V-44

POINTERS
On The Path of Knowledge

el Hitami
1

CONTENTS
I. THE NATURE OF KNOWING I.1. Experiencing as Knowing
I.2. The Boundary Of Knowing I.3. Conditions for Knowing

II. THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWING

II.1. Acts of Knowing II.2. The Known II.3. The Knower

III. THE CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE OF KNOWING

III.1. Concepts III.2. The Conceptual Nature of the Known III.3. The Conceptual Nature of the Subject III.4. Perspectives

IV. THE GROUND

IV.1. Transcendent Modes of Knowing IV.2. The Nature of the Background IV.3. Pure Attention IV.4. The Ground of Knowing IV.5. The Ground of Identity

I. THE NATURE OF KNOWING

I.1. Experiencing as Knowing

Human experience is limited to knowing the presence and absence of the contents of sense perception, thinking and feeling nothing else can be experienced nothing else can be known. o The existence of sense objects, thoughts and feelings must be confirmed by experience. That which cannot be experienced cannot be judged as existing. o Experiencing is not possible in the absence of knowing. Only that which is known can be experienced. Sense objects, thoughts and feelings are experienced by knowing them. The presence and absence of the objective and subjective aspects of knowing constitutes the totality of experience.

Knowing is a relational activity. An act of knowing, the knower and the known form a mutually interdependent, conceptually related structure none of the three can be experienced on its own, but only through their relation to each other. - Without an act of knowing neither the knower nor the known can be experienced. - Without the known neither the knower nor an act of knowing can be experienced. - Without the knower neither the known nor an act of knowing can be experienced.
3

o The perceiver, the thinker and the feeler appear and disappear with their objects and the acts of knowing relating them.; none of the three can be experienced if one of them is missing. This clearly implies that: - Either the knower, acts of knowing and the known do not exist as such, or - Three words are used to describe one fact of experience a Knowing that appears as an act of knowing which is necessarily differentiated into the known and the knower. [Knowing implies the experience of an act of knowing; an act of knowing necessarily implies the existence of something known; the known necessarily implies the existence of a knower to experience it].

The presence and absence of all acts of knowing as well as their objective and subjective contents are experienced. It is reasonable to assume that all these aspects are experienced by an unknowable ground of Knowing (= unconditioned, pure Knowing)- a Knowing that is somehow manifested through the determinations of the three faculties of knowing. o Through the mediation of the faculties of knowing, Knowing is transformed into acts of knowing, the known and the knower. - Acts of knowing are experienced as sensing (=seeing, hearing, touching, tasting & smelling), as well as thinking and feeling; - 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 are integrated into the knowing subject].
4

 In reality, what we experience is a transformational process: - Knowing spontaneously manifests as a conceptually structured act of knowing expressing a relation between the knower and the known. - Acts of knowing are projected, transformed and differentiated into multiple sense-, thought- and feeling attributes related by Knowing and experienced as knowable entities (= perceiver & sense objects, thinker & thoughts or feeler & feelings).

I.2. The Boundary Of Knowing

The boundary of experience is set by its contents: which include the presence and absence of : - Acts of knowing: sensing (=seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling), thinking and feeling. - The known: is the objective content of experience; constituted by: sense-objects (= forms-colors, sounds, texture, tastes, smells), thoughts (= concepts, memories, expectations, opinions, beliefs, judgments) and feelings (= emotions and volitions). - The knower: is constituted by the subject (= the perceiver, the thinker and the feeler). Presence of content is the manifest foreground of experience; while absence expresses its contentless, changeless background. o States of manifestation (= waking & dreaming) and nonmanifestation (= dreamless sleep) constitute the domain of experience. o In the waking and dream states, manifestation is experienced through the presence of the knower, acts of knowing and the
5

known; while in dreamless sleep, as their background, is experienced as their non-manifest absence. o The determining faculties of knowing are active only within the waking and dream states. To claim that there can be any determination beyond the manifest foreground and nonmanifest background is a grave fallacy. - A knowable entity can only be experienced through its determining attributes (= qualities, characteristics, properties). - The presence of the knowing faculties is necessary to determine the known and the knower. - Determination can only function within the content of experience; hence, determinations cannot be set beyond that domain.

The foreground of experience and its background are mutually interdependent neither is conceivable without the other. The content-full foreground can only appear on a content-less background. o The foreground can only be experienced through its opposition to the background; it has no other determination. Due to the poor definition of the background, attention is rarely directed to it.

