Version - 47: 2015

POINTERS
ON THE PATH OF KNOWLEDGE

1
 Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus

St. Thomas Aquinas

Truth is the correspondence of objects with understanding.

2
1
THE STRUCTURE OF EXPERIENCE

EXPERIENCE IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF

KNOWING.
● There can be no experience in the absence of knowing. Only that
which is knowable can be experienced. The unknowable cannot be
experienced.
Sense-objects, thoughts and feelings constitute the content of our
experience.

KNOWING IS EXPERIENCED AS THE PRESENCE AND

ABSENCE OF ACTS OF KNOWING.
● Acts of knowing may be classified as: sense perceiving (= seeing,
hearing, etc.), thinking (= imaging, conceptualizing, etc.) and feeling
(= sensations, emotions & volitions)

AN ACT OF KNOWING IS EXPERIENCED AS THE KNOWN

AND THE KNOWER.
● The known and the knower constitute the total content of an act of
knowing.
- The known is experienced as an object (= a sense object, a
thought or a feeling);
- The knower is experienced as the perceiver, the thinker and
the feeler; [the three constituting the knowing subject].
o The knower is related to the known through an act of knowing,
thus bringing it back and unifying it into its subjectivity.

3
THE FOREGROUND AND THE BACKGROUND
CONSTITUTE THE TOTAL FIELD OF EXPERIENCE.
● The Presence of acts of knowing constitutes the foreground of
experience (= manifestation, existence); their absence is its
background (= non-manifestation, inexistence, emptiness). The
presence and absence of acts of knowing exclusively constitute the
domain of experience – [nothing else can be known].
To claim that anything can be experienced beyond the
foreground and the background is a grave fallacy.

● Subjectively, the boundary of experience is set by the three states of

waking, dreaming and deep [dreamless] sleep. Waking (= objective, or
conventional reality), and dreaming [= subjective reality] constitute
the presence of the foreground’s contents; while deep sleep constitutes
its content-less background. [Nothing else can be experienced].
Conventional reality is experienced within the waking state;
subjective reality is experienced in dreams, daydreaming,
hallucinations and other paranormal states.

THE KNOWN CANNOT BE THE KNOWER.

● Within conventional reality the knower experiences the known; but
the known can never experience the knower. Whatever is experienced
cannot be the experiencer (= the knower).
o When, eventually, the knower is discovered to be a knowable
entity, it will be conceived that there is a ‘Knowing’ (= an
awareness) that experiences both the knower and the known.

4
 The foreground (= the known and the knower) and the
background (= their absence) are knowable. That which
experiences the presence and absence of acts of knowing, the
known and the knower cannot be another knower – it is
postulated as the ground of knowing - or simply as
‘Knowing’.

● Experiencing (= Knowing) is all-inclusive; there can be no ‘beyond’

to experience – and hence, no ‘within’ to it. Nothing can be
experienced other than the foreground and the background.
Other than something and nothing, there can be no middle
term.

2
THE FACULTIES OF KNOWING
CONVENTIONAL REALITY IS EXPERIENCED THROUGH
THE THREE FACULTIES OF PERCEIVING, THINKING AND
FEELING.
● The contents of acts of knowing (= the knower & the known) are
experienced through the three faculties of knowing.
Nothing can be known other than the presence and absence of the
content of these faculties; no determination is possible when these
faculties are inactive.
● Perceiving is the faculty by which external sense properties are
experienced.
Objective sense properties are manifested as modifications in knowing
[as seeing, hearing, etc.].

5
Sense perception and its objects share the same basic determinations.
Sense properties determining a sense object are reflected as subjective
sense perceptions through the mediation of sense faculties and sense
organs.

6
 o The definition of a sense object exclusively by sense properties is
incomplete. Sense objects are perceived by relating different
sense attributes, as well as thinking and feeling attributes.
Thinking and feeling attributes complete the definition of
sense-objects by providing the categories of identity,
relation, similarity, difference, causality and agency - as
well as judgments of reality, externality, separateness and
otherness.

