Somewhat.
It exists when we use knowledge/past. But now, it doesn’t. And if we continue to find out ‘what this subject/object actually is’ by deeply inquiring without believing ‘this is it’ (i.e. by inquiring in a form of ‘not this’ ‘not this’), we can find what ‘truth’ is.
Aha. Thanks for the explanation. Does the neti neti approach reveal what truth is … or isn’t?
It reveals, but we may get caught in it - if we are not much serious - if we continue to dwell in lust/alcohol/desires.
If lust/desire arises, inquire that too - neglect it as not actual bliss. Continue to find out what then ‘actual bliss’ is.
You seem to be a student of Advaita Vedanta, yes?
Not a student/master, both are same.
No stopping/ending to learn, until merged with it. (Thou art that)
I am seeing it now for the first time; it has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge. Greed is only a problem when I push it away and say, ‘I am not greedy.’ Then arises an image of myself which I must forever keep polishing. And someone comes along and catches me out, denting the image. We push away greed because that is what the rest of society has been doing for generations before us. In the pushing away of greed we create a host of other problems for ourselves. So this one problem contains all the other problems; they are totally interconnected. Then with all these problems around us, we attempt to find a holy grail that will wash them all away, as though the one who arrives at the solution is a separate entity from the problem itself. But there is no entity who can ever solve our problems except by offering up images, which is what has got us into this mess from the start.
This is all fairly simple to see. It is logical, isn’t it?
Is ‘it’ (in “merged with it”) the answer to my question: What is it that sees?
‘It’ is permanent/unlimited/everlasting/truth/god.
But whether that ‘it’ sees through ‘me’ or ‘you’ - need to be inquired and to be found. Until then ‘not this’ ‘not this’.
I understand. Hari om!
Yes. This is very astute, to recognize that a great deal of suffering and confusion comes from an attempt to escape the suffering and confusion, to invent something magical/divine that will protect us from pain. This happens quite often for me, I can sometimes watch it as it arises and takes on a life of its own.
I wonder if your ‘simple, logical’ understanding might be a kind of holy grail, not one that you are searching for, rather one that you believe to have found?
No, I am seeing it now; and I may be wrong. I am saying that greed itself sees its own nature. There is no other element to it.
Yes. Me too. All of us. Everyone … always.
“Open your mouth, you’re wrong.” – Zen saying
Taking this to heart, that we ultimately can’t know The Answer, what is there to do with a question like “What is it that sees?”
Typically I bat it around a while with some likeminded souls, we gain a mini-insight or two along the way, then it goes back in the warming oven until next time. Very Sisyphus.
Whatever the question, it is going to be about the nature of the questioner. Not the questioners further response, but their own fundamental nature. So I can see I am asking a question, and this points to my psychological state. What is the content of the question telling me about my own condition? What is the content of my thinking telling me about my way of thinking? Am I learning?
Yes, that’s a great point Peter. Why do people ask what they ask, what does it reveal about them? What is the questioner’s agenda, conscious and unconscious?
And the value of questioning isn’t limited to its ability to be a mirror. Posing and exploring a question can be a fine way to investigate something.
So it’s a win-win, you gain understanding of the issue being questioned and of yourself.
No, I may be wrong. That’s all. I may be right also. Therefore I have not drawn any conclusion from it. I am still looking.
Let’s take the statement that you said is problematic, which is that ‘anger sees its own nature.’ What is the difficulty with this statement? At the moment of anger, is there anything else other than anger?
I’m late to seeing this thread - “what is it that sees?” - but I wonder if, the way the question has been put, we cannot ask the same question about “what is it that smells?”, or “what is it that tastes?”, or “what is it that hears or touches?” - correct? (After all, some people cannot see, because they are blind, so they rely upon other senses to make sense of the world).
In which case we could then ask: “what is that touches, tastes, smells, hears and sees?” Indeed - in addition to these sensual modalities, what is it that thinks and feels?
Isn’t it the brain (with its attached nervous system)?
But not our personal brain. It is the brain (and nervous system) that has evolved for millions of years - starting off in animals and then by degrees developing in hominids - which we subjectively (but mistakenly) assume to be our own personal property.
So, at the very least - although I’m not denying that there may be more to the question - it is this brain (with its attendant nervous system) that sees.
This broadens the question to include all brains: the brains of the most anonymous bird or rodent, even the brains of fish and insects!
So the question is then: what is it that is sentient (or capable of perception, of feeling) in all living creatures?
What is it about the brain (and nervous system) of any animal that brings about this capacity for sentience? - Right? Isn’t this the question?
Without the brain (and nervous system) there wouldn’t be any sentience, right? (Because there wouldn’t be any senses, or the organs by which sensations are processed as sensations).
But we could still ask: is there anything in our capacity for sentience that involves more than just the sensual modalities of perception?
This seems to be nobody’s question.
So how would we find out? Scientific explanations will not help us here, because science only deals with matter, and the brain and nervous system are wholly material.
So isn’t this where meditation must play a part? And it is in exploring the question of meditation that we can begin to call into question the apparent reality of an observer separate from the observed - right?
The senses are always responding from a particular brain (& nervous system) towards sensual objects that are perceived to be external to that particular brain. So here, in ordinary sense-perception, the observer and a separate observed has a functional relevance (e.g., a particular brain is not the tree it is looking at).
But psychologically, it is a wholly valid question to ask whether this observer-observed relationship still holds. That is: is the thinker separate from his thoughts? Is the see-er or experiencer of suffering separate from the experienced state of suffering that he sees?
If the see-er is not separate from the seen (psychologically speaking), then there is only a state of seeing (without a see-er) - right?
Then the question is: what is this state of pure seeing (without a see-er)?
But is there any way to talk about it from the ordinary point of view that still assumes a separation of the see-er from the seen?
If we cannot talk about it - because our question “what is it that sees?” still assumes this division - then how do we proceed?
I think we have to accept the possibility that the question “what is it that sees?” may be a wrong question. Seeing itself is important, not who or what sees.
In a moment of ‘pure’ anger, the height of rage before the mitigating thoughts and chemicals rush in, the body and mind seem (upon later reflection) to be 100% anger. Of course that’s not true: The body keeps performing its many physiological functions, likewise the brain.
But let’s say for the sake of getting at what we’re trying to get at here that in the moment of anger I am 100% anger. There is no cognitive power (brain CPU) left to see this anger, all power is being used to experience it. When the height of rage lessens a bit and some brain CPU is freed up, then the anger can be seen. But what sees it is not the anger itself, rather awareness.
This is my present understanding. (Could change in a minute!) You?
No, that’s my point: that seeing is merely from memory; it not awareness at all. Once the rage subsides and I look at it, anger has already gone. So what I might call awareness of anger is not awareness at all; it is just thought going back to its merry tricks. Do you see this? The only entity that can possibly be totally aware of anger is anger itself. Anything else is a cop-out.
We are on to something truly amazing here. This is not just about insight into anger, greed and all the other components of our psychological existence. This is an insight into the very nature of awareness.
Yes. Brilliant exegesis, James! Your reasoning seems right on to me, all the way through.
So on the material side, scientifically/objectively, the brain and nervous system see (hear, think, etc.) Check.
On the psychological side, in states when observer and observed are felt to unite, there is no felt seer/seen, only seeing. Check.
But I wouldn’t want to stop there! Is objective-material and subjective-psychological all there is to it? Or is there another lens through which “What is it that sees?” can be examined?
I agree with you that if the height of rage has diminished, awareness sees a memory of the rage … but it also sees the rage itself in its diminished capacity.
I have experimented with this over the years and found that true awareness – not thinking disguised as awareness – sees things without perturbing them. You can even see yourself falling asleep.
So I still maintain that if anything is able to see rage at its height, it is (true) awareness.
Please tell me how an emotion can see itself … or, indeed, how an emotion can see anything?