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 through the opposition of what it is, to what it is not (= its otherness, its sub-field of nonexistence, objectless space, soundless silence, eventless time, thought-free stillness and feeling-less peace, etc.). - The absence of an object that was previously present is another mode of the background. Attention is attracted by the appearance of an object from its absence and, to a lesser degree, its disappearance after its presence. o Certain modes of the background are retrospectively recognized as: - The gaps between two perceptions, two thoughts or two feelings [which form the boundary necessary for determining each]. - Dreamless sleep may be recollected only in hindsight, due to the absence of the determining acts of knowing. When attention is regained upon waking, the experience of the absence of the knower, acts of knowing and the known is reported. o Under certain circumstances, the background may be directly experienced. - Absence, as an objective emptiness, may be apperceived when the content of experience is absent. - A rarely recollected mode of the background sleepless sleep- is experienced when attention awakes within dreamless sleep and the absence of content is consciously experienced.

 Experience 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 . o Determination (= the what?), space (= the where?), time (= the when?), causality (= the why?), agency & identity (= the who?), and process & sequence (= the how?) - are constituent conditions of experience; they are necessary conditions for relating its phenomenal content. What? where? When? Why? Who? and how? are valid questions for understanding and relating the contents of experience. They cannot be asked about the totality of experience, nor can they be used to relate that totality to its constituents. o The faculties of knowing determine all knowable attributes through acts of knowing. It cannot be denied that the presence and absence of the faculties and acts of knowing are experienced. The Knowing - that is aware of the determining attributes and their corresponding faculties and acts of knowing cannot be determined by these attributes.

I.3. Conditions for Knowing

Alertness, interest, intent and attention are the subjective aspects of human consciousness. The presence of these aspects is a prerequisite for experiencing acts of knowing. Attention can only be directed by intent. To activate intent, there must be an interest in experiencing. Without alertness, there can be no interest. In the absence of alertness, consciousness reverts to unconsciousness.

 Only that which is determined can be experienced. In the absence of determination (= definition, limitation) nothing can be known. Sensory, thought and feeling attributes are determined through the corresponding faculties of knowing. What is not determined cannot be differentiated and, therefore, cannot be experienced. In the absence of determination, no object can be known. Knowable entities (= the subject and its objects) are mainly determined through their proper sets of attributes, which define and differentiate them. o Knowing exhibits a strong drive toward more determination (= definition, concreteness, clarity, precision). Weaker determinations produce an urge that propels a drive toward more definition. Higher degrees of definition monopolize attention. Attention wanes with weaker determinations. - Feelings constitute the least defined content of experience; - Thoughts are more defined than feelings, but less defined than sense objects. - The ultimate mode of determination occurs in the perception of sense objects. Due to their greater degree of definition, sense objects attract more attention than thoughts or feelings. Since acts of knowing are relational in nature; they cannot occur in the absence of the duality of the knower and the known. Without a seer, no form or color can be seen. Without a hearer, no sound can be heard and vice versa. o A relation necessitates, at least, two entities. The nature of knowing implies the separation of the knower from the known, as well as relating the known to the knower.
9

A relation can only be possible between -at least- two distinct entities, [but not within a unity]. Unless the known appears as separated from the knower, neither can be related. Without the two aspects of separating and relating, neither subject nor object can be experienced. o To relate two objects, each has to be initially related the subject. Only after knowing one object and then a second can they be related [through the subject] to each other. o The perceiver, the thinker, and the feeler have to be related, so that they may be experienced as a subject. Opposition is a primary condition for experiencing. The limits reciprocally imposed by the opposites determine both: - Existence is determined by inexistence, and vice versa. This opposition is essential in constituting experience. - Likewise, the opposition between a subject and an object determines each of them. - All attributes depend on their opposites.

