Until I know what ‘Know’ means I live inside the Dictionary, defining each word using another word, earnestly expanding my vocabulary of erudite ignorance. I go from page to page chasing my tail with no hope of exit.
‘Knowing’ precedes Model, is prior to Alphabet, preemptive of Number. You cannot newly define it, for it precedes the concept of ‘Definition’.
You cannot newly seek it, for it preempts the concept of ‘Seek’. You cannot newly prove it, for it is prior to the notion of ‘Proof’.
Yet, you can never know anything about Knowing without being in contradiction to the act of Knowing itself. ‘Knowing’ and ‘Not-Knowing’ is a distinction always and only made in a state of ‘Knowing’.
If you can newly define the word ‘Know’, by that very fact, what you have defined is not the word ‘Know’.
All Religions, orthodox or scholarly [as from a University], when in their metaphysical moods, claim for themselves the: ‘Perfection of Knowledge’.
Shūnyam stands alone mocking this claim, assigning to itself: ‘The Perfection of Ignorance’.
If you say: ‘I Know’, you are off; if you say: ‘I don’t Know’, you are equally off. What’s common between them is the letter ‘I’.
This is the original state of ‘Delusion’[Avidya, Agnana, not to be confounded with the Vedanthic interpretation as ‘Error’].
From the Isa Upanishad: ‘Into a blinding darkness go those who worship ignorance; into a greater darkness, those who delight in knowledge.’
From the Kena Upanishad: ‘Other is it than the Known; just as much, above the Unknown. Thus have we heard from our ancestors; so was it explained’
Walt Whitman wrote: ‘A child said, What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands; How could I answer the child?…I do not know what it is anymore than he.’