Humanity has made such incredible progress in science and technology, that many people now think that the explicit, evidence-based knowledge that the hard sciences seek is the only kind of knowledge that can be trusted and pursued systematically. If this had been true, it would have posed a serious problem for humanity, because this kind of objective knowledge is unfit for the study of far too many things that are central to our existence as human beings. Fortunately, as we discussed in the Preface and in the Introduction, there actually are other ways of knowing that can be developed in a systematic and rigorous manner. While the West has focused during the last few hundred years with stunning succes on objective knowledge of the outer, physical side of reality, the Indian civilisation has concentrated for millennia on the inner, spiritual side, and it has found ways to study this inner domain with the same rigour and mental rectitude that science has applied to the outer world.
Bringing the two knowledge systems together is however more complicated than it may look at first sight. The core of the problem is that the Indian knowledge system is wider, more complex, and in certain respects more sophisticated than that of mainstream science. As a consequence, incorporating it as a small niche within the wider framework of existing science is not possible without losing its essence. It is true that certain techniques that have their origin in the Indian tradition, like mindfulness and hathayoga work even when we use them in a "decontextualised" manner and when we study them with the methods of mainstream science. Without the deeper understanding of the knowledge systems on which they are based, it is, however, still like assessing the marble of Michelangelo's statues: it is alright, but it misses the point. The real treasures hidden within the Indian knowledge systems will become visible only when we study them on their own terms. The crux of that is understanding their view of the basic nature of reality, of ourselves as human beings, and of the best way to make knowledge in the inner, psychological domain dynamic and reliable. Doing so is not easy, as it is essentially different from the view on which our global civilisation is based, but once we get it, there is no reason psychology should not become as effective and quickly progressive as our knowledge in the physical domain already is. But before we have a look at the far future and the more lofty ranges of the Indian system, we need to do some basic groundwork, and for that we will start with four well-known types of knowledge we all use in our ordinary lives.
In one of the chapters of The Life Divine, Sri Aurobindo lists four types of knowledge of which at least the early beginnings are part of our ordinary waking consciousness (LD, pp. 524–532).Sri Aurobindo lists these different knowledge types, in harmony with the Vedic tradition, from the inside out: he starts with the knowledge of the Self, and ends with the knowledge of the outside world.
The existence of knowledge by identity is best understood in the context of the involution and evolution of consciousness we discussed in an earlier chapter. As we saw there, it must be a conscious force that gives each part of the universe its specific properties, and knowledge by identity is the knowledge aspect of that conscious force. In other words, knowledge by identity is the intrinsically perfect and comprehensive knowledge that gives each thing that exists its properties, its form and its function. While the consciousness in each entity is to some extent separated out so that it can govern that specific entity, it is also, as if in the background, continuous with the consciousness in all other elements and in the cosmos as a whole. It is ultimately the same knowledge or "intelligence" that is there in every individual part of the manifestation and in the whole, and it is this, that explains the incredible harmony of the whole, where even the simplest physical thing obeys perfectly all laws of nature that pertain to it. In a more traditional language, one could say that knowledge by identity is the way the Divine knows — and manifests — itself in the world.
In us humans, knowledge by identity is, however, almost entirely covered up by the other three types of knowledge, and especially by the last. As we will see in the next chapter, this is the reason that the Indian tradition recommends silencing these other types of knowledge not only as the best way to find our own inner happiness back, but also as the best way to develop wisdom and a type of knowledge that is intrinsically true.
According to the Indian tradition, knowledge by identity is the core-element of all other types of knowledge. It is supposed to be the source of the deep theories about reality that guide our perception, the fundamental rules of logical thinking, a large part of mathematics, the ultimate source of our ability to discriminate between what is true and false, real and unreal, and the (often unconsciously intuitive) source of the new insights about the physical reality that are at present flooding our human knowledge-space. It might also be the reason that new discoveries, once fully established, so often give the impression that they have actually been no more than the recollection of something that somewhere deep down was already known.
Once fully developed and purified, Sri Aurobindo considers knowledge by identity the only type of knowledge that can be made completely reliable. Within Indian philosophy it is known by different names that each highlight one aspect of it. One typical example is the fascinating quaternity of saṃjñāna, ājñāna, vijñāna, prajñāna . Another is ātmavidyā, the knowledge of the Self which contains the largely subconscious link that binds our individual consciousness to the cosmic consciousness that sustains the manifestation as a whole. But to all this we will come back later. We have to consider first the other three types of knowledge that tend to occupy our minds in our ordinary day-to-day existence.
Knowledge by intimate direct contact is used in all professional skills and attitudes and its systematic training has led to remarkable results in almost all fields of human endeavour, right from science and management to theatre, dance and sports. It will be interesting to see whether a better theoretical understanding of how it actually works could lead to further breakthroughs with this type of knowing. According to the Indian tradition this second type of knowledge can not only be used to know oneself but also to know other people, animals, plants and even inanimate things, and one specific area where such breakthroughs are likely to happen is that of "anomalous phenomena" like telepathy and synchronicity. Since such phenomena are extremely hard to explain within the boundaries of a purely physicalist understanding of reality, they have till now been met with much scepsis and they have not remotely received the attention they deserve. Once we acknowledge that consciousness and will are as pervasive and continuous throughout reality as mass and electromagnetic force, they don't need to be treated any longer as "anomalous" and it should become possible to study them systematically and effectively. It is hard to predict what a better understanding and mastery in this field could lead to, but it is quite well conceivable that its impact would surpass the effect of our increasing physical knowledge.
