Knowledge Is Bondage

We have come to believe in our society that acquisition of knowledge is the hallmark of an intelligent, accomplished person. We strive to better ourselves by taking in more information, learning more skills, processing more facts, assimilating more content, and applying more of what we know.

We are better off when we "know", right? After all, when we don't know, we are unsure of ourselves. We are uncomfortable and anxious not knowing. We perceive knowledge as giving us dominance over our environment and each other. Certainty gives us comfort and eliminates fear, so we desire to develop certain knowledge. We give it a top priority in our lives.

Let me offer a different perspective on knowledge from the wisdom traditions...

In the Siva Sutras, the enlightened being Siva, shares a pithy but powerful aphorism: "Jnanam Bandhah", which translates from Sanskrit as "Knowledge is Bondage." What does he mean? Siva manages to pack a mighty punch in this little statement. He uses each word with great diligence and precision, and the phrase is loaded with meaning.

First, Siva acknowledges that the process of knowing quite literally binds things together. From unbounded chaos, "knowing" binds information together which is otherwise disorganized. Like the binding of a book, we take many loose concepts with countless possible configurations and solidify them into a defined volume. The process of gaining knowledge requires the infinite to become finite. Finiteness gives us comfort because is manageable - we like things to be definite and bounded. However, by Siva's standard, knowing is a degenerative process.

Second, knowledge limits our freedom. By forcing the infinite to become finite, we lose unity consciousness and are thrust into duality. As we freeze reality into a specific, defined configuration, we lose perspective of the whole. We perceive ourselves as separate from others. Knowledge is a concealing factor that makes us ignorant of our true nature. This identification with duality, caused by our reliance on the intellect and sense perceptions, is the source of human suffering.

Jaideva Singh, in his commentary on the Siva Sutras explains, "Man is bound...so long as he allows himself to be confined to the limited knowledge of his senses and mentation. When he recognizes his true nature, he is free."

In the Bible, when Adam and Eve "fell" from grace, the first experience they had was "they knew." Prior to the Fall, they were in unity consciousness - one with the Divine. That knowledge-free state was supreme bliss and freedom. The state prior to the Fall is not very different from the Buddha's concept of emptiness and Nirvana. When we are free from knowledge, we can empty the mind and experience the bliss of our true nature.

Zen also touches on this notion with their phrase, "When you know, you don't know, and when you don't know, you know."

So, various traditions describe this state in various ways - Nirvana or "emptiness", Satori or "no mind", Nirvakalpa Samadhi or "though-free, divine bliss." In these states, supreme intelligence beyond intellectual knowledge is experienced. By dropping our attachment to knowledge, ironically, we can become all-knowing.

By declaring that knowledge is bondage, Siva is asking us to stop being a slave to our limited knowledge, and to become free. No matter how impressive our intellectual repertoire, it is childs play compared to the vast intelligence of the Divine. Give up identification with knowledge. Set yourself free from bondage. Be fluid. Be in the space of 'don't know', and from there you will know everything.

Comments

[dadw5boys]

Sounds like they are all trying to say stop thinking it to death and do something with the knowledge you have.
In action you see knowledge given power by releasing your knowledge to others with orders, direction, or commands.

[Readbetweentheelevens]

"...'knowing" binds information together which is otherwise disorganized. Like the binding of a book, we take many loose concepts with countless possible configurations and solidify them into a defined volume."

The above sums up the aphorism best. Is there a reality beyond the construct -- beyond the book, if you will? The Sutras say yes. The aphorism is not a renunciation of knowledge.

[mamacat]

"The process of gaining knowledge requires the infinite to become finite." This is a statement advanced as fact which is made without proof. It is just as easy to claim the opposite, or anything in between, if one does not require proof.

"When we are free from knowledge, we can empty the mind and experience the bliss of our true nature." By this logic, wouldn't an empty-minded amoeba be closer to a state of bliss than a conscious human? Or, put another way, wouldn't your assertion, if true, lead to the conclusion that the dumber the organism, the more blissful it is?

