How much knowledge is enough? And Is knowledge a roadblock to enlightenment? Leave it at the right moment to get into after effect poise of Kriya yoga!

Updated on my birthday today, 24th may, as I contemplate on a Sunday morning, editing and giving final touches before publishing the blog!

Two friends, two paths

A school friend from Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Bombay, was never the topper in class. In fact, just passing exams was an achievement for him. He usually passed on the borderline. I say this with affection, because that too is a unique talent. It is easy to be a topper. It is much harder to remain the last in class and still never fail.

Recently, he once joked that he knows only three keys on a calculator: multiplication, percentage, and equals. That is all. No geometry, no trigonometry, no calculus, no mechanics, no chemical formulas. Yet his professional life is going perfectly well.

With those three keys, he has built a thriving career in the real estate market of Hiranandani, Powai, where he is one of the leading brokers. Rate multiplied by area gives the deal value. A percentage of that gives his commission. That is the mathematics of his profession.

Another friend has a PhD in chemistry and runs a very successful business in the USA. He says he works only four hours a week. The rest of the time he happily paints doors and windows around his house.

Both have made successful lives, but with very different depths of knowledge.

The lesson is simple. Knowledge must be appropriate to what one is doing.

Relevance matters. Accumulation does not.

Too often, I see people chasing more and more knowledge without asking a basic question: how does this knowledge help my daily life, my work, my duties, and my inner growth?

My broker friend is excellent at his work because he knows how to communicate, maintain relationships, keep his word, and build trust. None of this is found in a formula. Of course, I have exaggerated his lack of knowledge. I have seen him use Excel with ease, and if he ever reads this, he may not spare me!

The message is clear. It is not about how much you know. It is about how relevant your knowledge is to where you are and where you are going.

From worldly knowledge to spiritual knowledge

The same principle applies to spiritual study.

Many seekers take the usual path through the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, Vedanta, the Puranas, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. I respect that path deeply. But for my own practice, I have stayed with three simple anchors: Nirvana Shatakam, Shiva Manas Puja, and the Mandukya Upanishad.

Only three.

For a below-average seeker like me, these are like the three basic keys on a calculator. They are enough to keep me oriented on the spiritual path.

What I did not realise earlier was that even this limited knowledge has to be released at some stage. I will know intuitively when that time comes.

A conversation with Mr. Naik

Mr. Naik visited our office recently. He was my father’s student in the 1970s and is now a respected civil engineer known for his fundamentals-first approach to complex engineering problems. We consult him often. Every interaction with him becomes a learning experience.

We had met to discuss a project, and as it often happens, the conversation moved from engineering to spirituality.

A few days earlier, I had been speaking with my friend M, on a similar theme: one must eventually go beyond knowledge. The idea was clear, but the method was not.

Mr. Naik then shared an excerpt from a book about a swamiji who was told precisely this. One line stayed with me:

"The one who worships knowledge enters into greater darkness." (Isha Upanishad)

This sounds paradoxical. We usually believe that more knowledge should mean faster enlightenment. How can the worshipper of knowledge enter darkness?

The Isha Upanishad does not leave the paradox unresolved. Verse 9 says that those who worship avidya, or ignorance, enter blinding darkness. It then says that those who worship vidya, or knowledge, alone enter even greater darkness.

Verses 10 and 11 resolve the matter by saying that both vidya and avidya must be understood together, ubhayam saha, to cross beyond death.

Taken from https://shlokam.org/text/isha-upanishad.htm

अन्धन्तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽविद्यामुपासते ।

ततो भूय इव ते तमोय उ विद्यायां रताः ॥ ९ ॥

andhantamaḥ praviśanti ye'vidyāmupāsate |

tato bhūya iva te tamoya u vidyāyāṃ ratāḥ || 9 ||

9. They who worship Avidya alone fall into blind darkness; and they who worship Vidya alone fall into even greater darkness.

अन्धम् (andham) – blinding

तमः (tamaḥ) – darkness

प्रविशन्ति (praviśanti) – enter

ये (ye) – who

अविद्याम् (avidyām) – avidyā (see commentary for details)

उपासते (upāsate) – worship

ततः (tataḥ) – than that

भूयः (bhūyaḥ) – greater

इव (iva) – as though

ते (te) – they

तमः (tamaḥ) – darkness

ये (ye) – who

उ (u) – verily

विद्यायाग्म् (vidyāyāgm) – in vidyā (see commentary for details)

रताः (ratāḥ) – devoted, engaged in

अन्यदेवाहुर्विद्ययाऽन्यदाहुरविद्यया ।

इति शुश्रुम धीराणां ये नस्तद्विचचक्षिरे ॥ १० ॥

anyadevāhurvidyayā'nyadāhuravidyayā |

iti śuśruma dhīrāṇāṃ ye nastadvicacakṣire || 10 ||

10. One result is predicated of Vidya and another of Avidya. We have so heard from wise men who taught us both Vidya and Avidya.

