Here is this:

"Knowledge is an intellectual process. Knowing is a spiritual/emotional process. Knowledge comes from acquiring information. Knowing comes from ownership."

They have different meanings to my understanding. To have knowledge of something does not really mean the same as to know something.

To "own it" is to experience it.

I have knowledge that drugs can ruin your life and health. (second hand, I've seen it many times, facts back it up.)

To know it: ... means that drugs ruined my own life and health. (You experienced it personally.)

It may seem like a subtle difference but its really not. Its a huge difference.

No argument here... one is know how and the other is knowing that. It would be odd to say that you know that drugs can ruin your life and not know it. First hand knowledge is a bit different than second hand knowledge. However, all thinking and feeling is first hand knowledge. Knowing by doing is stronger knowledge than just knowing how to say something that is not entirely understood... for example.

They are both knowledge though, which was the only point I was making.

They are related terms. Knowledge is a noun. It strikes me as a body of useful information.

Knowing is an act that engages the whole experience of doing, being and knowing.

If you memorize a book that tells you exactly what the process of painting a picture is, and you have a photographic memory.. do you know how to paint a picture if you never did it? That might be an interesting experiment to do.

While knowing might be considered knowledge, knowledge is not always the same as knowing or to know.

Here is a cool example. In the series "Breaking bad" Jessie Pinkman knew that a certain chemical would melt a body because his partner told him it would. He put the body in the bathtub and poured the chemical over it. What he learned from doing was that it not only melted the body, it melted the bathtub and floor and fell through to the bottom floor. They had quite a disgusting mess to clean up.

The next time he and his partner were getting rid of a body, they put the body into a container that would not melt. A skeptical private eye, Mike, watching asked if this would really work. Jessie looked at him and said: "Trust us."

THAT WAS KNOWING as apposed to knowledge.

I think you can take this in the other direction as well.

In the description you gave, additional 'knowledge' was gained from 'knowing' an experience. However, the knowing of that experience was then acknowledged as knowledge.

I think transcendental meditation is a perfect example of the difference between knowing and knowledge.

When in a stated of transcendental meditation you do not acknowledge the state at the time that you are experiencing it. In fact, if you do acknowledge it then it's not transcendental meditation. The very act of acknowledging it would violate the transcendence of thought.

However, at the time you are in that state of consciousness you are aware of being in that state. Therefore you instantaneously know the experience of this state of consciousness.

It's a knowingness without acknowledgment and thus it is knowing without knowledge.

Semantically speaking, we're simply saying that to experience a state of consciousness is to know it.

But it's not known in the same way that we analytically think of knowledge. So in this sense, there is a difference in the concepts between knowing something and having knowledge of it.

After you have experienced this state of thoughtless consciousness then you do indeed have 'knowledge' of that experience after the fact. It's an experience that you knew at one time and thus you have knowledge of it. But the actually state of the experience is not a state of knowledge, but rather it's a state of pure existence, pure knowingness.

In fact, when you come out of transcendental meditation it's not even a state that you can explain to someone in words.

For example if someone asks you, "What is transcendental meditation like", all you can convey to them in words is to say that it's a state of consciousness where you have ceased all thoughts and thinking.

From there point of view, if they haven't experienced this for themselves they will have no clue (no understanding), and no knowledge of the experience.

They might think that the only way such a state could be achieved is to totally black out and not "know" or experience anything. Yet that's not the experience. Nor does it even come close to it.

In fact, a pure state of transcendental meditation results in the experience of existing in a sea of pure white light.

So one might argue, when then you're having the "Thought" of being in a sea of pure white light.

No. It's not a "thought". It's a state of being. It's a an experience. In fact, if you actually think to yourself, "I am in a sea of white light" the experience will suddenly vanish and you will no longer be in that state of consciousness because you are indeed THINKING.

You can't "think" and be in that state of consciousness simultaneously. It's a state of pure awareness, pure experience, with no analytical thought associated with it at all.

You cannot achieve a state of transcendental meditation and continue to think. In fact that violates the very meaning of transcendental meditation. It means to "transcend" thought.

If you haven't transcended thought, then you haven't experienced transcendental meditation.

There are no thoughts that can express that stating of knowingness.

Sure, people often say that the experience is like floating bodiless in a sea of pure white light, but this is a description that is being placed onto the experience after the fact.

At the time of the actual experience it's just an experience. It's not a collection of descriptive thoughts.

