The Nature of Understanding
Understanding seems to be one of the functions of the brain which cannot be put into words, but the nature of the mind which has understood can somehow be put in a logically discernable manner. A state of understanding can somehow be placed into a state of contentment, in which the mind does not continue to churn over and process or hold in its space the information which it does not understand. Lack of understanding implies that the mind is not identified with the particular idea or information, therefore it has no place in the current order of the operation of the particular mind, and hence breed conflict with that which it does not understand. This occurs when the mind finds classification of knowledge in other aspects which it does not identify as parts of its own, and ignores it for its use, until there comes an experience which makes use of information or ideas about the particular subject with which we have the limited understanding. One would need to get in to the process of learning and make a difference between learning and simply gathering information, because learning can imply that the mind of the learner is simply gathering information as knowledge. A demonstration of what one has learnt would be, to put it into action, the knowledge which one has in a manner which would be useful to not only one self, but the next individual, this would inevitably show that one has a clear understanding of their knowledge. So by this observation, one would inevitably see that there is a difference between knowledge and understanding; and knowledge without understanding may breed conflict up until such a time the mind comes upon an experience which will put that particular set of knowledge into action in a relatable manner to the experience of the individual. Experience can only have meaning if the particular experience is not divided into different aspects of itself such as dividing the experiencer from the experience as well as a constant assignment of what is known to what is being experienced, otherwise it breeds conflict and denies understanding.
Understanding seems to be one of the functions of the brain which cannot be put into words, but the nature of the mind which has understood can somehow be put in a logically discernable manner. A state of understanding can somehow be placed into a state of contentment, in which the mind does not continue to churn over and process or hold in its space the information which it does not understand. Lack of understanding implies that the mind is not identified with the particular idea or information, therefore it has no place in the current order of the operation of the particular mind, and hence breed conflict with that which it does not understand. This occurs when the mind finds classification of knowledge in other aspects which it does not identify as parts of its own, and ignores it for its use, until there comes an experience which makes use of information or ideas about the particular subject with which we have the limited understanding. One would need to get in to the process of learning and make a difference between learning and simply gathering information, because learning can imply that the mind of the learner is simply gathering information as knowledge. A demonstration of what one has learnt would be, to put it into action, the knowledge which one has in a manner which would be useful to not only one self, but the next individual, this would inevitably show that one has a clear understanding of their knowledge. So by this observation, one would inevitably see that there is a difference between knowledge and understanding; and knowledge without understanding may breed conflict up until such a time the mind comes upon an experience which will put that particular set of knowledge into action in a relatable manner to the experience of the individual. Experience can only have meaning if the particular experience is not divided into different aspects of itself such as dividing the experiencer from the experience as well as a constant assignment of what is known to what is being experienced, otherwise it breeds conflict and denies understanding.