The basic premises presented are counter-intuitive, I believe, but there is some room for discussion. It is possible that a world view that is built on a strict interpretation of a limited knowledge of the world would tend to blind one to experiences and observations that one might otherwise be willing to accept as real. But that is not the same thing as stating what amounts to ignorance-as-bliss.

BTW, should we give ancient Eastern texts greater respect than judeo-chri­stian-musl­im texts? Are they not all based on an understanding of the world that did not incorporate more rigourous, scientific observations?

[Jonahson]

Actually Mamacat our mind is beyond what modern science can understand. 2500years ago the Buddha description that all things are impermanent and is subject to change is now widely accetped by science. Albert Einstein describe that the Buddha's teachings as a religion that do not need to change with time in the world of science and discovery.
The human mind has the capacity to fanthom the deepest questions than boggles scientist today.
Science is logic and when we use logic we are actually using a small part of our brain.

[mamacat]

Hello,
I have problems with reading Einstein's scientific tracts, but I love to read what he wrote as to how he perceived our universe on a more personal level.

"If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism.........."

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment­..........­...is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists, and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling....that is the core of the true religious sentiment."

"And so it seems to me that science...­..contribu­tes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life."

One of the greatest minds in the history of mankind proclaimed that our experiences exceed our understanding, so why do so many self-described skeptics say that it is unscientific to come to the same conclusions as Einstein?

I do not necessarily agree with every inference you might make, but I certainly agree with the broad outline of what you have said.

[AmbassadorOfChrist]

The knowledge that leads to everlasting life is not bondage.

[wondering]

Knowledge is freeing.

Knowledge gives you choices.

Knowledge gives you power.

Knowledge is what makes us human.

I do not understand attacks on science and reason coming from the left.

[Jonahson]

We need knowledge to have a deeper understanding of course and all that you mentioned is true.
The point is knowledge can give you freedom only if you use it wisely. It give you choices but you are the one to the better choice. It gives you power but wether you use it for good or evil depend on your heart. It also can make us inhuman.
If a person's intention is not good then knowledge becomes an evil tool. To become a more humane person is to develop ourselves by making use of knowledge. Not to get attached to it but to apply it when the need comes. For example in the ealry days of Christianity the bible is the nearest knowledge people in the Western World have about the heavens. The church clung to what they perceive as the truth and did not accept new discoveries resulting in people like Galileo and Charles Darwin having a hard time. Knowledge then become an obstacle to these believers.

[wondering]

Without knowledge, you are at the mercy of those who would do evil.

This quote intrigues me : "It gives you power but wether you use it for good or evil depend on your heart. It also can make us inhuman."

Notice that what you are saying is that good or evil are not inherent to knowledge - good and evil are separate traits that belong to human beings. "Evil" is a loaded term - it implies a moral code that is understood and shared by all. Choosing to uphold or violate a moral code has nothing intrinsically to do with knowledge. However, a lack of knowledge makes it more difficult to assess the moral codes of others, or the one you choose to live by. A child (i.e., one who lacks knowledge) follows a morality dictated by others out of a fear of punishment or desire for reward. Hopefully, a KNOWLEDGEABLE adult establishes an internal morality that they choose to follow. Without knowledge, the messages of a Hitler may sound plausible.

But I purposely included the second sentence in your quote : If by "inhuman" you mean evil, then as I have argued, knowledge in neither inherently good or evil. If by "inhuman" you mean "not a human being", then you could not be further from the truth. A person born of human parents who is without knowledge - I should say, who does not strive to acquire knowledge - is not themselves fully human. They have abdicated their

[wondering]

(oops, got cut off)

... humanity.

[mamacat]

It has nothing to do with left or right. In fact, with today's neo-con ideology of winning at any cost, it comes mostly from the right. The right uses obfuscation and lies as normal-ope­rating-pro­cedure.

[DocManhattan]

There's some truth in what you say, Stacey -- too much information can bog the mind down when it's decision time. But don't you also see the danger of this argument?

