The Self as the Looker

Most religions and philosophies stop at SELF as the ultimate source. A person, soul, spirit, etc., are examples of self, but then, in their turn, they are thought to be created by a more basic self called God. The basic self is considered to be eternal. It has neither beginning nor end. It cannot be described. The idea of looking beyond self is not even entertained.

What is self really?

Self is so intimate to one, yet one wonders what self truly is. Self may only be evaluated if there is something else of comparable magnitude. Let’s look at self as knowable compared to unknowable (beyond consideration). This is what Buddha did and found that self is not fixed. “Self is in flux like anything else.” said Buddha, “And furthermore, self may be completely extinguished.”

So what is the concept of self that Buddha had in mind?

To Buddha, self was a manifestation. Like any manifestation, self appeared, underwent changes, and ultimately disappeared.  It belonged to the knowable universe, which is the universe of consideration. But as self seems to underlie all considerations, it might be extending back into the unknowable too.

The Self forms the interface between knowable and unknowable.

Self interfaces with the knowable universe through consideration. Its interface with unknowable has to be by means other than consideration. It may act something like the “squaring function” that converts imaginary into real numbers.

Self may act to convert what is unknowable into knowable considerations.

This conversion alters what is unknowable into knowable. This is where “intuition” seems to lie. Intuition occurs out of the blue. This phenomenon is beyond logic. Logic is essentially the association of existing considerations.

The considerations persist as being knowable. But, recognition of the true nature of consideration might dissolve them back into unknowable. The unknowable may be looked upon as the state of deep understanding remaining after the cessation of all considerations. This state is recognized as NIRVANA in Buddhism.

The unknowable may be looked upon as an indescribable state of “no form, no consideration.” 

In the knowable universe, the core of a human being may be considered to be the self. The rest of the being may be looked upon as layers of considerations enveloping the self.  Please see Thinking & ThoughtThese layers filter what is being perceived. They judge what is there and pass it as perception.

A human being is the basic self covered by layers of considerations that filter and modify incoming perceptions.

As the filters interpret perceptions instead of simplifying them, the perceptions gains persistence. The persistence may gradually become so strong that it appears as the solid physical universe. This is also the self being represented as a physical body.

Perception, when continually interpreted, become increasingly persistent to a point of solidity we know as the physical body, and its extension, the physical universe.

Thus, it may be said that the physical universe is being generated by the very nature of these filters that are continually “judging.” These filters constitute the very nature of the being. Thus, as long as the being continues to be “judgmental” knowingly or unknowingly, the problem of the physical universe will remain.

The deeply judgmental nature of the being is generating the physical universe and all its problems and situations.

But, if one wants to dissolve the problems and situations that make up this universe, then all one has to do is to stop being judgmental and start looking at things for what they are. Some forms of judgment are anticipating what is there, or being resistive to what is there. This is covered in the KHTK essays.

One may start dissolving problems and situations by looking at them non-judgmentally for what they are.

Interestingly enough, looking per KHTK brings into view the filters that the self is looking through. As these layers of filters come into view they start to dissolve. The person then starts on a journey toward regaining his or her awareness as the basic self.

The basic self is aware without being judgmental.

Ultimately, the self itself may dissolve leaving behind an indescribably deep understanding that cannot be appreciated otherwise.

The unknowable may be appreciated only after the self is dissolved.


NOTE (added 7/20/12):

The center of gravity of an object is essentially the resultant of all the force vectors acting on the molecules of that object. Similarly, a center of consciousness may be looked upon as the resultant of all mental forces and energies associated with you through awareness at that moment. This center of such mental forces and energies may be called SELF.

A center of gravity is relatively stable compared to the moving particles of that object. Similarly, SELF may appear relatively stable compared to all the mental forces and energies, which are in a flux.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On June 11, 2011 at 4:31 PM

    Happy Birthday Vinay! Many more!


    • vinaire  On June 11, 2011 at 5:28 PM

      Thank you, Chris. My daughter has the same birthday. She is home over the weekend. It will be a family celebration.


  • vinaire  On June 17, 2011 at 6:30 AM

    It is quite natural for self to appear, disappear, appear, disappear… once all the filters are gone. There is no fixidity about anything.



