Can Wisdom be Taught?

                                 POEMS AND POETS

                 18.Can Wisdom be Taught ?

What is Wisdom?

What do we mean by Wisdom?
We may say it is Saving Knowledge. Everything else is serving knowledge.

Our normal  experience  involves us with the external world. If we think a bit, we may infer that something must have brought forth the world. Even if we say it is an accident, the question arises:what caused the accident? If we say Big Bang, the immediate question is: what was before? There must have been a First Cause. For convenience, it is called God. So we have three fundamental categories: Man, World, and God! It is man who sees or perceives both world and God.

Science deals with the world of Nature. This knowledge serves us- for the time being, for it is subject to endless revision. It is based chiefly on hypothesis, inference, and mathematical models. Einstein gave 40 pages of mathematical formulae as proof of his theory. Most people value science for what it does-technology, practical application. This serves us, but only time will tell, how well.

Theology deals with God. But like science, it is hypothesis, speculation and inference.  Religion deals with ethics and morality.This also serves us- for the time being. It is particularly helpful in making societies run. Police force is not adequate in any country to maintain order, or ensure peace. Society functions at all, because most ordinary people are good and have some sense of morality or at least decency.. It is religion which has made them so. As Alain De Botton has shown recently, religion has contributed to make social life light and colourful with its art, music, architecture,etc., even if it failed to serve its primary purpose. So theology is also serving knowledge.

Philosophy as it is conceived in the West, especially in its modern forms, is not even serving knowledge, if knowledge at all.. Brilliant but idle minds may speculate on everything, including the nature of mind, but arrive at nothing. But that is philosophy! How can that be a guide to life-here or hereafter?

So,  what happens to Man? It is Wisdom which deals with man. The most direct view of wisdom is: since man perceives  world and conceives God, unless we know what is man, his nature, we cannot know either world or God. Wisdom deals with this essential aspect of man. Wisdom is knowing his real nature or true self.

Stated differently, we are dealing here with subjective and objective knowledge. Wisdom is Subjective knowledge. Which means realisation of/experiencing what Is, not holding an opinion or idea about it. This is obtained by identity, not study. You can study a tiger in the lab or zoo, but unless you become one, you do not Know it. Knowing it is being it.

Upanishad put it very simply:Knowing which everything becomes known. This is Wisdom.

Story of Narada

In the Upanishad, there is a beautiful story involving Narada. He is our own Mulla Nasruddin!  He is very learned, he is also a great advocate of the path of devotion to God. He is invoked  in various places to illustrate important issues, portraying him in different roles.

Once he approaches Sanatkumara, the renowned sage, and beseeches instruction. Sanatkumara first asks him what he already knew. Narada starts off listing, beginning with the Vedas. It is interesting to note all that he lists:Vedas, history, legend and mythology, grammar of Vedas,mathematics, astrology, the knowledge of rites concerning ancestors,logic,geology,underground resources, omens and natural phenomena,moral science,archery, astronomy,snake charming, fine arts! What an impressive list for those times! But, even as he goes on listing, he realises that these are but names!   He is facing sorrow in the world, but they have not removed it. So they are all meaningless! So he admits openly: " Sir, I know these are only names. I have heard from Realised Ones that it is only knowledge of the Self that will remove sorrow. Tarati sokham atmavit iti! I have come to you,Sir. Please take me across!" 

Kumara agrees with him that all these are but names and tells him  this is Apara Vidya- non essential or lower.Did he know the essential or higher-Para Vidya? Of course one has to begin with names, but there are higher stages. So the sage starts his teaching.

 This is the difference between serving and Saving knowledge. The story goes on to show how Narada gained this essential knowledge.

(When they speak of 'sorrow' it is not in the sense of pain or suffering due to particular circumstances of an individual life.It concerns the general condition of man. They feel that somehow life is not perfect, and they have not found the key. This is the pervading general sense of sorrow.)

Only this Para vidya qualifies as wisdom!

All ancient civilisations deal with this as the most fundamental and important aspect of life on earth. Everything else in life was ordered on the basis of this knowledge and approach.This is exactly what modernity has wilfully repudiated. it does not recognise any truth other than the visible world.

Ancient view of man was that he was part of Nature and had obligations to fulfil. No ancient civilisation talks of any Right! The Old Testament injunction: Be fruitful and multiply; subdue the earth,it is reported, is wrongly interpreted.Subdue the earth-is taken to mean Lord over it. In fact, it means husband it ie take care-which is an obligation, and not a right! Modern civilisation does not recognise any obligations at all!

An essential aspect of Wisdom is for man to become aware of his potential, along with his obligations.This covers the twin aspects: life as an individual, and life in society- the inner and outer dimensions of life. Man cannot live alone, but he cannot be submerged  in or swallowed by, society completely. Wisdom ensured this.

