I have always been puzzled by the term "self-knowledge" mentioned in translations of various Upanishads, the Gita and Philosophical texts of India. I took it to mean "the knowledge OF self" - that is, the awareness that a self exists within us; and that it is linked to the larger "self" (God).
Various texts I have read (casually) extol this as the highest knowledge; and they mention it repeatedly. I never understood why this is so praised, since it appears like a "fact" of Hindu philosophy. That is, let us say I "understand" that the self exists, what then? Why is this knowledge so special?
But today, thinking about this, it occured to me that what they mean by "self-knowledge" is really "personal knowledge". That is, knowledge about certain questions that make sense only within you. What they mean is that you need to find a truth to some questions about life only within yourselves.
This makes sense to me - modern psychotherapy is built much on the same idea. That an insight is gained by you into certain knots in a way that is "felt" rather than objectively obvious to all.
I think this is the main point of religion - it is not going to be solved by science, because science provides impersonal truths. But humans understand the world in a personal fashion; and each human has a world model that is different.
For example people who go through traumatic experiences with other people, but escape, often experience guilt. It is called survival guilt. You cannot "answer" survival guilt to a person by explaining the world is inherently random, which is a perfectly acceptable scientific truth.
The survivor needs to find a personal answer to this problem.
I think if this is the main role of religion, it is beneficial, it is complementary to science and also unlikely to be replaced by any amount of objective instruction. I think this is also why many intelligent people do not see any contradiction between being a man of science, and being deeply religious.
Various texts I have read (casually) extol this as the highest knowledge; and they mention it repeatedly. I never understood why this is so praised, since it appears like a "fact" of Hindu philosophy. That is, let us say I "understand" that the self exists, what then? Why is this knowledge so special?
But today, thinking about this, it occured to me that what they mean by "self-knowledge" is really "personal knowledge". That is, knowledge about certain questions that make sense only within you. What they mean is that you need to find a truth to some questions about life only within yourselves.
This makes sense to me - modern psychotherapy is built much on the same idea. That an insight is gained by you into certain knots in a way that is "felt" rather than objectively obvious to all.
I think this is the main point of religion - it is not going to be solved by science, because science provides impersonal truths. But humans understand the world in a personal fashion; and each human has a world model that is different.
For example people who go through traumatic experiences with other people, but escape, often experience guilt. It is called survival guilt. You cannot "answer" survival guilt to a person by explaining the world is inherently random, which is a perfectly acceptable scientific truth.
The survivor needs to find a personal answer to this problem.
I think if this is the main role of religion, it is beneficial, it is complementary to science and also unlikely to be replaced by any amount of objective instruction. I think this is also why many intelligent people do not see any contradiction between being a man of science, and being deeply religious.
