No,sorry,Kali.I'm not making much sense of what you said. Even if,as you say,there is no one to know anything,still(and as you say)knowledge resides.This residing knowledge...where does it reside, or in what,or as what? And,is not this residing knowledge a something...a knowledge of something?
On Jul 29, 9:57 am, Mahakali <[email protected]> wrote: > What is needed to know is not "something" like some knowledge of > something , but, paradoxically, the knowledge resides in the fact that > there is no one to know anything. It is not the object that is being > sought but, instead, it is the absence of the subject that represents > the "knowledge" itself. > > Does it make sense? > > I hope it is clear enough... > > Kali > > On 29 Lug, 16:46, Rodger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Kali, if one is not able to define that how does one know that that > > is? > > > On Jul 29, 6:37 am, Mahakali <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The un-definable. > > > > I know it may come across as another clichès but none has ever been > > > able to define that. Only words such as the Truth, Presence , > > > Awareness, the unspeakable, the open secret, the elusive > > > obvious ..and other types of paradoxes which can only point to That. > > > > The problem with That is that the moment you word it it has already > > > changed. That is the nature of what is here and now. > > > > Kali > > > > On 29 Lug, 13:29, Rodger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > How would you define that?- Nascondi testo citato > > > - Mostra testo citato -
