On spending some time thinking about the tweet above, I’d like to reframe the topic. It suggests knowledge can be obtained via:
- Sutra (direct, logical, practical)
- Tantra (esoteric, nuanced)
- Dzogchen (perfect)
But, a categorization of knowledge that I think is more intuitive is:
- Explicit (knowledge transcribed via text, media)
- Implicit (knowledge that is transferred person-to-person, apprenticeships and guru-student relationships)
- Personal (knowledge from our lived experience, such as birthing a child)
- Universal (knowledge that encompasses the lived experiences of every conscious entity – past, current and future)
The act of creating can move knowledge that is implicit, such as this idea about four categories of knowledge, and by writing it on this blog, it moves from something implicitly understood to explicitly understood. But, even written, there are gaps. What about some particular case? There is more implicit knowledge that is not made explicit, and the implicit springs from the personal.
The Buddha had to have a realization about suffering, an understanding that sprang from his experience. He can talk about it. He can teach followers. But, in the end, each follower is responsible for realizing the truth for themselves, personally. But, this personal understanding also taps into a larger, universal truth about the nature of suffering, a Universal Truth.
cafebedouin.org 