Ajnana is one of the nastical or “heterodox” schools of ancient Indian philosophy, as well as the ancient school of great Indian doubts. It was a Muslim organization and a major rival of early Buddhism, Jainism and the Ajivika school. They have been recorded in Buddhist and Jain texts. They believed that it was impossible to gain knowledge of metaphysical nature or to discover the true value of philosophical proposals; and though knowledge was possible, it was useless and evil for the ultimate salvation. They were special in their opposition without spreading any constructive teaching of their own.
In a religious sense, jnanam means sacred knowledge or knowledge derived from studying, contemplating, observing and studying the scriptures, which are helpful in performing dharma, participating in righteous deeds and gaining liberty. Such knowledge can come from the observation, reasoning, or testimony of scriptures or from knowledgeable people.
In Hinduism, it refers to the knowledge contained in the spiritual part of the Vedas, especially the Aranyakas and the Upanishads, which is a collection known as the jnanakanda, part of the knowledge, as opposed to the traditional parts (Samhitas and Brahmanas) known as karmakanda. , part of culture. The Upanishads even go so far as to declare karma kanda as ignorance.
Therefore, ajnanam does not really mean ignorance, but a lack of accurate knowledge. Ignorance is a form of knowledge only because it is also a state of consciousness or awareness. You know something that may be wrong, but no one can say you do not know at all, especially if there is no consensus as to what constitutes true knowledge.
The distinction between knowledge and ignorance is blurred when we can clearly determine what constitutes accurate or incorrect information. Many facts about the truth around us or our existence are related and concise and true only in a limited sense. They make it even harder to distinguish between knowledge and ignorance.
Origin:
Traces of doubt can be found in Vedic sources such as the Nasadian hymn and the sraddha (faith) hymn (faith) in Rigveda. In the Brahmanas and the Early Upanishads doubts about the existence of a person after death were made, while Yajñavalkyya disputed the impossibility of knowing the absolute truth or atman. Yet the flourishing of skeptical thoughts seems to occur in a time of differing, contradictory, and inconsistent views, on morality, metaphysics, and religious beliefs. It is only natural, then, that in the absence of a standard of truth, some people wonder if there is a theory that can be true. The skeptics point directly at the conflicting views of the atman and the need to know everything, and that is why it is the critique of all-knowing, to find true knowledge. The spread of ideas arose during the pre-Buddhist era, as evidenced by the writings of Buddhists and Jains. The Buddhist Brahmajal Sutta lists four types (or schools) of Doubtors and fifty-eight other schools of thought, while Jain Sutrakrtanga counts sixty-seven “schools” of skeptics among three hundred and sixty-three schools of thought. Although the list is made up of Jain categories, the four main schools of thought, Kriyavada, Akriyavada, Ajnanikavada, and Vainayikavada, and their subgroups must have existed. Therefore, philosophical doubts are thought to have arisen during this historical period.
Just like knowledge, ignorance can be a measure. Many situations of knowledge and ignorance can exist or arise when mixed or when we do not have the proper means to prove them. For example, you may know something, but not in full. You may have the right information, but you may get wrong conclusions because of wrong assumptions or external influences. You may have the wrong information, but you may not know it at all. These situations and our ideas about them are summarized in the following situations of awareness.
- I know
- I do not know
- I know and do not know
- I neither know nor do not know
- I know I know
- I know I do not know
- I know I know and I know I do not know
- I neither know I know nor I know I do not know
There may be other categories in this case, where you add the level of knowledge and ignorance in each case, making the list even more difficult. (For example, I know partially, I know partially, I know partially and I do not know partially, and so on).
If you bring other people to these figures, it becomes even more difficult.
- I know.
- You know
- I do not know.
- You do not know
- I know and do not know
- You know and you do not know
- I neither know nor do not know
- You neither know nor do not know
- I know I know
- You know you know
- I know you know
- You know I know
This could go on … The point is that we do not have complete facts. Our knowledge is mixed. Therefore, we cannot always determine with certainty what is right or wrong is wrong. The story of the elephant and the nine blinds misses one important character. If the nine people could see, they could see the elephant well, even though they might have different opinions about how it related to or how they felt. The information may be personal and sensible. If so, some will be unaware of it.
In Buddhism, ajnana refers to ignorance of the Dhamma or teachings of the Buddha, especially the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. In the Yogasutras (2.34), it is the result of negative thoughts (vitarka) such as thoughts of violence (himsa) that can be triggered by greed, anger, and deception.
Thus, jnana is not just any knowledge but accurate knowledge or practical knowledge or knowledge from pure wisdom. In this sense ajnanam means any knowledge that is not correct or derived from a wrong idea, wrong understanding, imperfection, impurity, deception, deceit, falsehood, doubt or doubt, blurred thinking, and so on.
From a spiritual point of view, ajnanam refers to the spiritual ignorance, ignorance or unrighteousness or correction of one’s important nature or current status or means of attaining liberty. It refers to any knowledge or awareness that is deceptive or that puts you in the wrong place at the wrong time or that causes you to engage in wrongdoing.
In this sense, knowledge can be ignorance as well, and vice versa. Or to call it knowledge or ignorance, ignorance of itself, which creates spiritual ignorance, not only leads to suffering and spiritual fall but also keeps you bound in a mortal world. This kind of ignorance is common to all living beings who are trapped in a cycle of birth and death and are trapped in a dying world. As a result, they err on the side of truth and falsehood as well as act on improper desires that lead to suffering and rebirth.
Thus, ignorance is a major problem. It cannot be taken lightly because it deceives our thinking and endangers our lives, freedom and well-being. Therefore, in liberal religious teachings such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, ajnana (ignorance) is considered a problem, cause, condition, factor or effect that needs to be solved in the right ways and with the right knowledge.
Ajnana or spiritual ignorance is the normal or natural state of all living beings. It is present in and around us. It is not a good situation as most of our problems can be traced to it. Therefore, in art, literature and cultural discourse, compared or associated with darkness, mud (thimiram), bad quality, deception, filth, weakness (durbalam), confusion, ignorance, perversion, low status, dark way, demon. nature, eclipse, cloud, mode (guna), and so on.
In Hinduism, the way of ignorance is the downward path (addiction) that leads to the collapse of the dark worlds or the lower birth. The path of knowledge is the path leading upward (urdhwagati) that leads to a higher state or higher birth. The Bhagavadgita speaks of knowledge (jnanayoga) as one of the most important yoga of freedom. Its distinctive names are jnana-yajna, a sacrifice of knowledge or sacrifice that is conveyed to the knowledge of God and to those who are devoted to him.
It is also the most important of all yoga, because it is the foundation on which it can be practiced successfully. Even in worship of God and devotion, you must know the right way or the right way to do it. The text says that if you unknowingly serve the lower gods, spirits, idols, etc., you will reach them after the earth, but you will not attain the highest goal, namely freedom. To gain freedom, you must worship Isvara himself, and as such you need to overcome ignorance about yourself and God and know the proper methods or yoga.
Although criticized by the Buddhists for being the marāvikkhepikā (eel-wrigglers) in the Pali canon, the Buddha is shown to oppose the four logical fourfold options or catuṣkoṭi when asked about metaphysical questions, similar to the mind used by the Ajñānins. However, all four schools in Ajñānin classify their thinking as a five-fold formula, which seems to be based on the adoption of a four-fold formula. This may indicate that such a logical schema was a common feature of pre-Buddhism. Alternatively, since there is no well-known Indian school of scholars other than the Buddhists who adopt a fourfold logical schema, and since all skeptical schools are shown to have a fivefold form of denial, which seems to be based on the acceptance of a fourfold form of prediction, this may suggest fourfold schema established. Indeed, two of the leading Buddhist scholars, Sariputta and Moggallāna, were originally Sanjaya disciples; and the strongest element of doubt is found in early Buddhism, especially in the Aṭṭhakavagga sutra. Catuṣkoṭi was later used as a tool of Nagarjuna to create his own influential form of Madamakaka philosophy. Since skepticism is a philosophical and philosophical style of position, it is possible that the Ajñānin were influenced by other skilled Indian intellectuals such as Nagarjuna, Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa, and Shriharsha.
According to Diogenes Laërtius, Greek philosopher Pyrrho developed a philosophical view of India when Pyrrho was in the midst of the conquest of Alexander the Great. Based on the so-called “Aristocles passage,” Jayatilleke draws many parallels between the Pyrrhonist philosophy and the Indian philosophers of the day. In particular, it lists the following:
(1) There were no beliefs or opinions that were true or false and therefore
(2) We must not give a direct answer to any other reasonable means. That would also appear
(3) The four logical methods mentioned in Timon’s account (i.e., no, both true and false, not true or not) are similar to those of Sanjaya, the Buddhists, and possibly the three skeptical schools.
(4) The importance of the skeptical attitude is that Pyrrho lies in the fact that he promotes speechlessness (aphasia) and mental instability (ataraxia).
Scholars including Letter, Jayatilleke, and Flintoff, argue that Pyrrho was influenced, or at least agreed with the Indian skepticism instead of Buddhism or Jainism, based on the fact that he valued ataraxia, which could be translated as “freedom from anxiety.”. Jayatilleke, in particular, argues that Pyrrho may have been influenced by the first three schools of Ajñāna, as they too appreciated relief from anxiety. If this is true, then the Ajñānin methods may have been preserved in the existing work by the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus.