● Thinking is the experiencing of sets of related sensory images and

their verbal interpretations.
Acts of thinking include: cognizing, conceptualizing,
recollecting, deliberating, daydreaming, judging, etc.
o A single thought can only be experienced when related to other
thoughts. To be experienced, a chain of thought elements has to
be conceptually related.
When an elemental thought appears it is interpreted by the
next thought, both being further interpreted by the following
thought …and so on – until we have a chain of thoughts.
o The contents of thinking are defined not only by thought
attributes, but also by sensory and feeling attributes.

● Feeling is the faculty by which sensations, emotions, and volitions

are experienced. Sensations include pain, pleasure, hunger, etc
Emotions include sentiments, dispositions, moods, passions, etc..
Volition takes the form of interest, intent, will, choice, hope, desire,
attachment, aversion, drives…
Sets of predominately emotional or volitional elements
[together with internal-sense and thought elements] constitute
a particular feeling.

7
 o Sensations, emotions and volitions are experienced as subjective
modifications in knowing. A feeling is defined by sense,
emotional or volitional attributes as well as thought elements. To
be experienced, a feeling has to be cognized by thought and
related to bodily sensations or external conditions.

● Contrary to conventional wisdom, all knowable entities (= the

known & the knower) are determined through integrating the three
faculties of knowing, [despite the fact that each has a different “taste”
of its own]. Although one particular faculty seems to be predominant in
one category of objects, the other two are always acting with it in
unison.

3
ACTS OF KNOWING

CONVENTIONAL REALITY IS EXPERIENCED THROUGH

THREE SETS OF ACTS: PERCEIVING, COCEIVING AND
FEELING.
● The content of an act of knowing is experienced as the known and
the knower (= the ‘I’ and the not-‘I’) - these appear as necessary
interdependent transformations of knowing:
- Acts of knowing are activated through the corresponding
faculties of perceiving, conceiving and feeling;
- An act of knowing implies the experience of a knowable
object (= a sense-object, a thought, or a feeling);
- An isolated object or event can never be experienced by
itself; it can only be experienced within a context of
multiplicity and diversity.
- A multiplicity of objects requires a knower [as a subjective
center], to relate them – first to itself, and then to each
other;
8
 - The knower and the known have to necessarily appear as
separated; otherwise they could not be related.

THE KNOWN AND THE KNOWER ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY

EXPERIENCED – IF ONE IS ABSENT, THE OTHER IS ALSO
ABSENT.
● An act of knowing, relates the knower to the known - forming a
mutually interdependent structure – none of the three can be
experienced on its own.
- Without an act of knowing neither the knower nor the
known can be experienced. [In the absence of seeing, the
seen and the seer are also absent].
- Without the known neither the knower nor an act of
knowing can be experienced. [In the absence of the seen,
seeing and the seer are also absent].
- Without the knower neither the known nor an act of
knowing can be experienced. [In the absence of a seer,
seeing and the seen are also absent].

AN ACT OF KNOWING, THE KNOWN AND THE KNOWER

ARE ONE AND THE SAME FACT OF EXPERIENCE.
● The fact that the perceiver, the thinker and the feeler appear and
disappear with their objects implies that:
- Either the knower, acts of knowing and the known do not
exist as such [in contradiction to facts of experience], or
- Three words are used to describe one single fact of
experience – an act of knowing which is necessarily
projected and differentiated into the known and the knower.

9
 Seeing, the seen and the seer are inseparable – they are
conventionally and necessarily experienced as three, but
factually they are essentially one and are basically of the
same nature as seeing.

