← Back to Kinfonet

Psychological Knowledge vs Practical Knowledge

What is psychological knowledge again please? Is it just what I believe about myself?



I would say not just that but the almost constant movement of thought when it is ‘musing’, reminiscing about the past, worrying about the future, etc basically when it is not necessary…the line between its necessary, appropriate functioning and its unnecessary movement is blurry. When involved in a project that has a beginning middle and end, ‘time’ is involved. But musing about ‘my’ past or my future (“becoming”) IS fear…the line is blurred but if “the thinker IS the thought” then that false duality created by the thinking process ‘must’ come to an end. The ‘thinker’ can’t stop ‘psychological ‘ thought obviously since he is thought itself. There is no method. Only thought itself and its awareness of its own movement and the discernment of when it ‘should’ be operating at all could bring it to a stop, it seems to me. Isn’t this the main issue? The brain’s conditioning, the “stream” that must be “stepped out of”?



Hey! I have been wondering whether what we really mean by this misleading expression - which includes a separation between so called “psychological knowledge” and the other kind of knowledge - would be better served by the word “useful” as opposed to “detrimental” - useful and detrimental with regards to relationship. (Big word at the end of the sentence there, but we’ll ignore it for the moment)

@Examiner @Inquiry @DanMcD

Does it necessarily create conflict? If I remember you from the last time, it could prove useful. Or does this only work if my attacker was a dog (ie. not a human)?

Again how does this work in relation to cooking or mechanics? Aren’t there people who think that they know how to cook or repair cars, but obviously don’t?

Are you equating Psy Knowledge with emotional exigence? The problem with Psy Knowledge is that it is knowledge that is attached to an emotion, which forces me to react accordingly?

The common word for Psychological Knowledge in everyday use would be : Wrong.

Psy Knowledge is just Belief that is tied to identity and thus cannot be abandoned even when obviously wrong, or detrimental to our relationship with reality.

For example a Fundamentalist Religious person than believes that they cannot have blood transfusions due to their religious identity.

Or Someone thinking that its a good idea to vote for the most horrible, stupid and violent person to represent them merely because they have the same political identity.


"… there is this, each one, living it may be for a week, or a day, or years, has built an image which becomes knowledge. Follow this, please follow this - knowledge about each other. Knowledge - may I go into it a little bit? This is serious. Knowledge is destructive in relationship. Right? If you once understand this: I say I know my wife because I have lived with her, I know all her tendencies, her irritations, impetuosity, her jealousy, which becomes my knowledge about her: how she walks, how she does her hair, how she moves - you follow? I have collected a lot of information and knowledge about her. And she has collected a lot of knowledge about me; so the past - you follow? - knowledge is always the past. Right? There is no knowledge about the future, predictable. Predictable - you understand? So, I have knowledge, we have knowledge about each other. Right?

So we have to enquire a great deal into the question of knowledge: what place has knowledge in life? Are we together in this observation? Will knowledge transform man? What place has knowledge in the mutation or in the ending of conditioning? This is conditioning: I have conditioned through knowledge her, and she has conditioned me through knowledge. You are following all this? We are together in this? We are observing together? Please, I am not teaching you. You are observing with all your energy, with capacity to see this fact: that where there is knowledge in relationship, there must be conflict. I must have knowledge how to drive a car, how to write a sentence, how to speak English, or French, or Italian, whatever language it is. Or I must have technological knowledge; if I am a good carpenter, I must have knowledge about the wood, tools I use and so on; but in relationship with my wife, or with a friend, whatever it is, that knowledge which I have gathered together, put together through constant irritation, constant separation, ambitions, this knowledge which I have acquired, that knowledge is going to prevent actual relationship with another. Right? Is this a fact, or is this merely a supposition, a theory, an idea? An idea is an abstraction of a fact. Right? The word ‘idea’ in Greek means to observe, to see, to come very close to perception, not make an abstraction which becomes an idea. So we are not dealing with ideas. But we are dealing with the actual relationship, which is in conflict, and that conflict arises when I have accumulated lots of information about her and she has acquired a lot about me. So, our relationship then is based on knowledge; and knowledge can never be complete, about anything in life. Please realise this. Knowledge must always go with the shadow of ignorance. Right? You can’t know about the universe. Astrophysicists may describe, but to be aware of that immensity, no knowledge is required through information; you have to have that mind that is so vast, so completely orderly, as the universe is, then that’s a different matter.

So similarly, knowledge in relationship brings about conflict. See the fact. Not accept the fact; see the fact that knowledge has importance in one direction, in the other it has not. The negation is the most positive - you understand? Right? Can we go from there a little more? That is, do we exercise will to end conflict? That is, to enquire whether will, that is, positive action - ‘I want to end this conflict’ - whether that will will bring about the cessation of conflict, which we have done before.

So, it’s very important to understand the place of knowledge and knowledge as an impediment in relationship. Love is not knowledge; love is not remembrance. When there is no knowledge about her, I look upon her, and she does, as a fresh, new human being, each day new. You know what it does? You are too learned, you are full of book knowledge, what other people have said. And that’s why this becomes awfully difficult to comprehend - a very simple thing like this."

