Just a few more responses for TT:

Rash? I see it as a segue for the revival of your case, or to move it from rest to activity.

A segue? Applied by whom? Why would either of us wish to bring about such a revival?

You begin to see grasshopper.

You cast yourself as the “master”?

However does that mean respect is now exchanged for something else?

Why might you infer that from what I said?

The ego in itself is a construct which emerges from the infinite consciousness and facilitates in the experience. It can play a role as master or servant. As the master one assumes the role of being secondary to creation, where one believes everything happens to ones self, rather than the obverse which is where everything emerges from ones Self.

“Facilitates” what? Or is the lack of a direct object with a transitive verb intended to convey some esoteric meaning?

Impressive as your assertion might be it does not address the point to which it apparently purports to respond.

No. In this case knowledge is the difference between belief and reality.

Earlier you seemed to deny that distinction. Can you have it both ways, or is one just empty verbosity?

The anchor keeps the knower in the process of knowing the known, stable and without the illusion that it itself, becomes what it experiences.

Are you saying that it is the becoming that is an illusion or that being what one experiences is an illusion?

One then lives in the world but does not become of it.

Quaintly Biblical, but what does it actually mean in terms of knowledge, either of the self, or anything else.

God does not leave its ascended status to lose itself in the dreams and fancies that are the manifestations of God.

I suspect you will have to do better than make bald statements, however convincing your air of authority may be, if you are to be taken seriously.
There never was nothing.