a person or groups of persons to have virtual experiences in virtual reality.[9] Role-playing games treat "experience" (and its acquisition) as an important, measurable, and valuable commodity. Many role-playing video games, for instance, feature units of measurement used to quantify or assist a player-character's progression through the game - called experience points. [edit]Immediacy of experience Someone able to recount an event they witnessed or took part in has "first hand experience". First hand experience of the "you had to be there" variety can seem especially valuable and privileged, but it often remains potentially subject to errors in sense-perception and in personal interpretation. Second-hand experience can offer richer resources: recorded and/or summarised from first-hand observers or experiencers or from instruments, and potentially expressing multiple points of view. Third-hand experience, based on indirect and possibly unreliable rumour or hearsay, can (even given reliable accounts) potentially stray perilously close to blind honouring of authority. [edit]Subjective experience Subjective experience can involve a state of individual subjectivity, perception on which one builds one's own state of reality; a reality based on ones interaction with one's environment. The subjective experience depends on ones individual ability to process data, to store and internalize it. For example: our senses collect data, which we then process according to biological programming (genetics), neurological network-relationships and other variables such as relativity[disambiguation needed] etc.[clarification needed], all of which affect our individual experience of any given situation in such a way as to render it subjective. [edit]Contexts of experience Experience plays an important role in experiential groups.[10] [edit]Changes in experience through history Some post-modernists suggest that the nature of human experiencing (quite apart from the details of the experienced surrounds) has undergone qualitative change during transition from the pre-modern through the modern to the postmodern.[11] [edit]Alternatives to experience Immanuel Kant contrasted experience with reason: "Nothing, indeed, can be more harmful or more unworthy of the philosopher, than the vulgar appeal to socalled experience. Such experience would never have existed at all, if at the proper time, those institutions had been established in accordance with ideas."[12] [edit]Writing

The American author Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote an essay entitled "Experience" (published in 1844), in which he asks readers to disregard emotions that could alienate them from the divine; it provides a somewhat pessimistic representation of the Transcendentalism associated with Emerson. [edit]Art In 2005 the art group Monochrom organized a series of happenings that ironically took up the implications of the term "experience": Experience the Experience.

Word order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correlations between orders found in different syntactic subdomains are also of interest. ... In others, the subject and object may not form a clause with the verb. ...and VSO for questions; German has verb-medial order in main clauses, but verb-final.... Knowledge of word order on the other hand can be applied to identify the ...

Word order From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Linguistic typology Morphological Isolating Synthetic Polysynthetic Fusional Agglutinative Morphosyntactic Alignment Accusative Ergative Split ergative

Philippine Activestative Tripartite Marked nominative Inverse marking Syntactic pivot Theta role Word order VO languages Subjectverbobject Verbsubjectobject Verbobjectsubject OV languages Subjectobjectverb Objectsubjectverb Objectverbsubject Timemannerplace Placemannertime This box: view talk edit In linguistics, word order typology refers to the study of the order of the syntactic constituents of a language, and how different languages can employ different orders. Correlations between orders found in different syntactic subdomains are also of interest. The primary word orders that are of interest are the constituent order of a clause the

relative order of subject, object, and verb; the order of modifiers (adjectives, numerals, demonstratives, possessives, and adjuncts) in a noun phrase; and the order of adverbials. Some languages have relatively restrictive word orders, often relying on the order of constituents to convey important grammatical information. Others, often those that convey grammatical information through inflection, allow more flexibility which can be used to encode pragmatic information such as topicalisation or focus. Most languages however have some preferred word order which is used most frequently.[1] For most nominativeaccusative languages which have a major word class of nouns and clauses which include subject and object, constituent word order is commonly defined in terms of the finite verb (V) and its arguments, the subject (S) and object (O).[2][3][4][5] There are six theoretically possible basic word orders for the transitive sentence: subjectverbobject (SVO), subjectobjectverb (SOV), verbsubjectobject (VSO), verbobjectsubject (VOS), objectsubjectverb (OSV) and objectverbsubject (OVS). The overwhelming majority of the world's languages are either SVO or SOV, with a much smaller but still significant portion using VSO word order. The remaining three arrangements are exceptionally rare, with VOS being slightly more common than OSV, and OVS being significantly more rare than the two preceding orders.[6] Contents [hide] 1 Finding the basic constituent order 2 Constituent word orders 3 Functions of constituent word order 4 Phrase word orders and branching 5 Pragmatic word order 5.1 Hungarian 5.2 Portuguese

5.3 Latin 6 Other issues 6.1 Translation 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading [edit]Finding the basic constituent order

It is not always easy to find the basic word order of S, O and V. First, not all languages make use of the categories of subject and object. In others, the subject and object may not form a clause with the verb. If subject and object can be identified within a clause, the problem can arise that different orders prevail in different contexts. For instance, French has SVO for nouns, but SOV when the object is a pronoun and VSO for questions; German has verb-medial order in main clauses, but verb-final order in subordinate clauses. In other languages the word order of transitive and intransitive clauses may not correspond. In still others, the rules for ordering S, O, and V may exist, but be secondary to (and often overruled by) more fundamental ordering rules e.g., for considerations such as topiccomment. To have a valid base for comparison, the basic word order is defined[by whom?] as: declarative main clause S and O must both be nominal arguments pragmatically neutral, i.e. no element has special emphasis While the first two of these requirements are relatively easy to respect, the latter two are more difficult. In spoken language, there are hardly ever two full nouns in a clause; the norm is for the clause

to have at most one noun, the other arguments being pronouns. [citation needed] In written language, this is somewhat different, but that is of no help when investigating oral languages. Finally, the notion of "pragmatically neutral" is difficult to test. While the English sentence "The king, they killed." has a heavy emphasis on king, in other languages, that order (OSV) might not carry a significantly higher emphasis than another order. If all the requirements above are met, it still sometimes turns out that languages do not seem to prefer any particular word order. The last resort is text counts, but even then, some languages must be analyzed as having two (or even more) word orders. [edit]Constituent word orders

Word order English Proportion

equivalent

of languages Example languages SOV "She him loves." 45%

Japanese, Latin, Tamil SVO "She loves him." 42%

English, Mandarin, Russian VSO "Loves she him." 9%

Hebrew, Irish, Zapotec VOS "Loves him she." 3%

Baure OVS "Him loves she." 1%

Apalai?, Hixkaryana? OSV "Him she loves." 0% Warao

Frequency distribution of word order in languages surveyed by Russell S. Tomlin in 1980s.[7][8] These are all possible word orders for the subject, verb, and object in the order of most common to rarest (the examples use "I" as the subject, "see" as the verb, and "him" as the object): SOV is the order used by the largest number of distinct languages; languages using it include the prototypical Japanese, Mongolian, Basque, Turkish, Korean, the Indo-Aryan languages and the Dravidian languages. Some, like Persian, Latin and Quechua, have SOV normal word order but conform less to the general tendencies of other such languages. A sentence glossing as "I him see" would be grammatically correct in these languages. SVO languages include English, the Romance languages, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian,[9] Chinese and Swahili, among others. "I see him." VSO languages include Classical Arabic, the Insular Celtic languages, and Hawaiian. "See I him" is grammatically correct in these languages. VOS languages include Fijian and Malagasy. "See him I." OVS languages include Hixkaryana. "Him see I."

OSV languages include Xavante and Warao. "Him I see." Sometimes patterns are more complex: German, Dutch and Frisian have SOV in subordinates, but V2 word order in main clauses, SVO word order being the most common. Using the guidelines above, the unmarked word order is then SVO. Others, such as Latin, Persian, Romanian and Finnish, have no strict word order; rather, the sentence structure is highly flexible and reflects the pragmatics of the utterance. Nonetheless, there is often a preferred order; in Latin, SOV is the most frequent outside of poetry, and in Finnish SVO is both the most frequent and obligatory when case marking fails to disambiguate argument roles. Just as languages may have different word orders in different contexts, so may they have both fixed and free word orders. For example, Russian has a relatively fixed SVO word order in transitive clauses, but a much freer SV / VS order in intransitive clauses.[citation needed] Cases like this can be addressed by encoding transitive and intransitive clauses separately, with the symbol 'S' being restricted to the argument of an intransitive clause, and 'A' for the actor/agent of a transitive clause. ('O' for object may be replaced with 'P' for 'patient' as well.) Thus Russian is fixed AVO but flexible SV/VS. Such an approach allows the description of word order to be more easily extended to languages which do not meet the criteria in the preceding section. For example, the Mayan languages have been described with the rather uncommon VOS word order. However, they are ergativeabsolutive languages, and the more specific word order is intransitive VS, transitive VOA, where S and O arguments both trigger the same type of agreement on the verb. Indeed, many languages claimed to have a VOS word order turn out to be ergative like Mayan. [edit]Functions of constituent word order

A fixed or prototypical word order is one out of many ways to ease the processing of sentence semantics and reducing ambiguity. One method of making the speech stream less open to ambiguity (complete removal of ambiguity is probably impossible) is a fixed order of arguments and other sentence constituents. This works because speech is inherently linear. Another method is to label the

constituents in some way, for example with case marking, agreement, or another marker. Fixed word order reduces expressiveness but added marking increases information load in the speech stream, and for these reasons strict word order seldom occurs together with strict morphological marking, one counterexample being Persian.[1] Observing discourse patterns, it is found that previously given information (topic) tends to precede new information (comment). Furthermore, acting participants (especially humans) are more likely to be talked about (to be topic) than things simply undergoing actions (like oranges being eaten). If acting participants are often topical, and topic tends to be expressed early in the sentence, this entails that acting participants have a tendency to be expressed early in the sentence. This tendency can then grammaticalize to a privileged position in the sentence, the subject. The mentioned functions of word order can be seen to affect the frequencies of the various word order patterns: An overwhelming majority of languages have an order in which S precedes O and V. Whether V precedes O or O precedes V however, has been shown to be a very telling difference with wide consequences on phrasal word orders.[10] Knowledge of word order on the other hand can be applied to identify the thematic relations of the NPs in a clause of an unfamiliar language. If we can identify the verb in a clause, and we know that the language is strict accusative SVO, then we know that Grob smock Blug probably means that Grob is the smocker and Blug the entity smocked. However, since very strict word order is rare in practice, such applications of word order studies are rarely effective. [citation needed] [edit]Phrase word orders and branching

Main articles: Branching (linguistics) and Head directionality parameter The order of constituents in a phrase can vary as much as the order of constituents in a clause. Normally, the noun phrase and the

adpositional phrase are investigated. Within the noun phrase, one investigates whether the following modifiers occur before or after the head noun. adjective (red house vs house red) determiner (this house vs house this) numeral (two houses vs houses two) possessor (my house vs house my) relative clause (the by me built house vs the house built by me) Within the adpositional clause, one investigates whether the languages makes use of prepositions (in London), postpositions (London in), or both (normally with different adpositions at both sides). There are several common correlations between sentence-level word order and phrase-level constituent order. For example, SOV languages generally put modifiers before heads and use postpositions. VSO languages tend to place modifiers after their heads, and use prepositions. For SVO languages, either order is common. For example, French (SVO) uses prepositions (dans la voiture, gauche), and places adjectives after (une voiture spacieuse). However, a small class of adjectives generally go before their heads (une grande voiture). On the other hand, in English (also SVO) adjectives almost always go before nouns (a big car), and adverbs can go either way, but initially is more common (greatly improved). (English has a very small number of adjectives that go after their heads, such as "extraordinaire", which kept its position when it was borrowed from French.) [edit]Pragmatic word order

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007) Some languages do not have a fixed word order. In these languages there is often a significant amount of morphological marking to disambiguate the roles of the arguments; however there are also languages in which word order is fixed even though the degree of marking would enable free word order, and languages with free word order, such as some varieties of Datooga, which have free word order combined with a lack of morphological distinction between arguments. Typologically there is a trend that highly animate actors are more likely to be topical than low-animate undergoers, this trend would come through even in free-word-order languages giving a statistical bias for SO order (or OS in the case of ergative systems, however ergative systems do not usually extend to the highest levels of animacy, usually giving way to some form of nominative system at least in the pronominal system).[11] Most languages with a high degree of morphological marking have rather flexible word orders such as Latin, Portuguese, Romanian, Hungarian, Serbo-Croatian, Russian (in intransitive clauses), and Finnish. In some of those, a canonical order can still be identified, but in others this is not possible.[citation needed] [edit]Hungarian In Hungarian, the enclitic -t marks the direct object. For "Kate ate a piece of cake", the possibilities are: "Kati megevett egy szelet tortt." (same word order as English) ["Kate ate a piece of cake."] "Egy szelet tortt Kati evett meg." (emphasis on agent [Kate]) ["A piece of cake Kate ate."] "Kati egy szelet tortt evett meg." (emphasis on object [cake]) ["Kate a piece of cake ate."] "Egy szelet tortt evett meg Kati." (emphasis on number [a piece, i.e. only one piece]) ["A piece of cake ate Kate."]

"Megevett egy szelet tortt Kati." (emphasis on completeness of action) ["Ate a piece of cake Kate."] "Megevett Kati egy szelet tortt." (emphasis on completeness of action) ["Ate Kate a piece of cake."] [edit]Portuguese In Portuguese, the clitic pronouns allow many different orders: Eu vou entregar pra voc amanh. ["I will deliver to you tomorrow."] (same word order as English) Entregarei pra voc amanh. ["deliver I will to you tomorrow."] Eu te entregarei amanh. ["I to you will deliver tomorrow."] Entregar-te-ei amanh. ["Deliver to you I will tomorrow."] (mesoclisis allowed only in the future tense) A ti eu entregarei amanh. ["To you I will deliver tomorrow."] A ti entregarei amanh. ["To you deliver I will tomorrow."] Amanh entregarei pra voc. ["Tomorrow I will deliver to you"] Acaso entregaria eu a voc amanh? ["could deliver I to you tomorrow?] [edit]Latin In Latin, the endings of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and pronouns allow for extremely flexible order in most situations. Latin lacks articles. Romulus conditerat urbem. ["Romulus had founded the city."] (Same order as English) Romulus urbem conditerat. ["Romulus the city had founded."] Conditerat Romulus urbem. ["He had founded Romulus city."] Conditerat urbem Romulus. ["He had founded city Romulus."]

Urbem Romulus conditerat. ["The city Romulus he had founded."] Urbem conditerat Romulus. ["The city he had founded Romulus."] Romulus is in the nominative case, so it is the subject of the sentence. Urbem is the accusative case form of the third declension noun, Urbs, so it is the object of the sentence. Conditerat is the third person active indicative pluperfect form of the verb Condito. It tells the relationship between Romulus and Urbem. In theory, Latin prose generally follows the word order "Subject Indirect-Object Direct-Object Adverb Verb" (commonly known by the acronym "SIDAV"), but this is more of a guideline than a rule. Adjectives normally go after a noun they modify (either the Subject or the Object), but this is not absolutely required. In practice, there is great flexibility in word order, though the one rule usually upheld is that the Verb will go last in the sentence. Nonetheless, it is technically not incorrect grammar to use a completely different word order. Putting a word earlier in the sentence increases the emphasis on it, but this subtlety would only be particularly obvious to a native Latin speaker. However, even in poetry from the Classical Latin era, lyricists will follow word order very loosely in order to achieve a desired rhyming scheme. "Romulus urbem conditerat" (Subject Object Verb) is preferable, but there is nothing explicitly incorrect with "Conditerat urbem Romulus" (Verb Object Subject). [edit]Other issues

In many languages, changes in word order occur due to topicalization or in questions. However, most languages are generally assumed to have a basic word order, called the unmarked word order; other, marked word orders can then be used to emphasize a sentence element, to indicate modality (such as an interrogative modality), or for other purposes. For example, English is SVO (subject-verb-object), as in "I don't know that", but OSV is also possible: "That I don't know." This process is called topic-fronting (or topicalization) and is common. In English, OSV is a marked word order because it emphasises the object, and is often accompanied by a change in intonation.

An example of OSV being used for emphasis: A: I can't see Alice. (SVO) B: What about Bill? A: Bill I can see. (OSV, rather than I can see Bill, SVO) Non-standard word orders are also found in poetry in English, particularly archaic or romantic terms as the wedding phrase "With this ring, I thee wed" (SOV) or "Thee I love" (OSV) as well as in many other languages. [edit]Translation Differences in word order complicate translation and language education in addition to changing the individual words, the order must also be changed. This can be simplified by first translating the individual words, then reordering the sentence, as in interlinear gloss, or by reordering the words prior to translation, as in EnglishOrdered Japanese. See reordered languages for further examples. Subject Knowing Object - In the Light of Wisdom - Chapter 3
We saw that the subject and object seem to be creating an unbridged gulf. ... We may burn our fingers on the stove or we may forget the sugar, and so many ... This approach brought a knowledge which saw the universe as merely a wonder, ...

In the Light of Wisdom

by Swami Krishnananda
Subject Kno Chapters 1. 2. 3. 4.
Attunement with Reality The Right Relationships Between Things Subject Knowing Object Yoga is Balance

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

How We Perceive God, World and Soul The Changes That Yoga Brings About Possessing Nothing The Ignorance of the Mind The Operation of the Eternal Law Skilled Preparation Another Type of Meditation The Necessity for Yoga The True Relationship With God The Laws of Proper Conduct Questions That Arise What Meditation Is The Tendency Towards the Cosmic Being Proper Asana The Right Channelisation of Energy The Kingdom of Heaven is Within To Rest In What We Truly Are The Universal and the Internal are One The Harmonisation of Mind and Breath How the Senses Fool Us Seeing Through the Delusion of Desire The Removal of Sorrow The Leap into the Unknown The Disentanglement of the Personality Detached Perception Dissociating Objects from Their Connections Overcoming Obstacles All-Consuming Devotion to God

34.

Longing for Realisation

Subject knowing Object We saw that the subject and object seem to be creating an unbridged gulf. There is an unintelligible relationship between man and nature. This has been an age-old problem of every person, without distinction, and it is doubtful if this problem has ever been solved. The relation between man and his environment, the individual and society, ourselves and another all these are different ways of expressing the same old difficulty and question. It is difficult to reconcile myself with what is outside me. It is my problem, and this problem has many sides and many aspects, one inside the other. That which is outside me a person near me, a neighbour beside me, a society around me, a country near my country or the universe facing me it makes no difference, because all mean one and the same thing as far as my problem is concerned.

This was an eternal question that was posed before man's mind: what can we do with this that stares us in the face? Astronomers, physicists, chemists, biologists, psychologists and all sorts of people have tried their best to answer this question. However, no one has yet answered it satisfactorily, because the approach of methodological sciences is something like the attempt of blind men to describe an elephant. The blind men touched different parts of the elephant, but could not touch the whole of the elephant at any time. Neither the astronomer, nor the physicist, nor the biologist was in a position to touch the whole of nature at one stroke. They began to touch the legs, ears and tusk, and began to say, "It is long, short, like a wall, and so on." These are the answers that we get from our wise men of the world.

That is good enough as a workable hypothesis but is not satisfying to the soul of man, because the soul can only be satisfied by the whole of nature. The corpse of nature cannot satisfy the soul of man. We do not want to be presented with the corpse of anything. We want living things vital, meaningful and significant objects. A scrap of paper has no meaning to us, but when it bears the stamp of the

government it becomes a currency note and it receives a meaning. We want meaningful, not meaningless paper. We want method, symmetry, completeness, meaning and a vital relationship with things then it is that we seem to respond to things through our souls. It is difficult for man to approach nature as it is in itself, because we cannot approach anything unless we understand it properly. We make a mess of things when we do not understand the things which we are going to handle. It may be even a cup of tea we may spill the tea and get a stain on our clothes, if we don't handle it properly. We may burn our fingers on the stove or we may forget the sugar, and so many confusions may take place if we have no proper understanding and no concentration of mind. We may not be able to take even a cup of tea and sip it properly without dropping a little. So many things are small matters which indicate a lack of concentration and an unprepared mind. This kind of approach to nature will not bring satisfying results.

How to Approach Nature We should not approach nature like a businessman approaching his account books. Nature has to be approached as nature would expect us to approach it. If a person is to approach us, how would we expect him to approach? If some person comes to us seeking work, how do we expect him to come? He should come in a sympathetic manner, in an understanding manner, in an amiable manner, and in a manner which is agreeable to our essential nature. This is how we would expect a person to approach us, and not in a way that is contrary to our nature. If he does not approach us like this we are repelled by him, and we cannot bear his presence. If this is the human attitude, then this is nothing but nature's attitude as well. It is nature that speaks through us. When we expect others to correspond to our nature, it is the natural disposition of creation which speaks through our personalities. When we expect another person or another thing to approach us in consonance with what we really are, and we are made in this way, nature cannot be expected to be made in another way. But what have our scientists done? They have tried to conquer nature. How would we like a person if he were to come to us to conquer us, to overcome us, or to subjugate us? Would we like it? No, we would not like it. If I come to you to conquer you, will you

appreciate me? Nature will not tolerate a person who tries to conquer her.

We try to utilise, conquer, overcome and subjugate nature. This is a very untactful method which we have adopted. Nature puts us off the moment we approach it in a conquering spirit or in a suspicious attitude. Nobody wishes to be approached with suspicion. Our approach should be sympathetic, if it is going to be successful. I will now try to go step by step to show how nature has been approached by our scientists up until this time. For the astronomer, nature appeared to be constituted of diversified objects, and he took things as they appeared. Each star and each planet was cast off from the earth, and there were no connections between one and the other, and they were surprised at how the stars were hanging above our heads. "How is it that the sun does not drop down on the earth?" is the wonder expressed by children even today. "How is it that the stars do not fall down? The sun and the moon are hanging in space. By what power?" is a question of children. And the grown-up children were not better in the wonder that they entertained in regard to nature. The rising and setting of the sun and the changing of seasons were all wonders and marvels. The original approach of astronomy was one of an attitude of the diversity of things. The adhibhuta or the external world was approached as it appears to the physical senses. This approach brought a knowledge which saw the universe as merely a wonder, a knowledge that was unsatisfying. As a consequence, the world remained a wonder. How all this universe came about could not be known. How things are and why they should be as they are remained an unanswerable marvel.

Man advanced in his knowledge of nature step by step until he reached the present circumstances of this twentieth century. The adhibhuta is a term to designate nature in its totality. Adhibhuta or nature was an astronomical diversity constituted of planets, stars, and so on, including the Earth, and there was apparently no relation between them. We seemed to be suspended in space in a very mysterious manner unknown to the human mind. Advancing knowledge revealed by various methods that the stars and the planets are not hanging or suspended as they appeared to be, but

seem to be relatively attracting each other by a force called gravitation. That this relativity of gravitational pull keeps them in the position in which they are was a later discovery of many scientists of both the East and the West. Gravitational pull explained everything. The foremost among those scientists of the West was Newton, and in India we had the astronomers Bhaskara and Varahamihira.

Just for your information, it is said that in southern India near Vijayanagar, a great ancient capital of a Hindu kingdom of the past, that there was an image of Lord Krishna suspended in space, just hanging in space. How could this be? Many engineers came and stood looking at the image as it hung in space without being pulled down by the earth with no wires or connecting links from any side. British archaeologists who were interested in the phenomenon later on discovered that there were four pillars on the ground which were made up of magnets. The four magnetic pillars were pulling this iron image on the top with an equally distributed power in different directions, in such a way that the image could not drop. They wanted to improve this and removed one pillar, but afterwards it did not succeed because an electromagnet was put in the pillar. They could not get the image suspended again, and the effect has been lost forever. Those ancient people were apparently wiser and surer than the present-day scientists!