Multiplicity [expressed through difference and diversity] is a condition for experiencing the particularity of a knowable entity. o No single attribute can be experienced in the absence of other attributes; no object can be experienced in the absence of other objects. This implies that all the contents of experience are necessarily interdependent. - The determination of the known depends on a multitude of diverse attributes (= properties, qualities, characteristics, descriptors). - No single attribute can be experienced in the absence of other attributes.
10

- An object can only be experienced in relation to other objects, but never by itself. - A subject can only recognize itself in relation to other subjects and objects. In the prolonged absence of other subjects, the sense of individuality is lost. - The foreground of experience depends on its background. An object can only be clearly experienced on an empty background. Space, as a mode of inexistence, is the background on which spatial attributes appear. The concept of space regulates the determination of spatial properties and relations. Spatial attributes include: location, distance, dimensions, movement, etc.. Space is the background on which these spatial attributes appear. - 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 visual field, space is the empty background on which spatial attributes appear and by which they are separated from each other. - Within the auditory field it determines the boundaries of sound, and is experienced as silence. - Within the other sensory fields it becomes the absence of the corresponding sensory attributes. - Within the activities of thoughts, emotions and volitions it is experienced as stillness, quietude or peace.

11

 Time is the event-less background of temporal attributes and relations; it is the temporal emptiness on which events make their appearance, persist for a certain duration, undergo changes and disappear. 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 phenomenally experienced. The inception, duration, change and termination of events can be observed. 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 The experience of an object depends on its presence for a specific duration. Attention is attracted to what is believed to be real. The perception of an object as real depends on the continuity of its presence to the perceiver. An act of knowing is an event originating, persisting and ending in time. Without enduring for a minimum time span, no knowable entity (=subject or object) can be experienced. o Attention is attracted to what it believes to be real. The perception of an object as real depends on the continuity of its presence to the perceiver. o Temporal existence 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.

12

 Causality is a condition for experiencing 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.. A cause is a condition or an event that precedes another event as an effect (=consequent). Causality is a derivative of the concept of time. As a temporal function, the cause appears as antecedent, the effect is considered as its consequent result. o Causality establishes the continuity of knowable entities. To maintain the factuality of an object or event, it must be related 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.

Agency is corollary of causality; an actor or doer is assumed to be the cause of a particular act. The agent is considered as the cause of its acts as well as of the objective changes activated thereby. The subject, the perceiver, the thinker, and the feeler are different modes of agency.

II. THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWING

II.1. Acts of Knowing

13

 The contents of acts of knowing are experienced through the three faculties of sensing, thinking and feeling. Nothing can be known other than the presence and absence of the subjective and objective determinations of these faculties; no determination is possible when these faculties are inactive.

Sensing is the faculty by which external sense properties and body sensations are experienced. o Objective sense properties are reflected as modifications in subjective experience as seeing, hearing, etc. Sensations and sense objects share the same basic determinations. Sense properties determining a sense object are reflected as subjective sensations through the mediation of sense faculties and sense organs. 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 thought and feeling attributes] into a particular knowable entity. 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, reality, externality and otherness.

Thinking is the experiencing of related verbal and sensory thought elements (= words/ images) as thought streams, concepts, ideas, judgments, anticipations, recollections, opinions, beliefs, etc..

14

A single thought can only be experienced as related to other thoughts. To be experienced, a stream of thought has to be conceptually related as a condition for experiencing it. o The presence and absence of sensing, thinking and feeling is observed; by themselves, they cannot relate their elements only Knowing can do that. o While it is firmly believe that we directly experience sense objects [including our bodies], or emotions and volitions - the fact is that only of knowing are experienced.

FEELING is the faculty by which emotions and volitions are experienced. Emotions include affections, sentiments, dispositions, moods, passions, etc., Volition takes the form of interest, intent, choice, hope, desire, attachment, aversion, drives Sets of predominately emotional or volitional attributes [together with sense and thought elements] constitute a particular feeling. o Emotions and volitions are experienced as subjective modifications in consciousness. To be experienced, a feeling has to be cognized by thinking and related to internal (= bodily) or external conditions.

To be experienced, Knowing implies its determination as an act of knowing, the known and the knower - as necessary consequents of its nature. These three appear as a single conceptual transformation of Knowing: - Knowing implies the presence of acts of knowing activated through the corresponding faculties of sensing, thinking and feeling;
15

- An act of knowing implies the experience of a knowable object (= a sense-object, a thought, or a feeling); - An object can never be experienced on its own; it can only be experienced within a relational context of multiplicity and diversity of other objects. - A multiplicity of objects requires a knower (as a subjective center) to relate them first to itself, and then to each other; - The knower is necessarily separated from- and related to the known through an act of knowing.

II.2. The Known

The known is experienced as sets of sense-, thought- and feeling attributes. The known has two interrelated aspects: - The external (= objective) aspect of the known includes: light, forms, sounds, smells, weight, texture, taste, etc.; - The internal (= subjective) aspect of the known includes: body sensations, thought constructs, emotions and volitions.

