The soul doesn’t love;
It is love itself.
The Soul doesn’t know.
It is Knowledge itself;
The Soul doesn’t exist,
It is existence itself.
Patanjali – Quoted by George Harrison on his final album
Patanjali – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali
Two Kinds of Intelligence – Rumi
There are two kinds of intelligence: one acquired,
as a child in school memorizes facts and concepts
from books and from what the teacher says,
collecting information from the traditional sciences
as well as from the new sciences.
With such intelligence you rise in the world.
You get ranked ahead or behind others
in regard to your competence in retaining
information. You stroll with this intelligence
in and out of fields of knowledge, getting always more
marks on your preserving tablets.
There is another kind of tablet, one
already completed and preserved inside you.
A spring overflowing its springbox. A freshness
in the center of the chest. This other intelligence
does not turn yellow or stagnate. It’s fluid,
and it doesn’t move from outside to inside
through conduits of plumbing-learning.
This second knowing is a fountainhead
from within you, moving out. http://allpoetry.com/Two-Kinds-of-Intelligence
GURU means “gu’ actually means darkness while “ru” means light. The two serve as a principle for the development of consciousness where it leads the creation from unreality to reality, from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge. – from ‘UNIVERSAL TRUTH: thinking outside the box’ by Peter C Rogers D.D., PhD
The term Guru is therefore explained as the remover of darkness, who reveals the light of the heart.
See also – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Gita#cite_note-Grimes1996-5
‘Knowledge is a function of being. When there is a change in the being of the knower, there is a corresponding change in the nature and amount of knowing.’
Aldous Huxley p1 ‘The Perennial Philosophy’
Knowledge (gnosis) is a somewhat more complex concept. Here is the definition of gnosis given by Elaine Pagels in her book The Gnostic Gospels: “…gnosis is not primarily rational knowledge. The Greek language distinguishes between scientific or reflective knowledge (‘He knows mathematics’) and knowing through observation or experience (‘He knows me’).
As the gnostics use the term, we could translate it as ‘insight’, for gnosis involves an intuitive process of knowing oneself… Yet to know oneself, at the deepest level is to know God; this is the secret of gnosis.”(The Gnostic Gospels, p xviii-xix) Bentley Layton provides a similar definition in The Gnostic Scriptures: “The ancient Greek language could easily differentiate between two kinds of knowledge…
One kind is propositional knowing – the knowledge that something is the case (‘I know Athens is in Greece’). Greek has several words for this kind of knowing-for example, eidenai. The other kind of knowing is personal aquaintance with an object, often a person. (‘I know Athens well’; ‘I have known Susan for many years’). In Greek the word for this is gignoskein…The corresponding Greek noun is gnosis.
If for example two people have been introduced to one another, each can claim to have gnosis or aquaintance of one another. If one is introduced to God, one has gnosis of God. The ancient gnostics described salvation as a kind of gnosis or aquaintance, and the ultimate object of that aquaintance was nothing less than God” (The Gnostic Scriptures, p 9).
Faith corresponds to the intellectual/emotional aspect of religion while gnosis corresponds to the spiritual/experiential aspect.
SOURCE – http://gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Faith_Knowledge.htm
‘Although to acquire the sciences and arts is the greatest glory of mankind, this is so only on condition that man’s river flow into the mighty sea, and draw from God’s ancient source His inspiration.
When this cometh to pass, then every teacher is as a shoreless ocean, every pupil a prodigal fountain of knowledge.
If, then, the pursuit of knowledge lead to the beauty of Him Who is the Object of all Knowledge, how excellent that goal; but if not, a mere drop will perhaps shut a man off from flooding grace, for with learning cometh arrogance and pride, and it bringeth on error and indifference to God.
The sciences of today are bridges to reality; if then they lead not to reality, naught remains but fruitless illusion. By the one true God! If learning be not a means of access to Him, the Most Manifest, it is nothing but evident loss.’
Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 110
‘Abdu’l-Bahá distinguishes two kinds of knowledge: “One is subjective and the other objective knowledge – that is to say, an intuitive knowledge and a knowledge derived from perception.”
The happiness and greatness, the rank and station, the pleasure and peace, of an individual have never consisted in his personal wealth, but rather in his excellent character, his high resolve, the breadth of his learning, and his ability to solve difficult problems.
Early twentieth-century poet Carl Sandburg poses the knowledge landscape as circles in the sand that help explain Western knowledge’s conundrum.
“The white man drew a circle in the sand,” Sandburg begins immediately, “and told the red man ‘This is what the Indian knows.'”
Continuing, Sandburg describes the white man drawing a big circle around the smaller one: “This is what the white man knows.”
Then, as though responding to international development and Western knowledge experts, Sandburg shows the Indian sweeping an immense circle around both rings in the sand. “This is where the white and the red man know nothing” (Sandburg 1971, 30).
Often it never seems to dawn on experts that there are limits to their knowledge.
Who explains the relationship between faith and reason better than Heschel?
“Reality is not exhausted by knowledge. Inaccessible to research are the ultimate facts. All scientific conclusions are based on axioms, all reasoning depends ultimately upon faith. Faith is virgin thinking, preceding all transcendent knowledge. To believe is to abide at the extremities of spirit.”
“There is neither advance nor service without faith. Nobody can rationally explain why he should sacrifice his life and his happiness for the sake of the good.
The conviction that I must obey the ethical imperatives is not derived from logical argument but originates from an intuitive certitude, in a certitude of faith.
There is no conspiracy against reason, no random obstinacy, no sluggish inertia of mind or smug self-assurance entrenched behind the walls of believing.
Faith does not detach a man from thinking, it does not suspend reason. It is opposed not to knowledge but to backwardness and dullness, to indifferent aloofness to the essence of living. … It is a distortion to regard reason and faith as alternatives.
Reason is a necessary coefficient of faith. Faith without explication by reason is mute, reason without faith is deaf. There can be a true symbiosis of reason and faith.”
“The Holy Dimension”, p. 338 – http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_Joshua_Heschel