In course of time, a division has taken place. Religion dealt with obligations; spirituality dealt with Wisdom. In India we can see this in Rta vis a vis Satya, or Dharma v.Direct pursuit of truth. Unless the first stage is fulfilled, one does not qualify for the second; but unless the second or higher aim is kept in view, the first one cannot be discharged properly!. Both are thus interlinked.

How do we teach this wisdom?

It is recognised that one can learn only from one who knows, as only a source of light can light another. But here knowledge is not of mere names! The usual instruction of the Upanishad is to 'approach' a teacher who knows and learn from him. The Gita sums up the situation in an oft quoted verse:4.34

Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprsnena sevaya:
Upadekshyanti te jnanam jananina: tatvadarshina:

Know that,by prostrating, by questions,and by service; the wise, who have realised the Truth will instruct you in that knowledge.

We must carefully note the qualifications laid down.

• The teacher is not any learned academic; he is one who has "realised" the Truth; literally has "seen" it. Nothing is mentioned about his learning!This is extensively dealt with in our literature.
•  Nature of the Truth is not elaborated- it is simply called Tat - That.
• The  Truth is called Tatva- "that which is";  'Truth' is not the correct equivalent. 
• prostrating refers to the humility essential
• questions refer to the attitude of attentive listening and spirit of inquiry
• service refers to the readiness of the student to face personal discomfort

But the rub comes now. What does 'instruct '(Upadekshyanti) mean?. Even traditional commentators have tripped here.

It is a basic postulate of Hindu thought that this Wisdom, Tatva, Satya cannot be expressed in words: it is beyond mind, beyond expression in speech= achintyam, anirvachaneeeyam. It is said Neti,Neti- whatever can be named or described is not That! It is so in all Wisdom traditions. As Tao masters say, if it can be expressed in words, it is not the Tao! So how then it can be passed on?

This is where the  presence and personal influence of a True Realised Master are essential. In any tradition, those who "Know It" are few, while those who "know about it" are many. Those who know do not talk, they live and show.

In the Upanishads there are many stories of student seekers and great teachers but not a single instance of direct teaching. There is no technique like Yoga, no formula like mantra, and no ritual like Tantra. The so called Mahavakyas are not a formula; by repeating them any number of times in the name of meditation or some other,nothing will be achieved. J.Krishnamurti once said that if repetition of a mantra can achieve it, then even the name Coca Cola can be taken as a mantra and repeated!

This is a situation which all wisdom traditions face. There has to be a double coincidence : a True Knower, and a Genuine Seeker. Both are rare in the modern world!

Upanishadic  Method and Socratic Dialogue!

Those who study our Upanishads and also read the Socratic dialogues will be struck by some brilliant similarities., at least parallels even if they do not meet.

The Upanishadic method is where a student approaches a teacher and seeks instruction into Truth. Instead of giving a direct answer, the teacher launches on a discussion of various things, and gives some examples, even stories, which do not provide a direct answer to the question but would lead the questioner to arrive at the conclusion,by inference or intuition.The teacher does not force his views on others, even his own son, but by deft questioning and remarks leads them on the path to self discovery. In every instance, the final outcome is a self discovery by the student. The teacher merely says: this is what I have seen, what  I know, what I have heard from elders. This is the method I have followed. If you do , you too will realise. Finally the student declares: Yes, I see. Thank You, Sir.

The Socratic method may look different but the outcome is the same. There is a group, questions are raised on morality or philosophy or other issues. 

Discussion starts, Socrates often is the facilitator. He does not take sides but by close argument, the participants realise the limitations of the stated opinions. What the dialogues achieve is to promote some general reflection, and  independent, critical thinking.Socrates does not force his conclusions on any one.

• no consensus is aimed at
• no opinion is forced on others as the only valid one
• critical thinking is promoted.

"The unexamined life is not worth living", said Socrates. The dialogues tend to promote critical examination of life's questions, not dogma.

The main difference I have found between the Upanishadic and Socratic methods is that in the former, the questions all relate to the Ultimate Truth.In the latter, the questions are more general, lofty, but not the supreme.

The pity is that those traditional scholars who know our Upanishads have not studied Socrates thoroughly, and vice versa. Each group is also beset with its own prejudices , preferences,and agendas. But I find lot of common ground. Robin Waterfield's introductions really thrilled me.

To my mind, there is no doubt that Socrates is like our own Rishi. He knows the Truth, but does not talk about it. His statement " I do not know" is his way of warding off needless discussion and speculation. No one who does not know the Truth first hand - a knowledge which is of One- can embrace death with peace and calm. And only such a one will refuse a chance to escape- he knows the immortality of the soul, and its indestructibility by any weapon or means-- the first teaching Krishna offers in the Gita.

So the conclusion about Wisdom is that it can be imbibed, acquired but not  through direct or formal teaching or indoctrination. It becomes reality only when experienced personally and lived. In this sense,Wisdom imposes an obligation to practise it. Knowledge is Virtue, that is!