Does knowledge lie in the world of objects or does it come from the inner recesses of our consciousness?

One of the recent issues on the subject has prompted me to ask this question. Let me try to answer it in my own way. If knowledge lies in the world of objects, the same object or phenomenon should offer the same kind of knowledge to all of us. We see that in our daily life, this is not happening. So many apples or jackfruits might have fallen on the head of people before and after the times of Newton but, only Newton was curious about the phenomenon. The teacher gives out lessons (imparts knowledge) but the students do not intake them in the same way. Students have different grasping levels. All the students do not grasp the same knowledge with the same amount of easiness and attention.

Something should come from inside to get convinced of the so called knowledge coming from outside. Without this conviction, nobody really grasps any knowledge. Something from inside should match what is coming from outside. Then only, the understanding becomes possible. Practically speaking, this world of objects doesnt offer any knowledge to anybody. It is actually our level of perception/level of consciousness that is attributing this and that to the world of objects, to all natural phenomena. Thus, we define the world of objects in such and such manner. We define them, we name them, we classify them and we tag them. All the processes are taking place only inside. Nothing is lying outside. Let us examine. For example, what are these scientific inventions but designs coming out of our mind, our power of observation, our reflections and our level of perception? Everything has come out of our deep inner recesses only. The world of objects serves only a suggestive idea but the real key is our own inner torch. This inner torch designs and defines the outer world. This is the truth. A piece of diamond is identified as diamond not by anybodys definitions but by my individual awareness. Diamond doesnt offer any definition but it is us who attribute such and such definition to a piece of diamond from our perceptive levels, from our level

of experience, from our ability to conceive of it. Sir C V Raman may find in a piece of diamond Raman Effect. A jeweler may see in it a fortune. A woman may wish to possess it at any cost. And a lunatic may throw it to a dust bin also! So, what kind of value, knowledge does it offer to the world? We can define the entire world of objects and all the natural phenomena in this way. So, what we call as knowledge of the world, this world of objects, these various phenomena, are only our attributions, our definitions, our findings. This attribution depends on our viewing angle, our previous experience and power to integrate various ideas. We define and name, tag everything for our easy reference that is what is called knowledge by one standard. When I attribute this and that to a table, I should name it as table or chair. Otherwise, my knowledge about it remains incomplete. So, knowledge means just naming or tagging at one level. Knowledge is just information about the world of objects. Now, we may ask a question here. Dont this world of objects and natural phenomena offer an independent knowledge and existence than our level of perception, than our level of knowledge? The question is a valid one. Yes, they are independent of our consciousness. For example, Law of Gravity is independent of our consciousness. It is a natural phenomenon.

Whether we know about it or not, it is bound to exist in the universe. Whether we know about the existence of atom or not, an atom is bound to exist in the universe. This kind of independent existence is not actually what is meant by the term Knowledge. I happen to know about it I am able to conceive of it I am able to experience the concept - this is the key behind Knowledge. Knower known and the process of knowing. Knower is Me. Known is the object or a particular phenomenon that is under our power of observation or under our experience. The process of knowing it is something unique that takes place inside of us. This process finally defines the world of objects in a particular way, tags it this and that way, and attributes names to every revealed ideas. The term Law of Gravity is only our attribution and not the attribution of that natural phenomenon. We have only tagged it, named it, defined it, understood it that is all. The moment we are able to attribute something in a meaningful way to something that we see, touch, smell, hear or experience, that attribution becomes our knowledge about it. This is what we call as knowledge of the world of objects. Our definitions matter. Our views matter. Our level of experience matters. Our attitude matters. Our bend of mind matters.

Thus, the same object or phenomenon can offer many definitions or many knowledge. More often we argue on grounds of definitions. This is because we are missing certain angles, certain views, or there can be many definitions possible within definitions. After all, a definition is nothing but a statement born out of a particular view. When views change, definitions also change. That is all. I may view God as a living person. You may define him as immutable Brahman. Another person may define the concept as immutable Space and eternal pervading energy. But who is God at the end? He is what He is. The concept is what the concept IS. HE is defined according to individual experience, perception and knowledge. And in the name of definitions we simply argue, quarrel. In the name of the knowledge that we have about God, we go on fighting. In the area of Metaphysics, attributions and definitions, our Knowledge often calls forth arguments. This is because we tend to stick on to a particular definition or a particular knowledge. Beyond our individual definitions, nothing happens to the world of objects. It is our attribution that makes the world of objects, the world of concepts, and the world of phenomena knowledgeable to us. So, our attribution counts. Our footing counts. Our attributions become part of the world of objects and thus the world of objects seems to give

us the same knowledge as we perceive, as our attributions! This is how we are compelled to say that the world of objects is giving us knowledge. Not actually so. For example, what is an atom? During the times of J J Thomson, it was electron and a particle concept. During the times of Neils Bohr and Rutherford, an atom was electron plus proton and the model of a solar system and a particle concept. During the period of James Chadwick, neutron was also added. De Broglie brought in the wave concept of atomic particles. Heisenberg brought in the matrix form of atom. Later on, so many sub-atomic particles were discovered within the level of a single particle. Towards the end of 20th century, the particles gave way to quarks. All these developmental years, what was happening to the atoms of the universe? Within that single concept, so many discoveries took place from various levels of human perceptions and understanding. Thus, one single concept was found to be an integral of so many other concepts. Actually, atom did not change materially throughout the universe right from the days of Big Bang to the days of Max Plank but our perception, our knowledge about an atom changed the picture of it over the decades. And according to these perceptions, we defined an atom. It was our perception that changed the picture of an atom. We drew different pictures of