The pull of a magnet is a similar, familiar phenomenon comparable to the universal magnetic pull of the stellar and planetary regions. The wonder remains as to how this could be conceived by any possible mind, if at all there is a mind of that kind who could set these bodies in such a harmonious relationship with one another. How many stars and how many planets are in the heavens? We cannot count them, and how is it that they are all so systematically and mathematically arranged with relative pull upon one another? If there is anyone who could have done this, there could then be no greater wonder than the mind of that person. Well, to come to the point, it was discovered that the heavenly bodies are not scattered, as children might imagine. There is an unknown power connecting these bodies, and this power is the explanation for the change of seasons, the movements of the stars and so forth in the astronomical universe. But our explanation is

not complete here. The wonder yet remains as to what is this gravitational pull, and what have we to do with it? How are we to explain the universe for our purposes, and how are we going to understand nature? Unless there is a thorough understanding, there will be no satisfaction.

Knowledge is bliss. The greater the knowledge, the greater also is the happiness. If there is inadequate understanding, then there will be a dissatisfaction lurking within. "Something is not all right. I don't understand this." This is the sorrow of the scientist and the philosopher. As knowledge advanced, it was discovered that the gravitational pull was not the full explanation. The necessity arose to find out what these bodies were made of that were attracting one another. What is the sun? What is the moon? What are the stars? Of what are they constituted? The substance of the cosmos became the subject of study. While the superficial vision sees many colours, many sounds and many things in the universe, the analytic minds of the scientists discovered that the many things are made up only of a few things. The multitude in the variety of creation is explicable in terms of a few fundamental elements of which everything is made.

In India it was felt that everything was made up of five things: the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element and the ether (space) element. The ether element was an enigma for scientists. Everything is made up of these five elements earth, water, fire, air and ether. All the wonder of creation is included in the wonder of these five elements. The vast astronomical universe is made up of these five elements alone. But what these five elements are that is another question.

The Constituent Elements of Nature One needs to go deeper and deeper. What is earth made of? 'Earth' is only a name that we give to something which appears hard to the touch, but the mere name does not satisfy us. We may use the word 'earth', but what is earth? What is water? What is fire? What are

these five elements? Why not go deeper and discover what these five elements are made of? In Sanskrit these elements are called the mahabhutas. Maha means 'great', and bhutas means 'existing elements'. What are these made of? They became the object of further scientific analysis. We know, as educated people, what these discoveries have been. Physicists of later times analysed the elements of earth, water, fire and air, although they could not analyse ether because they did not know what ether was. It appeared to be a vacuum, and how could one analyse a vacuum? Hence, the vacuum was left out of the analysis. The analysis was only of the four elements of earth, water, fire and air. They went on dissecting these into bits and parts and minor particles visible only to a powerful microscope. It was proclaimed as a great discovery that these physical attributes were made up of elements. They said that there are about ninety-two or so elements. This was a great advancement by the scientists, and they were all very happy. "Now we have discovered nature!" We know that a chemical substance differs from another in constitution and function. Ninety-two elements constitute the whole of nature and these big bodies called earth, water, fire and air are nothing but complexes of minute particles, molecules or chemical substances each different from the other in its constitution.

Then the desire arose to dissect even the molecules. They were cut into pieces by electronic processes, which was the work of more recent times. Electronic investigation revealed that minor particles or atoms constituted the molecules. A few people were not fully satisfied, and they thought there was something enigmatic about all this, and they were suspicious of these discoveries. Others however think that we have understood nature perfectly. Today we are told with tremendous confidence that we are in a world of electrical forces called electrons, protons, neutrons and so on. Everything is reducible to these fundamentals. What they are in essence whether waves or particles is not known for sure. Some say they are waves, some say they are constituted of jumping particles. Some gentleman said they are 'wave-icles'. Waves and particles combined are wave-icles very humorous and interesting! "This is a world made of wave-icles," concluded Sir Arthur Eddington. Very humerous he was, and he became a great philosopher later on. If we don't know whether it is a

wave or a particle, we can call it a wave-icle. He did this, and he proclaimed it as a great discovery. Though we generate electricity, we really do not know what it is. Let us not enter into this controversy. Nobody knows, and there ends the matter. Chapter XXXIII. Knowledge, Wisdom and a - Council for Research in ...
People usually think that they know what knowledge is or what is meant by it; but the... wisdom has not been as fortunate as knowledge in being the subject of an .....non-foundational beliefs about material objects, the past, other persons, and ...

KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM AND A SOPHIALOGICAL EPISTEMOLOGY CAFER S. YARAN

Both knowledge and wisdom have many definitions, and it is difficult to give a widely accepted definition of either. Nevertheless, generally speaking, we can say that knowledge is an intellectual product of the mental activity of human beings, concerning mainly the true description of the related objects or states of affairs, and that wisdom is an intellectual, emotional, volitional and spiritual characteristic of human beings in relation not only to true knowledge of objects, but also to true knowledge of values, virtuous action, and the self. People usually think that they know what knowledge is or what is meant by it; but the concept of wisdom is more controversial. According to the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
Wisdom may be defined as the direct, practical insight into the meaning and purpose of things that comes to shrewd, penetrating, and observant minds, from their own experience of life, and their daily commerce with the world. It is the fruit not so much of speculation as of native sagacity

and wit. Consequently, while philosophy appeals only to the intellectual lites, wisdom appeals to all who are interested in life and have understanding enough to appreciate a word of truth well spoken.1 According to Ibn Sina, one of the greatest Muslim philosophers, "Wisdom (hikma) is the passage of the soul of man to the perfection possible for him within the two bounds of science and action." It includes, on the one hand, justice and, on the other, the perfecting of the reasoning soul, in as much as it comprises the theoretical and practical intelligibles.2 It is understood, therefore, that although they are closely related to each other, knowledge is more theoretical and intellectual, whereas wisdom is more practical and experiential. Knowledge has been a branch of philosophy called epistemology since the seventeenth century. Epistemology deals with such issues as the nature and derivation of knowledge, the scope of knowledge, and the reliability of claims to knowledge. In short, "Epistemology is concerned with the foundations of science"3 or knowledge in a scientific and systematic manner. But, unfortunately, wisdom has not been as fortunate as knowledge in being the subject of an independent discipline of philosophy where it is researched, discussed and developed by scholars in a systematic and permanent manner. Thus, it is time to develop a science, philosophy, or theory of wisdom, and to give it a proper name, as has been done for epistemology and other philosophical or scientific disciplines: we propose "Sophialogy" (sophia-logy). Sophialogy has perennial insights for the enduring problems of epistemology and ethics. We will tentatively try to determine the basic characteristics of a sophialogical epistemology, and propose that such an approach can solve many problems or crises in contemporary epistemology better than current dichotomic alternatives (such as foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, or objectivism and relativism) can.

The DIalogue of Knowledge and WIsdom In AncIent and MedIeval TImes Knowledge and Wisdom in Abrahamic Religions and Ancient Philosophy When we look at the relationship between knowledge and wisdom from a historical perspective, we see that they are concepts that are part of a complementary and productive dialogue. There are many verses in the Bible and the Quran concerning knowledge and wisdom, and some of them speak of the two together. We have the following, for example: "To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness " (Ecclesiastes 2:26); "Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3); " We gave him [Joseph] wisdom and knowledge, thus We reward the doers of good " (Quran 12: 22). These examples show that knowledge and wisdom are neither identical nor unconnected concepts. They emphasize both the relationship between each other and their relationship with virtue, happiness, and eschatological reward.

Wisdom is a common intellectual concept and a cardinal moral virtue in all the major religions and philosophical systems. According to the Quran, the goodness of a human being is closely connected with the degree of wisdom he or she has: "He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; And he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; But none will receive admonition but men of understanding" (Quran 2:269). In the Bible, "Wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness" (Eccl 2:13). In Christian sacred texts, people who lack wisdom are advised to ask it of God: "If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you" (Jas 1:5). There is no need to say that in Eastern religions, too, wisdom is regarded as extremely important. It is even difficult to distinguish Indian wisdom from philosophy, and philosophy in turn from religion; each shares in the character of the others.4 It is also known that various moral qualities singled out by the classical writers are reduced by Confucius to the five cardinal virtues, and one of them is wisdom.5 Therefore, wisdom is an intellectual value and an experiential virtue for all the major religions of the world.

There is a close relationship between knowledge and wisdom in Greek classical philosophy, too. As is well known, the etymological meaning of the word of philosophy is love of wisdom. Socrates conceives the love of wisdom as the pursuit of self-knowledge. As Donald Verene writes, Socrates
locates the intersection of things human and divine in the task of selfknowledge. His dedication to self-knowledge as the subject of philosophy is achieved through an act of memory. In declaring that life is to be examined, Socrates remembers what is already stated on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, attributed to the Seven Sages: gnothi seauton, know thyself. The second famous inscription meden agan, nothing too much indicates that self-knowledge requires proportion or harmony, more specifically sophrosyne."6 Plato built up his majestic system of ethical idealism, with its four cardinal virtues wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Of these, wisdom is the highest phase of virtue, for it inspires and regulates the whole inner life. A distinction vaguely apprehended by Plato was sharply drawn by Aristotle. Practical wisdom, prudence, or good sense deals with matters of ordinary human interest; speculative wisdom, which is wisdom par excellence, deals with the first principles of things. The former enables a man to apply the right rule to every line of activity, whether professional, civic, or strictly moral; the latter leads, by a union of science and intuitive apprehension, to the knowledge of those things which are most precious in their nature.7 The productive dialogue of knowledge and wisdom continued with the later Hellenistic philosophers, Neo-Platonists, and early Christian thinkers.

Knowledge and Wisdom in Medieval Times, Particularly in Islam

According to a widespread conviction among the Muslims, "there have been many expositions on the nature of knowledge in Islam more than in any other religion, culture

and civilization, and this is due to the preeminent position and paramount role accorded toal-ilm by God in the Holy Quran."8 Islam is essentially and fundamentally a religion of moderation; its epistemology is neither exclusively rationalist, nor empiricist, nor intuitionist. It employs all the sources of knowledge reason, sense-experience and intuition to arrive at the knowledge of truth, and integrates the relative truth supplied by them with the absolute truth revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).9 In Islam and the civilization which it created, "there was a veritable celebration of knowledge all of whose forms were, in one way or another, related to the sacred extending in a hierarchy from an empirical and rational mode of knowing to that highest form of knowledge (al-marifah or irfan) "10 In other words, Islamic epistemology "is an integrated whole of rationalism, empiricism and intuitionism, under the overriding authority of the knowledge revealed by God to the Prophet (SAWS)."11 In Islam, reason and experience are "valid channels by which knowledge is attained knowledge, that is, at the rational and empirical level of normal experience. We maintain that there is another level; but even at this other, spiritual level, reason and experience are still valid, only they are of a transcendental order."12 In order to attain a true and comprehensive knowledge "we must integrate the findings of reason, sense-perception, intuition and revelation into a well-knit whole. Light from only one direction does not and cannot illumine the whole of reality in all its manifestations, temporal and spiritual."13 Indeed, the Quran regards both anfus (subjective, experiential, transcendental knowledge) and afaq (objective, empirical, scientific knowledge) as the veritable sources of human knowledge.14

In addition, certainty or truth in Islamic epistemology is not a matter of either absoluteness, as in the case of extreme foundationalism, or almost-nothingness, as in the case of extreme relativism and nihilism; rather, there are at least three levels of certainty.
The knowledge obtained through the discursive movement of thought is certain only epistemically (ilm al-yaqin) [102:5]. It does satisfy the mind of its certitude, but possesses theoretical certainty at best, as opposed to what the Quran calls the certainty of sight (ain al-yaqin) [102:7] characteristic of personal observation. The highest degree of certitude belongs to the knowledge revealed by God to the prophets which the Quran calls truth of assured certainty (haqq al-yaqin) [69:51].15

However highly knowledge is regarded in the Quran, it

seldom speaks of kitab (knowledge) alone, but pairs this with hikmah (wisdom) [Quran, 1:129; 3:164]. The book gives us knowledge of the true objective of the creation of man. Wisdom makes us realise the rationale, value and importance of this knowledge for ordering our life, individual and collective, in accordance with it. This consists in

reflecting on what we already know, and implies extention in depth, in internalising knowledge, rather than in extending the frontiers of knowledge.16

In the Islamic perspective,

every wisdom is at the same time knowledge, but every knowledge is not wisdom. This gives knowledge an edge over wisdom, but it is wisdom, not mere knowledge, which has sole value in the eyes of God. Whosoever is given wisdom, is given abundant good, [2:269] says the Quran.17

For most of the medieval Muslim philosophers, too, wisdom has been related both to knowledge and philosophy as well as to religion and morality. For example,
Ibn Rushd tried to substantiate a cultural vision of wisdom so that it could be acceptable both in the tradition of Islam (religion), and in the tradition of logic (philosophy), thereby removing a possible contradiction between faith and proof (reason). He aspired to consider the rational scope of Islamic culture as a necessary condition of ideal moderation. He regarded this as a method of overcoming sectarianism and dogmatism, lies and defects, and establishing a rich unity of truth and virtuousness. ... [For him] this was an historical-cultural form of mastering the various attempts and possibilities of the synthesis of reason and wisdom, development of rational wisdom and wise rationalism, which, in turn, were nothing else but the wholeness of the moral spirit or monism.18

BreakIng off the DIalogue of Knowledge and WIsdom In Modern TImes The dialogue of knowledge and wisdom has broken off in modern times in both the Western world and the Islamic world. But their preferences have been different; one has preferred knowledge and neglected wisdom, and the other has done the reverse. Breaking off in the Western World for the Sake of Knowledge: Rationalism, Empiricism, and Positivism In the words of Donald Verene, as modern Western philosophy has developed since Descartes,
the connection of philosophy to mortality and its accompanying concern with self-knowledge have been set aside. Philosophy as the love of wisdom that considers the true to be the whole has been replaced by the

pursuit of method and the truth of the part. The Renaissance humanists attempt to discover the connections among wisdom, eloquence, and prudence has been given up. In regard to the Socratic tradition of selfknowledge and the humanist tradition of seeking to form thought and human action as wisdom speaking, philosophy has lost its way.19

The spirit of modern philosophy is extremely rationalistic in the sense that it makes human reason the highest authority in the pursuit of knowledge, and naturalistic in that it seeks to explain the inner and outer nature without supernatural presuppositions. Siddiqui notes:
Religious humanism is replaced by a humanism of the scientific sort which puts human interests above everything else, making man the source of all knowledge the knowledge of what is materially useful, as well as of what is morally good.20

For the ancients, the philosophical search was identified with the pursuit of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. In contrast, according to Brenda Almond, modern philosophy, especially in
the twentieth century[,] has tended to prefer more modest and more prosaic goals: It has been more at home in the area of knowledge than in the area of ethics and, as a result, its command of technology has found more and more deeply corrupt applications in both war and peace. Perhaps worse, where it does give lip-service to ethics, it is to an ethics divorced from moral sensitivity.... [In this case] it has to be admitted that contemporary Western philosophy has very little to offer in the way of reflection or insight in relation to either practical or philosophic wisdom. Instead it tends to be constrained in a narrow professionalism that detaches itself deliberately from the world.21

At the end, knowledge without wisdom has made modern men spiritually homeless, alien to themselves, and has challenged humanity and the earth with many global, cultural, ethical and environmental crises. Rationalist and positivist epistemologies accompanied by an atheist and naturalist ontology and by relativist and nihilist ethics exhibit more knowledge, but probably less wisdom, more power but less virtue, and more pleasure but less peace to the modern world. Breaking off in the Islamic World for the Sake of Wisdom: Mysticism, Fideism, and Dogmatism
Islam played the dominant role in the shaping of world history from the time of its advent onwards for at least a thousand years. The Western counter-attack came gradually,

beginning with the scientific revolution in Western Europe in the thirteenth century, and then with the gradual growth in subsequent centuries in military and economic power. The geographical expansion of Western Europe eastward and westward, and the establishment of its trading posts in the Indian Ocean in the sixteenth century, caused grave economic repercussions in the Muslim world. Together with these external factors, certain internal elements "had made possible the Western colonization of a significant part of that world from the 17th century onwards till our own times."22 In seventeenth century, the contemporary philosopher of Descartes (1596-1650) in Islamic World was Mulla Sadra (1571-1640) and he chose, in contrast to Descartes, to address wisdom rather than knowledge. One of his major philosophical works is "Transcendental Wisdom," better known as "The Four Journeys" (al-Asfar al-Arbaah). He distinguishes between two categories of ancient Greek philosophers. The first category starts with Thales and ends with Socrates and Plato, the second starts with Pythagoras, who received wisdom from Solomon and from Egyptian priests. Among the "pillars of wisdom," he mentions Empedocles, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. All the above-mentioned Greek "pillars of wisdom" are said by al-Shirazi to have received the "light of wisdom" from the "beacon of Prophethood."23 After the time of Mulla Sadra, dialogue and the balance of knowledge and wisdom did not continue in the Islamic world as well as it had. The spirit of the last few centuries in the Islamic world has been a mainly mystical rather than rationalistic or balanced one, and many people have seen practical wisdom as enough for living a good life. As Iqbal said: The more genuine schools of Sufism have, no doubt, done good work in shaping and directing the evolution of religious experience in Islam; but their latter-day representatives, owing to their ignorance of the modern mind, have become absolutely incapable of receiving any fresh inspiration from modern thought and experience.24

In the end, wisdom without knowledge has made the Muslim man and woman materially homeless, scientifically and technologically backwards, and culturally fragile. Mystical and practical wisdom followed by an idealist ontology and universalist ethics brought to the Muslim world more wisdom but less knowledge, more virtue but less power, and more internal peace but less international prestige. Contemporary Need for a "Sophialogical" Epistemology Contemporary Epistemological Crises and Hopeless Dichotomic Proposals Neither the Western nor the Islamic world, which engaged in the dialogue of the accompanying and complementary concepts of knowledge and wisdom for three centuries, could have escaped from the various crises, arriving at a more

ideal situation. Muslim intellectuals (i.e., the modernists and some others) became aware of the crisis in their world about 100 to 150 years ago; Western intellectuals (the postmodernists and some others) became aware of their crisis about 50 to 100 years ago. But, in our view, these searches for a solution do not provide much hope; it is too simple for each to reject the past approach completely and to adopt the other extreme of the dichotomy. For most of the postmodernists (and their Western or Muslim followers), such concepts as foundation, knowledge, reason, rationality, reality, truth, objectivity, science, universal values and virtues, and so on, are taboo and reactionary concepts; everything is relative and "anything goes."
Many prominent philosophers of this century may better be described as anti-philosophers because of their tendency to see philosophical problems merely as linguistic muddles and because of their conviction that the human mind is incapable of actually knowing anything; nihilists like Richard Rorty even says that the best hope for philosophy is not to practice Philosophy and that we must drop the idea ... that Truth is out there waiting for human beings to arrive at it.25 There are many contemporary Muslim intellectuals repeating these ideas in the Islamic world. As just one example, one can mention the last sentence of a paper by a Turkish philosopher, delivered at a symposium on Knowledge and Value in the year 2002: "The source of values is natural languages in the last analysis; and Heidegger and Derrida are right: there is nothing outside language."26

For most modernists, too, such concepts as wisdom, heart, spirituality, goodness, subjectivity, belief, faith, traditional values and virtues are almost taboo and reactionary concepts; everything is dependent on science and reason, and nothing is allowed to go except with their permission. As just one example of this sort of idea defended in the symposium mentioned above, one can mention another Turkish philosophers last words quoted from a poem written in 1911: The empty belief will sink to the bottom of the earth, will become extinct, By the ability of reason, the great sorcerer, I believed. One day technology will make that black soil golden
Everything will become through the power of science I believed.27

These two alternative proposals seem to be the simple projection of what Brenda Almond describes in general:

Professional and academic philosophy has become identified at the end of the twentieth century with a choice in the area of knowledge, between irrationalism and empty logic-chopping, and in the area of morality, between moral nihilism and a shallow utilitarianism.28

Indeed, in our view, she has rightly says that,

Against these prevailing trends, it is only possible to repeat that the true mission of philosophy is, after all, the pursuit of wisdom an understanding which is in keeping with the initial and etymological meaning of the word.29

Thus there seems to be an urgent need for a new or renewed type of epistemology. Towards a "Sophialogical" Epistemology A better way of addressing the epistemological crises seems to be in the recovery of the dialogue of knowledge and wisdom. First of all, wisdom should be an independent branch of philosophy ("Sophialogy"), and so should be studied in detail everywhere permanently and systematically. As part of this proposal, one can speak of "sophialogical epistemology" (particularly in the context of the Western philosophy) and "epistemological sophialogy" (particularly in the context of the Islamic philosophy and mysticism). We will deal just with the former here briefly. "Sophialogical epistemology" may be described in general as an epistemological approach that looks at the philosophical problems concerning knowledge from the perspective of wisdom. Although there may be different versions of wisdom in different cultures and civilisations, there is a global and perennial essence common throughout the well-known traditions of philosophy and religion all over the world. We will try to determine tentatively some of the basic characteristics of this approach starting from philosophical wisdom in the ancient philosophy, particularly from the etymological analysis of the word "philosophy," and the two statements on the Temple at Delphi, which are well known among the philosophers since the time of Socrates.
"Philio-sophia" is the Knowledge between Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism, Objectivism and Relativism. Against the prevailing contemporary trends such as absolutist, objectivist foundationalism and irrationalist, subjectivist anti-foundationalism, "the true mission of philosophy is, after all, the pursuit of wisdom an understanding which is in keeping with the initial and etymological meaning of the word."30 The Pythagorian story about the choice of the word as philio-sophia and not as only sophia is very illuminating for the solution of the foundationalism debate (bu ksm iin sosyal

bilimler felsefesine bak, kavramlar kontrol et). Human beings are neither God, who has absolutely pure knowledge and who can perform absolutely good actions, nor animals which are completely dependent on their instinct and environment. The conscious and deliberate choice of the word philosophy shows rightly that philosophical inquiry of a wise human being should be neither after objective certainty and absolute truth, as in the case of major trends of modern philosophy, nor aimed at submission to and condemnation of the subjective uncertainty and historico-cultural limitations, as in the case of some trends of postmodern philosophy. The word philosophy is very wisely chosen, and the story behind it is illuminating for contemporary epistemological debates and dichotomic crises. Despite the fact that nihilism afflicts much of modern philosophy, it must be said that not all present-day philosophers, scientists and theologians "have turned their backs on reality, rationality and truth."31 This does not mean that they turned back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries exclusivist rationalism and positivism, either. There is always a third way a wiser or sophialogical way to accept. Colin Gunton, for example, has drawn our attention to the contemporary epistemological dilemma mentioned above. On the one hand is modernitys longing for foundationalism, the titanic quest for universal and certain knowledge in Guntons terminology, the search for the One. On the other hand is post-modernitys form of the assertion of antifoundationalism, the dissolution of knowledge into private and particular points of view expressed through fideistic assertion or the playing of an idiosyncratic language game in Guntons terminology, the role of the Many. Today, the former does not convince, and the latter does not satisfy. Gunton seeks a middle way. "The quest must therefore be for non-foundationalist foundations: to find the moments of truth in both of the contentions, namely that particularity and universality each have their place in a reasoned approach to the truth."32

