Experience,Experiencer, Self

2 days ago By Yogi Anoop

Experience, the Experiencer, and the Self — Are They Really Three?

Disciple: Gurudev, there is something I do not understand. We say that experience is hidden in the object, and we also say that experience is hidden in the experiencer. So does the experiencer only experience external objects?

And if that is so, then when it is said, “experience the Self,” what does that actually mean? Are the Self and the experiencer two different existences?

Yogi Anoop: Look, the question appears simple, but this very question unties the most difficult knot of the spiritual journey.

First of all, it is important to understand that experience never exists in the object. The object has taste, which is its inherent quality. The experience of that taste is perceived by the experiencer. This experience arises within you, not within the object.

When you say, “I saw this flower,” the flower is merely the visual object; the one who generates the experience from that visual is you — that is, the experiencer.

Even if the flower changes, the capacity to experience remains stable within you. That is why it is said that experience is not in the object, but in the experiencer.

Disciple: But Gurudev, then how is “experiencing the Self” possible? Am I also observing some object there?

Yogi Anoop: No. At this very point, the relationship between experience and the experiencer changes.

When observing an external object, there are two — the observer and the observed. This is duality.

But in the “experience of the Self,” such division is not possible. If you attempt to see the Self as an external object, then who would be the one seeing it?

Who is that experiencer? It is the Self itself. The capacity to experience exists within the Self itself. So how can they be two?

The experiencer itself is your real “Self.” The Self itself is the experiencer. The capacity to experience exists within the Self. That is why the experiencer and the Self are spoken of as if they are separate — only for the sake of understanding. In reality, they are not separate.

Disciple: So does that mean that experiencing the Self is not an action?

Yogi Anoop: Exactly. Experiencing the Self is not an action; it is the cessation of action.

As long as you are “seeing” something, you are functioning as the experiencer.

But when there is no object in front, and even in the absence of any object something remains alone — that which remains is only the experiencer, which is called the Self.

Therefore, instead of calling it “experiencing the Self,” it is more appropriate to call it “realization of the Self,” otherwise a sense of duality may arise in an ordinary intellect.

When the object dissolves, what remains is the realization: “I am.”

This awareness of one’s own being — the awareness of being — is what is called the experience of the Self.

Disciple: So does this mean that the experiencer and the Self are not separate?

Yogi Anoop: Yes, they are not separate at all, because the capacity to experience exists within the Self itself.

They appear separate only when you are in the world of external objects — where there is seeing, knowing, touching. There, the experiencer is playing a role.

But in meditation — where the inward journey begins — the weight of the experiencer gradually falls away.

And when the experiencer falls away, what remains is the Self. 

That is why it is said: “To experience the Self means the dissolution of the experiencer.”

Disciple: Gurudev, then is this the experience of non-duality?

Yogi Anoop: According to me, yes.

Where there are not two — there is neither the process of seeing, nor the seer, nor the seen. There is only the awareness of being. That is not an experience — that is the Self.

And that alone is the true realization of the Self.

Experience, the Experiencer, and the Self — Are They Really Three?

Disciple: Gurudev, there is something I do not understand. We say that experience is hidden in the object, and we also say that experience is hidden in the experiencer. So does the experiencer only experience external objects?

And if that is so, then when it is said, “experience the Self,” what does that actually mean? Are the Self and the experiencer two different existences?

Yogi Anoop: Look, the question appears simple, but this very question unties the most difficult knot of the spiritual journey.

First of all, it is important to understand that experience never exists in the object. The object has taste, which is its inherent quality. The experience of that taste is perceived by the experiencer. This experience arises within you, not within the object.

When you say, “I saw this flower,” the flower is merely the visual object; the one who generates the experience from that visual is you — that is, the experiencer.

Even if the flower changes, the capacity to experience remains stable within you. That is why it is said that experience is not in the object, but in the experiencer.

Disciple: But Gurudev, then how is “experiencing the Self” possible? Am I also observing some object there?

Yogi Anoop: No. At this very point, the relationship between experience and the experiencer changes.

When observing an external object, there are two — the observer and the observed. This is duality.

But in the “experience of the Self,” such division is not possible. If you attempt to see the Self as an external object, then who would be the one seeing it?

Who is that experiencer? It is the Self itself. The capacity to experience exists within the Self itself. So how can they be two?

The experiencer itself is your real “Self.” The Self itself is the experiencer. The capacity to experience exists within the Self. That is why the experiencer and the Self are spoken of as if they are separate — only for the sake of understanding. In reality, they are not separate.

Disciple: So does that mean that experiencing the Self is not an action?

Yogi Anoop: Exactly. Experiencing the Self is not an action; it is the cessation of action.

As long as you are “seeing” something, you are functioning as the experiencer.

But when there is no object in front, and even in the absence of any object something remains alone — that which remains is only the experiencer, which is called the Self.

Therefore, instead of calling it “experiencing the Self,” it is more appropriate to call it “realization of the Self,” otherwise a sense of duality may arise in an ordinary intellect.

When the object dissolves, what remains is the realization: “I am.”

This awareness of one’s own being — the awareness of being — is what is called the experience of the Self.

Disciple: So does this mean that the experiencer and the Self are not separate?

Yogi Anoop: Yes, they are not separate at all, because the capacity to experience exists within the Self itself.

They appear separate only when you are in the world of external objects — where there is seeing, knowing, touching. There, the experiencer is playing a role.

But in meditation — where the inward journey begins — the weight of the experiencer gradually falls away.

And when the experiencer falls away, what remains is the Self. 

That is why it is said: “To experience the Self means the dissolution of the experiencer.”

Disciple: Gurudev, then is this the experience of non-duality?

Yogi Anoop: According to me, yes.

Where there are not two — there is neither the process of seeing, nor the seer, nor the seen. There is only the awareness of being. That is not an experience — that is the Self.

And that alone is the true realization of the Self.

Book An Appointment