To See or Not to See

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?

Can I see things as they are, the whole of what-is?

Hi Rick, hope you are keeping well. K asked if we could look at a tree, a cloud, a flower without an image. Can we?

Sean, hi. :slight_smile: Been meh, thanks for asking.

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?

1 Like

Where there is seeing, the image/word is as relevant as everything else that is seen.

It’s 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 doesn’t 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 can’t 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. That’s pretty interesting, isn’t it?

No doubt that was K’s 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 anyone’s hopes and expectations.

It may be that for the conditioned brain, the condition of silence isn’t essential; that what’s 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.

2 Likes

I have experienced seeing an image and a tree at the same time - but I wouldn’t 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 …

I don’t know what “an intense seeing” is, but I know we’ve 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 don’t know why you think seeing an image is seeing “the whole complexity of the human mind”. Why can’t 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.

It’s not unreasonable to speculate that if images do not come up at all, you’d 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 say…so when remembering that scene, it’s not just a ‘scene’, ‘I’ am also there. The continuity of the ‘I’ goes backward and forward in time. But if in the present moment the ‘i’ Is not there , it is also not in the past or the future?

1 Like

Inquiry, here are 2 answers to your questions, my personal understanding of course…

you say above: " I don’t know what “an intense seeing”

  • I was trying to make a difference between seeing a “tree + images”, and seeing “a tree - no images”- I freely called this last seeing, intense, maybe I can call it “undisturbed” ?

you say above:" I don’t know why you think seeing an image is seeing “the whole complexity of the human mind”. Why can’t 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 can’t 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 doesn’t 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 it’s 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.

,

1 Like

Sounds like motive and desire fully at the helm.

Since I is motive and desire, why would anything I do be anything else?

Sometimes, one is just curious and experiments to find out what-if-I-do this.

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 ‘change’ what is IS conflict! So it seems that ‘becoming’ is a wrong direction.

I don’t see how it’s possible to experiment with “curiosity about whether it is possible to totally live without conflict”. It is possible to experiment with delayed conditioned response.

I stop trying to end it, the fear, the conflict etc and simply see how it comes about…

Well, yellow does not exist outside of consciousness. It doesn’t matter if it is bee consciousness or the consciousness that is you and I, outside of consciousness it is a certain wavelength of light and impulses in the visual cortex and brain. So when we see the yellow flower, we are seeing an image that is produced by the brain. I don’t see any way around this.

1 Like