Kali, where would you search for the meaning of separation?And if you searched for it and found it,where would it be?And if your finding be right or be wrong is your finding right or is it wrong?
You may live in a world of separation but,is not that world of separation a whole world? Ok,knowledge happens.But,how is it that you have the knowledge that knowledge happens? On Jul 29, 3:23 pm, Mahakali <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rodger > > When faced with this question, I would search for the meaning of > "separation" and investigate what separation is and what it does and > see if it has to do with the fact I cannot find the "right" definition > that can fit That, the elusive, the un-definable etc etc. And, very > probably, I will come up with the answer that I live in a world of > "separation" thus,limited to how my mind defines it. > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > ::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > And to better explain my other post: > > What is to know is not the object of the knowledge i.e. I know this or > that (this or that would be the objects in question) but it is the > realization that there is no subject i.e. I know this ("I" would be > the subject) to know anything. There is no one to know anything. > Knowledge happens i.e. it is known/realized that it is as it is. > > This realization/knowledge does not reside in a "me" i.e. inside a > body. It does not have a location. It is not inside a something or > outside a something. Which is why it is said to be here (here meaning > everywhere and anywhere). > > The knowledge in question is more of a not-knowing, i.e. the > realization that one knows nothing. And,when one does realize the > nothing-ness of things, then, the impersonality of the knower is also > known. > > I hope I have not confused you even more... > > Kali > > On 29 Lug, 20:04, Rodger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Nascondi testo citato > > > - Mostra testo citato -
