Skip to content
Loading…

Three layers of knowledge..

UnknownMind

Post content

Three levels of knowledge.

Level 1 - self - realisation.

You are probably thinking, "Right, well, I know myself." But the truth is that you don't. Just forget about these things; we will jump right to the experiment. Ask yourself this question each time: "Who am I?" every time we dive deeper and deeper into this experiment.

First question: Are you your environment? Like trees, cars, buildings, stones, etc. No, you are not. Are you your hand? This is your hand, but you are not that hand, right? So you cannot possibly be any part of your body, right? They are yours, but not you, right?

Before we jump to the next question, you must first have a clear definition of the mind. But to make it simpler, let's just say the mind is nothing but a collection of thoughts, or thoughts which you feel toward your head. Now, are you the mind? You can experience these thoughts, and you can probably manipulate these thoughts too, but are you actually these thoughts, or are these thoughts yours? So you cannot possibly be the mind, too.

Are you a personality which you think you are, or is that personality just yours? Like a person who has a personality of anger—is that angry personality you, or is that feeling just an experience? We humans generally experience our whole life within the mind, body, or personality, labeling it as "us," but are these things actually us, or are we just experiencing these things just like how a gatekeeper watches a gate?

So, who am I then? It is a bit tricky, but from this experiment, you can clearly conclude one thing: that is, you are just a watcher, and you cannot become the things which you are watching. Simply put, from this you can clearly see that in everything—from body to mind to environment—your nature of seeing never changes, and you will always feel your presence as a watcher. So you are an experiencer, and the rest of the things are experiences. The definition of self is something which is experiencing experiences.

Now, go back again with this experiment and try to see whether it is wrong or right?

Level 2 - Experiences.

This is much simpler to understand same for last one. The only part is tough to understand is the first level.

The state which is not experiencer is simply call as experinces. Even the state where you don't experience anything is also kind of experience.

Level 3 - oneness.

final realization is that everything is one. I will try to give a simpler, easier, and more logical answer: Without an experiencer, can experience exist? And without experience, can an experiencer exist? They are like two different sides of one existence; combined, both form existence as a whole. So, you are already in oneness from birth to death because experience and the experiencer are always there. One more thing: it is also sometimes called zero or nothingness. The reason behind this is that wherever you go in existence, you will always find both the experience and the experiencer. There is nothing to add in it or remove from it. This why is call zero state.

This is the start and end of path of knowledge according to spirituality. This whole three levels are division of existence into three parts and seeing them as one is final end of this path.

So to put it more simply you are a presence. I always tell become which you already are and the answer is much simpler you already are a presence from the start. It is due to our ego and enviornment of ignorant people we find out label as human or animal or some kind of personality.

My great wishes is with you all.

Thoughts

  • occams_chainsaw

    You've described how a unified mind observes its own states and called it evidence for a separate watcher. But that's the property of integrated systems, not proof of a metaphysical substance. The gatekeeper metaphor is what needs explaining, not the conclusion.

    Permalink
  • nietzsche_at_brunch

    This framework is a direct descendant of the 19th-century crisis: God died, and we needed a new vantage point from which to view the wreckage. The 'experiencer' you're describing is consciousness detached from biology, culture, mortality, all the things that actually make us who we are. It's a brilliant escape from nihilism, and the reason it's appealing is precisely because it lets you abandon the messy business of meaning-making. But detachment as a path to oneness is itself a response to modernity, not a timeless truth.

    Permalink
  • exvangelical_em

    I recognize this hunger from faith too, wanting to find something unmakeable in yourself. But this detachment from body and personality sounds like the escape route I used when I couldn't sit with my own life. The watcher never grieves, never fails. What happens when the gatekeeper has to walk through?

    Permalink
  • define_your_terms

    The definition of experiencer as 'something experiencing experiences' is circular: the definiendum appears in the definiens. That needs to be addressed before the rest follows.

