Third time is the charm!

[Xain]

When you identified it was 'eyes' that were doing the seeing, which sense did you use to determine that it was the eyes? It it clear that the eyes do it all . . . and (for example) the brain is not involved?

We do have more of a major problem here, though.
Initially, you said it was assumed that 'I' (being a person) was doing the seeing.
Then we seemed to make headway, and you realised that 'I' was just an idea - And that is the actual experience of 'seeing' there was no 'seer'. There was just 'seeing'.
Then you seemed to drift on to 'body mind organism' and that it was the BMO that was doing the seeing.
Now we have drifted on to 'eyes see'.

To resolve this, you must examine the actual experience itself rather than constantly thinking of what it could be, or guessing.

So as you sit there - Looking at the screen - Reading this text - Inquire - What is doing the seeing?
Also, what is doing the reading (converting what is being seeing into intelligable words, and sentences)?
What can you find in the experience of seeing and reading this text that is doing the seeing and reading?

Xain ♥

[matumba]

Hi Xain,
Good to have you back.

Then you seemed to drift on to 'body mind organism' and that it was the BMO that was doing the seeing.
Now we have drifted on to 'eyes see'.

Yes, looking back it is clear where I kind of digressed.

To resolve this, you must examine the actual experience itself rather than constantly thinking of what it could be, or guessing.

It feels like some doubt had (has) crept in and the mind or something took over trying to project stuff. Working on this now.

So as you sit there - Looking at the screen - Reading this text - Inquire - What is doing the seeing?
Also, what is doing the reading (converting what is being seeing into intelligable words, and sentences)?
What can you find in the experience of seeing and reading this text that is doing the seeing and reading?

I do not know. Will keep paying attention to this throughout the day.
Thanks,
John

[Xain]

That's cool, John.

There is no rush - This is your inquiry. But if you really wish to realise what is going on, you must really examine your experience. Try to work out what answer is coming as an idea about what is doing it, and what answer is coming by actually examining the experience of seeing directly in order to identify what is doing it.

Xain ♥

[matumba]

Hi Xain,

Try to work out what answer is coming as an idea about what is doing it, and what answer is coming by actually examining the experience of seeing directly in order to identify what is doing it.

Frustrated feelings again. The brain or whatever doesn't want to quit thinking or guessing or trying to solve this as a problem. Wondering how this experience can be examined further - sight is just an idea? I don't know what is seeing, but there is sight. I suppose eyes were thought to be seeing - does the inquiry concern what is seeing or what is thought about what is seen? Can't get past the experience of cutting off a bodily sense reception and then that sense ceases to be.
I don't know what is experiencing this stuff, but without the body sense receptors, those specific senses don't seem to be experienced.
What am eye missing here?
Thanks,
John

[Xain]

I don't know what is seeing, but there is sight.

Yes, there is sight.

In normal speaking we say 'I see' - What we are trying to establish it what exactly is this 'I' that does the seeing.

Let's take another activity 'reading'.
Is it clear to you that eyes are responsible for reading?
What can be found in the experience of reading this text, that is actively doing the reading?
Can anything other than 'reading' be found?

Xain ♥

[matumba]

Hi Xain,

In normal speaking we say 'I see' - What we are trying to establish it what exactly is this 'I' that does the seeing.

I don't know why, but reading this gave an almost immediate epiphany. There is a physical sensation through the eyes, but they eyes don't see - I don't know what sees.

Is it clear to you that eyes are responsible for reading?

No, the eyes don't appear to be responsible for reading.

What can be found in the experience of reading this text, that is actively doing the reading?

I don't know what is doing the reading (without assuming something).

Can anything other than 'reading' be found?

No, just reading (and assuming haha).
Thanks,
John

[Xain]

There is a physical sensation through the eyes.

So 'seeing' is a physical sensation?
When you say 'through the eyes' what do you mean?
What sense are you using to determine that seeing happens 'through the eyes'?

As you look at the screen right now, you clearly find a pair of eyes doing the seeing, yes?
They are definately there doing that. You witness them doing that. Yes?

