Seer and Seeing Problem

[WokeBloke]

Okay so I see some people say there is seeing but no seer. Hearing but no hearer. Etc.

 

My rebuttal for what it's worth...

 

Is there seeing?

If no then nothing is happening and all is well since nothing is happening.

If yes then proceed to next question.

 

Is there a seer?

If no then who/what is seeing?

If nothing/no one is seeing then there is no seeing since there isn't anything/anyone seeing

 

Thus since there is seeing there must be a seer. Where am I wrong?

[Terell Kirby]

3 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Is there a seer?

Yes

[Rilles]

Who sees in your dreams when your eyes are closed? 

[Mason Riggle]

Are trees 'treeing'?    Is there a difference between 'a tree' and 'treeing'? 

Are clouds 'clouding'?  Is there a difference between 'clouds' and 'clouding'? 

There is no 'seer' in addition to 'seeing'.  No 'tree' in addition to 'treeing'.. no 'cloud' in addition to 'clouding'. 

Who or what is 'clouding the clouds'?  Who or what is 'treeing the trees'? 

[WokeBloke]

36 minutes ago, Rilles said:

Who sees in your dreams when your eyes are closed? 

Same one that sees in waking life. How fake eyes are created at night is totally unknown to me.

[Rilles]

7 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Same one that sees in waking life. How fake eyes are created at night is totally unknown to me.

Who is that "one"? What is "that one" made of? 

[WokeBloke]

37 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

Are trees 'treeing'?    Is there a difference between 'a tree' and 'treeing'? 

Are clouds 'clouding'?  Is there a difference between 'clouds' and 'clouding'? 

There is no 'seer' in addition to 'seeing'.  No 'tree' in addition to 'treeing'.. no 'cloud' in addition to 'clouding'. 

Who or what is 'clouding the clouds'?  Who or what is 'treeing the trees'? 

I would say none of those things are subjects which makes them incomparable to humans. If a tree could see then wouldn't it be a seer? 

[WokeBloke]

1 minute ago, Rilles said:

Who is that "one"? What is "that one" made of? 

That one is that one. Only that one is that one haha. And only that one knows that one.

No idea what its made of but I guess I could say it is made of itself.

And from a oneness perspective everybody is that one.

[Terell Kirby]

12 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

That one is that one. Only that one is that one haha. And only that one knows that one.

No idea what its made of but I guess I could say it is made of itself.

And from a oneness perspective everybody is that one.

Y'know .. it is possible to talk about these things in plain English.

If you don't fully realize that the One you speak is God, and that it's also who you are .. then you will continue to be lost in the labyrinth of your mind.

You are the see-er man .. nothing more, nothing less.

[Mason Riggle]

51 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

I would say none of those things are subjects which makes them incomparable to humans. If a tree could see then wouldn't it be a seer? 

Maybe let me put it this way... 

Seeing is happening the same way trees are happening.. 

I could ask.. who is happening the trees? 

This is actually a reframing of the classic philosophical 'tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it' question. 

What is really being asked is, without a subject 'for whom' existence exists, does anything objectively exist? 

Without a 'seer' is anything seen? 

This duality of subject/object is transcended by recognizing the duality as a duality.. two sides of the same coin. 

It's direct. No 'experiencer' in addition to experience. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[WokeBloke]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

Maybe let me put it this way... 

Seeing is happening the same way trees are happening.. 

I could ask.. who is happening the trees? 

This is actually a reframing of the classic philosophical 'tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it' question. 

What is really being asked is, without a subject 'for whom' existence exists, does anything objectively exist? 

Without a 'seer' is anything seen? 

This duality of subject/object is transcended by recognizing the duality as a duality.. two sides of the same coin. 

It's direct. No 'experiencer' in addition to experience. 

so are you saying there is no subject?

If you say there is no experiencer then you have to admit that you are saying no one is experiencing.

If no one is experiencing then there is simply nothing happening. But this is in opposition to the fact that something is happening.

 

[Mason Riggle]

@WokeBloke I'm saying 'what is happening' is the 1 thing there IS. 