SENTIENCE, ALERTNESS, IDENTITY, INTEREST, INTENT

AND ATTENTION CONSTITUTE THE BASIC SUBJECTIVE
CONDITIONS FOR EXPERIENCING ACTS OF KNOWING.
● Depending on how interest and intent direct attention, different
modes [or tastes] of knowing can be experienced:
- Normally, intent and interest direct attention to a particular
object or event – this is the objective taste of knowing;
[e.g., a particular form or sound].
- Another taste is experienced when attention is directed to
the particular act of sensing, thinking or feeling; [e.g.,
hearing itself, instead of only the sound].
- A rarely recognized taste of knowing is experienced when
attention is directed toward the empty background of an act
of knowing; [e.g., the silence underlying a sound].
o All acts of knowing may be considered as different tastes
manifested on a content-less background.
o The Ground which is aware of the foreground and the
background has no identifiable taste of its own – [since it is that
through which the presence and absence of all tastes of knowing
are experienced].

10
4
THE KNOWN

THE DOMAIN OF THE KNOWN IS EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED

TO SENSE OBJECTS, THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS.
● The known is objectively experienced as a combination of sense-,
thought and feeling attributes – they are subjectively reflected as
perceiving, conceiving and feeling – which are the three sets of tastes
of ‘Knowing’.
Subjective sensations are reflected as objective properties and
vice versa. [Colors and forms are experienced as
modifications in seeing; pitch, loudness and timber are
experienced as modifications in hearing, etc.].

ONLY THAT WHICH IS DETERMINED CAN BE

EXPERIECED.
● The indeterminate cannot be differentiated and, therefore, cannot be
experienced. In the absence of determination, nothing can be known.
The known is determined by a set of multiple sense-,
thought- and feeling attributes (= qualities, characteristics,
properties). In the absence of attributes, neither the known
nor the knower can be experienced.
o Determination can only function within the foreground (= the
waking & dream states) when the faculties of knowing are active;
[therefore, determinations cannot be set beyond that domain].

o Diverse attributes have to be related to constitute an object. Both

the knower and the known can only be experienced as related sets
of attributes.

11
 o Different modes of the subject have to be separated from- and
related to their corresponding objects [the perceiver to sense
objects, the thinker to thoughts and the feeler to feelings].

● Knowing exhibits a strong drive toward more determination (=

definition, concreteness, clarity, precision). Weaker determinations
produce a sense of lack and an urge toward more definition. Higher
degrees of definition monopolize attention. Attention wanes with
weaker determinations.
- Feelings constitute the least defined mode of experience;
- Thoughts are better defined than feelings, but less defined
than sense objects.
- Sense objects constitute the ultimate mode of determination.
Due to their greater degree of definition, sense objects
attract more attention than thoughts or feelings.

● Depending on the type of the object experienced, one group of

attributes or another appears as dominant.
- When sense attributes predominate, sense-objects are
perceived;
- When thought attributes predominate, thought constructs
are cognized;
- When affective attributes predominate, feelings are intuited.

NO ATTRIBUTE CAN BE EXPERIENCED BY ITSELF.

● A particular sense-, thought- or feeling-attribute cannot be
experienced apart from other attributes. Only related sets of attributes
can be experienced.

12
 E.g., The color white by itself cannot be experienced unless
related to other attributes such as surface or shape.

UNLESS RELATED TO OTHER KNOWABLE ENTITIES, A

SINGLE ENTITY CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED.
● A particular object can only be experienced in relation to other
objects - never by itself.
A knowable entity cannot be experienced in isolation from
other entities. To be experienced, a knowable entity must be
differentiated from- and related to other entities

● Multiplicity [expressed through difference and diversity] is a

necessary condition for experiencing the particularity of a knowable
entity through its relation to- and difference from other entities. In the
absence of multiplicity and diversity no relation is possible and,
therefore, nothing can be experienced.
Due to the relational nature of knowing, no attribute can be
experienced in the absence of other attributes; no object can
be experienced in the absence of other objects. No subject can
be experienced in the absence of other subjects.

