Learning and knowing, what difference? Do not believe this, the difference is considerable, it explains many things in your daily life.
“The scientist studies for himself, or for money, or to be seen, heard, applauded. This is external knowledge, this is learning. The wise studies without greed, without aim, without passion. This is internal knowledge, this is knowing.
When a wise man acquired knowledge, he becomes a journeyman or a master. If he fulfills the function of master, his only concern is to entrust the knowledge to those who can make a real profit, not those who try to use it to adorn, to impress others or to feel important. Unfortunately, if the inner wise man knows immediately recognize those who desire knowledge for the wrong reasons, it can not mean them directly: it is prevented by the “dominant ego” (nafs-i-ammara)
The dominant ego of the student so actively fulfills its function that the actual knowledge cannot be received. When actual knowledge comes, the dominant ego is deleted. No surprise if the ego is fighting so hard! Because of this, the wise prescribe humility“ (source)Sufi text from Samarkhand
External scientist studies to flatter his ego, interior wise studies for knowledge. All that is about knowledge can be learned, and has often been learned in this very life.
Instead, internal knowledge is innate, without any identifiable source in the present life. Internal knowledge is not mental, it is the knowledge of the body, a profound, spontaneous act, happening beyond the brain, without its help – or without its blocking. Knowledge dosn’t give a shit to those sacrosanct categories of understanding so scrupulously described by Immanuel Kant. You’re too late Old Kant! You cold logician, leave them kids alone, your philosophy is a blocking wall, there’s no bloody way out.
Some scholars think they are wise. And I do not speak only for the old Kant. Some monkeys do the same and earn their master’s living. Knowing is not worth seeing, because the one who wants to see is not sure to succeed.
Traditional masters have always refused external knowledge: they only transmit internal knowledge. The Sufis, for example, reject the teaching methods that treat all students equally. Knowledge has to be transmitted in vivo, through action, tuned on life.
That’s why tradition prefers mostly dual transmission -from master to student. Through learning of Companions of the Tour de France or other traditional corporations, you can still find some ancient nuggets, that the masters of work have left intact, polished by them and by all who have taught. Our modern educational system, ignoring the traditional learning methods, has made our young scholars monkeys just good to strum on a keyboard, whatever their profession. And it is a drag.
All the external knowing is virtual, all the virtual is pure learning. All the internal knowledge goes through the alchemy of two skins touching each other. All loving is an act, any act is knowledge, all knowledge is an act of love.
“When a wise man acquired knowledge,” said the Sufi text quoted on top. Is knowledge a total, absolute, unique package, so that we can acquire completely ? Well yes, it is. There is a place -inner place I mean- where everything is written in letters of light. All the answers are given, all the questions are clarified, all the puzzles are dissolved in a constantly renewed clarity. This mental place got many names: immediate knowledge, omniscient state, universal mind …
But I prefer the enigmatic name given by the ancients:
the Akashic records.
Lucidity is the meeting place of consciousness and sensuality. (Norman Mailer)