Not-knowing is knowing. Non-duality is duality. Non-violence is violence, in not knowing nothing, everything is known. It is the not-knowing nothing that knows everything because there is only everything and nothing.Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:33 am
How could Socrates have referred to the unknown knower if he knew the object asking the questions to examine what others knew?
Also, if I let it all go to see what stays then that what stays causes me to know something which defeats the Not knowing in order to Know!
Are you saying there is a neutral entity in each of us which conceptualizes not knowing in order to know?
All colour is an appearance of the same white light. The white light is nothing, the colour is everything. Similarly, the blank screen behind the words appearing on the computer is the medium for knowing as soon as the words appear on it, and as the words or images appear,they are instantly recognised and known. The screen has to be first, it has to be for anything to become known. The screen is the knower, not the concepts, although the concepts are part of the knowing as they make the screen known to itself by their appearance. These two dynamics are working as one inseparable phenomena.
It appears there is an ''entity'' here, yet it has no Id.entity. The identity arises in it...so for identity to arise, become known, there has to be something existing that knows, just as there has to be pure white light in order for colour to be known. The knower in this instant is the white light of pure knowing luminous aware consciousness. What is consciousness but the identity that is the imagination of itself as coloured. In other words, the empty fullness.
You are the non-personal stillness looking out at the personality playing.