by Tom Simmonds

In May 1991, a discussion on soc.religion.eastern had turned to a central question of Eastern philosophy: is there a permanent "knower" behind the stream of conscious experience — a stable subject distinct from the objects it perceives? The question was raised in an Advaita Vedanta framework by John Wheeler, who argued that because thoughts pass away while "you" persist, the knower must be of a fundamentally different nature.

This post is Tom Simmonds' Zen reply. Writing from Siemens Corporate Research in Princeton, Simmonds dismantles the subject/object division with careful philosophical argument and the image of a stream and its ripples: the stream is nothing apart from the flowing water; remove the ripples and the stream is gone. The knower, he argues, is a convenient conceptual invention that does not correspond to any identifiable reality — a conclusion he anchors with the Zen kōan of the student who asks the master to quiet his mind.

The exchange illustrates the live cross-traditional dialogue that made soc.religion.eastern unusual: Advaita and Zen in genuine philosophical contest, conducted respectfully and without condescension, by practitioners who knew both traditions well.

What makes you so sure that this "knower" thing that you're talking about exists? Have you ever seen, felt, or otherwise experienced it? If you say that you have, then was there a second "knower" who experienced the first "knower" as an object — a thing "known"? In other words, who or what was it that "knew" the "knower"? How many of these "knowers" are there? Can the "knower" ever be the "known"? Can the subject ever become its own object? If so, then is it really a subject or is it just another object? If not, then isn't the idea of a knower just a conceptual invention with no identifiable reality corresponding to it?

It seems to me that it's nothing more than a convenient idea that helps you to explain away such qualities of experience as continuous transition (i.e., its "flowing" quality) and the raw, phenomenal presence that we call "awareness" or "consciousness."

The Stream Is Its Ripples

You argue that thoughts are many, while you are singular. But thoughts and experiences flow one into another in a continuous stream, as the rippling waters of a stream flow in continuous change, yet the stream is nothing apart from its rippling waters. Take away the rippling waters, and the stream is gone.

You argue that thoughts are objects, while you are the knower of the objects — the subject. But I think this subject/object division is a conceptual device that doesn't accurately represent the reality of experience. In all the flow of experience, never has this mysterious "subject" of yours appeared. The flowing, rippling waters ARE the stream. Why must you postulate a static identity "behind the scenes"?

If you think this subject exists, then show it to us.

The Zen Kōan of the Pacified Mind

Have you ever heard the Zen story of the student who asked his master to quiet his mind? The master said, "Show me your mind and I'll pacify it." The student responded, "I cannot find it." The master replied, "There, it is pacified!"

On the Absence of Thoughts

You argue that even when all thoughts subside you are still conscious of the absence of thoughts. But if you ever have an idea that thoughts are absent, you are mistaken. That idea itself is a thought. Thoughts are only one form of experience, one kind of ripple in the stream. If there is truly an absence of thoughts, there may yet be other types of experience; the stream flows on.

If experience ever stops completely, how can you say there is consciousness? How could you ever possibly know that? To know something is to be conscious of something, to experience. If experience stops, so does knowing. If there are no rippling waters, there is no stream.

In my humble opinion, the knower is a figment of your imagination.

Colophon

Written by Tom Simmonds, Siemens Corporate Research Inc., Princeton, NJ. Posted to soc.religion.eastern on 23 May 1991, in reply to a post by John Wheeler on the Advaita concept of the witnessing Self.

The argument presented here — that the subject/object distinction is a conceptual overlay on a continuous stream of experience, not a metaphysical reality — is a standard position within Zen and Yogācāra Buddhism, and anticipates contemporary philosophy of mind debates about the nature of the observer. Simmonds' use of the stream metaphor follows a line of Buddhist thinking traceable to the Milindapañha and the Yogācāra store-consciousness doctrine.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: [email protected]

🌲