Alvin Plantinga seems to have similar ideas. In his view, too, there are three approaches in this matter. First, is that of the classical foundationalists. For them, life without sure and secure foundations is frightening and unnerving; hence Descartess fateful effort to find a sure and solid footing for the beliefs with which he found himself. Hence also Kants similar effort to find an irrefragable foundation for science. Second, is that of the postmodernists. They
nearly all reject classical foundationalism; in this they concur with most Christian thinkers and most contemporary philosophers. Momentously enough, however, many postmodernists apparently believe that the demise of classical foundationalism implies something far more startling: that there is no such thing as truth at all. No way things really are.33

In this case, "the thing to do," for postmodernists,

is dispense with the search for truth and retreat into projects of some other sort: self-creation and self-redefinition as with Nietzsche and Heidegger, or Rortian irony, or perhaps playful mockery, as with Derrida. So taken [according to Plantinga], postmodernism is a kind of failure of epistemic nerve.34

There is a third approach between them. Such thinkers as Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Kuyper
recognize that there arent any certain foundations of the sort Descartes sought or, if there are, they are exceedingly slim, and there is no way to transfer their certainty to our important non-foundational beliefs about material objects, the past, other persons, and the like. This is a stance that requires a certain epistemic hardihood: there is, indeed, such a thing as truth; the stakes are, indeed, very high (it matters greatly whether you believe the truth); but there is no way to be sure that you have the truth. This is life under uncertainty, life under epistemic risk and fallibility. That is simply the human condition35

Scientist theologian John Polkinghorne is another example. According to him,

the success of the apparently objectified account of science should not tempt us to commit the Enlightenment error of rejecting the subjective as a source of real knowledge. Our thoughts far exceed an impersonal evaluation of logical entailment. Kurt Gdel has taught us that even pure mathematics involves an act of intellectual daring, as we commit ourselves to a belief in the unprovable consistency of the axiomatic system under consideration. The Cartesian programme of seeking to found knowledge on the basis of clear and certain ideas has proved to be an unattainable ideal. 36

But this conviction does not cause him to pass into the extreme edge of the opposite pole. He says rightly and wisely:
I do not think that this realisation of the necessary precariousness involved in human theorising, condemns us to a post-modernist belief in the personal or communal construction of a variety of views from which we are free to make our a la carte selection. There is a middle way between certainty and relativism, which corresponds to the critical adherence to rationally motivated belief, held with conviction but open to the possibility of correction.37

"Know Thyself": Knowledge Oriented to Self-Development, Ethics and Action. As we saw above, Socrates conceives the love of wisdom as the pursuit of self knowledge. He locates the intersection of things, human and divine, in

the task of self-knowledge. His dedication to self-knowledge as the subject of philosophy is achieved through an act of memory. Recall the quotation from Verene, cited above:
In declaring that life is to be examined, Socrates remembers what is already stated on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, attributed to the Seven Sages: gnothi seauton, know thyself. The second famous inscription meden agan, nothing too much indicates that self-knowledge requires proportion or harmony, more specifically sophrosyne"38

In terms of this concept of philosophy and epistemology, the central concern of almost all kinds of knowledge should be ultimately self-knowledge, selfdevelopment and self-realization. Brenda Almond writes:
But, of course, we do still continue on the whole to teach our students to be critical rather than trying to encourage them to be wise; to perform moral gymnastics rather than to take seriously the search for a meaningful life. All the same, being wise may well mean looking to the past and being willing to learn from it, rather than parroting dubious refutations of philosophers arguments. For in the end, it is only by learning to transcend the narrow limitations of ones own epoch both to look backwards and to think forwards that there can be any hope of gaining some sense of what we like to call the meaning of life.39 For philosophy to achieve its rightful place as a guide to life, "it must reexamine the relation between word and action that is present in the classical and humanist conception of prudence."40 There is a prudential sense of wisdom (phronesis) that is crucial to moral goodness and that connects knowledge to action. Indeed, the opposition between theory and practice the opposition between knowledge and action has been denied and overcome by Socrates, raising it in a synthesis to a new level. Socrates seems to reject the opposition; for him all knowing is doing.41

And as such,
knowledge is directed toward an ordered reality ours and that of the entire globe the central questions are not merely epistemological, but ontological and ethical, namely, what is the global whole in which we exist, and how can we act in relation to other peoples and cultures in ways that promote a collaborative realization of global community in our times?
42

Knowledge of the self or subjective knowledge should also be considered as a source and criterion of knowledge; and the development of the self (and of the human condition in general) should be considered among the main aims of getting knowledge. There should be a close relationship between all kinds of knowledge and human discourse and action, and knowledge should have the quality of being a guide to life and of finding a meaning in life. "Nothing Too Much": Knowledge Originated from Various Complementary Sources. "Sophialogical" epistemology requires not being extremist and exclusivist with respect to one source or one criterion of knowledge; by contrast, it requires a pluralistic, holistic, and complementary or integrative perspective regarding all the epistemological problems. It usually requires a middle way between the opposing poles or extreme edges. This point of view is valid and useful in solving several problems in contemporary epistemology, such as the problems of empiricism, rationalism and mysticism, objectivity and subjectivity, foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, universalism and particularism, certainty and relativism, and so on.
Unfortunately, philosophy as the love of wisdom that considers the true to be the whole has been replaced in the modern period by the pursuit of method and the truth of the part.43 In the words of S. H. Nasr: The unifying vision which related knowledge to love and faith, religion to science, and theology to all the departments of intellectual concern is finally completely lost, leaving a world of compartmentalization where there is no wholeness because holiness has ceased to be of central concern, or is at best reduced to sentimentality. 44

But, as he pointed out,

in such a world those with spiritual and intellectual perspicacity sought, outside of the confines of this ambience, to rediscover their traditional roots and the total functioning of the intelligence which would once again bestow upon knowledge its sacramental function and enable men to reintegrate their lives upon the basis of this unifying principle, which is inseparable from both love and faith.45

John Polkinghorne rightly defends the similar ideas when he says that
as a passionate believer in the ultimate integrity and unity of all knowledge, I wish to extend my realist stance beyond science to encompass, among many other fields of inquiry theological reflection on our encounter with the divine.46

Consequently, a sophialogical epistemology does not see sense experience, reason and intuition, or empiricism, rationalism and mysticism, or science, philosophy and religion, as mutually exclusive and conflicting sources of knowledge; by contrast, it regards them as mutually supportive and complementary sources. Several results may follow: first, the recovery of the old productive and constructive dialogue of knowledge and wisdom; second, making the pursuit of wisdom an independent branch of philosophy known as "sophialogy"; finally, adopting the approach of a "sophialogical" epistemology that can contribute to the solution of our personal, social and global problems, no matter we live in the West or East, North or South. There is no need to waste more time on the alternative and exclusivist extremes of modern and postmodern epistemological dichotomies such as objectivism, relativism, and the rest. Knowledge left uncomplemented by wise action is insufficient to prevent or lessen the sufferings of human beings and to promote their self-knowledge and selfrealisation. In the same way, mere "practical" wisdom or simple free action not originating from or supported by firm knowledge is not secure and sound enough for the same purposes. We should try to develop a "sophialogical" epistemology which has a global and perennial foundation in all the great cultures and civilisations of the world. Only in such a case will the two beautiful hopes come together: tomorrow there will be fewer things we dont know, and tomorrow there will be less evil we cannot prevent. intellectual versus wisdom-related knowledge - College of Liberal ...
to acquire wisdom rather than intellectual knowledge, or in Moody's. (1986) term .....content and the subject from the object of one's inquiries (Strijbos,. 1995)

Educational Gerontology, 26:771789, 2000 Copyright 2000 Taylor & Francis 0360-1277/00 $12.00 C .00 INTELLECTUAL VERSUS WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE: THE CASE FOR A DIFFERENT KIND OF

LEARNING IN THE LATER YEARS OF LIFE Monika Ardelt Department of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA Lifelong learning and continued education are essential for older people who want to stay involved in a rapidly changing world. However, in the later years of life, it may be even more important to acquire the timeless and universal knowledge of wisdom. Whereas intellectual knowledge enables elderly people to stay involved in worldly affairs, wisdom-related knowledge helps them to prepare for the physical and social decline of old age and ultimately their own death. Moreover, while intellectual knowledge tends to decrease with advancing age, the relationship between wisdom and aging is potentially positive, provided that cognitive deterioration does not become pathological. By illustrating the difference between intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge in the areas of goals, approach, range, acquisition, effects on the knower, and relation to aging, it is argued that

wisdom rather than intellectual knowledge is crucial for aging well. You have learned great pyramids of knowledge. But if that learning is not exercised through experience, it cannot be realized. . . . Like most people, you dont experience with your whole self. That is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Agnes Whistling Elk, cited in Flight of the Seventh Moon, Lynn V. Andrews, 1984, p. 190. I would like to thank Andrew Achenbaum, Felix Berado, Walter Cunningham, and Cheryl Elmanfor their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. A condensed version of the article was presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meetings in Toronto, Canada, August 913, 1997. Address correspondence to Monika Ardelt, University of Florida, Department of Sociology, 3219 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611-7330. E-mail: ardelt@soc.u .edu 771772 M. Ardelt There is a general consensus that lifelong learning and continued

education for older persons are essential in a society that is characterized by rapid technological changes (Glendenning, 1995; Moody, 1986; OBrien, 1992; Thornton, 1986; Willis, 1985). A case in point is computer literacy without which people cannot participate in the current communication and information revolution (vide Moody, 1986). Indeed, there is no reason to believe that elderly individuals are incapable of learning, even though many researchers nd that uid intelligence (e.g., reaction time and a general ability to solve abstract problems) decreases in old age (Baltes, 1993; Baltes & Staudinger, 1993; Glendenning, 1995; Moody, 1986; Shuldiner, 1992; Willis, 1985). But as longitudinal studies have shown, the potential for learning remains intact throughout the life time as long as cognitive functioning is not affected by neurophysiological diseases, such as Alzheimers (Mason, 1974; OBrien, 1992; Shuldiner, 1992; Thornton, 1986; Willis, 1985). However, the broader question concerns the specic goals of old age education. One obvious goal is to enable elderly people, especially older workers, to keep up with technological and scientic advances to avoid marginalization (Glendenning, 1995; Hall & Mirvis, 1995; Jarratt & Coates, 1995; Willis, 1985). Another goal is to help elderly persons

to improve the quality of their lives by teaching them self-reliance, self-sufciency, and coping strategies in the areas of nances, physical health, and social relationships (Glendenning, 1995; Thornton, 1986; Willis, 1985). Apart from these survival skills, however, old age education should follow a different avenue than that of childhood and adulthood education. According to Thornton (1986), the educational goals of childhood and adulthood are mastery and competence, respectively, while the educational goal in old age should be wisdom. Education in the later years does not need to be concerned with the tasks of mastering social and problem-solving skills and acquiring the cultural knowledge to attain competency in adult roles. Hence, old age provides the opportunity to explore learning goals that people at earlier stages of the life course are often too busy to pursue, such as developing a re ective mode of thinking, contemplating the meaning of life, coming to terms with ones past as a preparation for death, and the quest for selffulllment and spiritual advancement (Erikson, 1963, 1982; Jarvis, 1992; Mason, 1974; Moody, 1986; Shuldiner, 1992; Thornton, 1986). However, those

goals require a different kind of learning and a different kind of knowledge: wisdom rather than intellectual knowledge. Moody (1986) makes this point clear when he writes about the specic aspects of late life learning.INTELLECTUAL VS. WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE 773 Acquiring more and more information is not the same thing as the cultivation of wisdom. The solution may not necessarily be to plug in the elderly to a new information utility. Instead of being a time to assimilate more and more information, old age may be the period of life to go in the opposite direction: to reduce the quantity and complexity of information in favor of what is deeper and more essential. Instead of encouraging elders to become more adept information junkies, we should encourage a complementary style of late life learning based on the strengths of age and experience (p. 135). But what exactly are the differences between intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge? While contemporary theoretical and empirical research makes a clear distinction between intelligence and wisdom (e.g., Clayton, 1982; Staudinger, Smith, & Baltes, 1992), the contrast between intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge is less obvious (e.g., Baltes & Smith, 1990; Baltes, Staudinger, Maercker, & Smith,

1995; Smith & Baltes, 1990). Hence, to propose that late life education should promote wisdom rather than intellectual knowledge, rst requires a clarication of the differences between these two knowledge types. This article describes the characteristics of intellectual and wisdomrelated knowledge in six domains: goals, approach, range, acquisition, effects on the knower, and relationship to aging. Based on their specic characteristics, it is argued that it is more essential for older people to acquire wisdom rather than intellectual knowledge, or in Moodys (1986) term theoretical knowledge, if they want to age well. Whereas intellectual knowledge enables the elderly to stay involved in worldly affairs, wisdom-related knowledge helps them to prepare for physical and social decline and ultimately their own death. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL AND WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE While intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge share certain characteristics, such as the search for answers to difcult life problems and a quest for truth, they are the complete opposite of each other in many areas (Assmann, 1994; Chandler & Holliday, 1990; Clayton & Birren,

1980; Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990; Sternberg, 1990a). Table 1 summarizes the differences between intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge in six domains: goals, approach, range and acquisition of knowledge, the effects of the knowledge on the knower, and the relationship of these two types of knowledge to aging.774 M. Ardelt TABLE 1 Di erences Be wt een Intellectual Knowledge and Wisdom R- elated Knowledge Domain Type of Knowledge Intellectual Knowledge Wisdom R- elated Knowledge Goals quantitative: accumulation of knowledge and information qualitative: deeper understand ni g of salient phenomena and events discovery of new truths rediscovery of the signicance of old truths descriptive knowledge ni terpretative knowledge how to do certain things should I do certa ni th ni gs? mastery of the outside world through liberation from outside forces mastery of the inner world through liberation from ni ner forces change of reality acceptance of reality striv ni g for certainty, regularity, and predictability to plan for the future

acceptance of uncerta ni ty, irregularity, unpredictability, and mi pe mr anence knowing how to deal with the expected knowing how to deal with the unexpected and the unknown Approach scient i c spiritual theoretical applied abstract, detached concrete, ni volved separation of fo mr from content ni tegration of form and content distinction between subject and object synthesis of subject and object l ni ear: nal stage of formal operations dialectic: beyond formal operations logos mythos mi personal personal: intrapersonal and ni terpersonal Range t mi e-bound: subject to political and historical uctuations t mi eless: ni dependent of political and historical uctuations narrow, particularistic broad, holistic l mi ited, doma ni -related unl mi ited, universal fragmented, specialized, selective comprehensive, integrated Acquisition intelligence/cognition combination of cognition and self-re ection detached experience, i.e., study ni g books, listen to lectures, conduct ni g exper mi ents, objective observations

personal life experiences together with self-awareness, determination, and constancy to transcend subjectivity and projectionsINTELLECTUAL VS. WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE 775 TABLE 1 continued Domain Type of Knowledge Intellectual Knowledge Wisdom R- elated Knowledge manipulation and control of phenomena and events openness to experience ni cluding the experience of negativity, irregularity, unpredictability, contradictions, and ambiguity through the development of equan mi ity E ects on belief that knowledge is potentially l mi itless acceptance of the l mi its of knowledge for human beings the knower tendency to believe ni exist ni g knowledge if it is scient i cally arrived tendency to doubt existing beliefs, va ul es, knowledge, and information increased self-centeredness because one believes that one knows d mi ni ished self-centeredness because one knows that one does not know pride and a feeling of superiority towards people with less intellectual knowledge

sympathy and compassion for others concerned about ni dividualistic and particularistic issues concerned about collective and universal issues negative feel ni gs if manipulation and control fails satisfaction and peacefu nl ess ni spite of life s vicissitudes and uncertainties Relation reversed u-shaped pattern potentially positive to aging in uenced by cognitive decline ni uenced by openness to experience, self-re ection, self-awareness, determination, and constancy may become outdated and obsolete with t mi e mi portant at all stages of the life course776 M. Ardelt Goals One common goal of intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge is the search for truth. However, while the major aim of intellectual knowledge is quantitative, i.e., the accumulation of new truths in form of new, primarily descriptive knowledge and information (e.g., how to surf the internet), the goal of wisdom-related knowledge is qualitative. It consists of a rediscovery of the signicance of old truths (e.g., What does it mean to me that all humans are mortal?), a process Kekes (1983) calls the development of interpretative knowledge, which will eventually lead to a deeper understanding of salient phenomena and events (Assmann, 1994; Holliday & Chandler, 1986; Moody, 1986;

Sternberg, 1990a). A deeper understanding of phenomena and events becomes especially relevant in old age when many people try to come to terms with missed opportunities in the past, unresolved issues, and declining possibilities (Moody, 1986; Shuldiner, 1992). Furthermore, while individuals at earlier stages of the life course generally do not have the time to contemplate the signicance of old truths due to family and occupational obligations, the later years of life with their fewer responsibilities provide the opportunity for this endeavor (Shuldiner, 1992; Thornton, 1986). Understanding the deeper truth of existing phenomena and events may begin a search for the right ends in life. The question is no longer How should I do certain things to achieve my personal ends? that can be answered by intellectual knowledge (e.g., How can I get this promotion?), but Should I do certain things? for which only wisdomrelated knowledge can nd an answer (e.g., Should I spend my time helping others or improving my golf game?). Whereas, at earlier life stages, people need intellectual knowledge to achieve their personal ends (nishing school, obtaining a professional degree, nding a job, etc.), old age allows a person the luxury to search for the right ends

through the development of wisdom (Assmann, 1994; Clayton, 1982; Holliday & Chandler, 1986; Kekes, 1983). Related to the previous distinction is that the aim of intellectual knowledge is the mastery of the outside world through the liberation from outside forces (e.g., a disadvantaged family background). The ultimate goal here is to change reality according to ones wishes to achieve the desired ends (e.g., by getting a college degree and nding a high paying job) and a striving for certainty, regularity, and predictability to plan for the future (Strijbos, 1995). The objective of wisdom-related knowledge, by contrast, is to master ones inner world through the liberation from inner forces, which can be dened as ones fears, impulses, passions, and desires, and to accept reality as it is (Assmann, 1994; Gadamer, 1960; Hanna & Ottens, 1995). Thus,INTELLECTUAL VS. WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE 777 the goal of wisdom-related knowledge is not to change the external world but to change the inner world of the knower. Only a person who has achieved the liberation from his or her inner forces is truly able to accept reality as it is with all its uncertainty, irregularity, unpredictability, and impermanence (Strijbos, 1995). While the former goal of conquering the world may be important at earlier stages of the life course, the latter is essential at the end of life, when it becomes

increasingly difcult to manipulate reality according to ones wishes due to a decline in social signicance and physical strength. In sum, while intellectual knowledge prepares one to deal with the expected, wisdom-related knowledge helps one to cope with the unexpected and the unknown (Assmann, 1994; Gadamer, 1960). This means that wisdom-related knowledge becomes most important during the last stage of life, when one is confronted with the ultimate unpredictability, impermanence, and unknown: ones own death. Approach In general, intellectual knowledge is obtained through a scientic, theoretical, abstract, and detached approach that separates form from content and the subject from the object of ones inquiries (Strijbos, 1995). As such, intellectual knowledge is strictly impersonal and is assumed to be independent of the knower and the concrete context. (For example, the intellectual knowledge that the physical body tends to decline with age exists independently of the knower.) The independence of the knowledge from the knower allows for an easy cultural dissemination of intellectual knowledge, for example, through written or visual material (McCarthy, 1996). The intellectual approach is primarily linear and belongs to Piagets nal stage of formal operations

(Clayton, 1982; Piaget, 1970; Taranto, 1989). In comparison, the quest for wisdom-related knowledge is spiritual (Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995). As documented in the ancient Western, Greek, and Eastern traditions, wisdom-related knowledge searches for answers to the meaning and purpose of life and the human situation in particular (e.g., Why are we here, were do we come from, and where do we go?), a topic that may become especially prevalent in old age (Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995; Clayton & Birren, 1980). This type of knowledge affects a persons most basic assumptions and outlook on life. Therefore, wisdom-related knowledge cannot remain theoretical, abstract, and detached but is necessarily applied, concrete, and involved (Shuldiner, 1992; Strijbos, 1995). It is used to solve concrete intrapersonal and interpersonal problems (Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995). The separation between subject and778 M. Ardelt object disappears because the object of ones inquiries (e.g., the meaning and purpose of life and the human situation) is ultimately the knower (the subject) him- or herself. This means that formal operational thought is not sufcient to obtain wisdom-related knowledge. A person in search of this type of knowledge needs to engage in dialectic thinking,

which reaches beyond formal operational thought, to bridge the gap between subject and object and to incorporate contradictions that are a necessary part of human nature (Clayton, 1982; Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990; Moody, 1986). This, however, does not mean that wisdom needs to depart from logical analysis and rational thought since it can be both logical and rational to allow for contradictions (Taranto, 1989). Labouvie-Vief (1990) distinguishes between two modes of thought, logos and mythos, to highlight the difference between intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge. Logos, which belongs to intellectual knowledge, is characterized by stable systems of categorization. The inside world (the subject) is separated from the outside world (the object). By comparison, wisdom-related knowledge is connected to mythos which is described as a holistic experience: the self or the inner world merges with the object of ones thoughts, the outer world. Thought and thinker, knower and known, are one single, indivisible unit, and it is from this bond that derives the meaning of an experience (Labouvie-Vief, 1990, pp. 5556). The separation of subject and object in intellectual knowledge implies that this type of knowledge is necessarily impersonal, whereas wisdom-related knowledge is profoundly personal (Clayton, 1982).

Wisdom-related knowledge is social; it refers to an involved or empathic understanding (in contrast to the detached understanding of intellectual knowledge) of intrapersonal matters (e.g., ones own fears and desires) as well as interpersonal matters of everyday life (e.g., social relationships) (Clayton, 1982; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990; Holliday & Chandler, 1986; Kramer, 1990; Taranto, 1989). It is knowledge that can be realized only through experience (Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995). Hence, older people actually have an advantage in acquiring this kind of knowledge compared to younger generations (Jarvis, 1992; Kekes, 1983; Moody, 1986; Shuldiner, 1992). For example, experiencing the physical decline of the body and understanding the meaning and purpose of this process results in wisdom-related knowledge. Range of knowledge Intellectual knowledge is limited and restricted and subject to political and historical uctuations (Clayton, 1982; Clayton & Birren, 1980;INTELLECTUAL VS. WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE 779 McCarthy, 1996). What may be considered to be the (intellectual) truth in a specic culture at one point in time (e.g., Women are inferior to men), may be viewed as utterly wrong at a different time in history. Furthermore, as Max Weber (1973) pointed out, every intellectual

knowledge is destined to be superseded by superior knowledge in the future (Assmann, 1994). For example, Newtons view of the universe was superseded by Einsteins theory of the universe. These changes in intellectual knowledge may be caused by a change in the political climate of a culture or by scientic and technological advancements. In addition, intellectual knowledge that is essential today in certain areas (e.g., how to use a mainframe computer) may be dated and obsolete tomorrow, especially in a world that produces rapid technological changes (Clayton, 1982; Moody, 1986). Whereas intellectual knowledge is time-bound, wisdom-related knowledge is timeless and independent of scientic advancements or political and historical uctuations because it provides universal answers to universal questions that concern the basic predicaments of the human condition (Assmann, 1994; Clayton, 1982; Clayton & Birren, 1980; Holliday & Chandler, 1986; Levenson & Crumpler, 1996). Answers that pertain to the meaning and purpose of life and the human condition are relevant for every culture independent of its specic place in history (e.g., how to deal with the vicissitudes of life, with human suffering, with injustice, how to become a better human being, etc.).