Some people take ideas like this to mean that there is nothing left that they still need to learn. Instead they conclude they can live by faith and instinct alone, adopting ideas they feel to be true even if the facts show otherwise. It's this kind of thinking that leads to creationism, racism, homophobia, and -- yes -- George Bush's foreign policy. GWB is a perfect example of a man who has shed the desire for knowledge in favour of fervent, analysis-proof belief.

I'm struggling to come up with a single example of something that's better for having been born from ignorance. It's true that creativity comes from an uncluttered mind, meaning one that isn't tied up with overthinking. But knowledge is an essential ingredient of the clay from which we create.

[lisakaz2]

Actually, if the truth shall set us free, particularly of ppl who wanna manipulate us with propaganda, I'll take knowledge any day of the week. It's like self-defense against the Reich.

[TheBlackCat]

I for one will take with a grain of salt any religious source which tells me knowledge is bad. Of COURSE religions are going to tell you to abhor knowledge. If you made yourself knowledgable, you may find things which contradict religious dogma. Or you may encounter other religious texts you identify with more.

[justaskinman]

You must not get invited to many dinner parties. What a party pooper.

There's some truth here worth consideration beyond what you "know" about dogmatic religion.

I, for one, have made great use of this in business. I'm an info omnivore and it got in the way of my ability to listen to people, because I leapt to my own conclusions about the person or their statements. But by intently setting aside what I know, I have become a much better listener in business and in life.

[DharamDev]

Although Siva is a pure devotee of the Lord and is practically nondifferent from the Personality of Godhead, he presides over the material mode of ignorance, tama-guna. In the Padma Purana, he has stated:

srnu devi paraksyami
tamasani yatha-kramam
yesam sravana-matrena
patityam jnaninam api
"My dear Devi, sometimes I teach Mayavadi philosophy for those who are engrossed in the mode of ignorance. But if a person in the mode of goodness happens to hear this Mayavadi philosophy, he falls down, for when teaching Mayavadi philosophy, I say that the living entity and the Supreme Lord are one and the same."

Also from the Padma Purana:

mayavadam asac-chastram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi
kalau brahmana-rupina
"The Mayavadi philosophy is veiled Buddhism." In other words, the voidist philosophy of Buddha is more or less repeated in the Mayavadi philosophy of impersonalism, although the Mayavadi philosophy claims to be directed by the Vedic conclusions. Lord Siva, however, admits that this philosophy is manufactured by him in the age of Kali in order to mislead the atheists. "Actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His transcendental body," Lord Siva states. "But I describe the Supreme as impersonal. I also explain the Vedanta-sutra according to the same principles of Mayavadi philosophy."

Mayavadi means that maya, or illusion, is more powerful than the Lord, and is the basis for the misconception, "We're all God."

[AllenPapapetrou]

The apparent dichotomy of the finite/infinite. The classic duality which presumes knowledge IS, rather than MAY BE, bondage.

Leaving duality behind we can enter what Deepak calls the gap - the place of full potentiality.

Knowledge is bondage when it is based upon belief. Experience is bondage when it assumes when yada, yada...The story of the 5 blind monks illustrates:

One day 5 blind monks were taken to experience an elephant, an animal they had never heard of before. Each was placed touching only one part of the elephant's body. After few minutes the elephant was taken away.

The abbot took each monk in private to describe the elephant. The monk on the tail described a thin frail animal. The one touching a leg described a heavy stout animal. And so on, each monk assumed the attributes he experienced characterized the elephant totally.

Then the abbot brought the monks together to describe the elephant to each other. Mayhem ensued each arguing for their version of the elephant. Except Brother Fredin. Fredin listened to his fellows, and realized each one could have experienced part of the truth of the elephant.

Fredin tried to share his insight with the others, to no avail. Brother Fredin went to the abbot and explained his realization. At which point the abbot disappeared, the elephant reappeared, and Abbot Fredin, sight restored, led each monk, one by one, to experience the elephant anew.

The moral: Watch where you step. You could land in deep ...

[Cathexis]

You make a very interesting point about "full potentaility."

Without knowledge, all one has is "potential" -- nothing is defined. With knowledge, the "potential" diminishes as definition (of one form or another) replaces it.