  • Bunkai  On July 6, 2011 at 7:49 PM

    Is the the religious idea below important to these practices? If I was a serious student of this work, it would feel safer for me knowing this belief ahead of time. It feels like this notion is “slipping in” to me:

    “Perception, when continually modified, become increasingly persistent to a point of solidity we know as the physical universe.

    Thus, it may be said that the physical universe is being generated by the very nature of the human being. As long as the being continues to be judgmental knowingly or unknowingly, the problem of the physical universe will persist.”

    I guess at this time of my life I want to experience and imagine more and believe less.



  • Bunkai  On July 7, 2011 at 8:57 PM

    In quotes above. There is no conclusive science that I know of that the Universe is a result of shared perceptions to the degree where we can count such belief as fact. Hense, it is based on faith and therefore religious.


  • vinaire  On July 7, 2011 at 9:45 PM

    I consider a religion to be an early scientific theory of its time. It would have remained science if it had allowed itself to be freely contributed to. It became a religion because it demanded unquestioned acceptance.

    Anyway, the datum above is not religious because it allows itself to be questioned and improved upon. So, let me hear your improvement upon this idea that you are calling “religious.”



  • vinaire  On July 7, 2011 at 9:52 PM

    By the way, Science is ultimately based on faith in some arbitrary premises. It is science because it looks at and tries to continually remove inconsistencies.

    So, what inconsistencies do you see in the above essay? Please be specific, and give me your well-thought-out analysis.



  • bunkai  On July 9, 2011 at 11:28 PM



    • vinaire  On July 10, 2011 at 7:13 AM

      I do not think that there is an effort in these essays to teach anything. The only effort that I see is to encourage people to look and to get some dialogue going on abstract subjects of deep significances.


      I have recently rewritten KHTK 4 based on your feedback. I have even revised the exercises in that essay.



  • bunkai  On July 9, 2011 at 11:30 PM

    This is what you are telling them to see:

    “Perception, when continually modified, become increasingly persistent to a point of solidity we know as the physical universe.
    Thus, it may be said that the physical universe is being generated by the very nature of the human being. As long as the being continues to be judgmental knowingly or unknowingly, the problem of the physical universe will persist.”


    • vinaire  On July 10, 2011 at 7:15 AM

      I am simply stating what I see at the moment and it is subject to revision based on the feedback and further looking.



      • bunkai  On July 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM

        You are proposing the creation of the universe is a result of our creating it from modified perceptions.

        That is a religious position and … and … AND a goddam RIGHT in this country!


        … But …

        Personally, I have looked long and far to find some system of mental practices and meditations in a system that has no religious agenda behind it AT ALL.

        Just tools that people can use to unlock the universe on their own and that are ACTUALLY SCIENTIFIC. Practices that really do make life suck less that are grounded in the scientific method AND ancient traditions.

        And that doesn’t exist yet. But it’s coming along with places like the Mind and Life Institute.

        And that’s where Humankind is right now. So … I’ll sit with that awhile. Me and my good friend Ksitigarbha.

        Toughest BITCH in the Universe!

        _/!\_ (gassho)


      • vinaire  On July 10, 2011 at 8:13 PM

        Check out PERCEPTION in Wikipedia. It also says that perception is the result of the interpretation of sensory input by the mind. This is exactly what I am saying. What is the religious agenda here?

        By the way, how are you defining RELIGION and RELIGIOUS AGENDA. I am curious.



      • bunkai  On July 11, 2011 at 8:27 AM

        A Religious agenda is the attempted transmission of predetermined spirtitual beliefs as a direct result of of applying a body of learning.


      • vinaire  On July 11, 2011 at 8:32 PM

        To me a belief is a belief. Whether it is religious or non-religious, the repercussions of a belief are the same. Is there a particular reason you are differentiating between religious and non-religious beliefs?



  • vinaire  On July 10, 2011 at 8:17 PM

    A person’s phobia is very real to him, though others cannot see it. This is an example of perception gone solid, but for that person only.

    There can be phobia about religion too. But a rational look at religion tells me that it must have started out as a primitive scientific theory but over time it became ossified into blind belief without understanding.

    Any religion should be treated as a scientific theory and must be improved upon. There should be nothing so sacred that it cannot be questioned.



