03-20-2011, 12:00 AM
alien wrote:
Sedna wrote:
However, it is not clear that one is "seeing" the other person and not just seeing their own agreements, judgments, and perspectives. I believe that stalking was intended to get one outside of their own bs so that one could see another.
When one is really a seer, there is a vast difference between seeing one's own agreements, judgments & perspectives, and actually *seeing* things as they are. Normally, it's possible to validate one's seeing through external means. For example, if I *see* someone as a tyrant or as a saint, I don't just blindly accept that as gospel, but will try to validate what I'm *seeing* by observing their actions, or asking others their experience of the person. It's similar to the difference between the internal dialog and what I personally call "the voice of gnosis" (or silent knowing). We talk to ourselves all the time, but very seldom do we LISTEN to what may be gleaned from the place of silent knowing. Ditto with seeing. We look at the world all the time, but how often do we really *see*? When we DO, there is no doubt of it.
Before you jump to the answers that always seem to be given for this, consider what others are in their totality. Someone once said that all people are buddhas. If indeed all are buddhas and some one thinks they see tactics of trying to discredit them then what is it that they are really seeing...the other person or their fears?
I'm all too familiar with the old quip that "we are all buddhas." Actually, that's most often just the voice of the foreign installation - telling us that we're perfect as we are and therefore no work is required. Buddha didn't become buddha by living a life of debauchery, self-indulgence and mindlessness, but by doing the work required to embrace his higher/authentic self. The potential was there all along, but his intent determined the outcome.
In reality, we are all POTENTIAL buddhas, and the task of ACHIEVING that "buddha-nature" is what some have called "The Great Work". So... when discussing *seeing* from that angle, I would say that it's possible to see the POTENTIAL buddha-nature in every living thing, and at the same time a seer can also see what may be preventing that being from achieving their totality. Does NOT mean the seer is under any obligation to DO anything about it - i.e., we can't change other people. If someone wants to really BE a buddha, they will create that reality through their own intent. If not... the potential remains, a spark waiting to be nurtured into a flame.
But the ultimate 'what is a person really' question. What is it that constitutes a person (their true self in their totality) and what is it you think you are seeing? Are you seeing them in their totality and if you are could one ever in their totality as their true self be a tyrant as you said in your example? Seeing a person wearing a red shirt is one thing, but seeing that a person is a saint because saints often wear red shirts is another thing. You say you watch their actions...so just saying...and asking because I want to get this clear.
When DJ saw, he saw only luminous eggs...and not saints and sinners. So again, before giving the answer you always give, consider what is it that you are seeing...their true self or your projection of meanings and judgments on a set of actions?
You stated previously in another thread the difference between ordinary men and warriors, I think you are onto something with that and think that it applies to this admirably. If a warrior knows nothing matters then it would seem that a warrior wouldn't concern themselves with actions or making those actions matter. If a warrior knew it was all folly, you would think that they would look past the folly to the heart of the true authentic person inside. If you saw past the folly to the authentic person...what is it you see when you see?
Sedna wrote:
However, it is not clear that one is "seeing" the other person and not just seeing their own agreements, judgments, and perspectives. I believe that stalking was intended to get one outside of their own bs so that one could see another.
When one is really a seer, there is a vast difference between seeing one's own agreements, judgments & perspectives, and actually *seeing* things as they are. Normally, it's possible to validate one's seeing through external means. For example, if I *see* someone as a tyrant or as a saint, I don't just blindly accept that as gospel, but will try to validate what I'm *seeing* by observing their actions, or asking others their experience of the person. It's similar to the difference between the internal dialog and what I personally call "the voice of gnosis" (or silent knowing). We talk to ourselves all the time, but very seldom do we LISTEN to what may be gleaned from the place of silent knowing. Ditto with seeing. We look at the world all the time, but how often do we really *see*? When we DO, there is no doubt of it.
Before you jump to the answers that always seem to be given for this, consider what others are in their totality. Someone once said that all people are buddhas. If indeed all are buddhas and some one thinks they see tactics of trying to discredit them then what is it that they are really seeing...the other person or their fears?
I'm all too familiar with the old quip that "we are all buddhas." Actually, that's most often just the voice of the foreign installation - telling us that we're perfect as we are and therefore no work is required. Buddha didn't become buddha by living a life of debauchery, self-indulgence and mindlessness, but by doing the work required to embrace his higher/authentic self. The potential was there all along, but his intent determined the outcome.
In reality, we are all POTENTIAL buddhas, and the task of ACHIEVING that "buddha-nature" is what some have called "The Great Work". So... when discussing *seeing* from that angle, I would say that it's possible to see the POTENTIAL buddha-nature in every living thing, and at the same time a seer can also see what may be preventing that being from achieving their totality. Does NOT mean the seer is under any obligation to DO anything about it - i.e., we can't change other people. If someone wants to really BE a buddha, they will create that reality through their own intent. If not... the potential remains, a spark waiting to be nurtured into a flame.
But the ultimate 'what is a person really' question. What is it that constitutes a person (their true self in their totality) and what is it you think you are seeing? Are you seeing them in their totality and if you are could one ever in their totality as their true self be a tyrant as you said in your example? Seeing a person wearing a red shirt is one thing, but seeing that a person is a saint because saints often wear red shirts is another thing. You say you watch their actions...so just saying...and asking because I want to get this clear.
When DJ saw, he saw only luminous eggs...and not saints and sinners. So again, before giving the answer you always give, consider what is it that you are seeing...their true self or your projection of meanings and judgments on a set of actions?
You stated previously in another thread the difference between ordinary men and warriors, I think you are onto something with that and think that it applies to this admirably. If a warrior knows nothing matters then it would seem that a warrior wouldn't concern themselves with actions or making those actions matter. If a warrior knew it was all folly, you would think that they would look past the folly to the heart of the true authentic person inside. If you saw past the folly to the authentic person...what is it you see when you see?