define self-knowledge?
compare and contrast enlightenment and self -knowledge
~~~ Gee, it seems as if someone wants me to do her homework for her.
First one needs to understand what it means to 'know'.
The new, critically updated, all inclusive definition of 'knowledge';
'Knowledge' is that which is perceived!
That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspectives (all perspectives are unique, every moment/percept of existence) is 'knowledge'.
All you can 'know' is what you perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!
Everyone's perceptions are inherently (uniquely) real features of Reality!
All inclusive!
Existence = the complete Universe = Reality = Truth = God = 'Self!' = ....
All inclusive!
Everything exists!
That which exists is Real!
Everything is Real!
Existence/Reality is all inclusive!
That which is perceived exists.
That which exists is perceived.
Not a thing exists that is not perceived.
Not a thing is perceived that does not exist.
Nothing can exist independent of being perceived.
There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!
We are (Conscious) Perspectives.
"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
Every Perspective is unique, by definition/nature.
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd
The Universe/Reality is known by many unique Perspectives, but 'one' Consciousness!
Everyone's perceptions are included as inherently real features of Reality!
"The complete Universe (Truth/Reality/existence/Mind/God/Self..… or any feature perceived thereof) can be defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" - (op. cit.)
All inclusive!!!
Two people observe an elephant.
One can only perceive the trunk; "An elephant is like a snake!"
This is 'knowledge' to/for him.
The other can only perceive the leg; "An elephant is like a tree trunk!"
This is 'knowlwdge' to/for him.
One thing that they can do is to argue who is correct, as they both, obviously, cannot be correct. There might even be one who out-argues the other, even gets the other to discredit his own knowledge.
In this scenario, one doesn't learn anything, and the other 'loses' what he knew, replacing it with the same truncated understanding the other has.
Either way it is a lose/lose scenario.
Another more philosophically sound scenario is if they both attempted to understand the other's Perspective, the other's 'knowledge'; to understand the context where they are 'correct', and incorporate it into your own understanding.
Then you both would have a more complete understanding of 'elephant'.
Win/win!
No one can give you knowledge, you must experience it yourself for it to be 'knowledge'.
All 'knowledge' is unique. Ignorance is your relationship to 'knowledge' that is other Perspectives' perceptions.
On 'Self!'
Now that you 'know' what 'knowledge' is, on to 'Self'.
There are many definitions of 'Self', many Perspectives on the matter.
The complete definition of 'Self' would be the sum-total of all Perspectives.
The only all inclusive definition of 'Self' that I 'know', is all that is perceived, from every Perspective, every moment/percept of existence! All that is perceived, whether by amoeba, a man, a fish, a cloud, a galaxy, a (every) point in 'space'..., is 'Self'!
'One Self', all are perspectives of 'Self'.
We are a moment of 'Self Knowledge'!
"God cannot know himself without me." - Meister Eckhart
"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart
Tat Tvam Asi! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_As… )
There is no 'enlightenment' in 'knowledge' of the egoically perceived 'self'. They are diametrically oppositional!
Happy Trails!