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.
Three layers of knowledge..
Public
34 conversations
42 thoughts
16 upvotes
0 downvotes
2 series
Three levels of knowledge.
In series
In groups
Thought
Thought
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?