Seer - Act of Seeing - Seen

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Ravi writes:

>       But what will be the case if the act of seeing itself is an
> illusion?  Will that negate both seer and the seen?

I don't know what you mean by "the act of seeing being an illusion". Something
like seeing something in a dream and waking up and then thinking that the act
of seeing itself was an illusion? Even then there needs to be a "seer", to
negate.

>       Ramakrishnan's examples ( mirage etc) indicated clearly that
> we have to negate the reality of the appearance with a higher level
> knowledge which is based on understanding. May be we should similarly

Correct. Realization of illusion happens only due to a "higher level"
knowledge. In order to negate anything, there _has_ to be an observer who
cannot be negated. Otherwise you get into a contradiction.

>       Even in the vyaavahaarika reality, what we think as we see is
> very different from what we see. Mind does a lot of trick inbetween
> and creates beauty out of signals our eye receive. When we think we
> are seeing something outside, actually we are seeing something inside
> the mind. I saw a cassette on brain, few years back. The cassette was
> explaining the miracles that happen in inside which is not generally
> known to lay men.

Correct. I have read about these things also.

Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate