The Seen is in the seer

[Miguel Angel Carrasco]

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

        >  > Miguel writes :
        >  > 1) that  there must be a seer that sees the seen.
        >  > Agreed.

> Not in the case of Brahman.  Brahman is self-luminous so no external seer
is needed.

But who said that Brahman is the seen, in need of an outside seer?
It is the only seer. In fact it is the only thing there is.
So there is no place to talk about a seer of Brahman.

Of course, even the distinction seer-seen is valide only as long as the
seen is there (within Consciousness) to be seen. Once the seen eventually
vanishes -once the lila play comes to its end-, then there is no seeing and
thus no seer.

As I said in a previous posting,

....
5) that, as the seen is transient, also the seeing is temporary.
6) that  therefore the seer is not even ^Óa seer^Ô : it just is.