[WokeBloke]

48 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@WokeBloke I'm saying 'what is happening' is the 1 thing there IS. 

and who/what knows that it is happening?

[silene]

@WokeBloke  If there is a seer (as you seem to believe), how would you know, as in getting evidence (rather than just using theoretical logic)? 

Do you also need a knower to know the seer? 

But how do you know there's a knower, can you find the knower?  Who finds the knower of the seer of the seen?  Unless maybe all of these are one?  

It's worth watching Leo's video on paradox if you haven't already, to contemplate the strange loop you are entering into ....  good luck, it's a great contemplation to do (aka self-inquiry)    

Edited December 2, 2021 by silene

[WelcometoReality]

9 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

Okay so I see some people say there is seeing but no seer. Hearing but no hearer. Etc.

Seeing without a seer is describing what is being experienced when a realization has happened. Then there is no longer separation between the seer and seen. 

Before realization there seems to be a seer within the body that is looking out of it.

 

9 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

My rebuttal for what it's worth...

 

Is there seeing?

If no then nothing is happening and all is well since nothing is happening.

If yes then proceed to next question.

 

Is there a seer?

If no then who/what is seeing?

If nothing/no one is seeing then there is no seeing since there isn't anything/anyone seeing

 

Thus since there is seeing there must be a seer. Where am I wrong?

You are making a logical conclusion based on the premise that the english language is true. It might be worth contemplating what language is.

If there is a sense of a seer that sees something separate of itself it might also be worth examining where the seer ends and where the seen begins is there any boundary between the two?

 

[Nahm]

@WokeBloke

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

(Suggestion, notice aversion to directly answering that question)

[Mason Riggle]

30 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@WokeBloke

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

(Suggestion, notice aversion to directly answering that question)

I think for him, this just strengthens the notion of an 'experiencer' and an 'experience' which are separate from each other, rather than having the opposite effect, of showing that 'subject/object' are not two things, but one. 

This can be a tricky notion to dispel, because it's not always apparent how connected 'experience' and 'experiencer' really are.

@WokeBloke insists that my coffee cup has an inside, and an outside.. and we are telling him, well.. there's really just 'the whole cup', and the difference between 'inside' and 'outside' is arbitrary, imaginary, and relative.  Inside/Outside exist together, or not at all.. you can't have 'just the outside' of a cup.. same with 'seer' and 'seeing'.  They are, in reality, one thing, 'appearing' as two. 

It's like trying to separate 'a tree' from 'what a tree is doing'... but these are the same thing.  'what a tree does' is 'what a tree is'.  There is no 'tree' that 'grows leaves'.. because 'growing leaves' IS what a tree is. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Nahm]

@Mason Riggle

Maybe, but let’s give him a chance. 

[WokeBloke]

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

@WokeBloke

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

(Suggestion, notice aversion to directly answering that question)

 

I would say no since there needs to be a subject/hearer for there to be a sound.

[WokeBloke]

2 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

I think for him, this just strengthens the notion of an 'experiencer' and an 'experience' which are separate from each other, rather than having the opposite effect, of showing that 'subject/object' are not two things, but one. 

This can be a tricky notion to dispel, because it's not always apparent how connected 'experience' and 'experiencer' really are.

@WokeBloke insists that my coffee cup has an inside, and an outside.. and we are telling him, well.. there's really just 'the whole cup', and the difference between 'inside' and 'outside' is arbitrary, imaginary, and relative.  Inside/Outside exist together, or not at all.. you can't have 'just the outside' of a cup.. same with 'seer' and 'seeing'.  They are, in reality, one thing, 'appearing' as two. 

It's like trying to separate 'a tree' from 'what a tree is doing'... but these are the same thing.  'what a tree does' is 'what a tree is'.  There is no 'tree' that 'grows leaves'.. because 'growing leaves' IS what a tree is. 

Why couldn't seeing consists of two essential components.

Seer and seen.

For example your shoes are seen but they are not the seer. So it seems like there must be a distinction between seen and seen that is based in reality.