the same thing. It is our perception, our awareness that is changing the picture of the world of objects. The world actually remains the same throughout at the core. We cannot tell that the world only obeyed Euclid Geometry during the times of Euclid and switched over to following nonEuclidian Geometry from the times of Riemann, Carl Gauss, Clifford and Albert Einstein! What is the practicality of knowledge? Somebody was airing this question. This question endorses the fact that the world of objects is not offering any knowledge to an individual. It is the individual who is discovering knowledge, an importance in the world of objects. A child may tear a 1000 rupee note whereas we do not. For a beggar, The Theory of Relativity may mean nothing but for Einstein it is important and full of knowledge. Knowledge is relative because the world of objects is also relative from the level of perception. While lying in a bath tub, it was only for Archimedes that the Archimedes Principle struck. Did the tub or water offer any knowledge to him? No. If it was otherwise, a tub and a volume of water should also offer the same knowledge to all of us, irrespective of our level of perception and observation. It was his deep revelations that gave him a relationship between the volume of water

and the weight and density of the matter immersed in it. He was not his material body, mind nor intellect at the moment of this discovery. That means, he was completely out of the world of objects when this knowledge sparked within him. He was beyond his material person and that is why he ran naked to the palace of the King. I can cite one or more examples in this regard. The model of Benzene ring occurred to a Kekule during a dream. One may argue that he was already working on the problem too much. Beyond this fact, the truth is that the revelation came at a moment when the world of objects was absent within the conscious level. The revelation came from deep within. This is what we have to understand. There is an episode about Madam Curie as well. She was working on a problem for weeks together but could not find an answer. She was preparing notes sitting late one night. Then she went to bed. On the following morning she went through the notes and found that the notes were complete in all respects and the required solution was already arrived at! Who had completed the notes during that night? God or Angels? Curie herself. After going to bed she had actually woken up and completed the notes from her sub-conscious terrain but she was unaware of this episode.

During those moments, she was beyond her material person, beyond the world of objects in every sense. Take the case of Vivekananda. His oratory capacity had no parallel. He delivered his speeches off hand. All the knowledge was spontaneous to him. From where did it come whether from the world of objects? Everything came out of his own deep inner resources. He was able to grasp everything that contained in a book just by glancing at the pages once. While he was in Varanasi, one of his friends used to borrow books from a library which would be returned in no time. The librarian became suspicious of Vivekananda whether Swamiji was actually going through the books. Vivekananda gave testimonials to the librarian by reciting those books in verbatim! From where did he get such knowledge? Vivekananda would say that with enough concentration alone, he was able to pick up anything he wanted at his own WILL. The world of objects does not offer us anything beyond our revelations, beyond our concentration and beyond our perception. So, the practicality of any knowledge depends on our revelations, identifications. The theme would remain the same thing but revelations can be different for different viewers. There is only one Absolute Truth and that

is the changeless entity that we call by different names like Brahman, God, Almighty, Allah, Space, consciousness etc. The rest the world of objects, this entire universe belongs to relative truths, to relative knowledge, to individual revelations and discoveries. We have to properly understand this. All these relative truths are definitely the different voices of the one and the only Absolute Truth. This also we have to understand, nay experience. Knowledge is only an interpretation of the Absolute Truth at various mental and intellectual levels. The method of science is an interpretation of Absolute Truth at the objective level. For example, what is Unified Field Theory but an attempt to find a common thread that is running behind the entire universe? What are we actually aiming at the level of quarks but a kind of unification, a sense of reaching at the Absolute Truth? Even the thought of equality, freedom, peacefulness, happiness is reflections of this Absolute Truth, this Absolute Entity. At the world of objects level, we thrive for these through different streams. That is all. The method of philosophy and spiritualism on the other hand is an interpretation of the Absolute Truth at the subjective level. Let me conclude this topic with certain passages from Vivekanandas Raja Yoga in which he declares:-

 You may ask, what state would that be in which there is no mind, there is no knowledge? What we call knowledge is a lower state than the one beyond knowledge. You must always bear in mind that the extremes look very much alike. If a very low vibration of ether is taken as darkness, an intermediate stage is light, very high vibration will be darkness again. Similarly, ignorance is the lowest state, knowledge is the middle state, and beyond knowledge is the highest state, the two extremes of which seem the same. Knowledge itself is a manufactured something, a combination, it is not reality. All our knowledge whether we call it perception, or reason or instinct, must come through that one channel called experience, and all that we now call instinct is the result of past experience, degenerated into instinct and that instinct regenerates into reason again. Oriental Philosophy is clear in this regard. Western thought is not that deep. Let us reflect on the subject and come to realizing truths about it. Let us have our own revelations in the first place. 2nd December 2010.