knowledge and wisdom

[Gummuluru Murthy]

During the past few weeks, my readings took me to Bertrand Russell's
Impact of Science on Society and Chandogya and Katha upanishhads. I put
below some random thoughts on knowledge and wisdom based on these
references and seek clarification from the List members.

Knowledge and wisdom are entirely different. It is in our hands to
acquire knowledge, but we cannot acquire wisdom. Either you are wise or
you are not. Knowledge deals with the matters of the not-Self. Wisdom
deals with the Self, the Atman.

When Katha u. says Atman chooses to reveal Itself to Itself (verse
I.2.23), It reveals Itself only to the wise. Can any amount of knowledge
lead to wisdom ?

Bertrand Russell says in Impact of Science on Society " ... Broadly
speaking, we are in the middle of a race between human skill as to means
and human folly as to ends. It follows that, unless men increase in wisdom
                                                        ^^^^^^^^
as much as in knowledge, increase of knowledge will be increase of
sorrow. ..."  [my emphasis on "increase" in the above quote.]

Can man increase his wisdom ? and how ? Should not wisdom dawn on the
                                                          ^^^^
person, rather than person increasing his wisdom ?
                           ^^^^^^^^^^

I find a parallel to this in (i) Chandogya upanishhad (VII) discussion
between Narada and Sanatkumaara, (ii) in Brahmanda puraana Shri Lalitha
trisathi discussions between sages Agastya and Hayagreeva.

Narada approaches Sanatkumaara with full knowledge but still feeling
sorrow because of lack of Atmavidya. In Brahmanda puraana, Agastya, feels
sorrow in spite of his knowledge and Hayagreeva teaches Shri Lalitha
trisathi.

However knowledgeable we are, we are still mired in sorrow. Only the wise
enjoy the sat-chit-ananda. It is only the wise who attain Atman. We know
we can become knowledgeable. How can we become wise ? My feeling is, it
is certainly not in our hands to try to become wise. Has this anything to
do with "pre-ordained" and "lack of free-will" ?

Further, what are the correct Sanskrit words for knowledge and wisdom ?
Can some of the Sanskrit scholars on the List clarify ?

Any other references which deal with the topic of knowledge and wisdom ?

Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarvaagamaanaa maachaarah prathamam parikalpathe !
                                          Sage Vyasa in Maha Bharatha

For all (incoming) knowledge, discipline is the most fundamental.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From  Wed Apr 23 21:11:04 1997
Message-Id: <WED.23.APR.1997.211104.0530.>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:11:04 +0530
Reply-To: andromed at del2.vsnl.net.in
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Bhuvesh <andromed at DEL2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Subject: knowledge and wisdom
Comments: To: ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Shri Gummuluru,

Namaskaram.

You yourself have pointed out to one of the best texts outlining the
difference between knowledge and wisdom. It seems you are hungry for
more, so let me point to a few more (forgive the lack of precision, I am
trying to quote from memory) :

1.      Lord Krishna in the second chapter of the BG ( I think ) says that
all the knowledge of the Vedas is as useful to a person who knows as is
a well in a place everywhere flooded with water. Obviously the person
who "knows" is a man of wisdom as opposed to a man of knowledge.

2.      " In deep darkness is a man who worships ignorance . In deeper
darkness still a person who worships knowledge". Isha, I think.

3.      "One who knows, knows not, one who knows not, knows". Kena, one is
led to believe.

4.      "Knowledge is of two kinds, higher and lower. The lower is the Vedas,
etc., etc.( i.e. knowledge ), while the higher ( i.e. wisdom ) is the
one by which all is known". So goes the Mundakya Up.

5.      " You seem conceited like one who knows all. Do you know that which
by all is known?". Shvetaketu being harassed by his father in, I think,
the same Up. which you so wisely quoted.

One could go on and on as this has been thought out and talked about by
our ancients in great depth. If Bertrand Russell was an Indian he would
have been scantly regarded as he was just repeating well known tenets.
Seems that his good Karma led to his being born as a Britisher. Anyway
we don't grudge that do we ?

Wisdom is jnana while knowledge is vijnana.

However, Shri Gummuluru's note has raised a very pertinent line of
thought on which I seek a convincing answer from all learned folks out
there ( which I know to be many ). To paraphrase Shri Gummmuluru, it is
only the wise who attain atman, it is only the wise who enjoy
sat-chit-ananda. Agreed, this does not seem to be a proposition one can
dispute.

Question: The wise who have reached atman ( it ), must have travelled
the same path as we mortals. Unless they were born enlightened, in which
case they have no business to exist as mortals here in any case. If so,
do they not remember that for many of us mortals here, facing a grim
battle of faith, a small sign from them ( a miracle maybe? ) would be
enough to fortify us? Having reached atman, surely they must be
omnipotent. Why do they then not reveal themselves, atleast for the
faithful? Are they sadists? Or are they following a grander design which
we fools do not understand?

Please enlighten us with some theory, wise ones among us.

yours sincerely,
etc.