Hi Kali, 'Seeing through the illusion of separation'...would that be a definition of spiritual knowledge in your view?
On Jul 30, 6:35 am, Mahakali <[email protected]> wrote: > Rodger > > it is not about where I would search and find the meaning of > separation. Or, if found it where it would be. And,if found is it > right or wrong? > > These are conceptual bits for the mind to go on searching, finding, > explaining etc etc. You probably know (intellectually) how and where > separation came about. But, I hope, we do not want to start another > intellectual quest. > > What I am pointing to is to the (certainty) of being. Please try and > investigate yourself how hard it is to carry out your image of being a > separate self. Feel free to check how much time and effort your > entity, from morning to evening, has got to put into being a separate > individual. I came to the conclusion that my real nature is undivided. > Isn't your real nature (beingness) undivided? If not, why so much > effort in having to portray something or someone you are not? Is > effort part of your true nature or is it another thing you have to do > in order to be something else (i.e. different and separated from what > you really are)? Please investigate for yourself. > > There is a reason why the masters speak of the "illusion" of > separation... > > Once it is seen through as an "illusion", then, clarity can subsist. > > Kali > > On 29 Lug, 22:43, Rodger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Nascondi testo citato > > > - Mostra testo citato -
