user8686: In the Dhammapada there is a verse that says "To his own ruin the fool seeks knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness". Is there a distinction between wisdom and knowledge? It seems to me that seeking knowledge would be a good thing unless maybe you didn't do anything good with that knowledge. Please elucidate. Thank you. 

user254: There's a slightly different translation here which says "skill" instead of "knowledge":

The skill of a fool can only harm him; it destroys his merit and his wisdom (lit., it severs his head).

In the background story, the example of "skill" is of someone who "was very skilful in throwing stones at things".
Also, "cleaves his head" is a literal translation, the translator says that means "destroys his wisdom".

In case you were wondering about the story, I think it's true to say that the verses in the Dhammapada are "considered to be canonical", but that the stories are not. The Dhammapada Atthakatha (see also Wikipedia) is classified here as "paracanonical" or "noncanonical". I think that means that the stories illustrate the verses (or comment on the meaning of a word in the verse), however that the content of the stories are not considered to be Buddhavacana. The verses (not the stories) are canonical.

I think that this article (for example) quotes (from the suttas, which are canonical) other examples of potentially-foolish knowledge.

Generally in talking to bhikkhu one should try to avoid unsuitable subjects of discussion. Bhikkhus were several times rebuked by Lord Buddha for engaging in "animal-talk," which is defined by this quite common passage in the discourses: "Talk about kings and robbers, ministers and armies, danger and war, eating and drinking, clothes and dwellings, garlands and scents, relations, vehicles, villages and markets, towns and districts, women and heroes, street talk, talk by the well, talk about those departed in days gone by, idle chatter, talk upon the world and the sea, and also on gain and loss" (AN 10.69). When one comes to think about it, this list covers most of the subjects to be found in our newspapers! A layman may also remember that right speech, the third constituent of the Eightfold path, is defined as: restraint from lying, slander, rough speech, and chatter. Nor is it suitable to ask a bhikkhu what food and drink he likes, unless he is ill. Again, it is not proper to ask about the attainments which he has won through his Dhamma-practice. It is an offense of expiation for a bhikkhu to tell a layman even the truth regarding his own attainments, and an offense of Defeat should he be tempted to lie, saying that he has won what has not been won by him. Also among requests which are improper, as they could embroil a bhikkhu in what is not-Dhamma, are questions upon luck, signs, stars, and palms. All this is called animal-knowledge by Lord Buddha and he has made it an offense of wrong-doing for a bhikkhu to learn or to teach it.

An example of a sutta which contains this mention of "kings and robbers" is Kathavatthu Sutta (AN 10.70) and other suttas mentioned in a footnote on that page.
I think the reasoning is that not all topics (certainly topics of conversation, and I'd guess "topics/subjects/types of knowledge" as well) are worthwhile. In various suttas (e.g. Simsapa Sutta (SN 56.31) the Buddha emphasizes that he does not teach things which

are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.


user8157: I have attempted to examine the Pali in this verse. The key word appears to be 'ñattaṃ', which is said to mean 'intellectual faculty' rather than good knowledge (Ñāṇa). 

Ñatta
  (nt.) [nomen agentis from jānāti] the intellectual faculty,
  intelligence .

Therefore, this foolishness would not only apply to religion (such as religious people that seek worldly fame & material benefits from religion) but also to the worldly intellect in general (such as scientists, politicians & criminals that use their intellectual faculty to create harmful & destructive things & schemes). 

8686: <p>In the Dhammapada there is a verse that says "To his own ruin the fool seeks knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness". Is there a distinction between wisdom and knowledge? It seems to me that seeking knowledge would be a good thing unless maybe you didn't do anything good with that knowledge. Please elucidate. Thank you. </p>
 254: <p>There's a slightly different translation <a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=072" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> which says "skill" instead of "knowledge":</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The skill of a fool can only harm him; it destroys his merit and his wisdom (lit., it severs his head).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the background story, the example of "skill" is of someone who "was very skilful in throwing stones at things".</p>

<p>Also, "cleaves his head" is a literal translation, the translator says that means "destroys his wisdom".</p>

<hr>

<p>In case you were wondering about the story, I think it's true to say that the verses in the Dhammapada are "considered to be canonical", but that the stories are not. The <em><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1992/why-is-the-buddha-described-as-trackless#comment1452_1996">Dhammapada Atthakatha</a></em> (see also <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atthakatha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>) is <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/noncanon/comy/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">classified here</a> as "paracanonical" or "noncanonical". I think that means that the stories illustrate the verses (or comment on the meaning of a word in the verse), however that the content of the stories are not considered to be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhavacana" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddhavacana</a>. The verses (not the stories) are canonical.</p>

<hr>

<p>I think that <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel130.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> (for example) quotes (from the suttas, which are canonical) other examples of potentially-foolish knowledge.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Generally in talking to bhikkhu one should try to avoid unsuitable subjects of discussion. Bhikkhus were several times rebuked by Lord Buddha for engaging in "animal-talk," which is defined by this quite common passage in the discourses: "Talk about kings and robbers, ministers and armies, danger and war, eating and drinking, clothes and dwellings, garlands and scents, relations, vehicles, villages and markets, towns and districts, women and heroes, street talk, talk by the well, talk about those departed in days gone by, idle chatter, talk upon the world and the sea, and also on gain and loss" (AN 10.69). When one comes to think about it, this list covers most of the subjects to be found in our newspapers! A layman may also remember that right speech, the third constituent of the Eightfold path, is defined as: restraint from lying, slander, rough speech, and chatter. Nor is it suitable to ask a bhikkhu what food and drink he likes, unless he is ill. Again, it is not proper to ask about the attainments which he has won through his Dhamma-practice. It is an offense of expiation for a bhikkhu to tell a layman even the truth regarding his own attainments, and an offense of Defeat should he be tempted to lie, saying that he has won what has not been won by him. Also among requests which are improper, as they could embroil a bhikkhu in what is not-Dhamma, are questions upon luck, signs, stars, and palms. All this is called animal-knowledge by Lord Buddha and he has made it an offense of wrong-doing for a bhikkhu to learn or to teach it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>An example of a sutta which contains this mention of "kings and robbers" is <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.070.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kathavatthu Sutta (AN 10.70)</a> and other suttas mentioned in a footnote on that page.</p>

<p>I think the reasoning is that not all topics (certainly topics of conversation, and I'd guess "topics/subjects/types of knowledge" as well) are worthwhile. In various suttas (e.g. <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Simsapa Sutta (SN 56.31)</a> the Buddha emphasizes that he does not teach things which</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.</p>
</blockquote>
 8157: <p>I have attempted to examine the Pali in this verse. The key word appears to be 'ñattaṃ', which is said to mean 'intellectual faculty' rather than good knowledge (Ñāṇa). </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.1.pali.1352205" rel="nofollow">Ñatta</a>
  (nt.) [nomen agentis from jānāti] the intellectual faculty,
  intelligence .</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Therefore, this foolishness would not only apply to religion (such as religious people that seek worldly fame &amp; material benefits from religion) but also to the worldly intellect in general (such as scientists, politicians &amp; criminals that use their intellectual faculty to create harmful &amp; destructive things &amp; schemes). </p>