● Knowable entities are interdependent. By itself, neither a single

attribute nor a particular object can be experienced in the absence of
other attributes or objects.
o An object can only be experienced when a subject is present; the
subject can only be experienced when an object is present.
e.g., The seer and the seen are mutually interdependent;
neither can be experienced in the absence of the other. Seeing
necessarily implies something seen [a visual form], which in
turn, implies a seer – both related through an act of seeing.
Hearing necessarily implies something heard [a sound],

13
 which, in turn, implies a hearer – both related through an act
of hearing.

RELATIONS CAN ONLY BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN

KNOWABLE ENTITIES SHARING THE SAME NATURE.
● Only attributes and objects essentially of the same nature can be
related. Logically, it should be impossible to relate attributes or
objects of different natures. But the fact is that we do relate attributes
and objects of seemingly dissimilar natures. Though diverse entities
appear as of different natures, essentially they share the same basic
nature.
Sense-objects, thoughts and feelings appear as if of
completely different natures. Even within sense perception,
visual objects are considered to be of a different nature than
sounds, tastes, smells, etc.. If this were true, they could never
be related. The fact is that every aspect of experience can be
related and must, therefore, be sharing the same basic nature
with all other aspects.

● To complete an act of knowing the knower has to be related to the

known. If both were of completely different natures, they could not be
related. The fact is that the knower is related to diverse sense-objects,
thoughts and feelings.
o To be related, the knower must be of the same basic nature as the
known. ‘Knowing’ is the essential nature of its acts and their
contents (= the known & the knower) and must, therefore, be the
common nature of all that can be experienced.

THE REALITY ATTRIBUTED TO THE KNOWN IS

MAINTAINED BY SEPARATENESS, CAUSALITY AND
CONTINUITY.

14
● The nature of knowing implies the separation of the knower from
the known, as well as relating the known to the knower. Unless the
known appears as separate from the knower, neither can be related..
● Conventional reality is characterized by change (= mutability,
modification). Attention is attracted to new content and/or its
modification. In the absence of change, attention cannot be maintained
for long.
● The experience of an object depends on the continuity of its presence
for a specific duration. Attention is attracted to what it believes to be
enduring. The perception of an object as real depends on the continuity
of its presence to the subject.
An act of knowing is an event originating, persisting and
ending in time. Without enduring for a minimum duration,
no knowable entity (=subject or object) can be experienced.

● Causality reinforces the continuity of the known and the knower as

enduring realities. This is achieved by ascribing causes for objects,
events and conditions – and thus relating them to their past through
memory.
To maintain the sense of reality of an object or event, it must
be related by memory to previous states of the object or past
events as their cause. Without relating the present content of
knowing [as an effect] to past content [as a cause],
experience becomes chaotic and loses its sense of orderly
reality.

15
5
THE KNOWER
THE KNOWER IS IDENTIFIED WITH A SELF-IMAGE
STRUCTURED BY SETS OF ATTRIBUTES.
● The knower is projected as an integral self-image, commonly
expressed by the pronoun ‘I’, and exclusively constituted by acts of
knowing (=sensing. Thinking & feeling):
- Identity (= individuality): The body [as the sensory
identity], the ‘I-concept’ [as the thought identity] and the
sense of presence [as the feeling identity and sentience] –
the three are conceptually unified into an individual
identity.
- Subjectivity (= agency / doer-ship): The perceiver, the
thinker and the feeler [conceptually unified as the subject];
- Personality: Diverse physical, mental and affective
attributes [conceptually unified as a person].
o The different modes of the self-image, though intermittently
appearing and disappearing in direct experience, are related
through memory and identified with a persistent sense of
selfhood.
o All the modes of the self-image are experienced – a fact that
makes it a knowable entity. The awareness that experiences the
self-image cannot be another higher entity [another Self or
knower], but only ‘Knowing’ itself.

THE KNOWER IS A CENTRALIZING FUNCTION, NOT AN

ENTITY.
● Although firmly believed to be an entity, the knower, in fact, is
mainly a function – conventionally responsible for:

16
 - Coordinating the three knowing faculties by relating their
acts to a knowable object,
- Unifying the perceiver, the thinker and the feeler into a
knowing subject,
- Relating the diverse contents of experience.
(To experience an object a number of attributes have to be
related and integrated into a single entity; to experience an
object, it has be related to other objects; similarly, the
subject has to be related to other subjects).