  • Chris Thompson  On December 14, 2011 at 12:36 AM

    Beginning about two months ago I did TR0 (confronting with eyes open) also aligning with principles of KHTK on the snow of an untuned channel on my TV set. I’ve done this about 10 times for approximately 30-40 minutes at a time. Why? To see what I would see. I did so without judgement.
    With no particular purpose and no expectation but only with interest I watched. After a short time the dots became not just homogeneous snow but a field of dots with varying shades of dark and light. This too changed and after a time shadowy shapes from X’s and wavy lines appeared and drifted across the screen. At other times, ball or spherical shapes appeared and twice they became 3 dimensional with approximately 1/2 the sphere appearing to bulge toward me from the front plane of the TV screen.
    There are more images from shadowy people to other geometric shapes and shadowy blotches I could describe however, I feel the experience was much more interesting for me than for anyone reading me write about it. What’s my point? I dunno, it seemed to fit with yours and KG aka Bunkai’s post.
    (A control that I used was to tune to analog TV to a channel which has no local broadcast. Was I successful in screening out any and all actual broadcast signal? I tried to but cannot say with certainty. For one more frame of reference, I would say my attitude conformed with KHTK basic exercises)
    . . . and so what I demonstrated to myself was that given a plain field of oscillating black, grey, and white dots that I consider held no inherent pattern but potential patterns only, my mind was able to organize the perceptions increasingly into forms under my control. I do understand that the black cat was my own.

    I have more, curious?


  • vinaire  On December 14, 2011 at 6:47 AM

    Of course, I am curious. Please continue.



  • vinaire  On March 16, 2012 at 7:55 AM

    Something always bugged me about this essay. With the revisions made today, I feel that this essay is now closer to my liking.

    This is definitely the direction to go in, in order to discover what this universe is, how it comes about, and how it is maintained.



    • Chris Thompson  On March 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM

      Thanks for the update. I think I may owe you a thank you.

      I am experiencing a similar phenomena as you describe. — “something has always bugged me about this essay” — This month all bets are off for me and I am starting all over again. I have backtracked to a fork in the road that I took approximately 60 years ago and I am re-thinking my major premises of existence. I am re-examining every step in this trek leading to the supposedly unknowable. The shear paradox of unknowable has continually abraded me. Your bringing it up and “putting the unknowable in my face” (how can that be done? haha) during each discussion has forced this paradox to the surface and gradually reshaped my thinking toward a more material reality set.

      My personal disagreements with this terminology of unknowable has forced my own inconsistent thinking along the lines of “what could be unknowable” vs “what could be self” to surface. This feels like an important mental breakthrough for me accordingly I have been experiencing all the usual Scientology benchmarks for the leveling of a process as in epiphany, happiness, and smiling.

      This has been a years long process. But has resulted in a personal world view which is more devoid of barriers and less compartmentalized. In other words, the world that I see around me is more mathematical and more fractal. There is plenty of room in the “physical universe” I see for every state of reality. The supposed veil between material and spiritual is dissolving for me in a similar manner as the “sound barrier” vanished. By this I do not mean to say that there is not a spiritual existence. I just mean that it is not separate from the physical existence. Maybe the state is different enough for there to be some “surface tension” but that is all I see to the separation.

      Thank you.


    • vinaire  On March 16, 2012 at 7:25 PM

      I do backtracking all the time in the form of continually reviewing my premises, no matter how long ago, or how recently, I acquired them. I also find spiritual and material realities inching closer toward each other in terms of being part of a single system, instead of being two independent realities in opposition to each other as in the Theta-MEST Theory. I am excited at the prospect of what you might be coming up with. You have helped me in many ways.

      All of our universes are built upon our premises. The fastest way to resolve inconsistencies throughout a universe, is to resolve inconsistencies at the level of premises. This is a continual quest for me. Good to have you with me on this journey.



      • Chris Thompson  On March 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

        Yes. Good to be together. 🙂

        I am now reading Stephen Wolfram’s 1280 pages manifesto, A DIFFERENT KIND OF SCIENCE. I have my work cut out for me because of volume. On the other hand, Wolfram’s computerized and backtracking fractals are a ballet of Occam’s Razor and in this regard I expect to find it more easy to understand. Our past year together leaves me feeling ready.


      • vinaire  On March 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM

        Great! Go for it.

        My progress with Maxwell’s Equations is slow but steady. Electromagnetism is a big subject. There are simply too many blanks.



%d bloggers like this: