The seer and and the seen

[Windwalker]

A physicist remarked that if one knew everything there is to know about a single drop of water, he would pretty much
have a handle on the mysteries of the universe.

That's true if said he saw the entire universe in that single drop. Then I'd say he has become a mystic. (one can see that without becoming a physicist)

 

[Audie]

That's true if said he saw the entire universe in that single drop. Then I'd say he has become a mystic. (one can see that without becoming a physicist)

Not even close to what I quoted, sorry-ah.

 

[Windwalker]

Not even close to what I quoted, sorry-ah.

Why isn't it? I think it was a very true comparison. If he knew all there was in a single drop of water, he'd know the whole universe. That is a mystical realization. That's finding God. You can also know the entire universe in the eyes of a child. And you don't need to get a degree in physics. Just an open mind.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

If the "seen" represents all things that are real, observable, measurable, practical, repeatable, falsifiable, predictable, and logical, then it represents ALL fields of science. We do not have a complete understanding of all things that are "seen", as demonstrated by our need to add constants to make all the pieces fit. But, we are still working on the problems everyday. Who is saying that they completely understand the "seen"? No rational person would ever make such a claim. It presupposes that our understanding has a limit. Can you describe some of the properties of the "seer"? Are you saying that the two categories of the Universe, are those physical properties of reality that can be demonstrated as the product of cause and effect(real), and those non-physical properties that can't be demonstrated as the product of cause and effect? If so, then I agree. However, labeling only two categories for the entire Universe, seems a bit of a false dichotomy to me. This would mean that you have excluded all other possible categories. I just don't think you have the absolute knowledge necessary to do this.

So why don't we just stick to what we do know, and build on that. So, either demonstrate your hypotheses, or abandon them.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

While science can study anything, not everything to be known is achieved by study. In fact, most of what we know does not come through study and observation, but by being, through experience. A subject studies objects. But the subject knows itself through letting go of seeking itself outside itself by turning itself into an object of the mind.

Think of it like feeling how your body stretches and moves. You can read everything there is to know about the human body and its operations, but you will have no clue what a body actual is until you actually inhabit it and live through it as the subject of itself. Turning subjects into objects, makes their actual reality into an unreality, a cardboard cutout facade of reality. Hence the mystic recognizes all of that as the world of illusion.


Its purely subjective reality.


What is "seen" is a mental idea of what the seer is. What is seen is a mirage.


Being the Seer is knowing the Seer. It is not arrived at through observation. Anything observed is not the reality of the thing itself. It's reality becomes our idea or model of its actual reality. We replace its reality with our mental image of it. It becomes a projection of our minds to us, like the images of our dreams with its independent reality.

But that is not the waking state of our existence. When we open our eyes and the fog of dreams clears, we inhabit the real. We don't need to study if we are awake. We know are by subjectively being awake. We just know we are. We don't need peer-reviewed articles to tell us that. Any child knows this innately. That's how we know the Seer. We wake up and know what is real.

Why are the things we perceive through our senses not real? Our experiences also includes our studies and observations. Maybe you can give an example of anything that we've learned/know(other than instinctual or involuntary), that was learned without the use of our sense organs? Or, maybe you can explain just how our physical brain compartmentalize the information it receives? What we see is not a mental idea. It is the brain's best guess representation of our external environment, to the subjective mind. We can never see our 3 dimensional self from outside of self. There are no empathic neural interface or connections outside of self. Everything we observe at the macro level of reality is real, since our senses are also prisoners of cause and effect. How do you think we could have survived this long, if we believed that what is real was only a mirage?

Reality exists whether we exists or not. It doesn't matter whether we are asleep, awake, or dead, we still inhabit reality. We are subjective because our senses are connected only to ourselves. This means that our perspective will also be subjective. You are correct that we need to be awake and conscious, to be consciously aware of reality. But of course this would be just stating the obvious.

I think you are confusing knowledge with belief. You might want to believe that something exists outside of our physically(not thermodynamically) closed system, but the evidence disagrees with you. Maybe you can explain your doctrine of the mind, without drowning your explanations in a sea of disjointed word salad, and meaningless metaphors?

 

[HonestJoe]

There is no way that the subject can be studied, except from a third party POV. And that is not what the subject is.

And there is no way that the object can be studied, except from a third party POV. And that is not what the object is.

 

[HonestJoe]

How do you know it's not related? On what basis do you say it's not? Do you understand what the Seer is?

An manufactured concept which adds unnecessary complication based on the natural human obsession and over-valuing of ourselves. The capitalisation is the cherry on the cake.

I said "without thoughts", but I assume you typo'd.

No, my point was that “without thoughts” you can be studying in any context.

Again, as is the point of the OP, you cannot "study" the Seer. In order to do that, you would have to make is an object, which is not possible. The Seer is the Subject. You can only apprehend the reality of it subjectively, with your being, not your intellect which objectifies the world. After the fact, then you can try to use words to describe it, but it's not something outside of the person you're talking to that they can go find somewhere. That is the point of this thread.

Yes, and it is a point I disagree with.

If you study me at the same time you’re studying me, we’d each be both “seer” and “seen” at the same time. The whole subject and object separation isn’t a physical change of state, just a change of status. The underlying reality of the thing isn’t any different. Our ability to study the “seer” is no more limited than our ability to study the “seen” because it’s exactly the same thing.

Our ability to study the process of “seeing” is where the difference applies (though still, the limitations are due to many of the same factors). I think a key distinction here is viewing existence as a set of things or a set of processes. Our nature means we focus on things but I don’t think this is the right way to approach this kind of question.

 

[Audie]

Why isn't it? I think it was a very true comparison. If he knew all there was in a single drop of water, he'd know the whole universe. That is a mystical realization. That's finding God. You can also know the entire universe in the eyes of a child. And you don't need to get a degree in physics. Just an open mind.

Well, this being the thread it is in the forum it is, I
guess it is hardly surprising that someone would
see things in terms of mysticism.

I dont think the author in any way meant he had, or
ever possibly could, know all there is to know about a
drop of water.

What is to know there is of course, hugely mathematical,
and if to someone that is "mystic", then, to them it is.

To say that one "can" know all via the eyes of a child
is a bit of a stretch. Nobody can do that.

I've my opinions about the idea of somehow receiving
direct knowledge, no study needed, but never mind.

 

[Fool]

you confuse forms and egos with unformed things. some things don't arise from other things; even if some thing do.

What is your orginal face?

It's a koan.

forms are confused with unconditional mind. mind has no form. it is what forms. mind is the seer

"The Master took the high seat in the Hall. He said: 'on your lump of red flesh
is a true man without rank who is always going in and out of the face of every one of you.
Those who have not yet proved him, look, look!" (Discourse III) - lin-chi

look to the mind

 

[Windwalker]

Why are the things we perceive through our senses not real?

You answered your own question here:

It is the brain's best guess representation of our external environment, to the subjective mind.

A "best guess representation" is not the reality of what you are seeing. That's why. It's a mental model, and a model is not the actuality of the thing.

But to be clearer in what I was saying, I did not say there was no real reality to be perceived, nor that the senses aren't how we interface with it. What I was saying is that what we perceive, how we translate its reality into our minds, becomes mistaken as the reality of the thing itself. What we are actually seeing, what we believe is reality, is our mental images of it.

Maybe you can give an example of anything that we've learned/know(other than instinctual or involuntary), that was learned without the use of our sense organs?

I think what might help explain what I'm talking about in here is to reference something else I just posted in another thread. You'll see how it dovetails with what I am saying here, and how it perhaps better explains what I'm saying:

Before our minds had developed sufficiently in order to process language and the meaning of words, our experience of the world and ourselves was through pure sensation without the boxes of words. Every pore of our bodies acted as receptors to the world. It was an awakening from the state of a formless reality into the world of form. Sense and sensation was all there was filling our brains with data about the world. All was just vague, magical, and at times terrifying images filling our conscious minds without context. It was a major download of data into brains through our conscious awareness.

And then came words. When our brains developed the capacity to create and hold concepts, we were told "this is a chair. This is a car. This is the color red," and so forth. This vast Openness that was reality was now becoming reduced and contained into word objects. "This is a tree", pulled it away from pure sensation to a thought that could be stored in the mind in memory to be experienced. The reality of the tree, and the mental object called tree became fused to each other, and reality shrunk down in size.

This process of course continued and expanded at blinding rates, objectifying as many objects as possible into a vast complex of mental objects with names attached to them. Even our own self-identities became one of these metal objects, especially pronounced during early adolescence entering into puberty and the accelerated socialization that goes along with that. The collapse of our experienced reality moved from pure subconscious awareness, a pure pre-verbal reality, into a world of words and mental objects.

The ego or self-identity became a projection of concepts about one's own self on the screen of mental objects, pulling us further and further away from this Oceanic state of just simple pure awareness without the judgement of words and ideas. We then naively began looking "out there" from something that had been lost "in here", that "hole" that got created for something that slipped away from us unawares through this gradual process of enculturation.

So what is the mystical experience? It is similar to the Oceanic state of the preverbal mind, but rather than being seen as a regression, it is an awakening to a natural state in us that got suppressed underneath a mountain of words and mental objects which replaced reality with an image of reality in our minds. The mystical state is a less a return to that, than it is a move forward into a transverbal reality, where we understand the error of mistaken identities created by words.​

Reality exists whether we exists or not. It doesn't matter whether we are asleep, awake, or dead, we still inhabit reality.

Yes, reality exists. What I am saying is very few actual see that reality because they have obscured its reality with a projection of mental objects shrouding it from our senses. We mistake what we look at, with our idea of it. We conflate reality with how our minds translate it to us. As I touched on in what I quoted from myself above, this move into language is what collapsed reality into a mental-reality, one which is created by convention of words and culture. We live in a bubble-universe of thoughts and ideas.

What the mystic does is to step outside that bubble reality, that artificial reality of language and culture, to allow the *reality* of what is to simply shine forth and inform us of itself, beyond words. To try to capture "what is" into a net of our thoughts, is to change its reality, like killing a bird to put into your collection in order to "study it". The problem is, it's now no longer a bird! It's a lifeless husk of what once was a bird. Thus it is with everything we collapse into a world of named objects.

We are subjective because our senses are connected only to ourselves. This means that our perspective will also be subjective. You are correct that we need to be awake and conscious, to be consciously aware of reality. But of course this would be just stating the obvious.

What is not obvious to most, is that while they experience a "waking state", it too is actually still a dream state. They experiences the objects floating around in their minds projected on the world, as the world itself. It's still dreaming. It's still not being awake in the world.

One of the most common reports of the mystic states the shock of awakening to see what you have been seeing the whole time, but never saw. "It was there the whole time, and I couldn't see it. It was never anywhere else but right here in front of me". It's "hidden" right before our eyes, because our eyelids are closed looking instead at our ideas of reality mapped out to our minds through language and culture. Why do you suppose the common practice of mystics is to first quiet, and then move beyond our own thoughts?

I think you are confusing knowledge with belief.

I actually say that same thing about the majority of people. We confuse what we believe is true, formed through language and culture, with actual knowledge of reality. It's just really a case of mistaken identity, confusing our belief about reality, with reality itself.

You might want to believe that something exists outside of our physically(not thermodynamically) closed system, but the evidence disagrees with you. Maybe you can explain your doctrine of the mind, without drowning your explanations in a sea of disjointed word salad, and meaningless metaphors?

I do not engage in word salads. If you don't understand something, assume I'm not an idiot. Assume you don't understand the context, and ask for clarification instead.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

How can skeptics who believe the entire universe could be an in-the-moment-projection or a matrix deny unseen reality?

How can skeptics who cannot see tell those who have seen the unseen they haven't seen it?

How can people devoted to science not understand the limits of science, regarding metaphysics, like love, justice and spirit?

 

[Windwalker]

Well, this being the thread it is in the forum it is, I
guess it is hardly surprising that someone would
see things in terms of mysticism.

I see everything in that context; in this forum, eating breakfast, paying the bills, going to the grocery store, etc.

I dont think the author in any way meant he had, or
ever possibly could, know all there is to know about a
drop of water.

I caught that of course. It was a metaphor to describe that the Mystery of creation can be seen and explored in anything and everything. Do you think he wasn't saying that?

What is to know there is of course, hugely mathematical,
and if to someone that is "mystic", then, to them it is.

Yes, there is a point where when one explores reality at the deepest of levels, one starts dipping their toes into the waters of mystical realization. The greatest minds in physics did just this. (Not to mistake science with mysticism, but rather to compare what becomes realized through each as touching into these respective domains).

To say that one "can" know all via the eyes of a child
is a bit of a stretch. Nobody can do that.

But that is not true at all. What the eyes of the mystic sees, is everything, the entire universe, in a single drop of rain, in the smile of a human soul looking out across the expanse from himself to another in timelessness, in the smell of a flower, in a single breath of air, and so forth. This is a common experience for the mystic. We sink back, as it were to Simplicity itself and see everything in a single glance. We don't experience reality with a scalpel and a dissection table of thought.

What and who that author is, or was saying is not the point. Whether he knew it or not (but I suspect he may have, if you could share his name), is in fact true from the mystics claim. It's pretty much a universally claimed thing. I certainly claim that is how it is experienced based on my own experience.

I've my opinions about the idea of somehow receiving
direct knowledge, no study needed, but never mind.

I'd be interested in hearing that. Perhaps we aren't as far afield as you may be assuming.

 

[Windwalker]

An manufactured concept which adds unnecessary complication based on the natural human obsession and over-valuing of ourselves. The capitalisation is the cherry on the cake.

So you see it as a concept, a speculation of thought. That is of course the opposite of what anyone here has suggested, or is saying. Rather, the Self is a description of actual experience. It's what is left, when you get rid of all thoughts and ideas. Not anything like what you are speculating about here.

But the ironic thing here is that, the egoic self, is exactly, precisely what you imagine the Self is! Your words perfectly describe that illusion of the self the mystic seeks to move beyond. As I said, it is ironic how you captured that, but mistakenly pointing the finger away from the illusion itself. It's a classic example of projecting. And you are most certainly not alone in that error. I certainly have done the same thing.

No, my point was that “without thoughts” you can be studying in any context.

Oh, okay. Well, yes, you don't study things without thoughts. I have no issue recognizing that.

If you study me at the same time you’re studying me, we’d each be both “seer” and “seen” at the same time.

I'll assume you meant if if you study me and the same time I'm studying you (you had "you" in there twice). No, that does not make you both the seer and the seen. If you're not studying, not engaging in analytical thought, but simply witnessing without any judgment of the mind at all, then that makes you the seer. If you are "studying" then you have stepped out of being the seer, and are now a thinker. You are analyzing with the mind, but not knowing the seer itself. You are imposing thoughts on the Witness and on what is seen. The Seer just simply witnesses. Nothing more.

The whole subject and object separation isn’t a physical change of state, just a change of status. The underlying reality of the thing isn’t any different. Our ability to study the “seer” is no more limited than our ability to study the “seen” because it’s exactly the same thing.

The only way you can study the seer, is to make it something outside of yourself, like killing a bird to study a bird, which is now no longer a bird, but a dead husk of a once living thing. You can't understand what the seer is through study. You understand through being it yourself, clearing away the noise that obscures its reality.

Our ability to study the process of “seeing” is where the difference applies (though still, the limitations are due to many of the same factors). I

I think I see the source of your confusion here. You are mistaking understanding the ways in which our minds perceive reality (which I'm all in for), with the actuality of awareness itself. Awareness itself is not a process that can be studied. And that to me, is what the OP is getting at.

 

[Woberts]

Alright. Submit a scientific paper on this for peer review, and get back to me on the results.
Then I might be inclined to believe you.

 

[Audie]

I see everything in that context; in this forum, eating breakfast, paying the bills, going to the grocery store, etc.


I caught that of course. It was a metaphor to describe that the Mystery of creation can be seen and explored in anything and everything. Do you think he wasn't saying that?


Yes, there is a point where when one explores reality at the deepest of levels, one starts dipping their toes into the waters of mystical realization. The greatest minds in physics did just this. (Not to mistake science with mysticism, but rather to compare what becomes realized through each as touching into these respective domains).


But that is not true at all. What the eyes of the mystic sees, is everything, the entire universe, in a single drop of rain, in the smile of a human soul looking out across the expanse from himself to another in timelessness, in the smell of a flower, in a single breath of air, and so forth. This is a common experience for the mystic. We sink back, as it were to Simplicity itself and see everything in a single glance. We don't experience reality with a scalpel and a dissection table of thought.

What and who that author is, or was saying is not the point. Whether he knew it or not (but I suspect he may have, if you could share his name), is in fact true from the mystics claim. It's pretty much a universally claimed thing. I certainly claim that is how it is experienced based on my own experience.


I'd be interested in hearing that. Perhaps we aren't as far afield as you may be assuming.

"]I see everything in that context; in this forum, eating breakfast, paying the bills, going to the grocery store, etc


Seeing everything in one context-
Kind of like what one author said of the crocodile, that
it has a one word vocabulary: Recognition and Ingestion.


I caught that of course. It was a metaphor to describe that the Mystery of creation can be seen and explored in anything and everything. Do you think he wasn't saying that?

No, it was not a metaphor. Once you "see" that, you
will be far ahead of where you are now.

The words may be the same, but the basis and significance
are entirely different.

As is the understanding that to get there is almost
certainly impossible, compared to the mystic who
gets "there", eating at McDonalds.


Author?
Dr Richard Feynman

I would recommend "Six Easy Pieces"
and
"Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman"

 

[HonestJoe]

I think I see the source of your confusion here. You are mistaking understanding the ways in which our minds perceive reality (which I'm all in for), with the actuality of awareness itself. Awareness itself is not a process that can be studied. And that to me, is what the OP is getting at.

Awareness is a set of processes that most certainly can be studied. We can’t fully access all of the relevant information and probably never fully understand it because of the practical limitations but that’s true of pretty much everything we study. We can't even count all the stars in the universe but we can still study them.

I recognise that the OP (and you) is asserting that this “thing” exists but somehow outside our ability to observe it. I see no reason to believe such a thing actually exists and, given that you’re saying it can’t be studied in any way, I don’t see how you can so definitively assert that it does exist. Put it simply, how could you know?

 

[Windwalker]

Awareness is a set of processes...

That is debatable.

We can’t fully access all of the relevant information and probably never fully understand it because of the practical limitations but that’s true of pretty much everything we study. We can't even count all the stars in the universe but we can still study them.

I'd argue we can't because you cannot take the one that looking, and get rid of it in order to look at it without its presence. It's like trying to see your eyes you are looking out of. You can see a reflection of them, but that is not your eyes that is the thing doing the actual seeing itself. Seeing, is a subjective experience. You can't "study it", to understand what is it to actually see. You have to do it. You can't tell what an orange tastes like, by researching it without every actually tasting it.

I recognise that the OP (and you) is asserting that this “thing” exists but somehow outside our ability to observe it.

It's not a thing. It's not outside of you. It's not an object of study. Do you know yourself because you studied yourself? Tell me how that came about in your life?

I see no reason to believe such a thing actually exists and, given that you’re saying it can’t be studied in any way, I don’t see how you can so definitively assert that it does exist. Put it simply, how could you know?

Because I am.

 

[Audie]

Because I am.

That you is?

 

[Windwalker]

That you is?

I was going to type because I AM, but thought that was a little over the top. But is works. It's like asking someone "how do you know you exist?".

 

[Windwalker]

"]I see everything in that context; in this forum, eating breakfast, paying the bills, going to the grocery store, etc


Seeing everything in one context-
Kind of like what one author said of the crocodile, that
it has a one word vocabulary: Recognition and Ingestion.

You don't have any overlay you see and translate the world through? Really?

I caught that of course. It was a metaphor to describe that the Mystery of creation can be seen and explored in anything and everything. Do you think he wasn't saying that?

No, it was not a metaphor. Once you "see" that, you
will be far ahead of where you are now.

The words may be the same, but the basis and significance
are entirely different.

Are they? Not from my perspective. From your's clearly it is.

As is the understanding that to get there is almost
certainly impossible, compared to the mystic who
gets "there", eating at McDonalds.

Only if you are now calling God, "McDonalds". Maybe I should reconsider their "happy meal".