What is the place of knowledge in our lives?

Public Talk 2 Ojai, California, USA - 02 May 1982

Imagined practical knowledge is not equivalent to imagined knowledge of who I am.

Relation to the outside world through knowledge is necessarily conflictual.
Relation through knowledge is merely me relating to my projections.

Knowledge is my vision of the world based on the past. Reality is always in the present. Thus knowledge and reality are diametrically opposed.

My question is : what is the difference between Psychological and Practical Knowledge? Is it pointing at a major difference between our relationship to what we see as other people vs what we see as everything else - why the dichotomy - whats so special about our relationship with humans?

If I know that I have a tendancy to be a complete idiot (or get drunk at parties) could this not be useful/practical? At least as useful as knowing how to reboot Windows, or wind up an antique clock.

I don’t know if it is special but all of our problems spring out of human relationship. I may have problem with my neighbor. We humans fortunately or unfortunately are group animals like monkeys. Relationship is life . To relate is to live. Isolation is decay. I’m not suggesting to go out and have relationship with people. But we are related to people whether we like it or not. Everything exists in relationship. We are merely unaware of our relationship to people and things. We are having some kind of relationship in these forums. You relate to my opinion and I relate to your opinion and so on…

With enough self-knowledge, e.g., knowing enough not to get drunk, we’d know enough not to pretend to be what we’re not, and not to believe anything, but we’re too full of psychological knowledge to make room for the self-knowledge we need.

In other words, instead of trying to relate to people, find out what the actual relationship is, because it’s usually a game and it does no harm to play along for a while.

Yes ,it is a great game without a score or a referee.

Why knowledge must go with the shadow of ignorance? Is knowledge, controlled in a person knowingly? There are some stable relationships in our society too. How is it possible? What does it take to get satisfaction in a long-term relationship?

Do you really mean this? I don’t mean to offend, but the claim seems demonstrably wrong - though I realise that it does have a familiar ring to it (ie. It is something that has been often repeated)
Smoking cigarettes is a problem, for example, that does not arise from human relationship (though we could of course argue that humans are involved, and social interaction does sometimes play a part - but as you rightly say: we are social animals, so a lot of our everyday experience does involve other humans)

I would like to propose a counter claim : That behind the problems we have with our relationship with other humans and “reality” in general, is our relationship with knowledge.

Our problems spring out of our relationship to knowledge.

(aka our relationship to thought as per @Peter on another thread)
Shall we look into this claim? Which also means looking at whether this is can actually be called a relationship at all.

I know that you are called sivaram (thats my knowledge) - when we talk of knowledge, this also implies that there is a lot of stuff that I do not know (knowledge casts a shadow of ignorance - is a poetic way of saying it)

There’s always a score, but it’s usually disputed…

Who keeps the score? Thought?What for? To sustain itself?

I have an image of myself, and keep score of how well my image is holding up against evidence that I’m not who I think I am. But others have their images of me also, so I’m concerned with all opinions about me, what kind of person I am, how respectable or despicable, and my opinion of myself goes up and down in accordance with my behavior and the opinions others have of me.

Who keeps the score?

Anyone with an image of me is keeping score.

Does it have any value what somebody else thinks of me and if it does who gives it value?

Psychological Knowledge: Recording of once daily life right from morning to till you sleep, that happens purely in the realm of human relationships and in that relationships, the evolution of self. What is self - Emotions,fear,insecurities, ego, desire, jealousy, ambition, anger, pleasure, love, care, compassion. The entire content about me and all the self centered Knowledge. How thought uses that psychological knowledge inevitability to destroy human relationships.

I am this and I want to be that, thoughts activity of projecting present into future.

Practical Knowledge: Practical is not the right word. Can we use physical or functional knowledge instead.

Examples: Learning a language, mathematics, remembering directions from one place to other place, Carpentory, driving, etc. All related to living and survival. When Psychological knowledge Interferes with physical knowledge then disasters like hiroshima and ww2, exploitation and savagery etc happens.

Use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes(physical knowledge) and for destruction(Psychological knowledge). My nation or race or superior vs yours.

Experience (Psychological or Physical) then Memory of the experience (function of brain) then store the memory then what is stored becomes knowledge ( both psychological or physical) then from knowledge one thinks (psychologically or physically).

Physical knowledge is useful for living and survival.
Psychological Knowledge is useless and zero value in human relationships.

Psychological Knowledge (realm of human relationships)- Recording of psychological knowledge by brain takes place only (again only) when one is not listening, be not in present, be not aware, be not sensitive and be indifferent. When there is no psychological knowledge, human relationships are fresh like flowing water. They are vibrant, real and direct. Not between two images built by thought and knowledge.

I am this, he IS that passing judgment, looking human relationships from the prismof past.

I value my self-image, the images I have of others, and the images others have of me because none of us (as far as we can tell) can see what is actual. We see only what we can form images of, be they images of ourselves, each other, or of anything else we can’t see clearly, if at all.

Now the question is, Why don’t we see clearly? Why do we see only what we think (imagine) we’re seeing instead of what actually is?