knowledge and wisdom

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Fri, 2 May 1997, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> 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.

This is an extremely interesting post. Thanks Gummuluru, for bringing
up the topic. Yes, the words knowledge and wisdom indicate different
things. But from a linguistic standpoint, (as far as the English language
is concerned), one can grow wiser from experience. Thus, one can talk of
acquiring wisdom, in some sense.

However, the structure of the English language also gives a clue to the
difference in connotation between "knowledge" and "wisdom". One can know
or not know (some thing), indicating that "knowledge" predominantly is in
the realm of subject-object duality. Thus, one can study a thing in depth,
and know all about it. Such knowledge is an outcome of an action. However,
one can only *be wise* or otherwise, indicating that wisdom is a state of
*being*, not an outcome of any action.

Interestingly, many Indo-European languages have two verbal roots
corresponding to these two concepts. For example, German has "kennen" and
"weissen", and these two verbs are used in different contexts.

>
> 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 ?
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^

This depends on what meaning one attaches to the word "wisdom". In popular
speech, one can certainly be said to grow wiser, indicating an increase
in wisdom. Bertrand Russell is talking about scientific curiousity leading
to increased levels of knowledge and skill, although not leading to wiser
human beings. One can argue that in the 1940's, the enthusiasm of many
scientists, including Fermi, for atomic bomb testing was certainly about
scientific knowledge, but that it was misplaced as far as the wisdom of
such testing was concerned. Certain other scientists who had deep
reservations about the implications of these experiments were definitely
wiser, although powerless to do anything about it. In this context, nobody
is talking of AtmavidyA. The only concerns here are about the future of
human society.

>
> 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" ?

One can talk of two kinds of wisdom. The wisdom that is AtmavidyA does not
depend on human society. I think that in any kind of society, including
among African or Australian tribals, primitive by modern standards, there
are wise men and women, who know what the Atman is, and what it is not,
although they may use different words and imagery to convey it.

On the other hand, the kind of wisdom that Russell and many other Western
philosophers are concerned about is not such AtmavidyA, but the folly of
many human decisions. Whether there is free will or volition from an
absolute standpoint or not, the fact remains that men live and act
according to their own decisions. These decisions affect the lives of
other human beings in this world. The concern about science and its impact
on society is all about human comfort in this world. It does not have much
to do with brahmajnAna, which only arises when there is no concern for
this world or the next.

After all, whether human beings continue to inhabit the earth or whether
we all become extinct, like the dinosaurs, it will not change the ultimate
reality of the Atman. In Russell's dictionary, the wise man is one who
makes judicious choices with the goal of lokasangraha in mind. Certainly,
so long as we regard ourselves as agents, (and human society is
impossible without such a notion), it is in our hands to evaluate each of
our choices and actions with the question, "is what I am doing conducive
to lokasangraha, or is it going to lead to destruction?" Such a question
will help in an effort to do nishkAmya karma. A doer of such selfless
action might not care to think that he has free will, and he might
consider that God has pre-ordained every situation in his life, but he
remains a doer nonetheless. And rather than saying, "anything I do is
pre-ordained anyway, so let me just do A, instead of B," one should ask
oneself the questions about lokasangraha and then choose between the
courses of action, A and B.

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

To the best of my knowledge, sam.skr.ta usage does not distinguish between
two specific words for knowledge and wisdom. Contemporary English usage
of these words has changed significantly from its Germanic roots. The word
"know" is cognate with the German "kennen" and "wise" with "weissen", but
the German usage of "kennen" and "weissen" does not have the same
distinctions as the English usage of "knowledge" and "wisdom".

To some extent, the word "vidyA" (from the root vid) quite often means
only knowledge, (e.g. bhUtavidyA, nakshatravidyA, etc.), while "jnAna"
(from the root jnA) can be used to indicate wisdom. Thus, someone who is
knowledgeable is a "vidvAn", while the wise one is a "jnAnI". And
indicating the fact that wisdom is a state of being, and that ultimately
Being is Consciousness, there are various prefixes that can be attached to
jnAna, e.g. vi-jnAna, pra-jnAna, sam-jnAna, etc. These words all refer to
consciousness in some form or the other.

However, one should not take such a distinction between vidyA and jnAna
too far, or else one will fall again into the trap of thinking that one
understands a thing just by giving it a name. The classical writers use
the two words interchangeably also. Thus, "samyag-jnAna" is right
knowledge, while "mithyA-jnAna" is false knowledge. And "brahmavidyA" is
true wisdom, while ignorance is called both avidyA and ajnAna.

With best regards,

S. Vidyasankar