Is Knowledge Sectarian?

I’ll wager that there are not more than a few people on this planet who have a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics and over 50 peer reviewed science articles and who have successfully completed a foundation course in North American Indian and Runic shamanism.

I am still reading Le Chamanisme by Mircea Eliade which is a weighty tome and in French. I am about four fifths of the way through, and I am getting to learn some vocabulary that you won’t normally come across. In principle I am “qualified” to set up shop doing dream analysis, healing, shamanic journeying etc.. I have also just put some spirit vinegar, some water and some sodium chloride into the kettle. The latter decreases the pH by the common ion effect. The idea is to remove the calcium carbonate deposits.

For me knowledge in not sectarian.

When I first started the course on shamanism, the people when they found out my background, were very suspicious of my motives for being there, even when I told them that one of my maternal relatives was allegedly a witch. I suspect that many of my science contacts would have thought me a bit of a fruitcake. At this level, yes “knowledge” is sectarian.

In my prior incarnation as a science academic, I have met physicists who have thought themselves better, purer and perhaps brainer than chemists. So even at this level there is a measure of sectarianism. Physics is pure, chemistry is dirty.

Reading the thesis I found the other day, I noted to myself that I really have very little idea what goes on in social sciences, history, even biology at universities. My ignorance is large. When I used to do tutoring for UK Grad for Ph.D. students from all disciplines, I ran a session on careers in academia. Because I am very informal there were no taboos. These were well attended, and I was amazed at how hard it was for not scientists and engineers to get funded for their research. I was fascinated by the stories of some of them getting “white glove” only access to manuscripts. I really badly wanted to go along on one such visit. These people were in many ways more dedicated than the students I knew. Their theses took longer to complete. It wasn’t bang of a couple off papers’ worth of data, write a book and then done.

We don’t really know what goes on in other disciplines. Put me in an organic chemistry synthesis lab and I would not have a clue what to do. I would be more at home in a physics lab than a chemistry one. Someone once told me that doing a Ph.D. was about learning more and more about less and less. But these days much of the interesting science and the new frontiers lies at the interface between “disciplines” and the interface between length scales.

What struck me reading the accounts from over a hundred years ago was how much more interest in things other than the well-defined there was then than there are now. We can define ourselves as a scientist, have a degree of Doctor of Philosophy but be completely disinterested in philosophy and sacerdotal things.

We may show a highly sectarian and judgemental view of things New Age {for example} and we may do this without any exploration thereof. We may be prejudiced against before any inquiry.

Are we in fact by this kind of behaviour being retrogressive?

What about the interface between science knowledge and sacred knowledge?

It certainly does not smack of any renaissance or renascence…

I doubt knowledge itself can be sectarian, those holding it, in possession of it, can be sectarian in outlook.

It Takes Power to Talk About Power

This is the aphorism I mentioned paraphrased. I could have written it; it requires some knowledge to speak about knowledge in a meaningful way. Or even; one has to have at least a modicum of wisdom to speak wisely about wisdom, its acquisition and application.

For me personally these Toltec aphorisms are by nature profound and succinct. It would be relatively easy to expand each one of them up into thousands of words.

Take the alternative meaning of power, the one of positional or political power. Until one has had a modicum of this one does not know what it feels like to wield power. One is also unaware of the temptations posed by such power. One might even get caught snogging an aide in front of a security camera.

Power of this nature cannot really be speculated upon; it has to be experienced. There are many people who might seek power but then when they have it be unable to use it or wield it. They may not like the flip side of “responsibility” which comes with great power as Spiderman alleges. The notion of power is one thing, its yoke quite another. There is another aphorism of my own writing.

“Power can do weird shit to people, man.”

When I started teaching it was before the days of PowerPoint. One used an overhead projector or old-fashioned chalk. I thought I was a smart young gun. That was until I tried to do a live chalk-based derivation of some rate laws in front of a hundred ultra-smart undergraduates. I nearly shit my pants when I had brain freeze and white out in front of the blackboard. Boy did I prepare well after that!!