Attributes are the basic elements that determine the particularity of the known. Sense-objects, thoughts and feelings are determined by their attributes. Every knowable entity can only be experienced as a set of attributes. Attributes are related to constitute an object. In the absence of attributes, neither subject nor object can be experienced.

16

o Sense-, thought- and feeling attributes have to be related to constitute an object. Both the knower and the known can only be experienced as related sets of sense-, thought- and feeling attributes. 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]. Objective attributes are reflected in subjective experience as qualitative modifications in the subjects consciousness. 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. o It is commonly assumed that the set of attributes constituting a knowable entity is grounded on a particular substratum (= substance, essence, the thing-in-itsef). We can only experience a knowable entity through its attributes, but not its substratum which is an abstract idea. The substratum is the bearer of attributes and must be, therefore, attributeless and, consequently, unknowable. Though an abstraction, the substratum of a particular knowable entity remains as a necessary unifying idea for experiencing a subject or an object. o The name designating an object is a symbol pointing to a substratum, on which sets of attributes are experienced. The name labeling a set of attributes is assumed to indicate a particular entity. o Any particular entity is experienced as a combination of sense-, thought and feeling attributes.

17

- No sense-, thought- or feeling attribute can be experienced by itself, but only within the context of a multiplicity of diverse attributes. - An object can only be experienced as a combination of sense, thought- and feeling attributes. o Depending on the type of the object experienced, one group of attributes or the other appears as dominant. - When sense attributes predominate, sense-objects are perceived; - When thought attributes predominate, thought constructs are cognized; - When emotional and volitional attributes predominate, feelings are intuited.

II.3. The Knower

The knower, as the subject of knowing, is experienced as: - The perceiver (= seer, hearer, etc.) of sense objects, - The thinker of thought constructs, and - The feeler of emotions and volitions. o The knowers domain of knowing includes the presence and absence of the faculties and acts of knowing and their corresponding objects. The knower is commonly believed to appropriate all acts of knowing by identifying with-, and assuming ownership of-, agency for-, and control of- the faculties of knowing. o The knower is related to the known through the three faculties of knowing, thus bringing it back and unifying it into its subjectivity.
18

- When Knowing is experienced as sensing, the known is experienced as a sense-object and the knower appears as the perceiver; - When Knowing is projected as thinking, the known is projected as a thought form and the knower appears as the thinker; - When Knowing is projected as feeling, the known is projected as a feeling and the subject appears as the feeler. Although firmly believed to be an entity, the knower, in fact, is only a function presumably responsible for: - Coordinating the three knowing faculties by relating their content to a knowable object, - Unifying the perceiver, the thinker and the feeler into a knowing subject, - Relating diverse contents (To experience an object a number of attributes have to be related and integrated into a single entity), - Establishing relationships between the known object and other objects.

Acts of knowing are believed to be exclusively subjective; only a knower can know, the known cannot know. Whenever an object is experienced, a subject, as its counterpart, appears to claim the experience. It may be tentatively assumed, that the knower unifies the occurrences of different object-bound acts of knowing to produce the impression of unity in the subject, as well as the continuity of an individual self.

19

 Within manifestation, the knower appears as a persistent, changeless unity; while the known can only be experienced within a context of change, 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 is a belief structured by memory.

Contrary to common belief, the known is experienced before the knower; they are experienced sequentially, not simultaneously. Attention can be directed either to the knower or to the known; but not to both at the same time. When attention is directed to the known, it is diverted from the knower; if directed towards the knower, the experience of the known subsides [but persists as a memory]. The rapid fluctuation of attention between the knower and the known creates the impression of their co-existence. o The knower can only be experienced in hindsight. After the appearance of an object, the knower is posited as a separate entity responsible for the act of knowing.

The knower and the known appear to be mutually interdependent; neither can be experienced in the absence of the other. The known can only be experienced when a knower is present; the knower can only be experienced when the known is present.

