It is one thing to remember, another to know. To remember is to safeguard something entrusted to the memory. But to know is to make each thing one's own, not depend on the text and always to look back to the teacher. "Zeno said this, Cleanthes said this." Let there be space between you and the book.
And then, what is the spiritual being that does not know its Sacred Self? But knowing it means to refer to non-Knowledge and be an Image from the non-Knowledge as well. Then I ask again: what is the spiritual being that does not refer its Sacred Self to non-Knowledge? Is it the Spiritual Being that no longer is an image of its own destiny in non-Knowledge? Is this being truly spiritual when the Absolute Truth of Knowledge consists precisely of non-Knowledge? Or in not knowing it?
The spiritual being wants to be Destiny and the Destiny wants to become Evolution, and the Evolution wants to become Fulfillment, the Fulfillment wants to become Truth and, oh my, Truth wants to be a part of Knowledge, when it is precisely non-Knowledge.
After what I have stated, anyone can tell that Knowledge rests on the Void in order to be known, precisely because the Knowledge's Self is the Being, the opposite of the Void, but, and I recommend attention, the opposite of the Void does not mean that is is that "something", that in fact has a subsistence meaning, no! Not in the least.