So in this sense the state of transcendental meditation does not equate to 'knowledge' or 'acknowledgment', it's just a state of pure knowingness without any analytical 'acknowledgment' involved.

If you analytically acknowledge the state or you instantly come out of it.

You cannot transcend thought and think about it at the same time. Those to states of consciousness are not simultaneously compatible.

So it's the ultimate state of knowingness where knowledge itself is forbidden.

Whether or not a person understands this will pretty much determine whether or not they have every known the experience of transcendental meditation.

I am not so sure the above is true.

It depends on what you identify as "self."

If you think of "self" as the body and the human state of consciousness and from there you ascend to a place "above" thought (or out of the human state of consciousness) then you might feel that you cannot "think" (a human state) and experience a non-thinking state of existence at the same time.

It is not that we "rise above" the human state of consciousness but more like we 'return to' our original state of being which is a state of pure existence.

That state of pure existence is always present. Our attention is focused on our human state (which employs thought) but the state of pure existence never leaves our consciousness. It is always there.

Hence, I believe, the meaning of the saying, "I am always with you."

When you "practice the presence" you are able to hold both states at once. An awareness of body and the human state, and also the awareness of being without thought. That is the core, the place of stillness that is within. When you are aware of that, and also aware of the body and thoughts, you are practicing the presence and are in the moment. It is a moment of stillness and it is like holding dual consciousness.

It is inner peace.

I think you two are way too wordy.

Knowing is having knowledge.

We are talking to each other and we both know that you don't have a clue, really, what we are talking about.

Knowing is having knowledge.

Agreed?

Here is a very good example of knowledge vs knowing.

You have knowledge that I exist.

I know I exist.

I absolutely agree with you Jeannie on that point.

I didn't mean to make it sound like such an on/off switch. Clearly it isn't. It can't be!

The state of pure awareness must always be present.

This is true. There can be no denying that.

I was speaking in terms of pure transcendental meditation. It wouldn't be a "pure state" of transcending meditation unless all thoughts had been transcended.

But yes! Absolutely, the actual awareness that is experienced in that state of transcendental mediation is indeed omnipresent. It's the very same awareness that we experience when we focus on thoughts. It's nothing "new". It's what we are.

No, I do not agree with that.




Yes, I agree. A very good example indeed.

That is the difference between knowing and knowledge.

Bollocks...

What is I know I exist other than I have knowledge of my own existence?

I have knowledge of your existence.

You know you exist because you own that. That is your experience.

It is not my experience that you exist. I only have second hand knowledge. You have first hand knowledge.

In fact, here's another good example going in the opposite direction.

~~~~

I have a lot of information in my brain that most people call "knowledge"

But can I really "know" any of it?

Not necessarily.

Having knowledge is not necessarily knowing.

I can only really claim to know the things that I have directly experienced. All the rest is just 'knowledge' that I can't really know until I actually experience it it.

And just like Jeanniebean points out. My knowledge that she exist can never be the same as her knowing that she exists. And of course vice versa is true as well.

So knowledge and knowing are two entirely different things.

Knowing is having knowledge.

Having knowledge is knowing something.

Are you arguing otherwise?

Truly. I'm totally understanding your point of view Jeannie. It's obvious to me.

That's precisely how I see things as well.

More semantic circles...



If you have knowledge of my existence, then you know that I exist. If you do not know that I exist, then you do not have knowledge of my existence.



Knowledge, none-the-less. Experience is not necessarily knowledge either. People experience hallucinations all the time. Hallucinations are not true. Knowledge must be. If the hallucinating subject gains knowledge that the experience was a hallucination, then they have knowledge of the hallucination. If they do not then the experience was not knowledge, it was a hallucination.

We are sharing a different perspective on things.

If you consider other people's perspectives that disagree with yours as being "arguments" then I suppose that's what we are doing.

We don't agree with your perspective.

I'll agree with that.

More semantic nonsense...

--

1. Knowing is having knowledge.

2. Having knowledge is knowing something.

Having knowledge outside of my personal experience is not knowing. I do not know what it is like to be in your shoes or in your body. I do not see things through your eyes. I do not know you exist, but I believe you exist. I have knowledge, second hand, that you exist. From time to time you have even said to me, that I don't know you.
Yet I speak to you a lot. Do I know you or not? I do not know what is in your mind or your heart.

I believe you exist. I have knowledge that you exist, and I accept it as being true. But I do not know it first hand because I am not you. I have never even seen you in person.



I did not make the claim that experience is knowledge. We are discussing the difference between knowledge and knowing.