AGENCY IS ASSUMED BY IDENTIFYING THE KNOWER-

FUNCTION WITH THE PERCIEVER, THINKER AND
FEELER.
● The self-image appropriates all acts of knowing by identifying with-,
and assuming ownership of-, agency for-, and control of- the faculties
and acts of knowing.
Although this is conventionally necessary, close observation
shows that all acts of knowing are ultimately spontaneous in
nature. This implies that the perceiver, the thinker and the
feeler are only conceptual structures ascribed by acts of
knowing to relate its contents.
o The self-image is believed to be in control of its faculties and acts
of knowing. As the experiencer, it is commonly assumed to be
the agent (=actor, doer, controller) that causes the experience of
sense objects and/or events [as the perceiver], thoughts [as the
thinker] and feelings [as the feeler].
[e.g., I hear means that I am the actor or agent responsible
and in control of my act of hearing].
o The self-image, assuming the function of agency, claims acts of
knowing, [although it is itself conceptually constituted by a set of
knowable attributes and, therefore, knowable]. As an agent (= a

17
 perceiver, a thinker, a feeler), it appropriates the faculties and
acts of perceiving, conceiving and feeling.

● Relations between multiple and diverse knowable entities can only

be established through the centralizing function of self-identity. To
establish a relation between objects, each has to be first related to a
center:
Two visual attributes (e.g., shape & color) can only be
experienced as a visual object after relating each to the
seer; two or more visual objects can only be related by first
relating each to the seer.

● Acts of knowing cannot occur in the absence of the subject-object

duality. Normally, in the absence of a self-image [as in dreamless
sleep] there can be no subject-object duality and, therefore, acts of
knowing [which are relational by nature] cannot take place.
o The knower relates the set of attributes constituting an object and
relates the object to other objects. The knower relates and
unifies its different aspects and relates the self to other selves.

● The knower appears as a persistent, changeless unity; while the

known can only be experienced within a context of mutability,
diversity, multiplicity and impermanence.
In fact, the perceiver, the thinker and the feeler appear and
disappear with their corresponding objects. The belief in
the persistence of the knower as an entity is conceptually
structured by memory.

● Direct experience [contrary to common belief], shows that the

known is experienced before the knower; they are experienced
sequentially, not simultaneously.

18
 Attention can be directed either to the knower or to the
known; but not to both at the same time. When an object is
perceived, attention is solely directed to the object; when it
is directed to the knower, the experience of the object
subsides [but persists as a memory]. The rapid fluctuation
of attention between the knower and the known creates the
impression of their co-existence as enduring entities.
o The knower can only be experienced in hindsight. After
experiencing an object, the knower is posited as a separate entity
(= an agent) responsible for executing the act of knowing. The
seeming persistence of the knower is maintained by memory.

19
6
THE BACKGROUND

THE FOREGROUND AND ITS BACKGROUND ARE

MUTUALLY INTERDEPENDENT.
● The contents of the foreground can only appear on a content-less
background. The background can only be experienced in relation to the
foreground. Since both are mutually interdependent, they can only be
two apparent aspects of a single fact of direct experience.
The foreground can only be experienced through its
opposition to the background; it has no other determination.
Due to the absence of definition, attention cannot be directed
to the background except in relation to the foreground.

THE BACKGROUND IS EITHER DIRECTLY OR

INDIRECTLY EXPERIENCED.
● Several aspects of the background may be experienced:
o When attention is directed to it, the background can be
observed within the foreground. An object can only be
perceived in opposition to its absence (= its background:
objectless space, soundless silence, eventless time, thought-
free stillness and feeling-less quietude, etc.).
o Certain modes of the background are retrospectively
recognized as:
- The empty gaps between two perceptions, two thoughts or
two feelings [which form the boundary for determining
each].
- Dreamless sleep may be recollected only in hindsight.
[When attention is regained upon waking, the experience of

20
 the absence of the knower, acts of knowing and the known is
recalled].
o Under certain circumstances, the background may be directly
experienced.
- The background, as an objective emptiness, may be
apperceived when the content of experience is absent while
attention remains active. [Normally, if attention becomes
inactive, one falls into deep sleep].
- A rarely recollected mode of the background –sleepless
sleep- is experienced when attention is re-activated while in
dreamless sleep.