In addition, wisdom-related knowledge is not restricted to a specic domain but penetrates all aspects of life, including ones private, family, and public life (Assmann, 1994; Labouvie-Vief, 1980, 1990; Strijbos, 1995). This type of knowledge is broad, holistic, unlimited, universal, and comprehensive (Chandler & Holliday, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990; Labouvie-Vief, 1990; Strijbos, 1995). This means that the wisdom of older people cannot become outdated. The universality and timelessness of wisdom-related knowledge is exemplied by Jesus of Nazareths answer to the accusers of the adulteress (May those of you who are without sins throw the rst stone.) and King Solomons reply to the two women who both claimed to be the mother of the same infant. These answers are as powerful today as they were in a distant past because they address universal issues of human emotions and behavior, such as the tendency to nd fault in others but to be blind to ones own imperfections, feelings of envy and greed, and the protective instincts of a mother.

By contrast, intellectual knowledge is mainly concerned with individual parts rather than the whole, because it is assumed that reality is too complex to be understood completely. We might be able to comprehend a narrow part of reality by focusing our attention on a780 M. Ardelt limited number of variables but the whole escapes us (Chandler & Holliday, 1990; Strijbos, 1995). Intellectual knowledge is only valid ceteris paribus, i.e., it is knowledge that is only valid for a certain domain, time, and place. We can speculate about the generalizability of our ndings, but we cannot prove them. Hence, intellectual knowledge remains narrow, limited, fragmented, specialized, and selective (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990; Labouvie-Vief, 1990). Acquisition of knowledge The acquisition of intellectual knowledge is strongly related to ones cognitive abilities. Hence, younger people will nd it easier to obtain intellectual knowledge than older persons because uid intelligence tends to decline during the later years of life (Baltes, 1993; Baltes & Staudinger, 1993; Glendenning, 1995; Moody, 1986; Willis, 1985). However, intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom (Clayton, 1982; Coles, 1995; Hanna & Ottens, 1995). A combination of cognition and self-re ection is necessary for wisdom-related knowledge to emerge (Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995; Taranto, 1989).

As mentioned earlier, one goal of wisdom-related knowledge is the liberation from inside forces such as ones fears, jealousies, hostilities, and desires. A necessary prerequisite for this task is an openness to and an acknowledgement of all kinds of external and internal experiences which can be achieved through self-re ection, selfawareness, determination, and constancy (Achenbaum & Orwoll, 1991; Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990; Gadamer, 1960; Hanna & Ottens, 1995; Jarvis, 1992; Kekes, 1983; Kramer, 1990; Moody, 1986; Taranto, 1989). Openness to experience is an important prerequisite for the perception of reality. People who refuse to acknowledge the reality of unpleasant and negative experiences (e.g., the nitude of life) cannot grasp the meaning of wisdom-related knowledge. Self-re ection and self-awareness mean that one is able to observe ones own behavior and ones interactions with others objectively, taking different perspectives into account (Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995; Clayton, 1982; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990; Sternberg, 1990b). It is then possible to transcend ones subjectivity and projections and to dissolve inner obstacles. The process of self-re ection ultimately results in a reduction of self-centeredness and in a more correct perception of reality, including

ones own behavior (Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995). However, it is highly unlikely that a person will always manage to overcome his or her projections successfully. Determination and constancy are necessary to endure setbacks and personal failure and to continue in onesINTELLECTUAL VS. WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE 781 quest for wisdom despite the sometimes overwhelming difculty of the task (Kekes, 1983). A person, however, rst needs to develop a certain degree of equanimity to be able to remain open to all kinds of experiences, including the experience of negativity, irregularity, unpredictability, contradictions, and ambiguity (Achenbaum & Orwoll, 1991; Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995; Hanna & Ottens, 1995). Methods to obtain a balanced mind may vary, depending on the spiritual preferences of an individual, and include such practices as prayer, meditation, stress-reduction techniques, and so forth. It is more likely that people will have the time and the interest to engage in these activities at later rather than earlier stages of the life course after they are relieved from major responsibilities, such as raising a family and earning a living (Thornton, 1986). Whereas wisdom-related knowledge cannot be taught directly but can only be obtained through personal involvement and a willingness to

be transformed in the process (Achenbaum & Orwoll, 1991; Assmann, 1994; Hanna & Ottens, 1995; Jarvis, 1992; Moody, 1986), intellectual knowledge can be gained through more detached procedures, such as studying books, listening to lectures, conducting experiments, or objective observations (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990; Kekes, 1983; Taranto, 1989). Rather than developing equanimity for all kinds of experiences, a main method for the acquisition of intellectual knowledge is the manipulation and control of phenomena and events. Irregularities, ambiguities, and the unpredictability of events are not viewed as a part of life but are considered irritating disturbances and indicators of a lack of knowledge that may disappear through the acquisition of more or more accurate knowledge (Arlin, 1990; Meacham, 1990; Sternberg, 1990a). By contrast, the task of late life learning, according to Moody (1986) does not consist in the acquisition of more intellectual or theoretical knowledge but precisely in the transformative process that accompanies the development of wisdom. One can have theoretical knowledge without any corresponding transformation of ones personal being. But one cannot have wisdom without being wise. [. . .] the abundance of information and the obsolescence of knowledge should remove from us the persistent illusion that the key is

to be found in piling up more information, skills, or experience. If, nally, we want life to be understandable, the path lies in an altogether different direction. That discovery itself is the beginning of wisdom. [emphasis in the original] (p. 142)782 M. Ardelt Effects on the knower Re ective thinking helps a wise person to realize that the truth is too complex to be known in its entirety. As Socrates once said I know that I dont know. Hence, the development of wisdom is accompanied by an acceptance of the limits of knowledge for human beings (Kekes, 1983; Sternberg, 1990a). Through self-awareness and re ective thinking wise people become aware that there are more ways to look at phenomena and events than they can possibly realize. They know that our human senses can merely approach the truth behind phenomena but are too limited in nature to unveil the ultimate truth. Hence, they have a tendency to doubt existing beliefs, values, knowledge, and information because they may not be necessarily correct and a deeper more extensive truth may lie beyond them (Meacham, 1990). Intellectual knowledge, by contrast, seduces the knower to believe in its truth as long as it is objective knowledge, i.e., knowledge that

is scientically arrived (Meacham, 1990). This knowledge is assumed to be potentially limitless in scope. Concerns about the truth and the limits of existing knowledge do not question intellectual knowledge per se but the methods, means, and instruments through which this knowledge was gained. A person who believes that he or she knows is likely to increase his or her self-centeredness and develop a feeling of pride and superiority towards people with less intellectual knowledge. To know that one does not know, on the other hand, is likely to diminish ones self-centeredness and make one more humble (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990). Re ective thinking, the transcendence of ones negativities and projections, and a reduced self-centeredness, in turn, tend to increase a persons empathy, sympathy, and compassion for others (Achenbaum & Orwoll, 1991; Holliday & Chandler, 1986; Kramer, 1990; Orwoll & Achenbaum, 1993). As a result, wise people are more concerned about collective and universal issues than about their individual well-being (Clayton, 1982; Sternberg, 1990b). Intellectual knowledge, by contrast, is most often used to satisfy individualistic and particularistic goals. If manipulation and control of the outside world fail to yield the desired results, feelings of disappointment, anger, depression or all of these, often arise. Wisdom-related

knowledge, however, helps one to remain content and peaceful in spite of lifes vicissitudes and uncertainties because it enables one to accept the possibilities and limitations of life, including physical decline and death (Birren & Fisher, 1990; Kekes, 1983; Sternberg, 1990a; Taranto, 1989, 1992). For example, wise older people tend to be satised with their lives, independent of the objective circumstances they encounter (Ardelt, 1997).INTELLECTUAL VS. WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE 783 Relationship to aging The acquisition of both intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge takes time and, hence, is likely to increase with age. But while intellectual knowledge might eventually decline with advancing age the relationship between age and wisdom-related knowledge is potentially positive throughout the lifetime (Baltes, 1993; Kekes, 1983; Kramer, 1990; Taranto, 1989). Declining cognitive abilities, such as memory loss, may be one reason why intellectual knowledge decreases in old age. Older individuals process new information less efciently than younger persons, which may explain why older people have more difculties in memorizing and recalling this information later (MacKay & Burke, 1990;

Poon, 1985; Smith, 1996; Stine & Wingeld, 1990). However, even the existing crystallized (Cattell, 1971; Horn, 1970) stock of intellectual knowledge may decline with advancing age (Baltes, Staudinger, Maercker, & Smith, 1995; Moody, 1986). Because intellectual knowledge is time-bound and affected by political and historical uctuations as well as scientic progress, knowledge that seemed to be valid and true at an earlier point in a persons life may be outdated and obsolete during the later years of life (Clayton, 1982; Clayton & Birren, 1980; Weber, 1973). If a person is not willing or cannot keep up with the newest developments in intellectual knowledge or a paradigm shift, his or her stock of culturally shared intellectual knowledge will actually diminish in old age (Kuhn, 1970; Moody, 1986). Wisdom-related knowledge is obtained through personal life experiences, self-re ection, self-awareness, and the transcendence of ones subjectivity and projections. Hence, the acquisition of wisdom-related knowledge takes time. However, time is only a necessary but not a sufcient condition for the development of wisdom. Openness to all kinds of experiences, self-re ection, self-awareness, determination, and constancy are also required for wisdom to emerge (Jarvis, 1992;

Kekes, 1983; Kramer, 1990). Therefore, it is not surprising that only very few individualseven among the older populationhave reached a high state of wisdom (Baltes, 1993; Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990; Sternberg, 1990b). Neither openness to experience, nor self-re ection, self-awareness, determination, or constancy need to decline with advancing age. They are aspects of an individuals personality rather than related to biological aging. But the longer one practices these qualities, the more successful one will be to transcend ones subjectivity and projections. This is why growing old is a necessary but not a sufcient condition for the emergence of wisdom (Moody, 1986). As Kekes remarks (1983,784 M. Ardelt p. 286), one can be old and foolish, but a wise man is likely to be old, simply because such growth takes time. Because wisdom-related knowledge is timeless and universal its signicance does not become dated and obsolete with time (Clayton, 1982; Clayton & Birren, 1980). Although the intellectual knowledge of wise elders may lag behind that of younger generations (Moody, 1986), they are a good source of advice for younger people, particularly in the

areas of intra- or interpersonal matters and in cases of uncertainty (Blanchard-Fields & Norris, 1995; Clayton, 1982; Kekes, 1983; Orwoll & Achenbaum, 1993; Sternberg, 1990b). To summarize, while intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge have in common some basic characteristics, such as the search for truth, they are the complete opposite in a variety of areas (Assmann, 1994), most notably the ones discussed above. These differences are highlighted in old age when intellectual knowledge is likely to decline whereas wisdom-related knowledge may still continue to grow depending on ones self-awareness, determination, constancy, and openness to experience, including the experience of ones own dying (Bianchi, 1994; Erikson, 1982; Erikson, Erikson, & Kivnick, 1986; Mason, 1974; McGann, 1996; Thomas, 1991). CONCLUSION Matilda Riley (1988; Riley & Riley, 1989) describes a structural lag in Western cultures that results from age segregation and a simultaneous increase in longevity. According to Riley, Western societies are characterized by a steady rise in the number of people who live far beyond retirement with their health and cognitive functioning intact but without any corresponding social roles and meaningful tasks. Although the retirement years are supposed to be a time to pursue

ones own interests, free from major obligations to family and society, in reality many retirees are plagued by feelings of boredom and obsoleteness (e.g., Schrank & Waring, 1989). Several solutions to this problem have been suggested, among them exible and phased retirement that allows employees to gradually reduce their working hours and voluntary or paid postretirement part-time work (Riley & Riley, 1989; Schrank & Waring, 1989). While this strategy may be useful in many cases, it is not always feasible or even desirable, particularly for people in low-wage, labor-intensive, or repetitive jobs. The alternative strategy that is proposed here is to adopt a life course model that resembles models of ancient Eastern traditions, such as Hinduism. In Hinduism, the last and fourth stage of life (after religious studies, marriage, and retirement) is exclusively reserved forINTELLECTUAL VS. WISDOM-RELATED KNOWLEDGE 785 the pursuit of spiritual realization and wisdom (Thursby, 1992). In Western societies, by contrast, older people often feel obsolete. The intellectual knowledge they possess is no longer considered to be of value in a rapidly changing world (Glendenning, 1995; Jarvis, 1992). However, wisdom-related knowledge does not become outdated because its meaning transcends time as well as space. It is practical knowledge of how to live a good life (Kekes, 1983; Moody, 1986). In fact, the

younger members of society have always sought the sage advise of wise elders, and wise counsel may become even more important in times of rapid societal changes. The reason why older people are generally not revered for their wisdom may be less because we do not value the quality of wisdom than because wisdom is relatively rare among the elderly (Baltes, 1993; Dittmann-Kohli & Baltes, 1990; Sternberg, 1990b). Of course, wisdom-related knowledge is not only important in old age but valuable at all stages of the life course (Mason, 1974). However, the immediate tasks of childhood and adulthood require the acquisition of intellectual knowledge and make the development of wisdom difcult during the earlier years of life. Old age, by contrast, frees the individual from social and familial obligations and makes the acquisition of wisdom-related knowledge more important than that of intellectual knowledge. In fact, if we change our present view of the life course so that old age is not merely considered a time of social and physical decline but one of new opportunities and potentials, we realize that older individuals have the unique privilege of concentrating on the development of wisdom (Thornton, 1986). Unfortunately, many of the programs that are currently offered

under the heading of continuing education or lifelong learning primarily promote the acquisition of intellectual rather than wisdomrelated knowledge, although there are some notable exceptions (Moody, 1986; Thornton, 1986). Moody (1986, pp. 142145) makes several suggestions for successful older adult education programs. Two of his suggestions are especially relevant for the promotion of wisdomrelated knowledge. First, old age education should offer people the opportunity for autobiography work and life review to make sense of their lives and to come to terms with the past. According to Erikson (1963, 1982), the psychosocial task of the last stage of life is to solve the crises of integrity versus despair whose successful resolution will lead to wisdom. One possible way to achieve integrity of ones life and to avoid despair over missed opportunities and false life decisions in the past is through a guided life-review. Through this process, older people are likely to become more re ective, which will help them to overcome786 M. Ardelt their subjectivity and projections and reduce their self-centeredness. A reduced self-centeredness, in turn, will make it easier to accept the truth of ones present and past life and to develop sympathy and

compassion for others. This combination of re ective, cognitive, and affective qualities can be considered one of the basic characterizations of wisdom (Ardelt, 1997; Clayton & Birren, 1980; Manheimer, 1992). Hence, a guided life-review in old age results not in an overemphasis of the past but in a more satisfying and rewarding present. Second, the study of liberal arts and the humanities appears to be especially valuable during the later years of life which may explain the success of such programs as Elderhostel, the University of the Third Age, and the National Counsel on the Agings Discovery Through the Humanities series (Shuldiner, 1992). Elderhostel, the University of the Third Age, and the Discovery series stimulate both the acquisition of intellectual and wisdom-related knowledge. Through the attendance of these programs older students gain new information and learn critical thinking but also report personal development, an increased appreciation of others, other cultures, history, and of the self, and an expansion of their self-concept (Brady, 1987; Brady & Fowler, 1988; Long & Zoller-Hodges, 1995; Pierce, 1993; Shuldiner, 1992). Overall, these programs help older people to place their own lives in the larger frame of the human culture.

Emptiness Is Form

Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom, the Lovely, the Holy! ... Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does ... the great spell, the spell of great knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequalled spell ... Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as for example vases and glasses.
ii

Emptiness is a key concept in Buddhist philosophy, or more precisely, in the ontology of Mahayana Buddhism. The phrase "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" is perhaps the most celebrated paradox associated with Buddhist philosophy. It is the supreme mantra. The expression originates from the Prajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra, commonly known as the Heart Sutra, which contains the philosophical essence of about six hundred scrolls making up the Maha Prajna Paramita. The Heart Sutra is the shortest text in this collection. It belongs to the oldest Mahayana texts and presumably originated in India around the time of Jesus Christ.

The Heart Sutra. Translation by Edward Conze Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom, the Lovely, the Holy!

Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own-being they were empty.

Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of

feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: there is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path. There is no cognition, no attainment and nonattainment.

Therefore, Sariputra, it is because of his non-attainment that a Bodhisattva, through having relied on the Perfection of Wisdom, dwells without thoughtcoverings. In the absence of thought-coverings he has not been made to tremble, he has overcome what can upset, and in the end he attains to Nirvana.

All those who appear as Buddhas in the three periods of time fully awake to the utmost, right and perfect Enlightenment because they have relied on the Perfection of Wisdom.Therefore one should know the prajnaparamita as the great spell, the spell of great knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequalled spell, allayer of all suffering, in truth - for what could go wrong? By the prajnaparamita has this

spell been delivered. It runs like this:

Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, O what an awakening, all-hail!

Translations and commentary.

Avalokita = Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion Sariputra = disciple of the Buddha sunyata = emptiness, void prajna = wisdom paramita = that which has reached the other shore prajnaparamita = wisdom acquired experientially, by means of intuitive insight, and perfected through cultivation to the level of transcendental knowledge hridaya = heart nirvana = ultimate attainment bodhi = awakened mind sattva = being According to Buddhist scholars, the dialogue between Avalokiteshvara and Sariputra is inspired by the Buddha. This is to say it occurs spontaneously without the speaker's intention. The content of the conversation is determined entirely by the power of the Buddha's concentration. The bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara represents the idea of perfect universal wisdom, while Sariputra is regarded as one of the Buddha's closest and brightest disciples. The dialogue takes place at the Vulture Peak near the ancient city of Rajgaya where the Buddha and his

community of monks stayed. Sariputra requests Avalokiteshvara to instruct him on the practice of the perfection of wisdom, which means prajnaparamita in Sanskrit.

The perfection of wisdom refers to the wisdom that directly and intuitively understands the ultimate nature of phenomena. Sariputra answers with the profound words, "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness," and proceeds to state the emptiness of the five aggregates (skandhas), the emptiness of the teachings (dharmas), and the emptiness of all phenomena. The sutra ends with the celebrated mantra "gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha" which can be translated with "Homage to the awakened mind which has gone over to the other shore." The one who has gone over means: the enlightened one, who has done away with views, ideas, and perceptions and who looks upon reality without any obstructions of mind. What is emptiness?

The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as nihilism. Unfortunately, 19th century Western philosophy has contributed much to this misconstruction. Meanwhile Western scholars have acquired enough knowledge about Buddhism to realise that this view is far from accurate. The only thing that nihilism and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in common is a sceptical outset. While nihilism concludes that reality is unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be communicated about the world, the Buddhist notion of emptiness arrives at just the opposite, namely that ultimate

reality is knowable, that there is a clear-cut ontological basis for phenomena, and that we can communicate and derive useful knowledge from it about the world. Emptiness (sunyata) must not be confused with nothingness. Emptiness is not non-existence and it is not non-reality.

What is emptiness then? To understand the philosophical meaning of this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence.

What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the cup does not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena. There is nothing in a cup that is inherent to that specific cup or to cups in general. Properties such as being hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not intrinsic to cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components are neither cups themselves nor do they imply

cupness on their own. The material is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function is not the cup. Only all these aspects together make up the cup. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a cup we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of function, use, shape, base material, and the cup's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking it, the cup forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the object's function, its shape, as well as the imputation of cupness through perception is disrupted. The cup's existence thus depends on external circumstances. Its physical essence remains elusive.

Those readers who are familiar with the theory of ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato will notice that this is pretty much the antithesis to Plato's idealism. Plato holds that there is an ideal essence of everything, e.g. cups, tables, houses, humans, and so on. Perhaps we can give Plato some credit by assuming that the essence of cups ultimately exists in the realm of mind. After all, it is the mind that perceives properties of an object and imputes cupness onto one object and tableness onto another. It is the mind that thinks "cup" and "table". Does it follow that the mind is responsible for the existence of these objects? - Apparently, the mind does not perceive cups and tables if there is no visual and tactile sensation. And, there cannot be visual and tactile sensation if there is no physical object. The perception thus depends on the presence of sensations, which in turn relies on the presence of the physical object. This is to say that the cup's essence is not in the mind. It is neither to be found in the physical object. Obviously, its essence is

neither physical nor mental. It cannot be found in the world, not in the mind, and certainly not in any heavenly realm, as Plato imagined. We must conclude that the objects of perception have therefore no inherent existence.

If this is the case for a simple object, such as a cup, then it must also apply to compound things, such as cars, houses, machines, etc. A car, for example, needs a motor, wheels, axles, gears, and many other things to work. Perhaps we should consider the difference between man-made objects, such as cups, and natural phenomena, such as earth, plants, animals, and human beings. One may argue that lack of inherent existence of objects does not imply the same for natural phenomena and beings. In case of a human being, there is a body, a mind, a character, a history of actions, habits, behaviour, and other things we can draw upon to describe a person. We can even divide these characteristics further into more fundamental properties. For example, we can analyse the mind and see that there are sensations, cognition, feelings, ideas. Or, we can analyse the brain and find that there are neurons, axons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. However, none of these constituents describe the essence of the person, the mind, or the brain. Again, the essence remains elusive.

Emptiness of the five skandhas.

The Heart Sutra expresses the same idea by stating the emptiness of the five skandhas, i.e. the emptiness of the body, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. The five skandhas are commonly translated into

English as the five aggregates. According to the Buddha, these aggregates are what constitutes a person. As adumbrated above, it is possible to deconstruct the five skandhas in the same manner as objects. However, this method of deconstruction assumes a third person perspective. It analyses phenomena perceived as external to the observer. When we talk about the essence of a person, the situation is slightly different, because we talk indirectly about ourselves. It may therefore be more intuitive to look at things from a first person perspective. The first person perspective allows us to make statements about the internal state of the observer thereby producing self-reference. What is observed is the observer. Perhaps this will lead to new insights into the essence of mind and body.

First, let's look at experience. What exactly is experience? - Obviously, we experience objects and phenomena through the senses. This is one form of experience. We also experience feelings, moods, thoughts, and emotions. The former can be called sensory experiences and the latter mental experiences. Upon contemplating the distinction we may find that there is no clear boundary between sensory and mental experience. As soon as we perceive a physical object, for example an apple, the corresponding mental experiences are immediately triggered. First, we think "apple". This is identification. Following this thought, a number of things we associate with apples may come to mind, for example "sweet, edible, green, red, healthy, delicious, juicy," and so on. These associations may be followed by the build-up of a desire to touch or to taste the apple. Once the desire is strong enough, our thoughts may be occupied with

consuming the apple and we start weighing the merits and demerits of consuming the apple now or later. All these mental experiences are caused by, yet independent of the original object. If the apple is withdrawn, the memory of it may be able to sustain the chain of thoughts for a short time, yet it will eventually cease.

We can infer that mental experience requires sensory experience, or respectively memory of sensory experience. Sensory experience in turn requires the body. If we carried through a thought experiment and examined whether each of the skandhas is able to exist without the other four, we would find that this is not possible. The latter four aggregates all depend on the body. Without the brain and the nervous system there is no consciousness, no sensation, no perception, and no mental formations. On the other hand, we cannot imagine the body to function without the mind. The body and the mind depend on each other, the five skandhas depend on each other. We must conclude that none of the skandhas is fundamental. Body, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are interrelated. Experiences emerge from the interaction of all five skandhas. Just as objects, experiences are conditioned by the interplay of multiple phenomena. Experience has no inherent existence either.

