What happens when one sees the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Can truth be less than whole? Can I know the whole truth about what I know? Do I want to see, or am I just fascinated with the notion of wholeness; the notion of seeing what actually is from my point of view, minus me?
If I could see clearly, could I be me? Or would I have do die and be resurrected to know who/what I actually was? If the ego, I, must die for truth to live, must I be too old and worn out to keep going? Or will I persist for lack of interest in finding out what is not what I think?
If we see something without an image or name, not a daisy or even flower but _________ (the thing itself) are we seeing the whole or a part of what-is?
We are (seem to be) limited beings. Not omniscient. To see the whole, what does it mean?
Where there is seeing, the image/word is as relevant as everything else that is seen.
Itās like watching a documentary with musical accompaniment. You may be barely aware of it, you may find it distracting, or you may see that, unnecessary and annoying as it is, it doesnāt detract from the significance of the information conveyed, and it reveals something about who/what is conveying the information.
In other words, seeing reveals the actual relationship of things, so nothing on the surface has to change for transformation at the deepest level. But once transformation occurs, nothing on the surface is the same.
Hi Rick. Well, I canāt answer any of your questions. However K, as I understand it, said there was great significance in observing a flower, a tree or a cloud without an image, with a silent mind, without judging. Thatās pretty interesting, isnāt it?
No doubt that was Kās experience, but for all we know, K may have always had a silent, vacant mind. As a young man he conformed to what the Theosophists wanted and expected from him, and when he was mature enough to be a light to himself, he was no longer bound by anyoneās hopes and expectations.
It may be that for the conditioned brain, the condition of silence isnāt essential; that whatās essential is to see thought for what it is, thereby revoking all the authority and persuasive power we give to it, reducing it to what it actually is.
I have experienced seeing an image and a tree at the same time - but I wouldnāt call this an intense seeing.
I would say that there is a fundamental difference between seeing a tree and seeing an image. I think it is far more difficult to see an image, cause that implies to see the whole complexity of the human mind.
In seeing a tree the senses are very alert, and there are no images. In such state, the old mind is absent. Images do not come up in a heightened state of attention while looking at a tree. If images come, then the mind oscillates between the states of attention and inattention.
Of course, all the above is my experience and can be ignored.
One more observation: of course that being aware that I have an image of a tree is important but in intense seeing ( cause this is the theme of this post) images do not occur at least for few moments ā¦
I donāt know what āan intense seeingā is, but I know weāve all had the experience of actually seeing for a second or two before thought kicks in and distorts perception to conform to our beliefs and biases.
I would say that there is a fundamental difference between seeing a tree and seeing an image. I think it is far more difficult to see an image, cause that implies to see the whole complexity of the human mind.
I donāt know why you think seeing an image is seeing āthe whole complexity of the human mindā. Why canāt an image be just an image?
In seeing a tree the senses are very alert, and there are no images
Yes, but too briefly to awaken the brain from its conditioning.
Images do not come up in a heightened state of attention while looking at a tree.
Itās not unreasonable to speculate that if images do not come up at all, youād be free of dependency on images, but how would you know, since images always come up?
Delayed reaction shows us that perception need not be reactive, but is and will continue to be until/unless the brain awakens to its conditioning and transforms.
I just want to get this down, I suffer when I remember a past scene and react to my impression of how I acted, ie. wishing that I had acted differently sayā¦so when remembering that scene, itās not just a āsceneā, āIā am also there. The continuity of the āIā goes backward and forward in time. But if in the present moment the āiā Is not there , it is also not in the past or the future?
Inquiry, here are 2 answers to your questions, my personal understanding of courseā¦
you say above: " I donāt know what āan intense seeingā
I was trying to make a difference between seeing a ātree + imagesā, and seeing āa tree - no imagesā- I freely called this last seeing, intense, maybe I can call it āundisturbedā ?
you say above:" I donāt know why you think seeing an image is seeing āthe whole complexity of the human mindā. Why canāt an image be just an image?"
When I look at a tree, my mind moves away from the actual tree, and random images, unrelated to the tree, come up.
I canāt even isolate the image of a tree from other random images !!!
I catch my self looking at the tree and basically day dreaming about my life.
When one image apears, memory awakens, so to speak, and an amalgam of images rushes up, while looking at an object.
So, to see a single image, inevitably brings up the whole complexity of the human mind, and this seeing is very difficult. This takes me back to what I said: if there is a seeing (undistrubed), then it is easier to see an object, with the senses (a tree) than seeing an image in the mind. I suppose this explains why rarealy images are dropped completely, like kids drop the imaginary Santa.
I know it is possible to look at a tree and see nothing but the tree, the waving branches, fluttering leaves, the light filtered through the foliage, the shadows, etc., without reacting with my knowledge of this particular tree or being distracted by some unrelated thought, and I know that if thought doesnāt chime in and return me to myself, I am, for all intents and purposes, gone.
But this presence as absence never lasts long enough for I to be gone for good because itās the psychological equivalent of holding my breath to see how long I can go without breathing what I know. It may be that I can never be gone if I can be whatever it takes to be completely, indivisibly, here now.
There is a curiosity about whether it is possible to totally live without conflict. Eventually perhaps I realize that anything I do to bring this about, creates conflict! Even trying to do nothing! The very desire to āchangeā what is IS conflict! So it seems that ābecomingā is a wrong direction.
I donāt see how itās possible to experiment with ācuriosity about whether it is possible to totally live without conflictā. It is possible to experiment with delayed conditioned response.