Search & Read
Indirect Knowledge versus Direct Knowledge
Daniel: Hey, KP.
It’s most common to confuse indirect knowledge with direct knowledge; it’s an unavoidable (and totally acceptable) stage during self-inquiry. My response may sting a little, but its intention is to clarify and avoid confusion between this subtle topic of “indirect versus direct knowledge.” More importantly, it’s to act as an antidote to any type of enlightenment sickness that may pop up along the path of inquiry.
Hang on tight!
KP: Experience depends on me, knowledge depends on me.
Daniel: Yes, experience depends on you, awareness. This is knowledge. Knowledge is you, yet you, awareness, are free from knowledge.
KP: The experience of the absolute is an experience I had.
Daniel: The experience of the absolute was an experience reflected in a sattvic subtle body. The subtle body (ego) is talking here. Your statement reveals that the subtle body has claimed the experience. Identification as the “little I” remains. The “I” still thinks of the absolute (non-dual reality) as something other/separate than itself. We call this indirect knowledge, where dualistic thinking is still the driver.
KP: Knowledge of the self is knowledge I have.
Daniel: A statement where direct knowledge was the driver would sound something like, “I have self-knowledge, of myself as the self.”
KP: So, yeah, I finished my quest.
Daniel: Not quite.
KP: I’m no more KP than I was before.
Daniel: You were never KP, but a misidentification as KP remains.
KP: I don’t need Vedanta, I simply like it.
Daniel: I beg to differ. I suggest strapping yourself in ever so tightly and stepping down on the Vedanta gas pedal.
KP: I just feel so ordinary, like I haven’t gained a thing.
Daniel: A sense of non-doership and total ease is quite a sweet gain, I promise!
KP: I’m still the guy on my passport, but now I’m a jnani, so yay.
Daniel: You were never the guy on the passport. You are the awareness/knower of the guy on the passport.
A jnani would not say, “I’m a jnani.” A jnani will say, “I am identification-less awareness.”
KP: Previously, I had it mixed up between raja yoga and Vedanta. I thought a jnani is always in high states of bliss or something. But a jnani is simply a “knowledgeable one.”
Daniel: A “knowledgeable one” is a fair definition.
But knowledgeability does not necessarily equal moksa, total freedom (aka direct knowledge).
It’s the converting of knowledge into direct knowledge that bears the fruit of liberation, where the sense of limitation and the belief of “I am the doer” has been dissolved.
KP: So actually, come to think of it, I have double super sausage: (1.) I united (yoga) with the self. (2.) I have been taught (knowledge) that I am the self, regardless of experience.
Daniel: One “I” claims to be another “I.” Dualistic thinking remains. Converting this indirect knowledge into direct knowledge is where the work of inquiry begins.
KP: The one leads to the other. There go all my notions of hoping for another experience, but it’s firm now.
Daniel: My response above applies here too.
KP: I know I’m only in trouble when I stop responding to my name (ha, ha). It’s clear, in the palm of my hand.
Daniel: Trouble happens when the apparent ego claims to have attained something called enlightenment and believes it’s a wrap when it’s not a wrap just yet.
My suggestion is to continue to make Vedanta your 24/7 rock – regardless of whether you feel you need it or not. Besides, you enjoy it. Allow the knowledge to firm up in its own time without the expectations of when and how. Continue to apply the teachings, homie.
Besides, what else is there left to do? ☺
KP: Hey, Daniel, it doesn’t sting at all.
I simply understood that I’m awareness. That’s not a special kind of knowledge. And I don’t identify myself with an experience, even though I had one.
The point to be grasped is that awareness doesn’t change, which is obvious because I’m the knower of it.
Hari om. ☺
Daniel: “The point to be grasped is that awareness doesn’t change, which is obvious because I’m the knower of it” versus “The point to be grasped is that I, awareness, don’t change, which is obvious because I’m never not aware.”
Contemplate the difference between your statement and mine.
Hari Om Tat Sat! ☺
KP: Thanks, my guru! I’m very grateful.
I realized something; let me know whether it is correct.
The world is an illusion. The whole existence is simply a dream.
It seems so real, but upon further analysis it’s seen clearly.
When the illusion is seen through, it’s not void, but awareness, which was, is and always will be the illuminator of this dramatic play.
Daniel: The world is an illusion, simply a dream appearing to/in me. Though this dream is a projected object of my awareness, I simultaneously remain free of it all. Like the spider remains free from its self-created web, so I too remain free from my self-created play.
When I apparently get caught up in/as a subtle body, the world seems to real. Identification with the subtle body creates a world of limitation and separation.
But upon analysis it’s seen clearly that what is real is me alone. I am the unchanging essence and light that remains free from my self-created apparent realty. There is only me, one me, non-dual awareness. I am everything that is.
KP: Amazing, amazing, amazing!
I am awareness. There is only one me. This dreamlike world is a projection of me because I want to know what it is to be a human being. When I see myself as a human being suffering, I guide myself in getting rid of the belief that I am a human being. There are not many human beings, just me appearing as many. I know I can always count on myself; that’s how I know that all the experiences I have (of everyone everywhere) are no more than a dream, and I forgive myself for ever believing I was one.
Daniel: I don’t want or need to knowing anything, because I am everything. But because I am limitless, I am free to play self-tag through little apparent action figures called humans.
Yes, there is only me apparently appearing as many. This is as a result of a power called maya within me, that which makes the impossible (to apparently divide) possible.
KP: This is awesome. I am only one! I play hide-and-seek simply because I can.