Our brain is advanced enough to reflect on its experiences. By means of selfreference we can direct mental activity onto itself. For example, we can think about thought. From this arises a division between subject, percept, and object. The percept is the mental impression, the subject is the owner of it, the thinker,

and the object is that which causes the mental impression. This threefold division seems so natural to us that it is reflected in the grammar of most human languages. We perceive the separation of subject, percept, and object as real, because mind attributes an owner to experience and thought. This owner is the "self", the subject, the centre of consciousness, the supposed psychological entity. Surprisingly, this entity remains completely undetectable. Body, feeling, perception, and mental formations are not the self. Consciousness is not the self either, otherwise it would follow that the self temporarily ceases to exist during unconscious states, for example during deep sleep.

We might ask how "self" can be independent of a surrounding world. Is it possible for the self to exist in a mental vacuum, a world devoid of sense impressions, thought, and mental images? Would the self not literally run out of fuel if it lacked thoughts and contents to identify itself with or to set itself apart from? It seems there is no basis an independent entity. It seems more that the self is an emergent phenomenon arising from the application of complex interpretative schemes to perception. In particular, it arises from the conceptual division between subject, object, and percept. Through introspection it is possible to realise that the "self" is not fundamental. It is created by the mind through identification and discernment. The "self" is itself a mental formation - a product of mind. It is therefore empty of inherent existence. The emptiness of matter.

The ancient Greeks believed that matter is composed of indivisible small elements with certain characteristics, such as the characteristics of earth, water, air, and fire. They called these elements atoms and they held that atoms were solid and fundamental, like microscopic billiard balls. Ernest Rutherford invalidated the billiard ball theory by conducting an experiment, which suggested that atoms have an internal structure. He established that atoms have a nucleus containing most of its mass and that electrons orbit the nucleus. Moreover, he established that the nucleus of an atom is only about one ten-thousandth of the diameter of the atom itself, which means that 99.99% of the atom's volume consists of empty space. This is the first manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. Not long after Rutherford's discovery, physicists found out that the nucleus of an atom likewise has an internal structure and that the protons and neutrons making up the nucleus are composed of even smaller particles, which they named quarks after a poem of James Joyce. Interestingly, quarks are hypothesised as geometrical points in space, which implies that atoms are essentially empty. This is the second manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles. Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to QED, subatomic particles are

indistinguishable from fields, whereas fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighbouring neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons, and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the moleculeare sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena are interchangeable terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of

emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

Emptiness in mathematics.

In mathematics the notion of emptiness finds expression in the number zero, as well as in contemporary set theory. The concept of zero was discovered in India prior to the sixth century A.D. The "Arabic" number system we use today is neither Arabic nor Greek in origin. In fact, the digits 0123456789 go back to India where they were first created. The ancient Indian number system distinguished itself from other positional systems by virtue of allowing the use of zero as a legitimate number. Interestingly, the number zero did not exist in Greek mathematics, because the Greeks were essentially geometricians and had no use for the mathematical concept of a non-entity, neither did it exist in Egyptian mathematics. The Arabs, who encountered the Indian number system during their early conquests in India, found it superior to their own traditional system which used letters, and thus adapted it to develop Islamic mathematics. The Arabic word for zero is "sifr", meaning "empty." In the 12th century, the Italian mathematician Leonardo Pisano Fibonacci studied Arabian algebra and introduced the HinduArabic numerals to Europe. The word "sifr" thus became "zephirum" in Latin and "zero" in English.

In the ancient Indian context, the number zero did not originally refer to nothingness or nullity. The Sanskrit word for zero is shunya, which means "puffed up, hollow, empty." The zero stands for emptiness suggestive of potentiality. The

discovery of the mathematical zero concurred with the emptiness of prajnaintuition in India around 200 BC. Both signify polar opposition between being and nonbeing. Zero is that which contains all possible polarised pairs such as (+1, -1), (+2, -2), etc. It is the collection of all mutually cancelling pairs of forward and backward movements. Put it another way, zero is fundamental to all existence. Because of it, everything is possible. Zero is the additive identity, the focal point of all numbers; without it, numbers cannot be created. India alone, among the great civilisations of antiquity, was able to fathom the depth of emptiness and willing to accept its consequences in mathematics.

Following the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic numerals into Western culture, zero became a number that was used in calculations like any other number. Consequently, it lost some part of its original meaning, namely the part that suggests potentiality. Today, most mathematicians do not associate the notion of emptiness with zero, but with the empty set, which is a construct of set theory. A set is a collection of objects or numbers. For example, the set { 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 } is a set of numbers containing five elements; it is therefore said to have the "cardinality" of 5. The empty set { } is a collection that contains nothing and has the cardinality 0. The mathematician John von Neumann (1923) invented a method, known as von Neumann hierarchy, which can be employed to generate the natural numbers from the empty set as follows:

Step 0: Step 1:

{}

(empty set) (set containing the empty set)

{{}}

Step 2: Step 3: sets) Step 4: (etc.)

{ { }, { { } } }

(set containing previous two sets) (set containing previous three

{ { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } } }

{ { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } }, { { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } } } }

This sequence is obtained by iterating a functor that creates a new set from the union of the preceding two sets, thus generating sets with the cardinalities 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ad infinitum. In less mathematical terms, the principle can be described as follows: Beginning with emptiness (step 0), we observe emptiness. Through the act of observing we create an entity containing emptiness (step 1). Now we perceive emptiness, as well as an entity. From the combination of the former two we create another entity by observation, which is different from the first entity (step 2). This process is repeated again and again. Interestingly, if we define suitable operations on the obtained sets based on union and intersection, the cardinalities of the resulting sets behave just like natural numbers being added and subtracted. The sequence is therefore isomorphic to the natural numbers - a stunningly beautiful example of something from nothing.

Emptiness of emptiness.

In The Art of Living (2001) the 14th Dalai Lama says, "As your insight into the ultimate nature of reality is deepened and enhanced, you will develop a perception of reality from which you will perceive phenomena and events as sort of illusory, illusion-like, and this mode of perceiving reality will permeate all your

interactions with reality. [...] Even emptiness itself, which is seen as the ultimate nature of reality, is not absolute, nor does it exist independently. We cannot conceive of emptiness as independent of a basis of phenomena, because when we examine the nature of reality, we find that it is empty of inherent existence. Then if we are to take that emptiness itself is an object and look for its essence, again we will find that it is empty of inherent existence. Therefore the Buddha taught the emptiness of emptiness."

iii

iv

vi

vii

Emptiness is a key concept in Buddhist philosophy, or more precisely, in the

ontology of Mahayana Buddhism. The phrase "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" is perhaps the most celebrated paradox associated with Buddhist philosophy. It is the supreme mantra. The expression originates from the Prajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra, commonly known as the Heart Sutra, which contains the philosophical essence of about six hundred scrolls making up the Maha Prajna Paramita. The Heart Sutra is the shortest text in this collection. It belongs to the oldest Mahayana texts and presumably originated in India around the time of Jesus Christ.

The Heart Sutra. Translation by Edward Conze Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom, the Lovely, the Holy!

Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own-being they were empty.

Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: there is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path. There is no cognition, no attainment and nonattainment.

Therefore, Sariputra, it is because of his non-attainment that a Bodhisattva, through having relied on the Perfection of Wisdom, dwells without thought-

coverings. In the absence of thought-coverings he has not been made to tremble, he has overcome what can upset, and in the end he attains to Nirvana.

All those who appear as Buddhas in the three periods of time fully awake to the utmost, right and perfect Enlightenment because they have relied on the Perfection of Wisdom.Therefore one should know the prajnaparamita as the great spell, the spell of great knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequalled spell, allayer of all suffering, in truth - for what could go wrong? By the prajnaparamita has this spell been delivered. It runs like this:

Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, O what an awakening, all-hail!

Translations and commentary.

Avalokita = Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion Sariputra = disciple of the Buddha sunyata = emptiness, void prajna = wisdom paramita = that which has reached the other shore prajnaparamita = wisdom acquired experientially, by means of intuitive insight, and perfected through cultivation to the level of transcendental knowledge hridaya = heart nirvana = ultimate attainment bodhi = awakened mind

sattva = being According to Buddhist scholars, the dialogue between Avalokiteshvara and Sariputra is inspired by the Buddha. This is to say it occurs spontaneously without the speaker's intention. The content of the conversation is determined entirely by the power of the Buddha's concentration. The bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara represents the idea of perfect universal wisdom, while Sariputra is regarded as one of the Buddha's closest and brightest disciples. The dialogue takes place at the Vulture Peak near the ancient city of Rajgaya where the Buddha and his community of monks stayed. Sariputra requests Avalokiteshvara to instruct him on the practice of the perfection of wisdom, which means prajnaparamita in Sanskrit.

The perfection of wisdom refers to the wisdom that directly and intuitively understands the ultimate nature of phenomena. Sariputra answers with the profound words, "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness," and proceeds to state the emptiness of the five aggregates (skandhas), the emptiness of the teachings (dharmas), and the emptiness of all phenomena. The sutra ends with the celebrated mantra "gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha" which can be translated with "Homage to the awakened mind which has gone over to the other shore." The one who has gone over means: the enlightened one, who has done away with views, ideas, and perceptions and who looks upon reality without any obstructions of mind. What is emptiness?

The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as nihilism. Unfortunately, 19th century Western philosophy has contributed much to this misconstruction. Meanwhile Western scholars have acquired enough knowledge about Buddhism to realise that this view is far from accurate. The only thing that nihilism and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in common is a sceptical outset. While nihilism concludes that reality is unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be communicated about the world, the Buddhist notion of emptiness arrives at just the opposite, namely that ultimate reality is knowable, that there is a clear-cut ontological basis for phenomena, and that we can communicate and derive useful knowledge from it about the world. Emptiness (sunyata) must not be confused with nothingness. Emptiness is not non-existence and it is not non-reality.

What is emptiness then? To understand the philosophical meaning of this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence.

What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the cup does not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena. There is nothing in a cup that is inherent to that specific cup or to cups in general. Properties such as being hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not intrinsic to cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components are neither cups themselves nor do they imply cupness on their own. The material is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function is not the cup. Only all these aspects together make up the cup. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a cup we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of function, use, shape, base material, and the cup's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking it, the cup forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the object's function, its shape, as well as the imputation of cupness through perception is disrupted. The cup's existence thus depends on external circumstances. Its physical essence remains elusive.

Those readers who are familiar with the theory of ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato will notice that this is pretty much the antithesis to Plato's idealism. Plato holds that there is an ideal essence of everything, e.g. cups, tables, houses, humans, and so on. Perhaps we can give Plato some credit by assuming that the essence of cups ultimately exists in the realm of mind. After all, it is the mind that

perceives properties of an object and imputes cupness onto one object and tableness onto another. It is the mind that thinks "cup" and "table". Does it follow that the mind is responsible for the existence of these objects? - Apparently, the mind does not perceive cups and tables if there is no visual and tactile sensation. And, there cannot be visual and tactile sensation if there is no physical object. The perception thus depends on the presence of sensations, which in turn relies on the presence of the physical object. This is to say that the cup's essence is not in the mind. It is neither to be found in the physical object. Obviously, its essence is neither physical nor mental. It cannot be found in the world, not in the mind, and certainly not in any heavenly realm, as Plato imagined. We must conclude that the objects of perception have therefore no inherent existence.

If this is the case for a simple object, such as a cup, then it must also apply to compound things, such as cars, houses, machines, etc. A car, for example, needs a motor, wheels, axles, gears, and many other things to work. Perhaps we should consider the difference between man-made objects, such as cups, and natural phenomena, such as earth, plants, animals, and human beings. One may argue that lack of inherent existence of objects does not imply the same for natural phenomena and beings. In case of a human being, there is a body, a mind, a character, a history of actions, habits, behaviour, and other things we can draw upon to describe a person. We can even divide these characteristics further into more fundamental properties. For example, we can analyse the mind and see that there are sensations, cognition, feelings, ideas. Or, we can analyse the brain and find that there are neurons, axons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. However,

none of these constituents describe the essence of the person, the mind, or the brain. Again, the essence remains elusive.

Emptiness of the five skandhas.

The Heart Sutra expresses the same idea by stating the emptiness of the five skandhas, i.e. the emptiness of the body, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. The five skandhas are commonly translated into English as the five aggregates. According to the Buddha, these aggregates are what constitutes a person. As adumbrated above, it is possible to deconstruct the five skandhas in the same manner as objects. However, this method of deconstruction assumes a third person perspective. It analyses phenomena perceived as external to the observer. When we talk about the essence of a person, the situation is slightly different, because we talk indirectly about ourselves. It may therefore be more intuitive to look at things from a first person perspective. The first person perspective allows us to make statements about the internal state of the observer thereby producing self-reference. What is observed is the observer. Perhaps this will lead to new insights into the essence of mind and body.

First, let's look at experience. What exactly is experience? - Obviously, we experience objects and phenomena through the senses. This is one form of experience. We also experience feelings, moods, thoughts, and emotions. The former can be called sensory experiences and the latter mental experiences.

Upon contemplating the distinction we may find that there is no clear boundary between sensory and mental experience. As soon as we perceive a physical object, for example an apple, the corresponding mental experiences are immediately triggered. First, we think "apple". This is identification. Following this thought, a number of things we associate with apples may come to mind, for example "sweet, edible, green, red, healthy, delicious, juicy," and so on. These associations may be followed by the build-up of a desire to touch or to taste the apple. Once the desire is strong enough, our thoughts may be occupied with consuming the apple and we start weighing the merits and demerits of consuming the apple now or later. All these mental experiences are caused by, yet independent of the original object. If the apple is withdrawn, the memory of it may be able to sustain the chain of thoughts for a short time, yet it will eventually cease.

We can infer that mental experience requires sensory experience, or respectively memory of sensory experience. Sensory experience in turn requires the body. If we carried through a thought experiment and examined whether each of the skandhas is able to exist without the other four, we would find that this is not possible. The latter four aggregates all depend on the body. Without the brain and the nervous system there is no consciousness, no sensation, no perception, and no mental formations. On the other hand, we cannot imagine the body to function without the mind. The body and the mind depend on each other, the five skandhas depend on each other. We must conclude that none of the skandhas is fundamental. Body, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and

consciousness are interrelated. Experiences emerge from the interaction of all five skandhas. Just as objects, experiences are conditioned by the interplay of multiple phenomena. Experience has no inherent existence either.

Our brain is advanced enough to reflect on its experiences. By means of selfreference we can direct mental activity onto itself. For example, we can think about thought. From this arises a division between subject, percept, and object. The percept is the mental impression, the subject is the owner of it, the thinker, and the object is that which causes the mental impression. This threefold division seems so natural to us that it is reflected in the grammar of most human languages. We perceive the separation of subject, percept, and object as real, because mind attributes an owner to experience and thought. This owner is the "self", the subject, the centre of consciousness, the supposed psychological entity. Surprisingly, this entity remains completely undetectable. Body, feeling, perception, and mental formations are not the self. Consciousness is not the self either, otherwise it would follow that the self temporarily ceases to exist during unconscious states, for example during deep sleep.

We might ask how "self" can be independent of a surrounding world. Is it possible for the self to exist in a mental vacuum, a world devoid of sense impressions, thought, and mental images? Would the self not literally run out of fuel if it lacked thoughts and contents to identify itself with or to set itself apart from? It seems there is no basis an independent entity. It seems more that the self is an emergent phenomenon arising from the application of complex interpretative

schemes to perception. In particular, it arises from the conceptual division between subject, object, and percept. Through introspection it is possible to realise that the "self" is not fundamental. It is created by the mind through identification and discernment. The "self" is itself a mental formation - a product of mind. It is therefore empty of inherent existence. The emptiness of matter.

The ancient Greeks believed that matter is composed of indivisible small elements with certain characteristics, such as the characteristics of earth, water, air, and fire. They called these elements atoms and they held that atoms were solid and fundamental, like microscopic billiard balls. Ernest Rutherford invalidated the billiard ball theory by conducting an experiment, which suggested that atoms have an internal structure. He established that atoms have a nucleus containing most of its mass and that electrons orbit the nucleus. Moreover, he established that the nucleus of an atom is only about one ten-thousandth of the diameter of the atom itself, which means that 99.99% of the atom's volume consists of empty space. This is the first manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. Not long after Rutherford's discovery, physicists found out that the nucleus of an atom likewise has an internal structure and that the protons and neutrons making up the nucleus are composed of even smaller particles, which they named quarks after a poem of James Joyce. Interestingly, quarks are hypothesised as geometrical points in space, which implies that atoms are essentially empty. This is the second manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles. Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to QED, subatomic particles are indistinguishable from fields, whereas fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighbouring neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons, and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the moleculeare sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena are interchangeable

terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

Emptiness in mathematics.

In mathematics the notion of emptiness finds expression in the number zero, as well as in contemporary set theory. The concept of zero was discovered in India prior to the sixth century A.D. The "Arabic" number system we use today is neither Arabic nor Greek in origin. In fact, the digits 0123456789 go back to India where they were first created. The ancient Indian number system distinguished itself from other positional systems by virtue of allowing the use of zero as a legitimate number. Interestingly, the number zero did not exist in Greek mathematics, because the Greeks were essentially geometricians and had no use for the mathematical concept of a non-entity, neither did it exist in Egyptian mathematics. The Arabs, who encountered the Indian number system during their early conquests in India, found it superior to their own traditional system which used letters, and thus adapted it to develop Islamic mathematics. The Arabic word for zero is "sifr", meaning "empty." In the 12th century, the Italian mathematician

Leonardo Pisano Fibonacci studied Arabian algebra and introduced the HinduArabic numerals to Europe. The word "sifr" thus became "zephirum" in Latin and "zero" in English.

In the ancient Indian context, the number zero did not originally refer to nothingness or nullity. The Sanskrit word for zero is shunya, which means "puffed up, hollow, empty." The zero stands for emptiness suggestive of potentiality. The discovery of the mathematical zero concurred with the emptiness of prajnaintuition in India around 200 BC. Both signify polar opposition between being and nonbeing. Zero is that which contains all possible polarised pairs such as (+1, -1), (+2, -2), etc. It is the collection of all mutually cancelling pairs of forward and backward movements. Put it another way, zero is fundamental to all existence. Because of it, everything is possible. Zero is the additive identity, the focal point of all numbers; without it, numbers cannot be created. India alone, among the great civilisations of antiquity, was able to fathom the depth of emptiness and willing to accept its consequences in mathematics.

Following the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic numerals into Western culture, zero became a number that was used in calculations like any other number. Consequently, it lost some part of its original meaning, namely the part that suggests potentiality. Today, most mathematicians do not associate the notion of emptiness with zero, but with the empty set, which is a construct of set theory. A set is a collection of objects or numbers. For example, the set { 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 } is a set of numbers containing five elements; it is therefore said to have the

"cardinality" of 5. The empty set { } is a collection that contains nothing and has the cardinality 0. The mathematician John von Neumann (1923) invented a method, known as von Neumann hierarchy, which can be employed to generate the natural numbers from the empty set as follows:

Step 0: Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: sets) Step 4: (etc.)

{}

(empty set) (set containing the empty set) (set containing previous two sets) (set containing previous three

{{}}

{ { }, { { } } }

{ { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } } }

{ { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } }, { { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } } } }

This sequence is obtained by iterating a functor that creates a new set from the union of the preceding two sets, thus generating sets with the cardinalities 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ad infinitum. In less mathematical terms, the principle can be described as follows: Beginning with emptiness (step 0), we observe emptiness. Through the act of observing we create an entity containing emptiness (step 1). Now we perceive emptiness, as well as an entity. From the combination of the former two we create another entity by observation, which is different from the first entity (step 2). This process is repeated again and again. Interestingly, if we define suitable operations on the obtained sets based on union and intersection, the cardinalities of the resulting sets behave just like natural numbers being added and subtracted. The sequence is therefore isomorphic to the natural numbers - a stunningly beautiful example of something from nothing.

Emptiness of emptiness.

In The Art of Living (2001) the 14th Dalai Lama says, "As your insight into the ultimate nature of reality is deepened and enhanced, you will develop a perception of reality from which you will perceive phenomena and events as sort of illusory, illusion-like, and this mode of perceiving reality will permeate all your interactions with reality. [...] Even emptiness itself, which is seen as the ultimate nature of reality, is not absolute, nor does it exist independently. We cannot conceive of emptiness as independent of a basis of phenomena, because when we examine the nature of reality, we find that it is empty of inherent existence. Then if we are to take that emptiness itself is an object and look for its essence, again we will find that it is empty of inherent existence. Therefore the Buddha taught the emptiness of emptiness."
viii

ix

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

Emptiness is a key concept in Buddhist philosophy, or more precisely, in the

ontology of Mahayana Buddhism. The phrase "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" is perhaps the most celebrated paradox associated with Buddhist

philosophy. It is the supreme mantra. The expression originates from the Prajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra, commonly known as the Heart Sutra, which contains the philosophical essence of about six hundred scrolls making up the Maha Prajna Paramita. The Heart Sutra is the shortest text in this collection. It belongs to the oldest Mahayana texts and presumably originated in India around the time of Jesus Christ.

The Heart Sutra. Translation by Edward Conze Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom, the Lovely, the Holy!

Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own-being they were empty.

Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: there is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path. There is no cognition, no attainment and nonattainment.

Therefore, Sariputra, it is because of his non-attainment that a Bodhisattva, through having relied on the Perfection of Wisdom, dwells without thoughtcoverings. In the absence of thought-coverings he has not been made to tremble, he has overcome what can upset, and in the end he attains to Nirvana.

All those who appear as Buddhas in the three periods of time fully awake to the utmost, right and perfect Enlightenment because they have relied on the Perfection of Wisdom.Therefore one should know the prajnaparamita as the great spell, the spell of great knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequalled spell, allayer of all suffering, in truth - for what could go wrong? By the prajnaparamita has this spell been delivered. It runs like this:

Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, O what an awakening, all-hail!

Translations and commentary.

Avalokita = Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion Sariputra = disciple of the Buddha sunyata = emptiness, void prajna = wisdom paramita = that which has reached the other shore prajnaparamita = wisdom acquired experientially, by means of intuitive insight, and perfected through cultivation to the level of transcendental knowledge hridaya = heart nirvana = ultimate attainment bodhi = awakened mind sattva = being According to Buddhist scholars, the dialogue between Avalokiteshvara and Sariputra is inspired by the Buddha. This is to say it occurs spontaneously without the speaker's intention. The content of the conversation is determined entirely by the power of the Buddha's concentration. The bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara represents the idea of perfect universal wisdom, while Sariputra is regarded as one of the Buddha's closest and brightest disciples. The dialogue takes place at the Vulture Peak near the ancient city of Rajgaya where the Buddha and his community of monks stayed. Sariputra requests Avalokiteshvara to instruct him on the practice of the perfection of wisdom, which means prajnaparamita in Sanskrit.

The perfection of wisdom refers to the wisdom that directly and intuitively understands the ultimate nature of phenomena. Sariputra answers with the

profound words, "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness," and proceeds to state the emptiness of the five aggregates (skandhas), the emptiness of the teachings (dharmas), and the emptiness of all phenomena. The sutra ends with the celebrated mantra "gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha" which can be translated with "Homage to the awakened mind which has gone over to the other shore." The one who has gone over means: the enlightened one, who has done away with views, ideas, and perceptions and who looks upon reality without any obstructions of mind. What is emptiness?