20

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

The knower is believed to be in possession of its faculties and acts of knowing. As the experiencer, it is commonly assumed to be the agent that experiences sense objects and/or events [as the perceiver], thoughts [as the thinker] and feelings [as the feeler]. The knower, assuming the function of agency, claims acts of knowing, [although it is itself conceptually constituted by a set of knowable elements and, therefore, knowable]. As an agent, it appropriates to itself the faculties and acts of sensing, thinking and feeling. o It may be tentatively accepted that the knower experiences the presence and absence of the determining faculties of knowing [i.e., these faculties themselves are its objects]; it follows that these faculties cannot be used to determine the knower. o An agent (= actor, doer) must be an entity. An entity has to be determinable. If the knower cannot be determined, it cannot be an entity; and hence, it cannot be an agent just a function.

III. THE CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE OF KNOWING

III.1. Concepts
21

 A concept is a thought construct that is experienced by relating: - Similar and different attributes to constitute a subject or an object, - Individual thoughts in a chain of thoughts. - A particular object to other objects, - The subject to its objects. Concepts can be categorized according to their degree of complexity (=the number of attributes and levels of relations involved) as: o Simple concepts express a limited number of relations between a set of attributes constituting a knowable entity. A simple concept can be considered as the most basic act of knowing, experienced as an object. A particular senseobject, thought or feeling can only be experienced as a simple concept. o Complex concepts express relations between sets of simple concepts. Categories and classes are such complex concepts. e.g., man, animal, tree, society, universe, etc o Regulative concepts are complex concepts of critical importance in ordering the content of experience. e.g., space, time, causality, existence, experience, knowledge, identity, etc o Perspectives are higher order conceptual structures constituted by multiple complex concepts. Three main perspectives can be identified: - The objective perspective, where subjective modifications are seen as effects of objective reality.
22

- The subjective perspective, where objects are seen as caused by subjective acts of knowing. - The transcendental perspective, where the subject and its objects are seen as mutually interdependent.

III.2. The Conceptual Nature of the Known

The faculties of knowing, by themselves, cannot establish relations. The diverse attributes constituting an object can only be related through a mode of knowing that transcends sensing, thinking and feeling [to form the concept of an entity]. If seemingly diverse attributes are related by a concept, their nature cannot be different from the nature of the concept relating them. The phenomenal nature of a concept is thinking, and the basic nature of thinking is Knowing.

No single attribute can be experienced in isolation. A particular attribute can only be experienced within a context of other attributes. A particular sense property cannot be experienced apart from other sense properties. Only sets of sense properties can be experienced.

o Since no particular attribute can be experienced, it logically follows that we should not be able to experience a set of diverse attributes constituting an object. This, however, contradicts the fact that we do experience all sorts of attributes.
23

To solve this paradox: - To start with, it may be surmised that we experience the relation between the attributes not the attributes themselves. - This poses an enigma: how can we experience relations between attributes none of which can be experienced on its own? - Since we do experience diverse attributes, we may assume that we experience neither the attributes themselves nor their relation, but only a transformation of Knowing into an act of knowing that has as its content conceptually related attributes appearing as an object. Similarly, an object can only be experienced in relation to other diverse objects - but never by itself. A sense object cannot be experienced in isolation from other objects. To be experienced, a sense-object must be differentiated from- and related to other objects. In the same way, a particular thought or feeling can only be experienced within the context of other thoughts and feelings. o If a particular object cannot be experienced in isolation from other objects, it must be logically impossible to experience a multiplicity of objects. This contradicts the fact that we do experience diverse objects. o Since we cannot experience any single object except in relation to other objects, what is immediately experienced is the relation between diverse objects expressed through a concept manifested as a particular object.

24

 Only entities sharing the same phenomenal 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 dissimilar natures. o It follows that for a particular object to be experienced, all other seemingly diverse objects must share the same nature otherwise they could not have been related. Because all attributes and objects are conceptual in nature, we are able to relate them despite their phenomenal diversity. It has been shown that acts of knowing are conceptually structured. It follows that knowable entities are experienced as related sets of conceptual attributes. The phenomenal nature of concepts is thinking, and thinking is a mode of Knowing. o We conclude: Knowing is the sole direct experience - and that is the basic nature of all knowable entities. Knowing in its transformation into an act of knowing necessarily implies the indirect experience of a knowable entity as a concept - appearing to us as an object.

III.3. The Conceptual Nature of the Subject

When closely examined, it is discovered that all the determinations of the knower make it a knowable entity. Since all attributes of the knower are experienced, it can be viewed as an object. The known can only be experienced as a set of sensations, thoughts and feelings [conceptually integrated into a perceiver, a thinker and a feeler who are unified as a knowing subject].