Yellow chalk and black Levi’s are an interesting combination, be careful where you put your hands…

There is a strange quirk to my character that makes it difficult for me to teach other people. I genuinely have to understand it before I am comfortable teaching it. And for an INFJ that means understanding it on many levels and comprehensively. Others are able to confidently teach material without having to probe it, so far. Those that learn by rote to pass exams can teach by rote too. Because I don’t have a binary right / wrong orientation sometimes those brought up in a “I must pass exams” education system have initially found my methods lacking in confidence of delivery. They want to “know” the answer and I want to know even more questions. I want to fathom.

I had a break from undergraduate teaching for a long while. Then when I came to teach some of the material that I had done previously I started to find holes in the textbook derivations, too many shortcuts, wide generalisations. I found myself going back to square one and checking a whole bunch of stuff that I would have previously taken for granted.

There were some mistakes!!

I have had minor exposure to power back in the days of the start-up. Strange how I was more attractive to the ladies when I had board meetings and shares. At the moment in terms of material or temporal power I am powerless.

I can however say that powerlessness has its own special kind of power under certain circumstances. It takes powerlessness to speak on the power of powerlessness.

Having taught some material over a number of years, one can say that one’s understanding of that material changes with time. It is funny how a new facet and new insight can be had from the very same words. Even when we think we know, there is nearly always another level, should we be open enough to inquire.

One’s knowledge at any given time is just a snapshot of knowledge at that point in time, it is wise to acknowledge that this is all that it is, a fleeting understanding in our journey of evolution upon which there is no destination only travel.

If you think anything is absolute you are wrong.

Even the gospel of science evolves in time. There are many examples of scientists being adamant and later being proven inaccurate by the evolution of the knowledge base.

I am comfortable talking about knowledge, wisdom and power, because I have a modicum of experience of these things.

It is up to you to assess if I am bullshitting or not…

Three Golden Crosses / Caretaker of Knowledge Dream 18-06-2009

The dream starts with a vison of three golden and radiant crosses spaced equally on the perimeter a golden-sun-like orb with a golden radiance.

I am them walking along beside a river dressed in my Yukata with some loose change in my hand. I come upon a family, and they are wondering about falling in the river. They have some shoes and I say that the ones with the heels are the best. Don’t worry about falling in the river you are very far from any waterfalls and the water is cool and refreshing.

The woman wonders if I am holding something back as all the gossip says. I say that no I am not.

Then I am in the Science Museum. I am caretaker. What better place for me than to be the caretaker of knowledge. I go into a room and there are some beautiful postcards of Buddha.

I hear deep melodious voices:

“We knew when you first came into being all those millions of years ago that this is how you would always live.  A life full of compassion and that you would always be a little mis-understood, a beautiful thing and that you would always do this for evermore.”

Dream ends.

Rule 14 – Know.

Rule XIV
For Applicants: Listen. Touch. See. Apply. Know.
For Disciples and Initiates: Know. Express. Reveal. Destroy. Resurrect.

The following relationships should be noted, for the first is the seed of the other.

APPLICANTS – INITIATES

Listen –  Know

Touch –  Express

See    –  Reveal

Apply  –  Destroy

Know  –  Resurrect

You will note that the applicant eventually arrives at knowledge and begins to know; the disciple or the initiate starts with knowing, and through his ability to express esoterically that which he knows is able to reveal the light, and by that light to destroy all illusion, glamor and maya; he brings about resurrection upon the physical plane – a resurrection from the death which physical plane life inevitably confers.

The five words as given to the applicant are indeed relatively simple. Most aspirants understand their meaning to a certain extent. They know that the listening mentioned has naught to do with the sense of physical hearing, and that the touch to be developed has reference to sensitivity and not the sensory perception of the physical vehicle. They know likewise that the sight to be cultivated is the power to see the beauty underlying form, to recognize the subjective divinity and to register also the love conveyed through the medium of symbols. The application of soul energy to the affairs of daily life and the establishing of those conditions which permit of soul knowledge are the elementary lessons of the aspirant. With these I need not deal, except in so far as they give the clue to the significance of the five words as given to the initiated disciple.