In psychology this third type is known as introspection. Psychology cannot do very well without it as it is the simplest way to find out what is going on inside one's mind, but, as the early "introspectionists" found out, it is notoriously difficult to make reliable. Classical behaviourism tried for many years to avoid it entirely, but at present psychology is making an extensive use of self-reports that are based on introspection by the subjects being studied. We will see in the next chapter how the Indian tradition tackles the difficulties inherent in introspection and we will discuss there the two main methods it uses to enhance introspection’s reliability. As I hope to show, these Indian methods are not only logically impeccable, but also effective and indispensable if we want to take psychology forward.
The expert form of "separative knowledge by indirect contact" is known as science, and a tremendous collective effort goes at present into the development. As we are so incredibly good at it and as it can be shared and applied so easily, it plays an ever-increasing role in our society and there is an increasing tendency to think that this is the only type of knowledge that really works and is worth cultivating.
The four types of knowledge as they occur in us can be put together into a table as follows:
1. Knowledge by identity
Awareness of the simple fact of our own existence
(while details are provided by the other three types)
Knowledge inherent in existence
2. Knowledge by intimate direct contact
Awareness of our own inner states
by being with them
3. Knowledge by separative direct contact
Looking at one’s own mental processes
as if from outside
4. Separative knowledge by indirect contact
Sense-based, constructed knowledge
of the outer world
Table 16.1. Four types of knowledge in the ordinary waking state
Before we can have a closer look at these different types of knowledge and at the possibility of developing expert modes for each of them, we have to consider a few caveats which Sri Aurobindo mentions about this division of four distinct types of knowledge. The first disclaimer is that, as we already saw, knowledge by identity (type 1) plays a role in the other three types of knowing:
A second thing to keep in mind is that these four types of knowing are not entirely separate or exclusive of each other. There are smooth transitions between them, and in daily life they tend to get mixed up together.
When I get angry, for example, the anger can invade different parts of my nature and the way I know myself will be effected accordingly. If the anger is strong I will fully identify with it and to some extent become the anger. I know the anger then through type 2, experiential knowledge.
If the anger is less strong, part of my mind may stand apart and watch what is going on semi-objectively. I observe then that I do not think clearly, that I have a cramp in my stomach and that there is a nagging fear in me that things are going wrong (type 3, introspection).
If I distance myself even further from the anger, I will look at my own outside behaviour, notice that I don't speak very clearly, that my hands tremble and that the person I am talking to looks nonplussed about what I am so worked-up about (type 4, sense-based knowledge).
On the other hand, if I live deep within I will identify with something in me that remains entirely unaffected and I will know that I am what I am, that the world is what it is, and that deep, deep within, in spite of anything that may happen on the surface, all is well (type 1, knowledge by identity).
As a whole one could say that the introspective mode of knowing oneself (type 3) goes more often with the mind, while experiential knowledge, knowledge ‘by being with’ (type 2), goes more with one’s feelings and body-sense, but this is not always the case: When one fully identifies with one’s thoughts, one could say, for example, "Shankara is one of the greatest philosophers the world has seen". There is then a mixture: the thought itself belongs to the realm of ‘separative knowledge’ of type 4, while the implicit, pre-reflective self-awareness of being busy thinking belongs to the realm of ‘knowledge by intimate direct contact’, type 2. If one slightly doubts what one thinks, one could say: "Hey, I think that Shankara is one of the greatest philosophers (while you don't)." There is then a mixture of type 4 with type 3, introspection.
All these different ways of being aware of our own state can follow quickly one after the other or even be there at the same time. The beauty is, that once these different ways of knowing become more clear to oneself, one can learn to move from one to the other at will, which creates a wonderful inner freedom which, in due time, can lead to more reliable inner knowledge and wiser action.
Finally, it may be useful to say a few words on the difference between the second and third types of knowledge. When I’m very happy, for example, I need not observe myself to find out whether I am happy or not. I can stay directly with the happiness, and exclaim, in full identification with my feelings, "What a great day it is!" I know the state I'm in, but not in a representative, objective manner. I know then what and how I am through knowledge of type two as if from within, through a direct intimacy with the inner state or process. If I would look at myself in a (pseudo-)objective manner, through introspection of type three, I would say something like "Hey, today I’m happy", and this would imply a certain distance from the happiness.
As a whole one could say that the introspective mode of knowing oneself goes more often with the mind, while experiential knowledge, knowledge ‘by being with’, goes more with one’s feelings and body-sense, but this is not always the case: When one fully identifies with one’s thoughts, one could say, for example, "Shankara is one of the greatest philophers the world has seen". There is then a mixture: the thought itself belongs to the realm of ‘separative knowledge’ of type four, while the implicit, pre-reflective self-awareness of being busy thinking belongs to the realm of ‘knowledge by intimate direct contact’, type two. If one slightly doubts what one thinks, one could say: "Hey, I think that Shankara is one of the greatest philosphers (while you don't).". There is then a mixture of type four with type three, introspection.
We will now have a first look at how psychological knowledge of these different types can be made more reliable and informative in the next chapter.
2. It is an interesting question whether new knowledge can be constructed entirely by induction out of raw data. It may well be found that some pre-existing knowledge is required to recognise the generated knowledge as such.