25

The different aspects of the knower are experienced and, therefore, may be considered as objects of knowing; in other words, the knower itself is a knowable entity, an object. o Personal identity is attributed to the knower. When it becomes clear that the knower itself is a knowable concept, it may be assumed that identity is more akin to the nature of acts of knowing than to that of a knowable entity. But since the presence and absence of acts of knowing are admittedly experienced, it is realized the knower is of the same nature as Knowing. To complete an act of knowing the knower has to be related to the known. If both were of different natures, they could not have been related. - The fact is that the subject is unquestionably related to diverse sense-objects, thoughts and feelings. - Therefore, it can be concluded that the subject must be of the same nature as all of its objects.

It is admitted that all thinking is conceptual. What may be difficult to realize is that all acts of knowing are essentially conceptual in nature. Contrary to common belief, this would imply that all contents of experience are concepts projected as the known and the knower. o If the knower, acts of knowing and the known are projected, transformed, differentiated and related by Knowing, their nature can be nothing but Knowing. o It follows that Knowing is the basic nature of sense-objects, thoughts and feelings as well as their knower/subject. The self and the world are nothing but necessary conceptual transformations of Knowing.
26

III.4. Perspectives
The objective perspective mainly applies to sense objects; it views objective reality as the cause of subjective experience. o 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. o Sense objects are considered as the cause of the subjects sensory perceptions. Likewise, the subjects thoughts and feelings are seen as effects of objective causes. o The objective perspective agrees with the common sense view that thoughts and feeling are directly (immediately) apprehended; while objective sense qualities can only be known indirectly through the mediation of sense faculties and organs. o The reality of sense objects [as established through agreement among normal observers] cannot be questioned. Accordingly, the objective domain is seen as separate from the subjective and persists in its otherness regardless of the subject. o Sense objects are believed to have distinct intrinsic being (=essence, substance).

The subjective perspective considers spontaneous modifications in the subjects consciousness as the direct cause of objective experience.

27

o All the contents of experience are viewed as ultimately subjective; the objective is no more than a projection of the subjects consciousness. o Subjective modifications are believed to be the only cause for objective reality. When modifications in consciousness occur, they are projected by the faculties of sensing, thinking and feeling as the phenomenal world. There is hearing- that is a spontaneous subjective experience; thinking and feeling project that hearing as an external sound and its source. o It cannot be denied that all acts of knowing [and their contents] are subjective in nature. 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.

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 ones own inner sensibility which is the immediate (= un- mediated or direct) mode of knowing. o 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. The subject - object duality constitutes a necessary transformation of an act of knowing. They appear as a two, but emanate from a non-dual ground.
28

This can be verified by the fact that subject and object appear and disappear together; neither can exist separately, being two aspects of an act of knowing. o Admitting the validity of the objective and subjective perspectives according to the context of observation, the content of experience is viewed as identically subjectiveobjective, - or contrarily, as neither subjective nor objective. 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 Knowing. o Knowing, manifesting as different acts 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 interdependent though appearing as separate (as: thinker/thought, feeler/feeling). o The subject can only be experienced as a set of sensations, thoughts and feelings; while objects are experienced as the content of the subjects sensing, thinking or feeling. 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.
29

o Objective properties and subjective sensations completely correspond to each other. Experience shows that perceiving, the perceiver and the perceived are a unity that reverts to non-existence if any one of its constituents is absent. 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.

IV. THE GROUND

IV.1. Transcendent Modes of Knowing

Through the transcendent modes of knowing integral aspects of experience may be apperceived. These modes of knowing apprehend higher levels of integration of the contents of experience. There are several levels of transcendent knowing: - Existential apperception of the total content of a state of manifestation (= acts of knowing, the knower and the known). A variant of this stand referred to as lucid dreaming takes place when, during a dream, it is realized that one is dreaming, and purposefully allows the dream to continue. - Non-existential apperception of the empty background upon which acts of knowing appear.

30

This can be experienced when one suddenly becomes alert in dreamless sleep and, also, in the state of cognitive extinction (= Nirvikalpa Samadhi). - Integral apperception: has as its domain the totality of experience (= existence & inexistence =manifestation & non-manifestation = the foreground & the background). In what is referred to as the Natural State of Knowing, the total domain of existence and inexistence is integrally apperceived. Directing attention to the un-manifest background - as well as the manifest foreground, the integral content of experience (= existence and inexistence) is experienced.

