What Must Be Known Before
One Can Understand

In 1970 a certain Indian politician went to France. There he met with a French politician who was associated with the ruling Gaullist party. An extract from their conversation appeared in The Times of India, July 18, 1983:

“Is there anything in particular you would like to do in Paris?” asked the Gaullist.

“I am a great admirer of de Gaulle,” replied the Indian visitor. “I should like to make a courtesy call on him.”

“But he is dead, sir.”

“What? Nobody told me in India during the briefing.”

“They must have presumed you were aware of it. He died four years ago.”

From this example we can see that everything cannot be spelt out in words; there are some things that one has to know oneself. If one already knows half, then one can be told the rest of the story; but if one does not have half of it in one’s mind beforehand, then how can one grasp the whole picture? However reasonable a thing may be, and however well substantiated, if one does not have some prior knowledge of it, it will remain beyond one’s comprehension.

If one says to someone, “So-and-so batsman scored a century,” he will immediately understand that what is meant by a century is a hundred runs in cricket. But if one says, “A century of hard struggle is needed for the development of a nation,” no one will truly understand; for no one can know what it is to devote oneself individually to constructive work for so long a period.