THE SPACE-TIME MATRIX IS THE EMPTY BACKGROUND

ON WHICH OBJECTS AND EVENTS ARE MANIFESTED.
● Space is the empty background on which spatial attributes appear.
The concept of space regulates the determination of spatial properties
and relations.
Spatial attributes include: location, extension, distance,
dimensions, movement, etc.. Space is the empty background
on which these spatial attributes appear.
o An empty spatial extension separates a visual object from other
objects and, thus, sets a boundary for each object. Without this
gap, objects become undifferentiated and, consequently,
indiscernible.
- Within the auditory field, the background of silence
determines the boundaries of sound.
- Within the other sensory fields it becomes the absence of
the corresponding sensory attributes.
- Within thinking, emptiness is experienced as stillness.
- Within feeling (= emotions & volitions) it is experienced
as quietude.
21
● All the contents of the foreground (= sense objects, thoughts &
feelings) are experienced as events in time. Time is the event-less
background of temporal attributes and relations; it is the emptiness on
which events occur, persist for certain duration, undergo changes and
eventually disappear.
Temporal attributes include: past, present and future;
beginning and end; duration, sequence, and continuity;
change, movement and causality. Time is the background on
which these attributes occur.
o Time separates and differentiates events. Whatever is
experienced has to endure through a temporal span otherwise it
cannot be experienced.
o Only temporal attributes can be experienced – [Time, like space,
can only be conceptualized]. The inception, duration, change and
termination of events can be observed, but not time itself.

22
7
THE GROUND

‘KNOWING’ IS THE AWARENESS OF THE INTEGRAL

CONTENT OF EXPERIENCE AND IS, ITSELF, THE
‘GROUND’ OF EXPERIENCE.
● Since the presence and absence of all acts of knowing are
experienced, the ‘Knowing’ that experiences them is posited as the
Ground of Knowing – [a stand or a perspective from which the
totality of experience is observed - and which is itself nothing but
‘Knowing’].
o The foreground and the background are experienced - not by
“what?” or by “whom?” - but by ‘Knowing’ (= experiencing /
consciousness / awareness / the Ground).

THE GROUND, THOUGH UNKNOWABLE, IS UNDENIABLE.

● Within conventional reality there can be no certainty. Uncertainty
reigns over all the contents of the foreground, [where error is always a
possibility].
The content of acts of knowing may be true or false, but the
fact that: “There is a ‘Knowing’ that is aware of all acts of
knowing” – [regardless of the truth or falsehood of their
content] is an absolute certainty – actually, the only
certainty.

DETERMINATION, SPACE, TIME, CAUSALITY, AGENCY

AND IDENTITY – ARE THE PRINCIPAL CONDITIONS
REGULATING CONVENTIONAL REALITY.

23
● Determination (= the ‘what?’), space (= the ‘where?’), time (= the
‘when?’), causality (= the ‘why?’), agency & identity (= the ‘who?’),
and process & sequence (= ‘the ‘how?’) - are necessary conditions for
experiencing the foreground and structuring it into conventional
reality.
These conditions are valid only when relating contents within
the foreground. They become invalid [non-questions] when
used to relate the foreground to the background, or both the
foreground and the background to the ground.
o The faculties of knowing determine all knowable attributes
through acts of knowing. The ‘Knowing’ that is aware of the
determining attributes cannot be determined by them.
o Though an absolute certainty, ‘Knowing’, being indeterminate,
cannot be experienced (= perceived, thought or felt). It is neither
‘something’ nor ‘nothing’ [since it is aware of both].
o ‘Knowing’ is a living dynamic process of an indefinable nature,
spontaneously projecting its content and withdrawing it – [a verb,
not a nameable entity].