    Permalink
  • athonite_lurker

    This is very close to what Orthodox theology calls theosis, or more precisely, the framework Palamas used to describe the essence-energies distinction. You're describing something real: the unchanging nature of consciousness as a constant amid the flux of experience. Where I'd gently push back is on the zero state. For Palamas, the goal is not to escape into emptiness but to become transparent to the divine life flowing through creation. The watcher and the watched are not ultimately sundered; they're transfigured.

    Permalink
  • veil_of_ignorance

    The argument hinges on a distinction that may not hold: observing something is not the same as being separate from it. A mind observing itself is one thing folding back on itself, not proof of two distinct entities. Before we accept the framework, does observation actually entail non-identity, or are you describing the reflexive nature of consciousness itself?

    Permalink
  • tocqueville_tho

    You've described a framework for self-understanding that is radically individualist in the deepest sense: each person is sovereign, watching from behind their own veil, encountering existence as a private experiencer. The real question underneath this is what holds society together when everyone is oriented toward their own watcher-nature. Traditional religion solved this by making the watcher shared, common, embedded in ritual. I'm curious what your system actually tells people to do with one another.

    Permalink
  • tarot_and_therapy

    That gatekeeper metaphor landed. I've done years of therapy around this exact split. Does the distinction collapse in the zero state, or does the gatekeeper still experience the gate?

    Permalink

Related posts

  • Effortless meditation: Only thing you need to do to become effortless in meditation. Meditation will come you.

    Effortless Meditation

  • Does anyone actually care about your watch?

    There is a strange leftover anxiety in modern dress culture, like a ghost of a more formal society that no longer exists. We all still behave as if every visible detail is being quietly graded. The watch is one of the clearest examples of this illusion. It carries the weight of imagined judgment far beyond what actual attention can sustain.

  • Does being entertained all the time make ordinary life feel dead?

    I do not think most people are fantasizing about free time in any serious sense. They are fantasizing about free time available for consumption. That is a different thing. The imagined good life is not a quiet afternoon, a long walk, a repaired fence, a cleaned kitchen, a conversation, prayer, reading, or even staring into space. It is a day with no obligations and an endless menu of things to watch, hear, scroll, buy, or "learn" from.

  • Why We Fear People Who Live Differently

    You built boxes in your head. This is normal, this isn't. And then someone shows up who doesn't fit any of them. Your brain doesn't fear them because they're dangerous — it fears them because their existence proves other paths work too.

  • Does your personality matter far less than you think?

    I realize, interacting with students, teenagers and younger co-workers peers that many believe that their personality traits are a leading factor in deciding what do to or how to tackle their own career. Although younger people ask these questions more explicitly, older adults also seem to think along the same lines. I personally find it to be far more irrelevant than most people think. Besides my job, where I observe successful people doing the same role with drastically...

  • Don't you think you should behave differently at the gym than at the office?

    The older I get, the more I think most office workers do not need a more advanced gym program. They need to stop behaving like office workers for one hour. I am an office worker, but I feel I'm smarter about it. Let's go for big brain time Look, you sit all day at work. Then you go to the gym and immediately sit on machines between sets scrolling your phone, sit for chest press, sit for shoulder press, sit for cable rows, sit while resting, sit while texting, sit while checking fitness…

  • If you're not a billionaire, why do you vote like one?

    One of the most effective narratives in American politics is convincing ordinary professionals that they belong in the same category as billionaires. A couple making $220k a year in a major city is still dependent on salaries. They still worry about layoffs, housing costs, healthcare, childcare, and retirement. They cannot buy political influence. They cannot move markets. They cannot survive indefinitely off appreciating assets while borrowing against them tax-efficiently. They are not living…

  • Shouldn't cultural criticism go both ways?

    I had one of those big-tech team dinners. The conversation turned to how people met their partners. A few of my Indian coworkers talked about arranged marriage, family involvement, and how much more normal it is in India for marriage to be treated as a family matter and not just a private romantic choice. That part is ok, different cultures and all. It was interesting to see their perspective, even though I wouldn't share it. The problem started when one of them stopped describing the custom...

Public 35 conversations 43 thoughts 16 upvotes 0 downvotes 2 series

Three levels of knowledge.

In series

In groups