[DharamDev]

Although Siva is pure and in full knowledge, he presides over the material mode of ignorance, and his teachings are mislead his followers to atheism. This story is told in the Bhagavat-purana. http://vedabase.net/sb/4/2/en1

SB 4.2.27: When all the hereditary brahmanas were thus cursed by Nandisvara, the sage Bhrigu, as a reaction, condemned the followers of Lord Siva with this very strong brahminical curse.

SB 4.2.28: One who takes a vow to satisfy Lord Siva or who follows such principles will certainly become an atheist and be diverted from transcendental scriptural injunctions.

SB 4.2.30: Bhrigu Muni continued: Since you blaspheme the Vedas and the brahmanas, who are followers of the Vedic principles, it is understood that you have already taken shelter of the doctrine of atheism.

SB 4.2.31: The Vedas give the eternal regulative principles for auspicious advancement in human civilization which have been rigidly followed in the past. The strong evidence of this principle is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is called Janardana, the well-wisher of all living entities.

SB 4.2.32: By blaspheming the principles of the Vedas, which are the pure and supreme path of the saintly persons, certainly you followers of Bhutapati, Lord Siva, will descend to the standard of atheism without a doubt.

[DharamDev]

Sorry for the double-post.

[DharamDev]

Siva is himself in full knowledge, but he presides over the material mode of ignorance, and his teachings are misleading. Although he is pure, his followers are doomed, as indicated in the Bhagvat-purana, Canto 4, chapter 2 ( http://vedabase.net/sb/4/2/en ):

SB 4.2.27: When all the hereditary brahmanas were thus cursed by Nandisvara, the sage Bhrigu, as a reaction, condemned the followers of Lord Siva with this very strong brahminical curse.

SB 4.2.28: One who takes a vow to satisfy Lord Siva or who follows such principles will certainly become an atheist and be diverted from transcendental scriptural injunctions.

SB 4.2.30: Bhrigu Muni continued: Since you blaspheme the Vedas and the brahmanas, who are followers of the Vedic principles, it is understood that you have already taken shelter of the doctrine of atheism.

SB 4.2.31: The Vedas give the eternal regulative principles for auspicious advancement in human civilization which have been rigidly followed in the past. The strong evidence of this principle is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is called Janardana, the well-wisher of all living entities.

SB 4.2.32: By blaspheming the principles of the Vedas, which are the pure and supreme path of the saintly persons, certainly you followers of Bhutapati, Lord Siva, will descend to the standard of atheism without a doubt.

[marignymitch]

I have a thirst for knowledge and it isn't the enemy, I'm here to tell you. I consider my curiosity and my mind as gifts, for which I am eternally grateful. Instead of getting in the way, intellectual pursuits enchance my life, not only spiritually but mentally and physically as well . I think balance, what the Greeks called sophrosene, is key.

[Jonahson]

If you cling to knowledge without making use of it then it becomes an obstacle. This is similar to Russell Bishop's 'Lessons in the Key of life.'
Once you cling to knowledge then learning stop because an ego has developed. So sometimes you got to unlearn to learn.
There is a word that people seldom explore in depth and the word is 'realization'. It is knowing before knowing. Confusing?
Remember Archimedes the greek scientist?. His King ask him to determine if his crown is made of pure gold. Archimedes thought of it for a long time but the answer did not come then suddenly as he relax his mind to take a bath the water flowing out of the bathtub brought a flood of answers to the solution. Eureka! Realiazation dawn on him.
Realization is a tool of our mind that can solve complex questions. It is using the rest of the brain we seldom use to find answers. Ancient sages and great teachers develop this faculty to understand the complexities and solutions to life. In realisation there is a complete understanding of the question like a flood of answers. After realization we have to sort out the answers step by step to explain it to ourselves and others. What is known become knowledge and we store it in our memory like what a book does. A person once ask me after realization then what? Then you develop the wisdom to practice what you have realized.

[swift goat pet for truth]

B..bb....bbbut that means .. NO INTERNET!!!