The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as nihilism. Unfortunately, 19th century Western philosophy has contributed much to this misconstruction. Meanwhile Western scholars have acquired enough knowledge about Buddhism to realise that this view is far from accurate. The only thing that nihilism and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in common is a sceptical outset. While nihilism concludes that reality is unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be communicated about the world, the Buddhist notion of emptiness arrives at just the opposite, namely that ultimate reality is knowable, that there is a clear-cut ontological basis for phenomena, and that we can communicate and derive useful knowledge from it about the world. Emptiness (sunyata) must not be confused with nothingness. Emptiness is not non-existence and it is not non-reality.

What is emptiness then? To understand the philosophical meaning of this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence.

What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the cup does not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena. There is nothing in a cup that is inherent to that specific cup or to cups in general. Properties such as being hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not intrinsic to cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components are neither cups themselves nor do they imply cupness on their own. The material is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function is not the cup. Only all these aspects together make up the cup. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a cup we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of function, use, shape, base material, and the cup's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist

simultaneously does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking it, the cup forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the object's function, its shape, as well as the imputation of cupness through perception is disrupted. The cup's existence thus depends on external circumstances. Its physical essence remains elusive.

Those readers who are familiar with the theory of ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato will notice that this is pretty much the antithesis to Plato's idealism. Plato holds that there is an ideal essence of everything, e.g. cups, tables, houses, humans, and so on. Perhaps we can give Plato some credit by assuming that the essence of cups ultimately exists in the realm of mind. After all, it is the mind that perceives properties of an object and imputes cupness onto one object and tableness onto another. It is the mind that thinks "cup" and "table". Does it follow that the mind is responsible for the existence of these objects? - Apparently, the mind does not perceive cups and tables if there is no visual and tactile sensation. And, there cannot be visual and tactile sensation if there is no physical object. The perception thus depends on the presence of sensations, which in turn relies on the presence of the physical object. This is to say that the cup's essence is not in the mind. It is neither to be found in the physical object. Obviously, its essence is neither physical nor mental. It cannot be found in the world, not in the mind, and certainly not in any heavenly realm, as Plato imagined. We must conclude that the objects of perception have therefore no inherent existence.

If this is the case for a simple object, such as a cup, then it must also apply to compound things, such as cars, houses, machines, etc. A car, for example, needs a motor, wheels, axles, gears, and many other things to work. Perhaps we should consider the difference between man-made objects, such as cups, and natural phenomena, such as earth, plants, animals, and human beings. One may argue that lack of inherent existence of objects does not imply the same for natural phenomena and beings. In case of a human being, there is a body, a mind, a character, a history of actions, habits, behaviour, and other things we can draw upon to describe a person. We can even divide these characteristics further into more fundamental properties. For example, we can analyse the mind and see that there are sensations, cognition, feelings, ideas. Or, we can analyse the brain and find that there are neurons, axons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. However, none of these constituents describe the essence of the person, the mind, or the brain. Again, the essence remains elusive.

Emptiness of the five skandhas.

The Heart Sutra expresses the same idea by stating the emptiness of the five skandhas, i.e. the emptiness of the body, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. The five skandhas are commonly translated into English as the five aggregates. According to the Buddha, these aggregates are what constitutes a person. As adumbrated above, it is possible to deconstruct the five skandhas in the same manner as objects. However, this method of deconstruction assumes a third person perspective. It analyses phenomena

perceived as external to the observer. When we talk about the essence of a person, the situation is slightly different, because we talk indirectly about ourselves. It may therefore be more intuitive to look at things from a first person perspective. The first person perspective allows us to make statements about the internal state of the observer thereby producing self-reference. What is observed is the observer. Perhaps this will lead to new insights into the essence of mind and body.

First, let's look at experience. What exactly is experience? - Obviously, we experience objects and phenomena through the senses. This is one form of experience. We also experience feelings, moods, thoughts, and emotions. The former can be called sensory experiences and the latter mental experiences. Upon contemplating the distinction we may find that there is no clear boundary between sensory and mental experience. As soon as we perceive a physical object, for example an apple, the corresponding mental experiences are immediately triggered. First, we think "apple". This is identification. Following this thought, a number of things we associate with apples may come to mind, for example "sweet, edible, green, red, healthy, delicious, juicy," and so on. These associations may be followed by the build-up of a desire to touch or to taste the apple. Once the desire is strong enough, our thoughts may be occupied with consuming the apple and we start weighing the merits and demerits of consuming the apple now or later. All these mental experiences are caused by, yet independent of the original object. If the apple is withdrawn, the memory of it may be able to sustain the chain of thoughts for a short time, yet it will eventually

cease.

We can infer that mental experience requires sensory experience, or respectively memory of sensory experience. Sensory experience in turn requires the body. If we carried through a thought experiment and examined whether each of the skandhas is able to exist without the other four, we would find that this is not possible. The latter four aggregates all depend on the body. Without the brain and the nervous system there is no consciousness, no sensation, no perception, and no mental formations. On the other hand, we cannot imagine the body to function without the mind. The body and the mind depend on each other, the five skandhas depend on each other. We must conclude that none of the skandhas is fundamental. Body, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are interrelated. Experiences emerge from the interaction of all five skandhas. Just as objects, experiences are conditioned by the interplay of multiple phenomena. Experience has no inherent existence either.

Our brain is advanced enough to reflect on its experiences. By means of selfreference we can direct mental activity onto itself. For example, we can think about thought. From this arises a division between subject, percept, and object. The percept is the mental impression, the subject is the owner of it, the thinker, and the object is that which causes the mental impression. This threefold division seems so natural to us that it is reflected in the grammar of most human languages. We perceive the separation of subject, percept, and object as real, because mind attributes an owner to experience and thought. This owner is the

"self", the subject, the centre of consciousness, the supposed psychological entity. Surprisingly, this entity remains completely undetectable. Body, feeling, perception, and mental formations are not the self. Consciousness is not the self either, otherwise it would follow that the self temporarily ceases to exist during unconscious states, for example during deep sleep.

We might ask how "self" can be independent of a surrounding world. Is it possible for the self to exist in a mental vacuum, a world devoid of sense impressions, thought, and mental images? Would the self not literally run out of fuel if it lacked thoughts and contents to identify itself with or to set itself apart from? It seems there is no basis an independent entity. It seems more that the self is an emergent phenomenon arising from the application of complex interpretative schemes to perception. In particular, it arises from the conceptual division between subject, object, and percept. Through introspection it is possible to realise that the "self" is not fundamental. It is created by the mind through identification and discernment. The "self" is itself a mental formation - a product of mind. It is therefore empty of inherent existence. The emptiness of matter.

The ancient Greeks believed that matter is composed of indivisible small elements with certain characteristics, such as the characteristics of earth, water, air, and fire. They called these elements atoms and they held that atoms were solid and fundamental, like microscopic billiard balls. Ernest Rutherford invalidated the billiard ball theory by conducting an experiment, which suggested that atoms

have an internal structure. He established that atoms have a nucleus containing most of its mass and that electrons orbit the nucleus. Moreover, he established that the nucleus of an atom is only about one ten-thousandth of the diameter of the atom itself, which means that 99.99% of the atom's volume consists of empty space. This is the first manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. Not long after Rutherford's discovery, physicists found out that the nucleus of an atom likewise has an internal structure and that the protons and neutrons making up the nucleus are composed of even smaller particles, which they named quarks after a poem of James Joyce. Interestingly, quarks are hypothesised as geometrical points in space, which implies that atoms are essentially empty. This is the second manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles. Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to QED, subatomic particles are indistinguishable from fields, whereas fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighbouring neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons, and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the moleculeare sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena are interchangeable terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

Emptiness in mathematics.

In mathematics the notion of emptiness finds expression in the number zero, as well as in contemporary set theory. The concept of zero was discovered in India prior to the sixth century A.D. The "Arabic" number system we use today is neither Arabic nor Greek in origin. In fact, the digits 0123456789 go back to India where they were first created. The ancient Indian number system distinguished itself from other positional systems by virtue of allowing the use of zero as a legitimate number. Interestingly, the number zero did not exist in Greek mathematics, because the Greeks were essentially geometricians and had no use for the mathematical concept of a non-entity, neither did it exist in Egyptian mathematics. The Arabs, who encountered the Indian number system during their early conquests in India, found it superior to their own traditional system which used letters, and thus adapted it to develop Islamic mathematics. The Arabic word for zero is "sifr", meaning "empty." In the 12th century, the Italian mathematician Leonardo Pisano Fibonacci studied Arabian algebra and introduced the HinduArabic numerals to Europe. The word "sifr" thus became "zephirum" in Latin and "zero" in English.

In the ancient Indian context, the number zero did not originally refer to nothingness or nullity. The Sanskrit word for zero is shunya, which means "puffed up, hollow, empty." The zero stands for emptiness suggestive of potentiality. The discovery of the mathematical zero concurred with the emptiness of prajnaintuition in India around 200 BC. Both signify polar opposition between being and nonbeing. Zero is that which contains all possible polarised pairs such as (+1, -1), (+2, -2), etc. It is the collection of all mutually cancelling pairs of forward and

backward movements. Put it another way, zero is fundamental to all existence. Because of it, everything is possible. Zero is the additive identity, the focal point of all numbers; without it, numbers cannot be created. India alone, among the great civilisations of antiquity, was able to fathom the depth of emptiness and willing to accept its consequences in mathematics.

Following the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic numerals into Western culture, zero became a number that was used in calculations like any other number. Consequently, it lost some part of its original meaning, namely the part that suggests potentiality. Today, most mathematicians do not associate the notion of emptiness with zero, but with the empty set, which is a construct of set theory. A set is a collection of objects or numbers. For example, the set { 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 } is a set of numbers containing five elements; it is therefore said to have the "cardinality" of 5. The empty set { } is a collection that contains nothing and has the cardinality 0. The mathematician John von Neumann (1923) invented a method, known as von Neumann hierarchy, which can be employed to generate the natural numbers from the empty set as follows:

Step 0: Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: sets)

{}

(empty set) (set containing the empty set) (set containing previous two sets) (set containing previous three

{{}}

{ { }, { { } } }

{ { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } } }

Step 4: (etc.)

{ { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } }, { { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } } } }

This sequence is obtained by iterating a functor that creates a new set from the union of the preceding two sets, thus generating sets with the cardinalities 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ad infinitum. In less mathematical terms, the principle can be described as follows: Beginning with emptiness (step 0), we observe emptiness. Through the act of observing we create an entity containing emptiness (step 1). Now we perceive emptiness, as well as an entity. From the combination of the former two we create another entity by observation, which is different from the first entity (step 2). This process is repeated again and again. Interestingly, if we define suitable operations on the obtained sets based on union and intersection, the cardinalities of the resulting sets behave just like natural numbers being added and subtracted. The sequence is therefore isomorphic to the natural numbers - a stunningly beautiful example of something from nothing.

Emptiness of emptiness.

In The Art of Living (2001) the 14th Dalai Lama says, "As your insight into the ultimate nature of reality is deepened and enhanced, you will develop a perception of reality from which you will perceive phenomena and events as sort of illusory, illusion-like, and this mode of perceiving reality will permeate all your interactions with reality. [...] Even emptiness itself, which is seen as the ultimate nature of reality, is not absolute, nor does it exist independently. We cannot conceive of emptiness as independent of a basis of phenomena, because when

we examine the nature of reality, we find that it is empty of inherent existence. Then if we are to take that emptiness itself is an object and look for its essence, again we will find that it is empty of inherent existence. Therefore the Buddha taught the emptiness of emptiness."

Kant's Technical Terms

When a word defined herein (or a slight y different form of such a word) is used ...autonomy: an action which is determined by the subject's own free choice (see will). ...faith: a rational attitude towards a potential object of knowledge which arises ...knowledge: the final goal of the understanding in combining intuitions and ... Upadhi factor for sameness. Divine light is for continuation. Two factor for individuality structure and form cause for subject object sameness and differentiality xvii Similarity of a and a are same form. Between a and b form free will and faith is dominant and determination factor.
xviii xix

xx

xxi

xxii

subject wisdom and knowledge object subject wisdom from two object knowledge from one subject wisdom out of knowledge object and knowledge out subject Defining Knowledge!? Fast Track Consulting
www.fasttrack.be/km/knowledge-defined/ A Knowledge object is a structured collection of Knowledge on a particular subject,

Knowledge is the source of Wealth. Applied to tasks we already know, it becomes Productivity. Applied to tasks that are new, it becomes Innovation

Defining Knowledge!?
A Google search for define:Knowledge would not only lead to a large number of definitions of Knowledge on the Web, but these definitions would certainly also be very different! There is no agreed definition of Knowledge and there remain numerous competing theories. The definitions vary largely according to scientific or management discipline: Cognitive Science would argue that Knowledge is the psychological result of perception, learning and reasoning; Human Resources practice sees

Knowledge as the totality of expertise and skills acquired by a person through (work) experience or education. The question then becomes: What is Knowledge from the point of view of the Knowledge Management practice? Unfortunately, browsing the main KM books and websites would not necessarily lead to a unique definition quite the contrary, actually was it only because there are so many schools in KM, and each carries its own definition of Knowledge. Also, a single definition would not be practical, because Knowledge has many facets and needs to be approached accordingly:

Knowledge as maturity
Knowledge is part of the hierarchy made up of data, information, Knowledge, and wisdom. This hierarchy is generally attributed to Russell Ackoff 1

Data are raw facts (such as 13 and 8). Data are the What Information is data with context and perspective (such as 13C is well above the seasonal

average winter temperature of 8C for Brussels). Information covers the Who, When, and Where

Knowledge is information with guidance for action based upon insight and experience (such

as: it is the 3rd time in the past decade that record high temperatures were noted for Brussels, which may point to climate change). Knowledge includes the How

Wisdom is Knowledge enriched with beliefs, principles, and insight (such as: the recent

variations in seasonal temperatures for Brussels are evidence of global warming and can possibly be attributed to carbon emissions). Wisdom explains the Why This view is particularly useful when distinguishing Knowledge from data and information, a frequent discussion theme between KM and IT practitioners.

Knowledge as objects
A Knowledge object is a structured collection of Knowledge on a particular subject, providing the data and information relevant to/required in a particular context. A Knowledge object can be a real thing (such as a report on climate change) or an abstraction (climate change theory). Knowledge is viewed as objects that exists on their own, that can be captured, transferred, and stored in multiple ways within the organization. Borrowed from object-oriented architecture in IT, Knowledge objects have well-defined boundaries and identity. They encapsulate behavior, state and attributes, and may offer

services. Classification can be used to identify Knowledge objects that have the same behavior and share similar attributes, services, and semantics. Knowledge objects are typically used in an IT-centric view of KM, where findability and reusability are key. This view can prove useful if the organization wants to take stock of its explicit Knowledge. For obvious reasons, tacit Knowledge cannot be captured as objects.

Knowledge as outcome
Knowledge is the result of perception, learning and reasoning; it is something that we can acquire or develop, and that we can then build upon. Therefore, Knowledge does not exist on its own, but only as the result/outcome of a process. This view highlights the dynamic nature of Knowledge and leads to the definition of Knowledge processes, or at least processes where Knowledge is the outcome:

Knowledge & experience sharing processes, such as lessons learned or communities of

practice

Knowledge resulting from a learning experience (personal or organizational) Knowledge resulting from analysis and synthesis of information Etc.

This view is practical when approaching the organization from a business process management point of view: which are the key processes and what Knowledge do they consume/produce?

Knowledge as flow/activity
This approach suggests that Knowledge is in constant evolution; that it does not exist in a static form but as a flow within the organization/between individuals. Moreover, Knowledge is seen as inseparable from the individuals that create, share, and leverage it (such as a report that has more value when presented by its expert author). Knowledge cannot be viewed separately from the organizational processes that create and manage it. This view can prove particularly useful if the organization wants to understand the lifecycle of tacit Knowledge. The SECI model by Nonaka & Takeushi explains how tacit Knowledge is converted and enriched in a spiral sequence of socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization.2

Knowledge as capacity
In this approach, Knowledge is not valued for what it is, but for what can be achieved with it. Knowledge is the capacity for effective action (know how) and it is considered the only aspect of Knowledge that really matters, because Knowledge that is not actionable and/or remains unused will not result in any change (to the individual, the organization).3 This view is useful in the social organizational context as well as change management. Every book on KM will include a definition, possibly/probably a mix of the above views. E.g., Davenport & Prusak define Knowledge as a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight4 What is important, is that any definition adopted must be workable in a particular situation. Experience shows that, depending on the organizational context, some approaches will work better than others. The trick is then to understand the organizational context and Knowledge sharing culture, and to adapt the KM approach accordingly.

Arthur Schopenhauer: The World as Will and Idea

In doing so he attains philosophical wisdom. ... than that all that exists for knowledge, and, therefore, this whole world, is only object in relation to subject, ... The objectalways presupposes the subject, and so there can be between these two no ...

SCHOPENHAUER'S magnificent work, The World as Will and Idea (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung), published in 1819, is not only a masterly exposition of philosophy, but a comprehensive record of Schopenhauer's own views on mankind. The keynote of his philosophy is that the sole essential reality in the universe is the will, and that all visible and tangible phenomena are merely subjective representations of that 'will which is the only thing-in-itself' that actually exists. The defect of his system is its tendency to a sombre pessimism. An enlarged edition appeared in 1844. The chief of Schopenhauer's other works are On the Will in Nature (1836), The Main Problems of Ethics (1841), and Parerga and Paralipomena (1851). [THE WORLD AS IDEA - SCHOPENHAUER - FROM 'THE WORD AS WILL AND IDEA'] 'THE world is my idea' is a truth valid for every living creature, though only man can consciously contemplate it. In doing so he attains philosophical wisdom. No truth is more absolutely certain than that all that exists for knowledge, and, therefore, this whole world, is only object in relation to subject, perception of a perceiver--in a word, idea. The world is idea.

This truth is by no means new. It lay by implication in the reflections of Descartes; but Berkeley first distinctly enunciated it, while Kant erred by ignoring it. So ancient is it that it was the fundamental principle of the Indian Vedanta, as Sir William Jones points out. In one aspect, the world is idea; in the other aspect the world is will. That which knows all things and is known by none is the subject; and for this subject all exists. But the world as idea consists of two essential and inseparable halves. One half is the object, whose from consists of time and space, and, through these, of multiplicity; but the other half is the subject, lying not in space and time, for it subsists whole and undivided in every reflecting being. Thus, any single individual endowed with the faculty of perception of the object constitutes the whole world of idea as completely as the millions in existence; but let this single individual vanish, and the whole world as idea would disappear. Each of these halves possesses meaning and existence only in and through the other, appearing with and vanishing with it. Where the object begins the subject ends. One of Kant's great merits is that he discovered that the essential and universal forms of all objects--space, time, causality--lie a priori in our consciousness, for they may be discovered and fully known from a consideration of the subject, without any knowledge of the object. Ideas of perception are distinct from abstract ideas. The former comprehend the whole world of experience; the latter are concepts, and are possessed by man alone amongst all creatures on earth; and the capacity for these, distinguishing him from the lower animals, is called reason. Much vain controversy has arisen concerning the reality of the external universe, owing to the fallacious notion that, because perception arises through the knowledge of causality, the relation of subject and object is that of cause and effect. For this relation only subsists between objects-that is, between the immediate object--and objects known indirectly. The object always presupposes the subject, and so there can be between these two no relation of reason and consequent. Therefore, the controversy between realistic dogmatism and doctrinal

scepticism is foolish. The former seems to separate object and idea as cause and effect, whereas these two are really one--the latter supposes that in the idea we have only the effect, never the cause, and never know the real being, but merely its action. The correction of both these fallacies is the same--that object and idea are identical. The greatest value of knowledge is that it can be communicated and retained. This makes it inestimably important for practice. Rational or abstract knowledge is that knowledge which is peculiar to the reason as distinguished from the understanding. The use of reason is that it substitutes abstract concepts for ideas of perception, and adopts them as the guide of action. The many-sided view of life which man, as distinguished from the lower animals, possesses through reason makes him stand to them as the captain, equipped with chart, compass and quadrant, and with a knowledge of navigation, stands to the ignorant sailors under his command. Man lives two lives. Besides his life in the concrete is his life in the abstract. In the former he struggles, suffers and dies as do the mere animal creatures. But in the abstract he quietly reflects on the plan of the universe as does a captain of a ship on the chart. He becomes in this abstract life of calm reasoning a deliberate observer of those elements which previously moved and agitated his emotions. Withdrawing into this serene contemplation, he is like an actor who has played a lively part on the stage and then withdraws and, as one of the audience, quietly looks on at other actors who are energetically performing. [THE WORLD AS WILL] WE are compelled to further inquiry, because we cannot be satisfied with knowing that we have ideas, and that these are associated with certain laws, the general expression of which is the principle of sufficient reason. We wish to know the significance of our ideas. We ask whether this world is nothing more than a mere idea, not worthy of our notice if it is to pass by us like an empty dream or an airy vision, or whether it is something more substantial. We can surely never arrive at the nature of things from without. No matter how assiduous our researches may be, we can never reach

anything beyond images and names. We resemble a man going round a castle seeking vainly for an entrance, and sometimes sketching the facades. And yet this is the method followed by all philosophers before me. The truth about man is that he is not a pure knowing subject, not a winged cherub without a material body, contemplating the world from without. For he is himself rooted in that world. That is to say, he finds himself in the world as an individual whose knowledge, which is the essential basis of the whole world as idea, is yet ever communicated through the medium of the body, whose sensations are the startingpoint of the understanding of that world. His body is for him an idea like every other idea, an object among objects. He only knows its actions as he knows the changes in all other objects, and but for one aid to his understanding of himself he would find this idea and object as strange and incomprehensible as all others. That aid is will, which alone furnishes the key to the riddle of himself, solves the problem of his own existence and reveals to him the inner structure and significance of his being, his action and his movements. The body is the immediate object of will; it may be called the objectivity of will. Every true act of will is also instantly a visible act of the body, and every impression on the body is also at once an impression on the will. When it is opposed to the will it is called pain, and when consonant with the will, pleasure. THE essential identity of body and will is shown by the fact that every violent movement of the will--that is to say, every emotion--directly agitates the body and interferes with its vital functions. So we may legitimately say: My body is the objectivity of my will. It is simply owing to this special relation to one body that the knowing subject is an individual. Our knowing, being bound to individuality, necessitates that each of us can only be one, and yet each of us can know all. Hence arises the need for philosophy. The double knowledge which each of us possesses of his own body is the key to the nature of every phenomenon in the world. Nothing is either known to us or thinkable by us except will and idea. If we examine the reality of the body and its actions, we discover nothing beyond the fact that it is an idea, except the will. With this double discovery reality is exhausted.

subject wisdom out of knowledge object and knowledge out of subject

What Is the Trivium?
For the Lord gives wisdom: out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. ...the grammar or knowledge of the subject -- the facts, the who, what, where and ...Modern education has lost sight of its true object: to equip the student with ...