IV.2. Pure Attention

Depending on how intent directs attention, three levels of knowing can be experienced: - Normally, attention is directed toward a particular object or event this is the common taste of knowing automatically experienced by most people; e.g., a particular sound. - A less common taste of knowing is experienced when attention is directed toward the particular act of sensing, thinking or feeling; e.g., hearing itself, instead of only the sound. - A rarer 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.

31

 When Attention is directed upon itself, acts of knowing are dissolved into an attributeless ground of Pure Attention (= attention attentive to itself). Attention, somehow, merges into Knowing [as awareness, pure consciousness, or unconditioned Knowing]. Complete absorption in itself, returns attention to its ground: Pure Attention - a state empty of all content, a state where the knower and the known disappear. o Since Pure Attention is attributeless and contentless, theoretically, it should not be possible to experience it; oddly, it does have a very peculiar taste to it.

The genesis of experience may be visualized through an examination of the arising of a thought from Pure Attention. Normally, it is difficult to maintain pure attention for long. As soon as attention wavers, a thought arises spontaneously, Pure Attention is transformed into an act of thinking and attention is exclusively directed to its content. Pure attention spontaneously becomes an act of knowing, projecting an object and a corresponding subject. Notice how the background of deep sleep is spontaneously transformed into a dream. o Wherever attention is directed, it faces transformations of Pure Attention in one manifest form or another. It may be that Pure Attention somehow becomes active, and an intense interest for experiencing spontaneously arises the interest generating a strong intent to be and to know the intent directing attention toward an act of knowing, and focusing it on an object .

32

IV.3. The Ground of Knowing

Both the known and the knower are concepts experienced through transformations of an act of knowing. Tentatively, it may be stated that: - What is more directly experienced than the known is the knower; - What is more directly experienced than the knower is the act of knowing; - Since the presence and absence of all acts of knowing are experienced, there must be a Knowing that directly experiences them. (= A Ground of Knowing that experiences itself as acts of knowing). o Knowing is omnipresent; it persists under all circumstances. Knowing persists: - Whether sense objects, thoughts and feelings appear, change or disappear - Whether the faculties and acts of sensing, thinking and feeling arise or subside - Whether the perceiver, the thinker and the feeler appear and disappear. o The Knowing that is aware of the presence and absence of acts of knowing is the ultimate ground of Knowing an awareness that experiences itself in identity as differentiated acts of knowing which are experienced as the known and the knower.

The ground of Knowing is content-less and, therefore, indeterminate; it is neither something nor nothing. It experiences itself by itself in identity [an undifferentiated knowerknowing-known]. This may also be partly verified by examining the state of dreamless sleep.
33

Absence of acts of knowing is shared by dreamless sleep and the ground of Knowing - the difference is that the former is experienced [in hindsight], but the latter cannot be experienced.

Knowing [as the awareness of the presence and absence of all attributes], can have no attributes; nor can it be completely inexperienced, since it constitutes the most intimate experience. It may be assumed that Knowing has the capacity of experiencing itself by itself. Knowing is a living dynamic process of an indefinable nature, spontaneously projecting its infinite content and withdrawing it [a verb, not a nameable entity]. o Attribute-less, unconditioned and indefinable, the ground of Knowing cannot be related to the content of experience (= manifestation and non-manifestation, self and world). Knowing cannot be the agent for-, nor the source of existence and inexistence. All relations are experienced through concepts; that which apperceives the presence and absence of all concepts cannot be itself a concept. o Knowing does not generate acts of knowing; these acts are its very nature Knowing shines as acts of knowing. Acts of knowing are transformed into the known and the knower.

As the ultimate ground of experience, unconditioned Knowing can only be acknowledged as an absolute certainty but, theoretically, cannot be experienced by any faculty of knowing.

34

Existence is the manifest foreground of experience; inexistence is the background of existence; an undeniable, but unknowable Knowing is aware of both existence and inexistence the Ground of Knowing. o Certainty is possible only in the absence of acts of knowing, [where certainty and uncertainty become irrelevant]. Because experiencing of the presence and absence of acts of knowing cannot be denied, the Knowing -which is aware of the presence and absence all acts of knowing- is an absolute certainty. Uncertainty reigns over all the content of experience, 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 knows the presence and absence of my acts of knowing [regardless of the truth or falsehood of their content] is an absolute certainty actually, the only certainty.