Let us take each of these five words and seek to ascertain their significance. But first of all, I would like to point out that here we are concerned with monadic signatures, with that which synthesizes significances, and with that which contributes vital significance to the initiated life. I would have you, as you read my words, retreat within yourselves and seek to think, feel and perceive at your highest possible level of consciousness. The effort to do this will bear much fruit and bring rich reward to you. You will not grasp the full intention of these words, but your sense of awareness will begin to react to triadal impression. I know not how else to word this, limited as I am by the necessity of language. You may not register anything consciously, for the brain of the average disciple is as yet insensitive to monadic vibration. Even if the disciple is capable of some responsiveness, there are not the needed words in which to express the sensed idea or to clothe the concept. It is therefore impossible to put the divine ideas into their ideal form and then bring them down into the world of meaning, and from thence into the world of symbols. What I say will therefore have more significance towards the close of this century, when men will have recovered from the chaos and cruelty of war, and when the new and higher spiritual influences are being steadily poured out. I write, my brothers, for the future.

1. Know

What is the difference between the knowing of the aspirant and the knowledge of the initiated disciple? It is the difference which exists between two differing fields and areas of perception. The aspirant is told first of all to “know thyself”; he is then told to know the relation of form and soul, and the area covered by his knowledge is that of the three worlds, plus the level upon the mental plane on which his soul is focused. The initiated disciple knows the relation of the periphery to the center, of the One to the many, and of unity to diversity. The applicant is concerned with triplicity: himself as the knower, his field of knowledge, and that which is the agent of knowing, the mind. The initiated disciple is beyond registering triplicity and is occupied with the duality of manifestation, with life-energy as it affects or is related to matter-force, with spirit and substance. The knowledge of the initiate has naught to do with consciousness as the mind recognizes that factor in the evolutionary process; his knowledge is related to the faculty of the intuition and to that divine perception which sees all things as within itself.Perhaps the simplest way to express the knowledge of the initiate is to say that it is direct awareness of God, thus putting it into mystical terms; the knowledge of the aspirant is related to that aspect of divinity which we call the soul in form. Putting this in still another way, I might point out that the aspirant is concerned with the knowledge of soul and matter, whilst the initiate is concerned with soul and spirit.

If I say to you, my brothers, that the knowledge of the initiate is concerned with that which is produced by Sound and not by the AUM or the OM, I shall have linked up these comments with much else given previously in the analysis of these fourteen rules. The “listening” of the aspirant has now been transformed into the effectual recognition of that which the Sound has created. I refer not here to the creation of the phenomenal world, or to the world of meaning which is essentially the Plan or the pattern underlying that phenomenal world, but to the intention or the Purpose which motivated the creative Sound; I am dealing with the impulsive energy which gives significance to activity and to the life-force which the Sound centralizes at Shamballa.

It is not the fault of humanity that it is only now possible for the significance of the divine purpose to emerge more clearly in the consciousness of the initiated disciple. It is a question of timing and of movement in space; it concerns the relation of the Hierarchy, working with the Plan, to Shamballa, the recipient (by means of the Sound) of the creative energy which it is the divine intention to expend in producing a perfect expression of the divine Idea. It is to the knowledge of this relationship and of its effects that the first word of Rule XIV refers.

Excerpted from:

The Rays and the Initiations – Part One – Fourteen Rules For Group Initiation

Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul

What You Think You Know

Summarising many of the quotes previous on knowledge; it is perhaps wise not to overestimate the extent, profundity, and depth of one’s assumed knowledge and/or understanding. Many have trouble not self-diagnosing a somewhat premature omniscience and that can cause them problems. If you are an expert in one field, it does not necessarily transfer to another. A genius in physics may have poor interpersonal skills for example, lack self-knowledge and interpersonal awareness.

Humanity is so very often convinced that it knows best and can be adamant that it is right or in the right.

It has been quite interesting for me trying a bit of French here and there. One of the stock responses I get from French people is that French is a difficult language to learn and speak. I resist the temptation to say compared to what, German, Latin or Japanese. I occasionally get a comment that my French is OK. {se debrouiller} I am guessing that the ability to speak and understand French across the Brit expat community is low to dire. The bar of expectation is set low. Occasionally, usually a younger person, has a go at English. To date nobody has taken me upon the suggestion that if they speak French and I speak English we should be able to communicate quite effectively.