अन्यत् (anyat) – different

एव (eva) – definitely

आहुः (āhuḥ) – (they) say

विद्यया (vidyayā) – by vidyā

अन्यत् (anyat) – different

आहुः (āhuḥ) – (they) say

अविद्यया (avidyayā) – by avidyā

इति (iti) – thus

शुश्रुम (śuśruma) – (we) have heard

धीराणाम् (dhīrāṇām) – of the wise

ये (ye) – who

नः (naḥ) – to us

तत् (tat) – that

विचचक्षिरे (vicacakṣire) – explained

विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह ।

अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययामृतमश्नुते ॥ ११ ॥

vidyāṃ cāvidyāṃ ca yastadvedobhayaṃ saha |

avidyayā mṛtyuṃ tīrtvā vidyayāmṛtamaśnute || 11 ||

11. He who simultaneously knows both Vidya and Avidya gets over Death by Avidya and attains immortality by Vidya.

विद्याम् (vidyām) – vidyā

च (ca) – and

अविद्याम् (avidyām) – avidyā

च (ca) – and

यः (yaḥ) – who

तत् (tat) – that

वेद (veda) – known

उभयग्म् (ubhayagm) – both

सह (saha) – together

अविद्यया (avidyayā) – by avidyā

मृत्युम् (mṛtyum) – death

तीर्त्वा (tīrtvā) – crossing

विद्यया (vidyayā) – by vidyā

अमृतम् (amṛtam) – immortality

अश्नुते (aśnute) – enjoys, obtains

Interpretation by masters:

Adi Shankaracharya has linked avidya to rituals and vidya to the meditation on the diety. Co relating both, he concludes that both are needed for mukti.

Swami Vivekananda and others have related avidya to material knowledge and vidya to knowledge of the self. Just the knowledge of the self is not sufficient.

Some other texts have mentioned about vigyana and gyana, co relating to vidya and avidya.

The knowledge in Upanishads can be interpreted in subtle different ways, depending on the perspective one comes from.

Prompted by Mr Naik, I took a different perspective. My approach is seeing this from the viewpoint of kriya yoga.

Knowledge:

Knowledge itself is not the enemy. The problem is attached knowledge. Isolated knowledge. Identity-reinforcing knowledge. Knowledge that strengthens the role of the knower instead of dissolving it.

That set me thinking about the true utility of knowledge and the stage at which it must be set aside so that the final step can be taken.

The role aspect of knowledge

Knowledge is tied to role.

A student acquires knowledge because the student has a role to fulfil. An engineer learns how to design a structure or a machine because that is the need of the profession. An artist does not need the same knowledge. A broker does not need the same knowledge. Similarly, a mumukshu, one who seeks liberation, must know how to move towards liberation. Others may not need that knowledge at all.

In every act of knowing, there are three: the learner, the subject, and the act of learning. As long as one keeps learning, seeking, collecting, and searching, one still holds the role of the learner.

The goal is not to abandon roles externally. We must still live, work, serve, and perform our duties. The goal is to see clearly that roles are roles. They are not the true identity.

Knowledge belongs to the role. It does not belong to the Self.

In the Self, there is nothing to know, nothing to complete, and nothing to acquire. It is already whole. In that recognition, the learner, the learning, and the learned are not separate.

The time aspect of knowledge

The moment you know something, it has already become part of the past.

The act of observing and the act of storing in memory may happen very quickly, but they still happen in time. By the time you finish reading this sentence, the act of reading it has already passed. This is not philosophy. This is direct experience.

This is the beauty of Vedantic enquiry. Its deepest inferences are not built on blind belief. They are tested against the ordinary experience of every human life. Easy to observe. Easy to follow. Easy to assimilate.

Knowledge cannot truly exist in the present moment. In the present, acquisition begins. By the time acquisition is complete, the moment has already become the past. In the future, acquisition has not yet begun.

Knowledge, by its very nature, belongs to the past.

Freedom from the burden of knowing.

Once this is seen clearly, every present moment becomes a free moment.

Free from roles. Free from the burden of knowledge. Free from the identity that says, "I know" or "I do not know."

Here, knowledge does not mean the practical memory needed to live.

It refers to the antahkarana at work: buddhi, the intellect; chitta, the storehouse of impressions; ahamkara, the I-maker; and manas, the mind that gives emotional colour to experience.

The satisfaction of having grasped something and the frustration of not having grasped it both belong to this inner instrument. What must be released is not memory itself, but identification with memory. Not information, but ownership of information. Not learning, but the ego of the learner.

To realise the Self, one must give up even the knowledge that brought one to the threshold. This sounds paradoxical, but giving up does not mean becoming ignorant. It does not mean amnesia. It means giving up attachment to knowledge as identity.

The understanding that knowledge is tied to role and tied to the past is itself enough to loosen its grip.

Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam

The Taittiriya Upanishad defines Brahman as satyam, jnanam, anantam: truth, knowledge, and the infinite.

This is important. Knowledge itself is included in the definition of Brahman. So the problem is not knowledge as such. The problem is finite knowledge pretending to be final knowledge. The problem is attached knowledge, identity-reinforcing knowledge, and knowledge that strengthens the separate knower.

When the mind becomes still in the present moment, what remains is satyam, jnanam, anantam: real, awake, and without boundary.

The more familiar formulation, sat-chit-ananda, or being, consciousness, and bliss, points to the same reality from the side of experience. Both are valid pointers. I use the Taittiriya expression here because the theme of this reflection is the dissolving of limited knowledge into the infinite.

Kriya poise

The after-effect poise of Kriya Yoga is precisely this state.

It is unbiased from the perspective of knowledge. In that poise, there is nothing to learn, nothing to chase, nothing to improve, and nothing to become. There is only awareness.

It is not a destination to be possessed. It is a state to be recognised. That is the key.

It is only during kriya yoga, that i realized that the kriya poise, automatically creates focus on Kuashtha, third eye, a tranquil breath, awareness of inner om sound - the anahata naada, the tounge in khechari mudra. These are a part of kriya yoga practise, which eventually become the state.

The absolute awareness of the present moment, which is so small, tiny. That the moment you think if it, it becomes the past. In the small tiny shift of time, where is the question of holding to a role or the past? It is not possible at all.

So the Upanishads give you the understanding of the state, while kriya yoga shows you how to reach the state.

Is knowledge essential?

Yes, knowledge is essential. But it is essential only up to a point.

Knowledge is like a ladder used to climb a cliff. Without the ladder, you may never reach the top. But once you reach the top, you do not carry the ladder on your shoulder for the rest of the journey. The ladder has served its purpose.

In the same way, knowledge helps the seeker move from confusion to clarity. It helps remove wrong ideas, refine enquiry, and point the mind in the right direction. But after a certain stage, the same knowledge can become a burden if it is converted into identity.

More the knowledge, the harder it is to leave it, as the subtle ego takes over, attaching the self firmly to the knowledge!

Of my two friends, the broker, with only three keys on his calculator, carries less to set down at the end. The PhD chemist, in contrast, carries an entire library. The same applies on the spiritual path. The seeker with a few well-chosen texts has less to release than the one whose mind is crowded with shastra.

The great saints in Maharashtra like Chokha Mela, Narhari Sonar, Janabai, and so many others, knew very little, but enough, as compared to the learned pundits of those times. But his enlightenment came fast, while the pundits remained confused, egoistic, stuck in their vast knowledge!

Knowledge is a means. It is not the end.

The note Mr. Naik shared

After reading the first draft of this blog, Mr. Naik sent me a note he had written to a friend some time ago. It is outstanding. I feel fortunate to have someone of this depth in my circle.

I reproduce the essence of his note below in his own line of thought:

What is the purpose of pursuing knowledge? To seek Truth.

One’s identity is shaped by one’s knowledge. When one perceives Truth through the lens of one’s identity or role, Truth is inevitably coloured. It therefore ceases to be Truth as it is.

Acquiring more and more spiritual knowledge can reinforce one’s identity instead of reducing it. Paradoxically, it can defeat the very purpose for which it is pursued. Instead of leading towards illumination, it can lead towards darkness.

So one has to conclude that knowledge, when taken as the final end, does not lead to Truth. It leads away from Truth.

Does this mean knowledge is not required at all? No. Knowledge is required as a pointer. It is the means, not the destination.

In Indian philosophy, pratyaksha pramana, or direct perception, is held in high esteem. For this, one need not merely collect the Vedas, Puranas, Shastras, and other texts in memory.

Here we are considering spiritual knowledge. Knowledge of the physical sciences is valuable in the physical world. It may bring illumination of another kind, but it does not by itself reveal Truth in the spiritual sense.

This is my humble attempt to explain why vidya, when taken by itself, prevents us from experiencing Truth.

Sincere credit to Mr. Naik for this insight.

A small editorial note

Classical Advaita Vedanta places shabda pramana, or scriptural testimony properly enquired into, at the apex for Self-knowledge. This is because the witnessing Self cannot be made into an object of ordinary perception.

Tantric and yogic streams, on the other hand, give strong emphasis to direct experiential realisation.

Mr. Naik’s framing reflects the latter stream. Both streams converge on the same Truth from different angles. A serious seeker eventually meets both.

Blessing

May you always remain in the present moment, fully aware and immersed in the abundance of the eternal Aum sound.

May you accept the present moment fully while pursuing the mission of adding tremendous value to the lives of others through your god-gifted talents.

Full involvement. No attachment. Always in Kriya Poise.

The article images are given below. you may have to zoom and see them! Disclaimer. this article is only for sharing insights and for non commercial purposes.

The story reaches the climax in the last part, where the truth is revealed. Enjoy reading!