What Is In-seeing?

[Spider Jerusalem]

I found an interesting section in the book Open Secret by Wei Wu Wei.

Quote

In-seeing does not mean looking in one direction instead of in another, "in" instead of "out", from the same center, as is commonly supposed, but seeing FROM within instead of FROM without, seeing from the source, which is noumenon, not from manifestation, which is phenomenon.

I bring this up, because I had always assumed when I started meditating that I (whatever "I" means) had to look in a different direction (i.e. observing inner emotions, thoughts etc.). But Wei Wu Wei's description above seems to indicate that looking in any direction is just "more of the same" since the seeing is still occurring from a phenomenal center (I suppose he means from the little phenomenal self). If I'm interpreting this correctly, it seems like the seeing has to occur from non-phenomenal vantage point at which point it seems like there is only "seeing," and no apparent distinction between "inside" and "outside," -- as in everything is outside when viewed from the noumenon as Wei Wu Wei calls it.

I like to think of this as "you can't see it, you can only see from it." (the "it" being apparently non-phenomenal)

Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this and how it may apply in a practical sense for new ways of seeing.

[jjer94]

1 hour ago, Spider Jerusalem said:

I found an interesting section in the book Open Secret by Wei Wu Wei.

I bring this up, because I had always assumed when I started meditating that I (whatever "I" means) had to look in a different direction (i.e. observing inner emotions, thoughts etc.). But Wei Wu Wei's description above seems to indicate that looking in any direction is just "more of the same" since the seeing is still occurring from a phenomenal center (I suppose he means from the little phenomenal self). If I'm interpreting this correctly, it seems like the seeing has to occur from non-phenomenal vantage point at which point it seems like there is only "seeing," and no apparent distinction between "inside" and "outside," -- as in everything is outside when viewed from the noumenon as Wei Wu Wei calls it.

I like to think of this as "you can't see it, you can only see from it." (the "it" being apparently non-phenomenal)

Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this and how it may apply in a practical sense for new ways of seeing.

That book is very dense and esoteric. If you haven't already read up a lot on enlightenment stuff, I suggest you try a lighter read.

That being said... the noumena that he is referring to is Truth itself. He is referring to the fact that nothing in phenomena (everything you experience) can be noumena. Nothing in the dream state can be Truth due to phenomena being ephemeral. Noumena is everlasting. This is what he means when he says that noumena is the only 'thing' that exists, and phenomena are its temporary manifestations. Phenomena are not separate from noumena, but they are not noumena. Pretty paradoxical, huh?

Another thing: you can know phenomena, but you can't know noumena. Noumena is pure not-knowing. It's what's there when all knowing is gone. How can you know something that is Infinite? To know Infinity would place you above it, which is impossible. 

Then you may be wondering, how can I directly encounter Truth if nothing in my phenomenal experience is it, and I can't even know it? The thing is, you're being it. Here's an analogy: you can't see your own eyes, but you can be conscious that you have eyes just by the fact that you're seeing. This is likely what Wei Wu Wei is referring to when he talks about in-seeing. To see that you experience form and emptiness in the phenomenal world, but by the fact that they're there you can infer that something else is witnessing all of it, and that witness is Truth. I think this is also where the common phrase "the seeker is the sought" comes from.

Oddly enough, when you look for that witness of everything, there's nothing there. It's a very intuitive realization.

[Guest]

Seeing:
There are many aspects to this topic.
1. In the normal mode, as a human being, we see with the visual sense organ. The actual seeing is an interpretation of the signals arriving at the visual cortex of the brain from the visual sense organ(s) [eye(s)].
2.  There is seeing via the intellect. When we say "I see", we acknowledge our understanding of a matter intellectually.
3.  There is inference.  This is a deeper level of intellectual "seeing" where one has learned to infer further or deeper meaning or implications related to a certain topic of attention.
4.  Insight. This is perhaps the first indication of "seeing" just beyond intellectual inference.
5.  Intuition.  This is a seeing outside of the intellect, perhaps based on instinct and experience.  It is not always accurate or reliable because emotions are sometimes mixed up with the instinctive or intuitive sense.

All of the above might be called the more or less "normal" types of "seeing" that we are familiar with and they are phenomenal.
Once we have set foot on the path of "seeking" truth, we begin to discern the subtleties of thinking and how we respond to ideas and conditioning in general.  This is a subtle type of "seeing" which is the beginning of developing the skill of discernment, which will lead to a clearer understanding of relationships concerning one's self and the world.

As we dedicate more attention to the subtleties of perception a new dimension of "seeing" becomes available to us.  It is in the subjective realm.  It is still phenomenal in nature but offers potential for the beginning of the exploration of "being".
I can say no more - it is up to each individual to search this out in depth.

By the way I use the term individual purposely here.  It literally means indivisible or undivided, which implies wholeness, completeness.  Only a true individual is capable of pursuing liberation since he or she is no longer bound by the shackles of conditioned thinking and beliefs.
A true individual has done the work, so to speak.  His or her level of integrity, wholeness, is sufficient to approach the door step of noumenon. This is already a higher level of "seeing".

joy

Edited February 10, 2016 by walt

[Spider Jerusalem]

38 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

That book is very dense and esoteric. If you haven't already read up a lot on enlightenment stuff, I suggest you try a lighter read.

That being said... the noumena that he is referring to is Truth itself. He is referring to the fact that nothing in phenomena (everything you experience) can be noumena. Nothing in the dream state can be Truth due to phenomena being ephemeral. Noumena is everlasting. This is what he means when he says that noumena is the only 'thing' that exists, and phenomena are its temporary manifestations. Phenomena are not separate from noumena, but they are not noumena. Pretty paradoxical, huh?

Another thing: you can know phenomena, but you can't know noumena. Noumena is pure not-knowing. It's what's there when all knowing is gone. How can you know something that is Infinite? To know Infinity would place you above it, which is impossible. 

Then you may be wondering, how can I directly encounter Truth if nothing in my phenomenal experience is it, and I can't even know it? The thing is, you're being it. Here's an analogy: you can't see your own eyes, but you can be conscious that you have eyes just by the fact that you're seeing. This is likely what Wei Wu Wei is referring to when he talks about in-seeing. To see that you experience form and emptiness in the phenomenal world, but by the fact that they're there you can infer that something else is witnessing all of it, and that witness is Truth. I think this is also where the common phrase "the seeker is the sought" comes from.

Oddly enough, when you look for that witness of everything, there's nothing there. It's a very intuitive realization.

Wei Wu Wei was dense the first time around, but a third reading many years later...it's something different altogether. Overall, I understand (at some level) that looking for noumenon leads to infinite regression since being IS it. If I "find" a subject, then it would just be another object (a "special" kind of object), and so on until I get a stack overflow.

I like your analogy regarding the eyes. Thanks!

[Spider Jerusalem]

1 hour ago, Pinocchio said:

That said, if it triggered something in you, then it has already done its job. Sounds pretty practical to me.

I see the futility. So I should just stop trying to "see" and just see (oh, wait...perhaps Morpheus said something similar)