I’ll make a statement here. Only one person really knows my ability to understand French, written and spoken, and my level of my less capable oral delivery, my French language teacher. The wife is a close second.

On the whole people here know that the level of Franglais is poor. I have even had someone talking louder to me in French because that will obviously aid my understanding. People think they know that Brits as a whole are shit at French. So, when the wife speaks, they are very pleasantly surprised. I have an inkling on occasion they prolong the conversation to see how good she is.

What people do not know is that when I am communicating with them I not only use my learned level of French but my skill at intuition and interpolation. Words that have a Latin root are latent in my four-decade old vocabulary.

There is a tacit assumption that if you can’t speak the lingo that you are less intelligent. It is a prejudice common across all cultures, I suspect.

I do not have to speak French because the wife is better at it. It is quite interesting to see French men uncomfortable talking to an English woman about technical matters whilst a near silent Welshman observes. They are much more used to speaking man to man {my guess}. I have used an interpreter in Japan, so I am comfortable with this, she was a woman.

Here is my assumption, they find it uncomfortable when I try to communicate in less than perfect French and would prefer to speak at normal pace with the wife in a higher quality of language. Even though I am there. They do not know how / when to make eye contact under this circumstance.

I know that these are suppositions and assumptions, they are by way of working hypotheses. I have not concluded. I know this.

The trouble is people often conclude before they have sufficient basis for any kind of conclusion and these conclusions turn into prejudice based on what you think you know.

Here is a question:

Is what you think you know just another way of saying prejudice and preconception?

Citations Connaissance

“La connaissance parle, mais la sagesse écoute.”

De Jimi Hendrix

“La connaissance des mots conduit à la connaissance des choses.”

De Platon

“La connaissance est en elle-même puissance.”

De Francis Bacon

“Le chemin de la connaissance est toujours à sens unique.”

De Claire France

“Trop de connaissance ne facilite pas les plus simples décisions.”

De Frank Herbert

“La connaissance est le début de l’action : l’action, l’accomplissement de la connaissance.”

De Wang Young Ming

“Plus j’avance dans la connaissance de mon “moi”, plus je m’approche de la connaissance de Dieu.”

De Saint Bernard

“L’accumulation des connaissances n’est pas la connaissance.”

De Alberto Manguel

“L’homme n’a pas pour but le plaisir, mais la connaissance.”

De Swami Vivekananda

“Deux choses participent de la connaissance : le silence tranquille et l’intériorité.”

De Bouddha

“L’opinion est quelque chose d’intermédiaire entre la connaissance et l’ignorance.”

De Platon

“La connaissance est une vieille erreur qui pense à sa jeunesse.”

De Francis Picabia

“La sagesse est la connaissance des choses divines et des choses humaines.”

De Cicéron

“La connaissance seule ne suffit pas ; elle n’a pas de cœur.”

De Dan Millman

“La connaissance sans la sagesse, est de l’intelligence artificielle.”

De Juliana M. Pavelka

“On ne saurait aller trop loin dans la connaissance de l’homme.”

De Emile Zola

“Le progrès de la connaissance se résume peut-être en une meilleure compréhension de notre ignorance.”

De Robert Mossé

“La connaissance n’est pas le pouvoir, mais elle est liberté.”

De Gilles Lamer

“La connaissance des êtres, l’étude de leur comportement est le commencement de la sagesse.”

De Madeleine Ferron / Le chemin des dames

Just Ain’t So – Knowledge Quotes

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.

Atr. Mark Twain

To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.

Nicolaus Copernicus

To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe.

Marilyn vos Savant

I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance.

Ruben Blades

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.

Albert Einstein

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.

Confucius

Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.

Karl Popper

All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions.

Leonardo da Vinci

Without self-knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave.

George Gurdjieff

Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance.

Hippocrates

The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts.

Bertrand Russell

Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom.

Plato

The true method of knowledge is experiment.

William Blake

Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.

Bertrand Russell

There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there.

Albert Einstein

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

Brian O’Driscoll

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge.

Daniel J. Boorstin

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.

Isaac Asimov

Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle.

Robert Anthony

Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.

Samuel Johnson

Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.

Jimi Hendrix

Knowledge – Etymology

Excerpted from Etymonline.

Knowledge

early 12c., cnawlece “acknowledgment of a superior, honor, worship;” for first element see know (v.). The second element is obscure, perhaps from Scandinavian and cognate with the –lock “action, process,” found in wedlock.

From late 14c. as “capacity for knowing, understanding; familiarity;” also “fact or condition of knowing, awareness of a fact;” also “news, notice, information; learning; organized body of facts or teachings.” Sense of “sexual intercourse” is from c. 1400. Middle English also had a verb form, knoulechen “acknowledge” (c. 1200), later “find out about; recognize,” and “to have sexual intercourse with” (c. 1300); compare acknowledge.

Know (v.)

Old English cnawan (class VII strong verb; past tense cneow, past participle cnawen), “perceive a thing to be identical with another,” also “be able to distinguish” generally (tocnawan); “perceive or understand as a fact or truth” (opposed to believe); “know how (to do something),” from Proto-Germanic *knew- (source also of Old High German bi-chnaan, ir-chnaan “to know”), from PIE root *gno– “to know.”

For pronunciation, see kn-. Once widespread in Germanic, the verb is now retained there only in English, where it has widespread application, covering meanings that require two or more verbs in other languages (such as German wissen, kennen, erkennen and in part können; French connaître “perceive, understand, recognize,” savoir “have a knowledge of, know how;” Latin scire “to understand, perceive,” cognoscere “get to know, recognize;” Old Church Slavonic znaja, vemi). The Anglo-Saxons also used two distinct words for this, the other being witan (see wit (v.)).

From c. 1200 as “to experience, live through.” Meaning “to have sexual intercourse with,” also found in other modern languages, is attested from c. 1200, from the Old Testament (Genesis iv.1). Attested from 1540s in colloquial phrases suggesting cunning or savvy (but often in the negative); to not know one’s ass from one’s elbow is from 1930.

As far as (one) knows “to the best of (one’s) knowledge” is late 14c. Expression God knows is from c. 1400. To know too much (to be allowed to live, escape, etc.) is from 1872. To know better “to have learned from experience” is from 1704.

You know as a parenthetical filler is from 1712, but it has roots in 14c. You know as a euphemism for a thing or situation unmentionable is from 1867; you-know-who for a person it is thought best not to name (but implying the hearer knows) is from 1840.

As an expression of surprise, what do you know attested by 1914. Don’t I know it in the opposite sense (“you need not tell me”) is from 1874. You never know as a response to something unexpected is attested from 1924.

know (n.)

“inside information,” 1883, in in the know, from know (v.) Earlier it meant “knowledge, fact of knowing” (1590s).

Why is Knowledge both Exoteric and Esoteric?

We can now take up the question next in order, which was worded: “Why do we consider certain aspects of knowledge esoteric and other aspects as exoteric?”

The answer to this practically involves the realization that some knowledge deals with the subjective side of life, and the other type of knowledge with the objective side; that one type of knowledge is concerned with energy and force (hence the danger of undue hasty revelation) and another with that which is energized. Therefore it will be apparent that until the faculty of ascertaining subjective information is achieved, whole ranges of facts will remain outside the scope of the consciousness of the majority.

As we have been told, the goal of evolution is the attainment of consciousness on all planes; owing to the small evolutionary attainment of the race only the physical plane is as yet in any way brought under conscious control. The knowledge which deals with that plane, the information which is concerned with densest objectivity, the sumtotal of facts connected with the five lower subplanes of the physical plane are (from the occult standpoint) considered exoteric. During the next two races the other two subplanes will be mastered, and the entire mass of knowledge concerned with physical and etheric matter, with energy, form and experience on the physical plane, will be easily available to man, and concern only his five physical senses.