There can be no discernible cause for the transformation of the Ground of Knowing into acts of knowing. The transformation is spontaneous and causeless. Knowing experiences itself as acts of knowing and, therefore, it has no relation with them [since a unicity cannot form a relationship with itself]; - it has no source or location, no beginning and no end; - it does not manifest in definite stages or through a particular process; - it has no boundaries [no within and no beyond]; - it has neither a cause, nor a separate content [as its effect]; - it has neither reason, meaning nor end-result in its transformation. No what? where? when? how? why? or who? - Notice the spontaneous transformation of deep sleep into a dream.
35

o We may speculate that the ground of Knowing, through an allpowerful drive toward experiencing itself- a passion for being, an infatuation with self-identity: I am- somehow reveals itself spontaneously through acts of knowing.

IV.4. The Ground of Identity

Normally, in the absence of a subjective identity, there can be no differentiation of the subject from the object; and, therefore, acts of knowing [which are relational by nature] cannot take place. o Subjective identity relates and unifies the different attributes and modes of the knower; one cannot think intelligently about these without integrating them into a subject as their functional center. To make experience meaningful, the perceiver, the thinker, the feeler and their objects have to be related and coordinated through a phenomenal center a subject. o Relations between multiple and diverse knowable entities can only be established through the centralizing function of a selfimage. 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 seen objects can only be related by first relating each to the seer.

Phenomenal identity appears as a self-image, expressed as I am, and mainly constituted by: - The perceiver, the thinker and the feeler [conceptually unified as the subject];
36

- The physical body, the I-concept and the feeling of presence [conceptually unified into an individual entity]; - Diverse personal attributes associated with the I-concept, such as: life history, nationality, education, social roles, etc. [conceptually unified into a personal identity] o The different modes of the self-image are related through memory and identified with a persistent sense of I am-ness. The self-image assumes agency (= doer-ship) as the knower, subject, doer or actor. As a subject the self-image assumes the roles of the perceiver (= the seer, hearer, etc.), the thinker and the feeler.

All subjective attributes are integrated into a self-image and are clearly knowable their presence and absence are experienced. They constitute the phenomenal aspect of the ground of Identity.

It can be clearly observed that all aspects of the self-image are determined by acts of knowing. Clearly, the presence and absence of all aspects of the self-image are experienced. That which experiences the self-image - and all the faculties and acts of knowing attributed to it - is postulated as the ground of Identity (= the I-principle, Selfhood). o I am aware of the presence and absence of my self-image, i.e., - Myself as a body, as an I-concept and as a feeling of presence; - Myself as a subject: a perceiver, a thinker and a feeler; - My faculties and acts of knowing; - My three states of: waking, dreaming and sleeping, - Memories of my past and anticipations of my future,
37

o The ground of Identity can neither be objective nor subjective [despite the fact that it is felt as very subjective]; nor is it something or nothing, [since it is aware of both]. The constituents of a self-image are knowable; their presence and absence are clearly observed. That which experiences these aspects of the self-image is an absolute certainty, yet remains indefinable. It is neither personal nor impersonal- since it is the ground on which all modes of identity arise and subside.

There can be no doubt that there is an awareness of my selfimage as well as my acts of knowing [whether these are true or false, right or wrong, real or illusory]. I know that I know is a fact that is not subject to doubt. More accurately expressed: I, as the ground of Identity, is the undeniable awareness of the presence and absence of my self-image and all of my acts of knowing.

The ground of Identity cannot be experienced as something known; neither can it be the experiencer [or the knower], as the latter is also experienced. One can experience all the modes of subjectivity but not the ground of Identity. Being indeterminate, the ground of Identity is unknowable but, nevertheless, an undeniable certainty. Problems arise when this ground is identified with the self-image. The determining faculties which define all knowable entities [including my self-image] cannot possibly define that which is aware of their presence and absence.
38

- The ground of Identity is an unknowable ground on which subjective attributes are manifested; therefore, it should necessarily be devoid of attributes. - Pure Attention is also attributeless and, hence, inseparable from the ground of Identity. - Similarly, the ground of Knowing is also, necessarily, devoid of attributes and cannot be differentiated from either the ground of Identity or from pure Attention. o In the absence of attributes, one unknowable cannot be differentiated from another. Since the grounds of Knowing, Attention and Identity are all attributeless, they cannot be differentiated and are one and the same as the unknowableundeniable GROUND OF BEING.

39