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?
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.
And I told myself I was in a trap from which I wanted to escape! To escape where, do you, Man know where you want to go to break from tis inferno of your own existence? No, I do not know because I am blind and my Knowledge is in face an Illusion of Life wrapped in non-Knowledge, which is the Absolute Truth as unknown to me as the non-Knowledge.