‘KNOWING’ CANNOT BE RELATED TO ITS OWN

CONTENT.
● Attribute-less, unconditioned and indefinable, the ground can be
related neither to the foreground nor to the background. ‘Knowing’
cannot be the cause of-, agent for-, nor the source of its contents – [it is
itself its own content and, hence, cannot be related to itself].
‘Knowing’ does not generate acts of knowing; these acts
are its very nature – it shines spontaneously as acts of
knowing.

THE PRESENCE AND ABSENCE OF ACTS OF KNOWING

ARE CAUSELESS.

24
● There can be no discernible cause for the seeming transformation of
‘Knowing’ into acts of knowing. The transformation is spontaneous
and causeless. [In fact, there is no transformation at all – acts of
knowing are nothing but ‘Knowing’ itself].
o ‘Knowing’ experiences itself as acts of knowing and, therefore,
has no relation with them [since a unity cannot form a
relationship with itself];
- It has no source or origin, no beginning and no end;
- It has neither a cause [as its source], nor a separate content
[as its effect];
- It has neither reason, meaning nor goal for its transformation
[these are conceptual determinations – operating only within
the foreground of conventional reality - No what? where?
when? how? why? or who?].
- It does not manifest in definite stages or through a particular
process; – [Notice the spontaneous transformation of deep sleep into a
dream].
- It has no boundaries [no within and no beyond];

● We may speculate that the Ground, through an all-powerful drive

toward experiencing itself- a passion for being and manifesting, a
fascination with the variety of is own content and an infatuation with
its self-image - somehow reveals itself spontaneously as acts of
knowing.
- ‘Knowing’ can neither be objective nor subjective [despite
the fact that it is felt as intimately subjective]; nor is it
something or nothing, [since it is aware of both].
- ‘Knowing’ cannot be experienced as something known;
neither can it be the experiencer [the self-image or the
knower], as the latter is also experienced.

25
AWARENESS OF THE PRESENCE, CHANGE AND ABSENCE
OF THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE SELF-IMAGE
MAKES IT A KNOWABLE ENTITY – AN OBJECT.
● When closely examined, it is discovered that all the determinations
of the self-image make it a knowable entity. Since all attributes of the
self-image are experienced, it can be viewed as an object.
That which experiences the self-image - and all the faculties
and acts of knowing attributed to it – may be postulated as the
Ground of selfhood (= the ‘I-principle’).

● The Ground of Selfhood, which experiences these aspects of the

self-image is an absolute certainty, yet remains indefinable. It is neither
personal nor impersonal, neither objective nor subjective - since it is
the ground on which all aspects of the self-image arise and subside.
One can experience all aspects of the self-image but not the
Ground of Selfhood that is aware of them. Being
indeterminate, the ground cannot be experienced - but,
nevertheless, remains an undeniable certainty. Problems arise
when the ground is identified with the self-image.
● In the absence of determination, nothing can be differentiated or
experienced. The ground is indeterminate and, hence, the Ground of
Knowing and the Ground of Selfhood are one and the same.

“I KNOW THAT I KNOW” is an

indisputable fact; more accurately:
“THERE IS A ‘KNOWING’ THAT
EXPERIENCES THE PRESENCE AND
ABSENCE OF ALL MY ACTS OF
KNOWING”… and, though unknowable, is
undeniably and irrefutably an absolute
certainty.