What Is the Trivium?

by Harvey Bluedorn. Copyright 1993. All rights reserved. The trivium organizes children's education into three Biblical categories. Knowledge is the facts - the dates in history, the data in science and the notes in music. Understanding organizes the facts into logical order - the reasons behind history, the theory of music. Wisdom applies our knowledge and understanding in practical ways - an essay on the Civil War, a science fair project and playing the Moonlight Sonata. Proverbs 2:6. For the Lord gives wisdom: out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." Proverbs 24:3-4. Through wisdom a house is built; and by understanding it is established; and by knowledge the rooms are filled..." If parents taught their children these three skills they would have the fundamental tools for life. They are the first three liberal arts. The Latin word "trivium" means "three roads." Ancient and mediaeval education was structured around the trivium -- the three roads of learning, which consisted of these three subjects: grammar, or skill in comprehending the facts; logic, or skill in reasoning out relationships between these facts; and rhetoric, or skill in wise, effective expression and application of the facts and their relationships. This same syllabus of learning can be found in different words as a refrain throughout the scriptures, but especially in the book of Proverbs. Knowledge is the comprehension of facts. Understanding is the reasoning of relationships. Wisdom is the application of learning. Each child goes through three stages of development: first, a knowledge or grammar stage (through age 12) where the child readily soaks up information and memorizes facts; second, an understanding or logic stage (early teens) where the child asks questions and pursues reasons; and, third, a wisdom or rhetoric stage (later teens) where the child begins to synthesize what he has learned and to creatively express and make practical use of it. Each subject also progresses through these three steps of development: first, the grammar or knowledge of the subject -- the facts, the who, what, where and when; second, the logic or understanding of the subject -- the

theory, the why; and third, the rhetoric or wisdom of the subject -- the practice, the how. For example, the "grammar" of mathematics would include the math facts; the "logic" would include proofs of algebra or geometry; the "rhetoric" would include applications to surveying, accounting or engineering. The "grammar" of history would include names, places and dates; the "logic" would include reasons for wars, migrations, and inventions; the "rhetoric" would include the application of these things to current events. The learning process naturally falls into this three-step progression. In computer terms, knowledge is input, understanding is processing, and wisdom is output. Knowledge/Input engages the senses as one brings in information; understanding/processing engages the mind as one discovers and analyzes relationships; wisdom/output engages the voice, the hands and the feet as one expresses and applies in meaningful and practical ways the things he has learned. Children are natural learners, and they learn by the natural progression of the trivium. They teach themselves to speak a highly complex language in their first few years by first learning the facts -- sounds; then their relationships -- vocabulary; then they begin to express what they have learned -- babytalk. Learning dysfunctions develop when one interrupts this natural progression. Modern education does exactly this. In modern education, the knowledge level is overdone as the child's senses are over-stimulated while children are taught things which they need not know, or cannot handle. The understanding level is overridden as certain ways of thinking are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) imposed upon the child's mind without supplying sufficient factual knowledge and before the child can correctly reason the matter out. A child does not have the proper tools to evaluate the politically correct presuppositions handed down to him by the gods of "political correctness" seemingly by "direct revelation." Finally, the wisdom level is misdirected when teens are encouraged to express themselves, but after years of mishandling, they express all their frustrations often in destructive ways. Unless other things interrupt the process, the product of modern education does not properly mature beyond the childish "grammar" level. As such, he becomes a slave to sensory perceptions and is easily swayed by propaganda. He cannot discern fact from fallacy or proof from propaganda. He cannot define a term, analyze an argument, or distinguish between a material and a final cause. Accurate and intelligent communication breaks down when the standards and goals of communication are lowered. Fortunately, there are many things, which interrupt the process of modern education, such as the family and the church. Nevertheless, modern society has sunk far below the standards of education and communication observed by previous generations. Modern education has lost sight of its true object: to equip the student with the tools necessary for continuous learning. Ancient education, with whatever faults it may have had, nevertheless had this object in view. Modern education majors on the minors. It teaches children a multiplicity of subjects, but it fails to teach them how to think. They learn everything except how to learn. The situation can be compared to teaching a child mechanically how to play one song very well on a piano by memory, but never teaching the child how to read musical notations and transfer this to the piano keyboard. He may play one song very well, but he has no idea how to play another song. He is totally dependent upon the "teaching system" to learn more. Persons today think they must go to school to learn anything and everything. The self-taught man used to be admired. Today he is discredited. If the institutional establishment didn't teach you,

then you didn't learn. A craftsman learns to master his tools first. But modern educators have concluded that the basic tools of grammar, logic and rhetoric are antiquated and unnecessary. One cannot do adequate work without the proper tools. Therein lies a large part of the failure of modern education. If the tools are acquired at all, it is often incidentally. Where classical education focused upon forging and mastering these tools of self-learning, modern education focuses only upon the material to be learned. And the more "modern" the education, the less academic the material. The modern student learns many things -- trivia; the ancient student learned how to learn --trivium. With the tools of the trivium, the student can teach himself anything. We believe it is imperative to re-establish the trivium syllabus of grammar, logic and rhetoric -- knowledge, understanding and wisdom as the basis of our curriculum.

subject wisdom from two object knowledge from one BUDDHADHARMA : On Buddhahood or Awakening
In the view of other-emptiness (Shentong), this ultimate wisdom prehended by wisdom-mind is ... But for Tsongkhapa, not the object of knowledge is negated (for him, ... The ultimate truth is one of the two natures of each and every phenomenon. ... are subjectto varying degrees of misconceptions regarding the Two Truths.

Studies in Buddhadharma On Buddhahood or Awakening

"Whatever is the essence of the Tathgata, That is the essence of the transmigrator. The Tathgata has no essence, The transmigrator has no essence." Ngrjuna : Mlamadhyamakakrik, XXII.16. "If phenomena existed through their own characteristics, the ontological status of the Tathgata and his attributes would not make any sense. But their ontological status is completely tenable insofar as they are dependently originated and empty of existence through their own characteristics." - Tsongkhapa : Ocean of Reasonings, XXII.3.

"Spontaneously and without thought a Buddha, like a wish-granting jewel, achieves the aims of beings, but does not stir from a moment from the sphere of the final nature of phenomena." - Hopkins, J. : Meditation on Emptiness, p.122. In the Greater Vehicle, the Mahyna, both Sutric & Tantric, Buddhahood, final liberation, enlightenment or awakening are synonymous, referring to the ultimate state of mind, called wisdom-mind (or "bodhi" mind of Clear Light). Such an exhalted mind has ultimate truth, the emptiness of all objects of mind as its object, having totally & irreversibly ended substantial instantiation. While a dependent arising, and thus impermanent, Buddhahood is an uninterruptedly continual pristine wisdom-mind. Every single Buddha has a unique dance, a perfect holistic kinetography. The views trying to understand Buddhahood are interpretations of the Two Truths. They either stress the duality of both truths or their unity. In the latter case, there is only One Truth, namely ultimate truth and conventional truth is rejected. In the former, both truths operate simultaneously. The views on ultimate truth also differ. Self-emptiness (Rangton) posits all phenomena, Buddhahood included, are empty of self-powered & self-settled substance, but full of otherness (relations). In the view of other-emptiness (Shentong), this ultimate wisdom prehended by wisdom-mind is permanent & truly existent, i.e. subsisting and therefore substantial (a thing from its own side). For Shentong, self-emptiness is annihilatory, wrongly identifying Buddhahood with nothingness. But for Tsongkhapa, not the object of knowledge is negated (for him, selfemptiness is not the object's emptiness of itself, as Dolpopa claims), but only its substantial instantiation. Hence, the ultimate is the non-affirming negative of the inherent existence of conventional objects, not of conventional reality per se. Hence, a Buddha knows all objects explicitly. From his own perspective, he knows only the endless purity of emptiness, but he also directly & simultaneously perceives all conventional phenomena as they appear to sentient beings. Afflictive desires obstruct liberation, but obstructions to omniscience prevent Buddhahood.Leaving aside Shentong (and their ontology of Buddhanature) as well asDzogchen, the Middle Way view has different interpretations of Buddhahood. Let us compare Tsongkhapa, and his Middle Way Gelugpas, with the Sakyapa Gorampa. While both are committed to the view Buddhas possess unique cognitive abilities, like knowing all objects of knowledge in then span of a single instant, they disagree on how and in what way this knowledge is gathered. The crucial

divide involves the status of conventional, empirical truth. For Gorampa, Buddhas operate entirely independently of this, while for Tsongkhapa, enlightened wisdom has knowledge of both the empirical and ultimate truths. The issue revolves around the (a) the interpretation of non-duality and (b) the status of ultimate truth. For Gorampa, ultimate truth is split off from conventionality. Is is ontologically "higher" because it does not involve deception, while conventionality always does. Tsongkhapa agrees conventional truth is deceptive, but accepts its validity in terms of wordly conventions. Empirical validity is possible, despite the fact empirical statements conceal their ultimate truth, namely the absence of substantiality. Conventional truth presents the world as static instead of dynamical, and for this reason it is deceptive. For Gorampa, this is reason enough to discard conventionality per se, placing it in the category of invalid illusions. As only ultimate truth is nondeceptive, only ultimate truth is, in an absolute sense, "true" ! Hence, there is only One Truth, namely ultimate truth. For Gorampa, duality, characterizing conventionality, conceptuality & cognition is invalid. For Tsongkhapa, conventionality is indeed illusionary (mistaken), but valid (conventionally). So are conceptuality and cognitive activity. Even duality is not a problem, rather the reification of its terms is. Ultimate truth is not "higher" orontologically different than conventional truth, for the ultimate exists conventionally, and not, as Gorampa states, as an absolute object in its own ontological sphere. Tsongkhapa rejects this Platonic idealism. The ultimate truth is one of the two natures of each and every phenomenon.Known by way of conventions, the deceptive but conventionally valid empirical reality of an object appears to the worldly mind. Known by way of ultimate analysis, the nondeceptive, ultimate truth of the same object is realized by wisdom-mind. Coherent knowledge involves the mutual collaboration of the Two Truths. One has to argue against a division between them and against a reduction of them. They involve two different types of cognition, each with a different sphere of authority. Conventional phenomena cannot determine the ultimate status of phenomena, nor can their ultimate analysis in any way be authoritative for their conventional status.

These conflicting views influence their view on Buddhahood. First Gorampa. All sentient beings, including Hearers, Foe Destroyers, Solitary Buddhas and Superior Bodhisattvas are subject to varying degrees of misconceptions regarding the Two Truths. Ordinary beings are influenced by reifying ignorance & defilements. On the Eighth Bhmi and below, Superior Bodhisattvas, having experienced ultimate truth, are free from these tendencies. Mahasattvic Bodhisattvas of the Eighth to the Tenth Bhmis are totally free from even the subtlest latent (innate) reifying tendencies, but are subject to nondeluded ignorance, the conditioned state of mind predisposed by the previously existent innate conception of inherent existence or essence. So they are not yet fully enlightened. They are predisposed to the assumption of dualities rather than their reification. Hence, misconceptions of dualistic appearances remain. For Gorampa, Buddhas eliminate all duality. So "dualistic appearance" means the conflict between the ultimate object & the ultimate subject. These ryas are not yet enlightened because this duality abides. Once this duality is gone, they are Buddhas. They only know conventional objects implicitly, namely by knowing they do not exist. How they apprehend their absolute object or are capable of being compassionate for deluded conventionality is not really explained. For Tsongkhapa, duality itself is not a problem. The interaction between cognition and the cognitive field cannot be avoided, not even in the most evolved wisdom of rya Buddhas (cf. wisdom-minds apprehending emptiness). In his view, Buddhahood involves the simultaneous prehension of the ultimate & the conventional of every phenomena. For Tsongkhapa, the above Mahasattvic Bodhisattvas are not yet enlightened because for them ultimate & conventional knowledge still come about sequentially, and so they have only alternatingknowledge of the Two Truths. During meditation they known the ultimate. In postmeditation, they apprehend the conventional. But once they are capable of having direct knowledge of both truths simultaneously, able to cognize empty & dependently arisen phenomena concurrently, establishing the non-conceptual dual-union of the Two Truth, they become Buddhas. Then, from their own perspective, only emptiness is apprehended, while all conventionality is explicitly known as it appears to sentient beings. So far the Gem of the Scholars of the Land of Snow.

Mistakes are due to my own ignorance and not to the Buddhadharma. May all who encounter the Dharma accumulate compassion & wisdom. May sentient beings recognize their Buddha-nature and find true peace.

On Buddhahood or Awakening
"Whatever is the essence of the Tathgata, That is the essence of the transmigrator. The Tathgata has no essence, The transmigrator has no essence." Ngrjuna : Mlamadhyamakakrik, XXII.16. Veda and Vedanta BRAHMA VIDYA

two belief nirguna and

saguna
Whatever is the essence(maya|sakthi) of the branhman That is the essence of the vyavahara. The Brahman has essence, The Vivahara has essence Explanatory note: Bhamati : antah karan bahir karan mithya. Vivarna : mula avidya adhyasa superimposed avidya. sat (karya bhava karya brahman) sat karana abhava - RAGHAVENDRA Definition of vivahara. Meaning of vivahara. Synonyms of vivahara
This is the place for vivahara definition. You find here vivahara meaning, synonyms of vivahara and images for vivahara.

Vyavahra () is an important concept of Hindu law denoting legal procedure. Kane defines it as follows: "When..
Vyavahra (Sanskrit: ) is an important concept of Hindu law denoting legal procedure. The term is analyzed by Ktyyana as follows: "Vi means various, ava means doubt, hara is removal; legal procedure is called by the term vyavahra because it removes various doubts.[1] Kane defines it as follows: "When the ramifications of right conduct, that are together called dharma and that can be established with efforts (of various kinds such as truthful speech, etc.) have been violated, the dispute (in a court between parties) which springs from what is sought to be proved (such as debt), is said to be vyavahra."[2] According to Donald Davis, There are two basic meanings of vyavahra. The first is a general sense of practice, business, or everyday transactions. The other, specific sense is legal procedure, the processes of litigation including a trial.[3] Legal procedure according to the dharmastrasincludes: court, listening to and assessing witnesses and their testimony, deciding and enforcing punishment, and the pursuit of Justice in the face of Injustice. Davis later quotes the Nradasmti in an attempt to answer the question why legal procedure came about in the Hindu tradition. The text states, When men had dharma as their only focus and were speakers of the truth, there was no legal procedure, no enmity, and no (selfish) conflict. Legal procedure came into being when dharma was lost among men." (Sanskrit). 1. In general terms, the domain of secular or worldly life as opposed to sphere of religion. 2. In relation to language, a designation or manner of speech of a mundane (laukika) kind that the Buddhas may make use of in order to communicate with unenlightened beings. It is opposed to the terminology of Buddhist philosophy which is thought to accurately decribe without redundancy the true nature of things. 3. Especially in Madhyamaka thought, a term used to connote relative or conventional truth (sa v ti-satya) as opposed to ultimate truth (paramrtha-satya).

Buddhism Dictionary

A Dictionary of Buddhism, edited by Damien Keown, Oxford University Press This dictionary features entries on the history and doctrines of the major Buddhist schools, information on the spread of Buddhism in Asia and the West, and coverage of issues of contemporary concern such as human rights, abortion, euthanasia, engaged Buddhism and the role of women in Buddhist teachings. On this page: vijapti-mtra to vyavahra.

vijapti-mtra
(Sanskrit). Mere representation; the Yogcra theory that the contents of everyday, unenlightened experience are merely a false superimposition upon actuality of dualistic concepts generated by the mind that prevent direct experience of reality as it truly is (yath-bhta). Some later forms of Yogcra lend themselves to an idealistic interpretation of this theory but such a view is absent from the works of the early Yogcrins such as Asaga and Vasubandhu. {vyavaharakushal} <===> DIPLOMATIC[Noun] {vyavaharakushal} <===> TACTFUL[Noun] {vyavaharavadi} <===> BEHAVIOURAL[Noun] {vyavaharakushalata se} <===> DIPLOMATICALLY[Noun] {vyavaharakushal vyakti} <===> DIPLOMATIST[Noun]

paramArtha - vyavahAra - pratibhAsa Part 1 - Advaita.org.uk

Jul 10, 2012 paramArtha - vyavahAra - pratibhAsa. Part 1. Definition by Rishi Lamichhane: The Ultimate Reality (pAramArthika satya) does not depend upon ...
Definition by Rishi Lamichhane:

The Ultimate Reality (pAramArthika satya) does not depend upon mental activity for its existence in any way. Illusions and hallucinations (which are prAtibhAsika satya) have no existence apart from the mind that imagines them. Relative reality (vyAvahArika satya) also depends upon mind for its existence, but the functioning of the mind is not enough in itself. It might help to take an example of each. pAramArthika: My existence is not dependent upon the mind in any way. prAtibhAsika: The dream-tiger has absolutely no existence apart from the dreamer's mind, the dream-tiger is mental activity alone. Wherever the mind sees the dream-tiger, if it saw a dream-goat instead, the perception would be just as valid. vyAvahArika: A pot does not exist unless there is mental activity superimposing it upon its material cause (i.e. clay). However, the pot's existence is not dependent upon any one mind and the same pot could be superimposed on the same clay by any mind. This means that it is possible to superimpose the pot on the clay because it has been designed that way for all minds, and not just for any one mind. It is only because the pot exists as a potential in awareness for all beings that it can be superimposed on clay by any being. Unlike prAtibhAsika satya, this superimposition is not arbitrary (i.e. you cannot superimpose a wallet on the clay instead of the pot, and if you do, it is no longer vyAvahArika, it is prAtibhAsika). [Note that the word satya should be understood in this context as level of reality; its usual meaning is true or real; e.g. brahman is spoken of as satyam, whereas the world is mithyA.] Definition by Sampath: Let us consider the following story, Once a young lioness, going about in search of prey, saw a flock of sheep and jumped upon them. She died in the effort; and a little baby lion was born, motherless. It was taken care of by the sheep and the sheep brought it up. It grew up with them, ate grass, and bleated like the sheep. And although in time it became a big, full-grown lion, it thought it was a sheep. One day another lion came in search of prey and was astonished to find that in the midst of this flock of sheep was a lion, fleeing like the sheep at the approach of danger. He tried to get near the sheep-lion, to tell it that it was not a sheep but a lion; but the poor animal fled at his approach. However, he watched for his opportunity and one day found the sheep-lion sleeping. He approached it and said, You are a lion. I am a sheep, cried the other lion and could not believe the contrary but bleated. The lion dragged him towards a lake and said, "Look here! Here is my reflection and yours." Then came the comparison. It looked at the lion and then at its own reflection, and in a moment came the idea that it was a lion. "I do not look like a sheep - it is true, I am a lion!" and with that he roared a roar that shook the hills to their depths! The following conclusions can be drawn from the above story:

o o o

The lion has realized that it has always been a lion even when it thought that it was a sheep. Thus the false knowledge that it had has been annihilated.* The essential nature of the lion is unaffected at all times. It is pAramArthika. It is eternally unsublatable. It is in the play of vyAvahArika where we see the "becoming" and "unbecoming". At the vyAvahArika level we may say that the sheep has "become" a lion. But the truth is that the lion was always the same like an infinite sky. The "Sheep" nature is like a cloud which comes over it, plays for a moment, then vanishes. But the sky is ever the same eternal blue. The Sheep existed only in the mind of the lion! So is the vyAvahArika state unreal from the absolute standpoint. We see the world as we are! There is a tree in the dark. A thief would imagine it to be a police man. A boy would imagine it to be a ghost and so on. But the tree remains unchanged.

* A question may be asked: What benefit has the lion obtained by realizing that it is not a sheep? It could have spent its life happily thinking itself to be a sheep. Reply: It has got rid of "FEAR" by realizing that there is nothing which could destroy it. This is surely a benefit in whatever way you may consider it! Fear is bondage. Fearlessness is liberation. Because fear arises out of duality alone! The Katha Upanishad says, yadidam kincha jagat sarvaM praaNa ejati niHsRitam mahadbhayaM vajramudyataM ya etadviduramRitaaste bhavanti || 2 || Whatever there is-the whole universe-vibrates because it has gone forth from Brahman, which exists as its Ground. That Brahman is a great terror, like a poised thunderbolt. Those who know It become immortal. bhayaadasyaagnistapati bhayaattapati suuryaH bhayaadindrashcha vaayushcha mRityurdhaavati paJNchamaH || 3 || From terror of Brahman, fire burns; from terror of It, the sun shines; from terror of It, Indra and Vayu and Death, the fifth, run. This fear alone has kept the sun, air and death in their respective places and functions, allowing none to escape from their bounds. When the gods Indra, Chandra, Vayu, Varuna will attain to fearlessness, then will they be one with Brahman, and all this phantasm of the world will vanish. Definition by Ram Chandran: In Vedanta literature there are some discussions related to the three notions of reality: prAtibhAsika satya, vyAvahArika satya and pAramArthika satya. Before the discussions, let us make sure that we understand that Truth is only one and it is never threefold. These narrations are just reflections of our own perceptions at different situations. prAtibhAsika satya has neither basis, nor any existence. It is our illusion and a good example is the reality during dream. When there is twilight, a little light and a little darkness, we come by a rope and mistake it to be a snake. Really speaking, there is no snake there. The snake is only in our mind and the thing that is really there is only the rope. This is also referred as prAtibhAsika satya.

When we stand in front of a mirror, we see our reflection in it. When we move away, the reflection vanishes. Therefore, the reflection depends on the original object and only when it is there, will we see the reflection. Here, there is one basis, namely, the original thing. Without the original, there is no reflection. This is an illustration of vyAvahArika satya. On the other hand, pAramArthika satya is an entity which is present everywhere and at all times. This is the true and eternal reality. A number of examples can be provided to illustrate the pAramArthika satya: o o o o Gold and golden ornaments - here the form and names such as bangle, ring, necklace have changed but the gold remains without any change. Clay and pots of different shapes and sizes. There are many bulbs with many different voltages and different colors. Even though we see many forms, many names, many races, many creeds and many castes in this world, we must know that the God that is present in all of them, the inner being, is in reality only one. Those with sama dRRiShTi and sama bhAva [unbiased, impartial perception and interpretation] will be able to see "Only God" with different names and forms.

Everything that we do is at the vyAvahArika level only and even the description and explanation of pAramArthika are also at the vyAvahArika level. No one except Brahman knows what the pAramArthika level is and even this assertion is only at the vyAvahArika level. The sages and saints are always careful and they have avoided making any false claims. Our problem is the lack of understanding of what they say and, most of the time, we attribute our mistakes to them. They employ a `reference point' to illustrate the Truth at the vyAvahArika level and they are aware of our limitations. It seems that we overextend their assertions and try to go beyond! In the rope and snake example the reference point (rope) is the Truth at the vyAvahArika level. Due to darkness (ignorance) the rope appears as the non-existent snake. But with the correct understanding (torch light) the truth is revealed. Now reasoning is employed to illustrate the Truth at the pAramArthika level - the rope of vyAvahArika became the Brahman of pAramArthika and the non-existent snake of vyAvahArika became the non-existent World of pAramArthika. We do need to recognize that that this illustration with additional explanation is only at the vyAvahArika level! This example or analogy does not provide any clue about pAramArthika or Brahman to those who determine not to accept any analogy. The `dream' analogy is another example that is used to point to pAramArthika reality using a vyAvahArika framework. The Truth at the pAramArthika level does require us to extend our understanding beyond the vyAvahArika level. Any of our claims about the TRUTH at the pAramArthika level are just further speculation. TRUTH can't be understood analytically by any `brilliant mind (intellect)' and that is the bottom line. This may explain why scripture becomes relevant for us to accept or reject a `speculated truth.' For Hindus, the `Vedas or shruti - the revealed truth' became the authority for resolving issues related to the establishment of the Truth. The `shruti' is the experience of the `SELF' by the jIvanmukta. Any documentation of Vedas will not qualify for the term - `shruti.' All documented versions of Vedas become `smRRiti - a diluted form of Truth.' Consequently TRUTH (Self-Realization) can never be described in words. Everything that is written, spoken or remembered will fall into the vyAvahArika level.

Namaste: In Vedanta literature there are some discussions related to the three notions of reality: 'Prathibhasika Sathya, Vyavaharika Sathya and Paramarthika Sathya'. Before the discussions, let us make sure that we understand that Truth is only one and it is never threefold. These narrations are just reflections of our own perceptions at different situations. Prathibhasika Sathya has neither basis, nor any existence. It is our illusion and a good example is the reality during dream. When there is twilight, a little light and a little darkness, we come by a rope and mistake it to be a snake. Really speaking, there is no snake there. The snake is only in our mind and the thing that is really there is only the rope. This is also referred as Prathibhasika Sathya. When we stand in front of a mirror, we see our reflection on it. When we move away, the reflection vanishes. Therefore, the reflection depends on the original object and only when it is there, we will see the reflection. Here, there is one basis, namely, the original thing. Without the original, there is no reflection. This is an illustration of Vyavaharika Sathya. On the other hand, Paramarthika Sathya is an entity which is present everywhere and at all times. This is the true and eternal reality. A number of examples can be provided to illustrate the Paramarthika Sathya: (1) Gold and golden ornaments here the form and names such as bangle, ring, necklace have changed but the gold remains without any change. (2) Clay and pots of different shapes and sizes. There are many bulbs with many different voltages and different colors. Even though we see many forms, many names, many races, many creeds and many castes in this world, we must know that the God that is present in all of them, the inner being, is in reality only one. Those with "Samadrishti" and "Sama Bhava" will be able to see "Only God" with different names and forms. The discussions related to Tatastha lakshana and Swaroopa lakshana are described well by Sadaji in the following link: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/sadananda/svarupa_sadananda.htm See also profvkji's homepage for related discussion. http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/34.html with my warmest regards, Ram chandran narendra sastry wrote: > Bhaskar ji, it is logical to say drushti beda than sathya beda...coz there is not beda in ONE sathya > Namaste Narendra ji, No one disagrees with your above statement, especially that there cannot be bheda in ONE Satya. It would be wise to recognize that dRiShTi-bheda presupposes, implies, a satya-bheda. Consider the following example:

Kumar sees a rope on the roadside and thinks: someone has left this rope here. Maybe it will be picked up by him later. Krishna who comes to that spot a little while later sees that same rope and thinks: O there is a snake lying on the edge of the road. Let me hurry up and caution others. Now we have two dRiShTi-s: 1. Rope-dRiShTi and 2. Snake-dRiShTi. But do the two dRiShTi-s represent the same truth? Obviously no. The former is based on the 'paramartha' satya, the actual status there and the latter is based on the a-paramArtha satya, the mistaken status there. Thus, you can never speak about dRiShTi-bheda without explicitly or implicitly admitting satya-bhEda. Yet, are there two 'satya-s' really there? Surely no. There can be only one truth about the rope: that it is a rope. Yet the possibility of two dRShTi-s expose us to the admitting of two levels of satya pertaining to the one object, rope. Why do we admit two 'levels'? It is because, one, the lower level of satya, will be negated, sublated, when the 'higher' level satya pertaining to the rope is gained. Till that happens, we have to keep talking about two levels of sayta. Once the truth is known, there will be no scope to talk about two levels at all; even the term 'paramArtha' is redundant when we do not have an a-paramArtha satya to speak of. Consider some of these statements of Shankaracharya and Gaudapadacharya: In the GK 3.48 it is said: yEtattaduttamam satyam....(This is the Highest Satyam) Shankaracharya comments: sarvo'pyayam manonigrahAdiH, mRllohAdivatsRiShtiH, upAsanA cha uktA paramArthasvarUpapratipattyupAyatvena, na paramArthasatyA iti. paramArtha-satyam tu na ...pUrvEShu upAyatvena uktAnAm satyAnAm yetad uttamam satyam...satyasvrUpe brahmaNi aNumAtramapi kinchid jaayate iti. The overall meaning of the passage, paraphrased, is: Thus far, in this 'Advaita PrakaraNam' chapter of the GK, these were talked about: 1. the practice of mind-control, etc. 2. creation akin to the clay-clay products, iron-iron products, fire-fire sparks, 3. meditation, dhyAna. These were talked about with a view to get the realization of the Supreme Truth, Absolute Truth, paramArtha svarUpa, as a means to realize IT. However, these 3 talked about here are NOT the absolute reality; paramArtha satya. The paramArtha satyam, however, is not...Among those 'satya-s' talked about earlier, THIS is the UTTAMAM Satyam, the Highest Truth, which is the non-origination of even a wee bit of anything in the Absolute SvarUpa Brahman. Now, why would GaudapAda and BhagavatpAda talk about 'uttamam' satyam unless they admit of some satyam that is non-uttamam satyam? Shankaracharya even goes to the extent of using ShaShThI bahuvachanam with regard to satyam: 'satyAnAm' (among the said many satyams, This is the Highest). Unless He admits of an/many a-paramArtha satyams, why would He make a comparison and conclude by picking out the paramArtha Satyam/svarUpam? Is it that Bhagavatpada and GaudapAda are ignorant about the 'logic' stated by you: //it is logical to say drushti beda than sathya beda...coz there is not beda in ONE sathya// ? Remember Bhagavatpada has said: adhyAropa apavAdAbhyAm...(by the method of deliberate superimposition and subsequent negation...a method taught by

'sampradAya vits', 'knowers of the method of disseminating the Truth' as Shankara revers them.) According to this rule, the different wrong dRiShTis are admitted as 'satyam' of a lower level, a-paramArtha, an-uttama satyam only to distinguish them from the paramArtha, uttamam satyam. There is a compelling need to admit different levels of satyam, as unmistakably done by Shankara, Gaudapada, examples of which abound in the bhashya, and finally negate all of them and uphold only One Absolute Truth. At this final level, however, as you have stated, Satyam is Only One. There is no need to label it as 'paramArtha, uttamam, etc.'. It is silence. Here is a fine example of the 'satya bheda' and 'dRiShTi-bheda' co-existing, in Shankara's own words: Commenting on the GK 3.18: 'advaitam paramArtho hi, dvaitam tadbheda uchyate| teShAm ubhayathaa dvaitam...' Shankara states: //......dvaitinAm tu teShAm paramArthataH, aparamArthataH cha ubhayathApi dvaitameva. yadi cha teShAm bhrAntAnAm dvaitadRShTiH, asmAkam advaitadRiShTiH abhrAntAnAm...// The meaning is: For the dualists, it is dvaitam both ways: in the relative realm as well as in the absolute realm. Further, theirs is the deluded view,dvaitadRShTiH, and ours is the undeluded view: advaitadRiShTiH... It is unmistakable that Shankara talks about two satyams, realities, in the first part of the sentence, relative and absolute, and about two views, drishti-s, in the second part of the sentence. Now, you can easily connect this with the example of rope-snake we considered at the beginning of this discourse. The conclusion is: dRiShTi-bhEda presupposes, implies, satya-bheda. The one cannot exist without the other. To make a distinction between them is unnatural. It is impossible to teach the Tattva without alluding to these two sets of bheda-s. It is because, we are under the compulsion, to do so by the 'adhyaropa-apavaada' rule. The Upanishad, GaudapAda and Shankara can never flout this rule. Best regards, subbu P.S. Yet another instance of Shankara using the word 'paramArtha satya' is: GK 2.34 bhashya: 'na hi atra advaye paramARthasatyAtmani...' Now, unless He admits that anything other than the Non-dual Atman is a-paramArtha, why would He qualify the Non-dual Atman as he does? Dear Subbu-ji, Your explanation is superb. I am taking a copy and preserving for future reference. Best wishes, S.N.SastriDear Subbu-ji, Your explanation is superb. I am taking a copy and preserving for future reference. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri

Re: [advaitin] Re: Weekly Definitions- vyavahara and paramarthika

sorry again, I just recall Sadanandaji was giving pramAna for vyavaharika,paramArthika and prathibhAsika sath, let me recall vyavahArika sath by tatastha lakshana (correct me please), for others I cant remembert sorry, could you kindly enlighten briefly on these aswell too thanks praNAms Hare Krishna Shankara uses the word bAdha multiple times at various places...In ArambhaNAdhikaraNam (2-1-14) sUtra bhAshyaM shankara in a single para uses this word several times to say that bAdha is nothing but *sublation of wrong knowledge* (bAdhitAnuvrutti or bAdhita mithyAjnAna). It would be important here to note that shankara alternatively, at some places uses the words like nAsha, laya etc. But these words also implicitly & contextually mean bAdha only... The word bAdha can be explained with a simple example. If I see a synthetic snake, the first cognition of the *snake* causes be fear, anxiety etc...After the detailed examination of the same, I get the knowledge that the snake is not real but it is mere *synthetic snake*....But even after having the *correct* knowledge of snake, the shape of snake does not disappear from my sight...but for me ONLY *wrong knowledge* of *real* snake will get sublated....Though I could see the curved snake with its broad hood in the front, sharp tail at the end, now, I have the bAdhita jnAna of this seemingly *real* snake & with that bAdhita jnAna of that *real* snake, no more anxiety & fear trouble me. So, bAdhA or bAdha means when one knows/realizes the true nature of the object, though it appears in all its (seeming) reality, one's realization would be that it is not real, it is mere false appearance & does not have existence. Shankara applies the same logic & says though brahma jnAni, like other loukika-s, sees this world, for him the knowledge of *reality* of the world will get sublated with the real knowledge of Atman. He explains this beautifully in sUtra bhAshya: atashcha idaM shAstrIyaM brahmAtmatvaM avagamyamAnaM svAbhAvikasya shArIrAtmatvasya bAdhakaM saMpadyatE rajvAdhi buddhaya iva sarpAdi buddhInAM, bAdhitE cha shArIrAtmatvE tadAshrayaH samasthaH svAbhAvikO vyavahArO bAdhitO bhavati. From the above, it may be noted that for a brahma jnAni too, there exists the jagat & he too does the vyavahAra as others do, but the only difference for him is that the *reality* of the existence of the world has been sublated (bAdhita) by the really real, non dual nature of brahman. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji > Hare Krishna CAUTION!!: Always add Vyavaharika Krishna nay Unreal Krishna or we might get stranded!

But shruti does not stop there, > subsequently it confirms that there is no association/contact of states of > consciousness and declares that Atman is free from all specific features. Bhaskar Prabhuji, Thanks for your genuine concern. Nobody want to stop midway here... and if i get stranded your hand will be there always to hold to.... :-)) Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka.

drushti and satya

praNAms Sri Subbuji Hare Krishna I know your reluctance to discuss these issues...but surprisingly you are still taking all the pain to write articles in a tone of refutation & tempting your opposite number to poke his nose :-)) your recent article on mAdhva siddhAnta 'atatvamasi' in favour of advaita is one of those examples...As we know, we the advaitins, would believe & interpret this shruti vAkya as 'tattvamasi' only and since our Acharya also does interpret this in a same way, there is no need for us to twist this shruti vAkya as 'atat' and forcefully making it fit into the advaita frame...If your goodself really want to have the meaningful further discussion, clarity & other view points on this term 'atat', kindly try post this to any open forum where dvaitins too allowed to have their say...I dont think they would really agree with your 'unnecessarily' complicated linking of the word 'atat' in favour of advaita vedAnta when their intention is quite clear in this context. Ofcourse, we the advaitins, without any problem whole heartedly accept your ground breaking interpretation of 'atat' since it is nicely fitting our bill :-)) And now coming back to drushti bedha Vs satya bedha, here is my take & my observations are marked in '>' : No one disagrees with your above statement, especially that there cannot be bheda in ONE Satya. > Kindly keep this 'ONE satya' statement on hand as we move on.... It would be wise to recognize that dRiShTi-bheda presupposes, implies, a satya-bheda. > IMO, it would be wise to recognize that drishti bedha is due to our naisargika or svAbhAvika avidyA on ONE satya..I think this is what shankara too says in adhyAsa bhAshya...tathAcha lOke anubhavaH.. is it not?? Consider the following example: Kumar sees a rope on the roadside and thinks: someone has left this rope here. Maybe it will be picked up by him later. > Seeing the rope as rope is 'saMyak vyavahAra' this is called lOka vyavahAra drushti of that ONE satya. Krishna who comes to that spot a little while later sees that same rope and thinks: O there is a snake lying on the edge of the road. Let me hurry up and caution others. > seeing the 'snake' in place of rope is mithyA vyavahAra again on the basis of that ONE satya... Now we have two dRiShTi-s: 1. Rope-dRiShTi and 2. Snake-dRiShTi. But do the two dRiShTi-s represent the same truth? Obviously no. > But prabhuji dont you know this seeing rope as rope (saMyak vyavahAra) and rope as snake (mithyA vyavahAra) is that all our ideas, speech and conduct based upon practical life (vyAvahArika) are really due to

ignorance (ajnAna) of that ONE satya?? Please note we have already concluded here that there is ONLY ONE satya ( I am talking about dAshtrAntika brahma siddhAnta here..coz. that is what matters ultimately is it not??!!) based on shruti and AchAryOpadesha...Hence, our approach towards world should be that it is only because of our drushti dOsha (avidyA drushti or lOka drushti) we are seeing multiplicity in place of ONE satya...And it is not because of levels of satya prior of drushti dOsha...In the above example of Krishna who is wrongly seeing snake in place of rope does not give any satyatva status to snake...tatra evaM sati yatra yadadhyAsaH tatkrutena dOsheNa guNena vA aNumAtrENApi sa na saMbadhyAte clarifies shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya...So, both rope drushti & snake drushti representing that same ONE truth though there is avidyA lOka drushti suffering from the snake bite :-)) I have to abruptly end my mail here as I have to leave office now, otherwise my colleagues would come and peep into the monitor to find out what I am doing after office hours :-))...If time permits, I shall look into your paramArtha satya definition tomorrow. Till then prabhuji.... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar

true Bhaskar ji, it s logical to say drushti beda than sathya beda...coz there is not beda in ONE sathya
praNAms Sri Narendra Sastry prabhuji Hare Krishna Thanks for echohing my perception on this subtle issue. I was thinking all these days that 'drushti bedha' is only my own 'araNya rOdanaM' without any support from any corner :-)) Because, my paramaguruji, Sri SSS, who left no stone unturned with regard to intricacies of shankara siddhAnta, too, did not take up this issue in any of his works...anyway thanks onceagain for joining me to sing my song :-)) I am holding only one shankara's quote for this view point. In sUtra bhAshya shankara emphatically declares that there are no grades of existence, and whatever has existence that is ONLY atman/brahman. He clarifies here, just as brahman the cause never deviates from existence in all the three periods of time, so also the effect (socalled), the world, never deviates from existence in all the three preiods. And existence again is ONLY ONE. So for this reason also, the effect is none other than the cause. Though context here is kArya-kAraNa prakriya, shankara denies the gradations in existence & attributes existence to ONLY ONE satya i.e. paramArtha satya. So according to him, it is only brahman that appears as the world 'due to ajnAna' (like dviteeya chandra, silves in place of nacre...ref. vide adhyAsa bhAshya) and we have no 'real' origination of the world at all to give it a status of 'satya'... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar praNAms Sri Subbuji > Hare Krishna > .As we know, we the advaitins, would believe & interpret this > shruti vAkya as 'tattvamasi' only and since our Acharya also does > interpret this in a same way, there is no need for us to twist this shruti > vAkya as 'atat' and forcefully making it fit into the advaita frame... My response: There is absolutely no 'force' involved in this. There is a Shruti pramANa for 'a' meaning 'pratyagAtma'. So, very neatly, easily, even that reading fits the Advaitic thinking. If > your goodself really want to have the meaningful further discussion, > clarity & other view points on this term 'atat', kindly try post this to > any open forum where dvaitins too allowed to have their say...I dont think > they would really agree with your 'unnecessarily' complicated linking of > the word 'atat' in favour of advaita vedAnta when their intention is

> quite clear in this context. Response: I am not interested in getting their approval for my interpretation. Nor is it 'complicated' as you say. On the other hand, the dvaitins have always said that the Advaitic interpretation of 'Tat tvam asi' itself is so complicated involving jahadajahallakshana and what not. Even for an advaita student to understand this lakshana it takes a lot of time and teaching. This article has been in 'open' cyber space for over a year now and has been viewed by many dvaitins. There is nothing that the dvaitins can argue against my interpretation. After all, the words 'atat tvam asi' is not the copyright property of dvaitins. Ofcourse, we the advaitins, without any > problem whole heartedly accept your ground breaking interpretation of > 'atat' since it is nicely fitting our bill :-)) Response: What a wonder!! You wholeheartedly accepting something another advaitin says! From what you have started to respond to my note on 'drushti and satya' I am convinced that you have completely misunderstood me. Your fundamental mistake lies in confusing my analogy of the rope-snake. While I am maintaining that the rope drishti is 'paramartha drishti' 'for the purposes' of my exposition, you have completely missed this and are talking about vyavahara drishti. Since the rest of your comments is based/is going to be based on this fundamental mistake on your part, there is no point in my investing time and energy arguing with you. And let me assure you that if you correct that fundamental mistake of yours in the very primary understanding of my position, you will have nothing to comment against my position. Warm regards, subbu

Bhaskar YR wrote: > > praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji > Hare Krishna > Before going to attend my office routines...here is my quick reply : > Sri Subbu prabhuji : > > There is absolutely no 'force' involved in this. There is a Shruti pramANa > for 'a' meaning 'pratyagAtma'. So, very neatly, easily, even that reading > fits the Advaitic thinking. > bhaskar : > If there is a possibility of 'atat' reading in this shruti vAkya, why > shankara did not notice it?? or for that matter why any other later > 'prakhyAta' vyAkhyAnakAra-s have not noticed it when dvaitins making all > the cry!! is it not?? When shankara himself not able to think the word > 'atat' in this context and to link that 'atat' with pratyagAtma, how can > we innovate these type of revolutionery interpretations prabhuji?? I dont > think even madhusUdana saraswati would have opted this line of argument > while refuting dvaitins' theory.

Bhaskar ji, Your logic is very queer, to say the least. Has not Sri Madhvacharya given an altogether different meaning to 'aham brahma asmi' using meanings that are not at all used by / understood by people in common parlance? You can very well ask: Why did Shankara, with all His great knowledge of vyAkaraNa did not interpret 'aham brahma asmi' that way? Why would He do that when He got the straightforward meaning that is advaita-friendly without resorting to any gymnastics and text torture? In the same way, why should Shankara have thought of splitting 'sa AtmAtattvamasi' with a 'savarNadeergha sandhi' rule that the dvaitins have done? What purpose would Shankara have achieved in doing so when He got the paramparA-prApta reading as 'sa AtmA tat tvam asi' and it naturally gave the advaitic interpretation? The dvaitins have not relied on 'atat tvam asi' alone for their siddhAnta sthApana. They have taken this reading as only an alternative. They have worked out some twenty ways in which 'tat tvam asi' can be interpreted without flouting grammar rules and yet all of them being perfectly dvaita-friendly. What is wrong if someone sees the possibility of an advaitic interpretation in 'atat tvam asi'? I do not see anything odd in this. If the pUrva vyAkhyAta-s of Advaita have not done so, well, it might not have occurred to them. Long ago I was reading that book on a thousand names of Atman/Brahman collected from the Upanishads. Much later when I was thinking about atat tvam asi, I suddenly remembered that name: akAraH in that book. That is the story behind this 'invention'. It gives me joy when I see how much unending scope advaita has. Who can stop anyone from coming up with advaita-friendly explanations in the future? Has knowledge any limit? Shankara has interpreted several pATha-bhEda-s in the GitabhAshya and also in Kathopanishad bhashya. 'kAryakaraNa kartRtve' and 'kArya kAraNa kartRtve', 'mayaiva vihitAn hi tAn' and 'mayaiva vihitAn hitAn' are just two examples from the Gita. 'kvadhastha' in Kathopanishad is interpreted in two ways by Him.

So, IMO, your interpretation neither > fit into the dvaitins context here (you cannot push aside dvaitins here > coz. you are taking their interpretation to float advaita vedAnta here) > nor advaitins' age long interpretation of the same shruti vAkya (coz. for > them 'tattvamasi' is what giving the convincing answer to 'abedha' and > more importantly no AchArya from advaita parampara ever commented this > shruti vAkya taking tattvamasi as attatvamasi)...Hope this would be enough > to prove that reading 'atattvamasi' in advaita light is mere subjective > reading with undue linking of some words out of context. All this is your subjective opinion which you are perfectly entitled to. > Sri Subbu prabhuji : > > I am not interested in getting their approval for my interpretation. > bhaskar : > but we must know that it is tatvavAdins who first interpreted tat tvam asi

> as atat tvam asi to mainly prove that YOU ARE NOT THAT...Now you are > saying even atattvamasi also in one way or the other saying tattvamasi > only...if you think yours is final verdict on this interpretation and not > ready to hear any other counter points, then so be it prabhuji :-)) Have I said it is the final verdict? Have you heard of the final verdict on NyaayAmruta-Advaitasiddhi dialectics? For the last several centuries it is continuing, even to this day. Some or the other dvaita or advaita scholar takes up issues in that series and brings out 'fresh' arguments. Just recently Sringeri Math has released a book on this by the departed Vidwan Sri Narayana Bhatta. This is a continuing story. > Sri Subbu prabhuji : > Nor is it 'complicated' as you say. On the other hand, the dvaitins have > always said that the Advaitic interpretation of 'Tat tvam asi' itself is > so complicated involving jahadajahallakshana and what not. Even for an > advaita student to understand this lakshana it takes a lot of time and > teaching. This article has been in 'open' cyber space for over a year now > and has been viewed by many dvaitins. There is nothing that the dvaitins > can argue against my interpretation. After all, the words 'atat tvam asi' > is not the copyright property of dvaitins. > bhaskar : > It is not the issue of copyright...it is the issue of using their > interpretation to fit advaitic meaning... Have they not taken 'our' reading of tat tvam asi and given their own meanings? Did they seek our approval for this? Since you are not ready to openly > debate on this issue with dvaitins, IMO, it is unfair on your part to > assume and say that 'there is nothing that the dvaitins can argue against > your theory'...You know something prabhuji, dvaitins can argue anything > under the sky if it is from the desk of advaitins...Try your article > atleast once in vAdALi group, you dont have to indulge any discussion, > just post and see the response..you will atleast come to know what they > have in theiry kitty to refute your advaitic interpretation of 'atat'. > I do not see any need to indulge in any kind of debate with them. There is nothing unfair in this. If they come out with twenty or two hundred dvaita friendly interpretations for tat tvam asi or aham brahma asmi, so be it. Why should we bother about that? In the same way if advaitins work out several advaita friendly meanings for these sentences like atat tvam asi, etc. why should they bother? > Ofcourse, we the advaitins, without any > > problem whole heartedly accept your ground breaking interpretation of > > 'atat' since it is nicely fitting our bill :-)) > > Sri Subbu prabhuji : > Response: What a wonder!! You wholeheartedly accepting something another > advaitin says! > bhaskar : > Jokingly, I am not like your goodself prabhuji, to say no to discussion & > writing big articles in refutation...Atleast I am true to myself & > straightforward while expressing my feelings... > Sri Subbu prabhuji :

Let us close this discussion with this. Both of us have expressed our opinions on this. Om Tat Sat

xxiii

xxiv