Information and knowledge of the life evolving through the forms will for a considerably longer time be considered esoteric, as also will the apprehension and comprehension of the matter aspect, and the laws governing energy on the astral and the mental planes. This is stated in connection with average man, the rank and file of humanity. Objective or exoteric information is largely that obtained or ascertained by men in the Hall of Learning by means of the five senses, and by experiment. Experiment in due course of time and after many cycles of incarnation is transmuted into experience, and this produces eventually that which we call instinct, or the habitual reaction of some type of consciousness to a given set of circumstances, or of environment. These two factors of the senses and of experimental contact can be seen working out in the animal and human kingdoms; the difference between the two exists in the ability of the man consciously to remember, apprehend, anticipate, and utilize the fruits of past experience, and thus influence the present and prepare for the future. He employs the physical brain for this purpose. An animal likewise has an instinctual memory, apprehension, and an embryo anticipation, but (lacking mind) he is unable to adjust them to circumstances in the sense of prearrangement, and lacks the capacity consciously to utilize, and thus reap, the benefit of past events, and to learn from experience in the manner which a man does. The animal uses the solar plexus in the same way that a man uses the brain; it is the organ of instinct.

All that can be acquired by instinct and by the use of the concrete mind functioning through the physical brain can be considered as dealing with that which we call exoteric. It is thus evident how the range of fact will differ according to:

  1. The age of the soul.
  2. Experience developed and used.
  3. Condition of the brain and the physical body.
  4. Circumstances and environment.

As time progresses and man reaches a fair state of evolution, mind is more rapidly developed, and a new factor comes gradually into play. Little by little the intuition, or the transcendental mind, begins to function, and eventually supersedes the lower or concrete mind. It then utilizes the physical brain as a receiving plate, but at the same time develops certain centers in the head, and thus transfers the zone of its activity from the physical brain to the higher head centers, existing in etheric matter. For the mass of humanity, this will be effected during the opening up of the etheric subplanes during the next two races. This is paralleled in the animal kingdom by the gradual transference of the zone of activity from the solar plexus to the rudimentary brain, and its gradual development by the aid of manas.

As we consider these points, it will become apparent that the esoteric aspects of knowledge are really those zones of consciousness which are not yet conquered, and brought within the radius of control of the indwelling Entity.

The point to be emphasized is that when this is realized the true significance of the esoteric and the occult will be appreciated, and the endeavor of all KNOWERS will be to draw within the zone of their knowledge other units who are ready for a similar expansion of consciousness. In this thought lies the key to the work of the Brotherhood. They attract by Their force into certain fields of realization and endeavor and by that attraction and the response of those human atoms who are ready, the group soul on the upward arc, or a particular center of a Heavenly Man, is coordinated.

In the same way the animal is brought at a certain stage into the zone of influence of the lesser sons of mind – human beings who are the elder brothers of the animals, as the Masters of the Wisdom are the Elder Brothers where humanity is concerned. So the interlocking proceeds and the division of responsibility.

—————

In the Secret Doctrine we are told that there are seven branches of knowledge mentioned in the Puranas. – S. D., I, 192.

Correspondences can here be worked out in connection with:

  1. The seven Rays, the Lords of Sacrifice, Love and Knowledge.
  2. The seven states of consciousness.
  3. The seven states of matter or planes.
  4. The seven types of forces.
  5. The seven Initiations and many other septenates.

The Gnosis, the hidden Knowledge, is the seventh Principle, the six schools of Indian philosophy are the six principles – S. D., I, 299.

These six schools are:

  1. The school of Logic – Proof of right perception.
  2. The atomic school – System of particulars. Elements. Alchemy and chemistry.
  3. The Sankhya school – System of numbers. The materialistic school. The theory of the seven states of matter or prakriti.
  4. The school of Yoga – Union. The rule of daily life. Mysticism.
  5. The school of Ceremonial Ritual. – Religion. Worship of the devas or Gods.
  6. The Vedanta school – Has to do with non-duality. Deal with the relation of Atma in man to the Logos.

The Gnosis or hidden knowledge is the same as Atma vidya, or Theosophy, and includes the other six.

—————–

Excerpted from:

A Treatise on Cosmic Fire – Section Two – Introductory Questions

Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul