Seer - Act of Seeing - Seen

[K. Sadananda]

I may be jumping in the middle of discussion.  In the article in introducing my
self, I touched base about the topic - seer, seen and the seeing. I am putting
down some of my thoughts, may not necessarily be in the logical fashion.

The subject-object distinction involving seer and the seen and the associated
experience ( seeing)-  validity of these has to be inquired upon.  Here the
experience is not negated but the truth of the experience has to be analyzed and
understood.  The familiar example is the sun raise and sun set that every one
experiences, but upon inquiry one discovers the truth of that experience  that
sun neither raises nor sets.  Yet the experience is not negated but the truth of
the experience with the help of sastras (here it is physics) is established.
This is the sastra pramaana. Even the knowledge that the sun neither raises nor
sets does not eliminate the further experience of sun raise and sun set, just as
even after knowing it is mirage, does not dismiss the appearance of the mirage.
What gets eliminated is the mistaken notion that that is real. Thus notions
which are based on ignorance gets eliminated with the knowledge based on
Sastras.

The notion that seer and seen are distinct with the experience of seeing is
eliminated by the knowledge that all the distinctions (sajaati, vijaati and
swagata bhedaas) are superficial and the truth is  the advaita state of
oneness appearing as many.  Here one plus many apparent things are still one not
many since the rest are only apparently different from the one who is seeing the
apparent differences.  The differences are only superficial and not real.

Now I will examine this in a different way.

If I am observing an object that is outside, the object my be outside, but the
observation is in the mind.  That the chair that I am seeing may be outside,
but the chair as the observed object with an identification that it is a chair
is in my mind. An object outside but the thought inside.  In fact, if the
mind is not there involved ( mind is nothing but thoughts) I would not see the
object even if it is in front and even if my eyes are looking at it! Hence
object is nothing but a thought in the mind. No thought no object.

Now let us examine the thought.

Since I am seeing the thought or in other words the thought is in my awareness,
the object is in my awareness since the object is nothing but the thought in my
mind.  In fact it is not awareness + thought as two - It is the awareness itself
taking the shape  of the thought - thought is nothing but the name and form
(naame and ruupa) aspect but in and through the thought is the awareness.
Because if the awareness is away from the thought, one will not be aware of the
thought!  Hence thought is nothing but awareness with a name and form of the
thought or the object that is indicative of the thought.  It is like the waves
in the sea. Each wave is nothing but water, in and through.  One cannot separate
the wave from water.  Do I need to do anything to see the water in the wave?  It
may be a wave after a wave, a big wave and small wave - each wave different from
the other - yet every wave is nothing but water with a name and a form pervading
each name and form.  Similarly the thought waves.  Each thought wave is nothing
but awareness.  But I am that awareness.  Awareness cannot be different from me
- Since I am a conscious entity who is aware of the thought and myself too.
Since I am awareness and the thought that I am aware off is nothing but
awareness, the distinction of seer and seen is only superficial.  Every thing is
nothing but awareness that I am.

Let us not get confused with some higher knowledge and lower knowledge.  These
terms are used to distinguish the knowledge off  verses the knowledge or the
awareness itself. Knowledge off is nothing but the thought process the naama and
ruupa, but recognition that each thought is nothing but the awareness modified
is the true knowledge since this knowledge cannot be negated. Since even the
negation is another thought with awareness pervading that thought. This
modificaton of the awareness as the thought is not a real trasformation or real
parinaama but only an apparent since after looking a chair if I see a table, the
chiar thought is instantaneously replaced by the table thought.  There is no
superpositon of chiar image over the table image.  Thus trasformation is only an
apparent trasformation.  Therefore the word mayaa is justified for the
trasformation process.

Therefore seer, seen distinction is the illusory part that can be negated. but
let us not misunderstand that the seen is the illusion. Dwaitins misinterpret
the  advaita and quote that advaita says the world is illusion. No.  The world
seen is real and it is in awareness or filled with awareness since we are aware
of the world.  What is then unreal (that which can be negated) are the notions
that the world is separate from me. It cannot be separated since I am the
awareness and if separted I can not be aware of the world.

Sorry to bud in the on going discussion.  Could not resist.  Please excuse my
english - I am not that good in typing, spelling or proof reading, etc.

Hari Om!
Sadananda



In message  <199606201702.MAA26546 at radian.ecn.purdue.edu> Ramakrishnan
Balasubramanian writes:
> 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