26
 APPENDIX

Perspectives
(1) Perspectives are universal conceptual frameworks.
● A perspective presents an integral view explaining the
relations between:
- Experience and its source,
- The foreground, the background and the ground of
experience.
- The knower and the known.
● Three main perspectives can be identified:
- The objective perspective (= realism, empiricism,
materialism)
- The subjective perspective (= idealism, mentalism)
- The transcendental perspective.
(2) The objective perspective views objective reality as
the cause of subjective experience.
All modifications in the objective and subjective realms are
conditioned by causality. Modifications in consciousness are
seen as subjective effects of objective properties acting as their
causes.
Sense objects are considered as the cause of the subject’s
sensory perceptions. Likewise, the subject’s thoughts and
feelings are seen as effects of objective causes.
It is commonly believed that thoughts and feeling are directly
(immediately) apprehended; while objective sense qualities can
27
only be known indirectly through the mediation of sense
faculties and organs.

(3) The reality of sense objects [established through

agreement among ‘normal’ observers] cannot be
questioned.
The objective domain is separate from the subjective and
persists regardless of the subject.
Sense objects are believed to have distinct intrinsic being
(=essence, substance).
*
(4) The subjective perspective considers spontaneous
changes in the subject’s consciousness as the direct
causes of objective experience.
All the contents of experience are viewed as ultimately
subjective; the objective is no more than a projection of the
subject, a hallucination, an illusion. Subjective
modifications are the only cause for objective experience.
When a modification in consciousness occurs, it is
projected by the faculties of sensing, thinking and feeling as
a phenomenon.
There is hearing- that is direct experience; thinking and
feeling project that hearing as an external sound source.

(5) All acts of knowing [and their contents] are

subjective in nature.

28
Without a perceiver, no sense object can be experienced.
Without a thinker no thought can be experienced. Nothing
can be known without a knowing subject.

(6) Despite their contradiction, both objective and

subjective perspectives are valid within their
appropriate contexts.
Both perspectives can be used to view the content of
experience by relying on the concept of causality to explain
the relation between subject and objects. Neither
perspective, taken by itself, can reflect the integrity of the
factuality of experience.
*
(7) The transcendental perspective views experience
as a two-way interdependently reflected
subjectivity-objectivity, but not exclusively the one
or the other.
Modifications in the subject and changes in the object
faithfully reflect each other without one being the cause of the
other. Objective attributes are directly reflected as
modifications in one’s own inner sensibility which is an
immediate (unmediated or direct) mode of knowing.

(8) Subject and objects constitute a necessary dual

transformation of knowledge. They appear as a
duality, but emanate from a non-dual conceptual
ground.

29
This can be verified by the fact that subject and object
appear and disappear together; neither can exist
separately, being two aspects of the same source.
In manifestation, the subject and its objects, though
reflecting each other's content, have to appear as separate,
otherwise knowing, which is a relation becomes
impossible.
Admitting the validity of the objective and subjective
perspectives – according to the context being investigated,
the content of experience is viewed as identically
subjective-objective, - or contrarily, as neither subjective
nor objective.

(9) Knowledge, manifesting as different modes of

knowing, constitutes the essence of both
subjectivity and objectivity.
While necessarily appearing as distinct, the subject and the
object reflect each other's contents completely. Objective
sense qualities are reflected as subjective sensations, and
vice versa.
It is not difficult to see that in thinking and feeling the
subject and the object are essentially of the same nature
though necessarily appearing as separate (as:
thinker/thought, feeler/feeling).

(10) The subject can only be experienced as a set of

sensations, thoughts and feelings; while objects are
experienced as the content of the subject’s sensing,
thinking or feeling.

30
When sensing, as a subjective experience, is examined, it is
discovered that the sensing function and the corresponding
sensation appear and disappear together. Two terms, one
subjective and the other objective, are used to describe one
unitary fact of experience.
Objective properties and subjective sensations completely
correspond to each other. Unless heard, a sound cannot be
experienced; a form is not experienced unless seen. In the
absence of sound there is no hearing, in the absence of a
form there is no seeing. Hearing and sound are one and the
same fact described subjectively as hearing and objectively
as sound; the seen and seeing are two words describing a
single fact of experience.

(11) Experience shows that perceiving, the perceiver and

the perceived are a unity which reverts to non-existence
if any one of its constituents is absent.
***

31