Xain ♥

[matumba]

Hi Xain,

So 'seeing' is a physical sensation?When you say 'through the eyes' what do you mean?
What sense are you using to determine that seeing happens 'through the eyes'?

In all honesty the experience is:
something happens and when they eyes open and close, vision changes - that is what is meant by physical sensation through the eyes.
There is no "sense" used to determine that seeing happens through the eyes, but that sensation is altered when eyelids open or close or respond physically to whatever light there is. If eyes are closed as typing occurs, there is no visual contact with the screen - so i guess just common "sense" haha.

As you look at the screen right now, you clearly find a pair of eyes doing the seeing, yes?

If eyes close, there is no screen seen.

They are definately there doing that. You witness them doing that. Yes?

Something witnesses seeing a screen, or the lack of seeing a screen.
Thanks,
John

[matumba]

Hi Xain,
Just checking in.
John

[Xain]

Ok, let's say that 'eyes see', and nothing else is responsible for seeing - Just the eyes.
What witnesses that?

What 'I' witnesses the eyes seeing?
So if it is said 'I know that the eyes see', what 'I' is there that is making that statement?

Xain ♥

[matumba]

Hi Xain,

Ok, let's say that 'eyes see', and nothing else is responsible for seeing - Just the eyes.
What witnesses that?

Same thing that is aware of orwitnesses anything/everything

What 'I' witnesses the eyes seeing?

No I

So if it is said 'I know that the eyes see', what 'I' is there that is making that statement?

It is not a valid statement because there is no I.
It would be valid if it said the eyes see.
Thanks,
John

[Xain]

Same thing that is aware of or witnesses anything/everything

It may well be what is aware of everything else, I don't doubt that - But what is that?
I am asking what can be found in the experience. Don't think about it - Actually look.

If the eyes are responsible for seeing, and 'I know that', then what is this 'I' that knows that?
Is it something that can be found?

You say that you are certain that the eyes see.
Ok, What witnesses the eyes seeing?
Also (and quite important really) which sense is being used to witness the eyes seeing?

It is not a valid statement because there is no I.
It would be valid if it said the eyes see.

Ok. In the sentence 'I see', what is the word 'I' referring to?
Is it the eyes?

Xain ♥

[matumba]

Hi Xain,

It may well be what is aware of everything else, I don't doubt that - But what is that?

I do not know. What is this I that doesn’t know? I don’t know that either, just referring to something that is not known – should “I” describe what is aware of experiences? "I" can't do it.

I am asking what can be found in the experience. Don't think about it - Actually look.

What is found is just the experience. It cannot be put into words.

If the eyes are responsible for seeing, and 'I know that', then what is this 'I' that knows that?
Is it something that can be found?

No, It is not an I that knows that and it cannot be found. It is an experience (seeing the computer screen) that does not occur when eyes are closed.
The experience of “seeing back of eyelids” occurs – there is not an I or anything that can be found, it is just an experience.

You say that you are certain that the eyes see.
Ok, What witnesses the eyes seeing?

Something that is not known.

Also (and quite important really) which sense is being used to witness the eyes seeing?

There is no "sense" used to determine that seeing happens through the eyes. When the eyes are closed, the screen cannot be seen. Maybe I am not getting the question here – in direct experience, when eyes are closed is a computer screen seen?
No it is not.

Ok. In the sentence 'I see', what is the word 'I' referring to?
Is it the eyes?

In that sentence, the “I” would refer to whatever experiences “seeing” the computer screen or not “seeing” the computer screen. It is the same thing, but the experience of seeing the computer screen does not exist when the eyes are closed.
Thanks,
John

[Xain]

We need to be clear here.
I am asking what IN THE EXPERIENCE can be found doing it.
I am not asking what you THINK might be doing it.
This is an important difference.

What is found is just the experience. It cannot be put into words.

Ok, good.
So in 'seeing' is there 'just seeing' (in other words, just the experience), or is there a pair of eyes seeing?

No, It is not an I that knows that and it cannot be found. It is an experience (seeing the computer screen) that does not occur when eyes are closed.
The experience of “seeing back of eyelids” occurs – there is not an I or anything that can be found, it is just an experience.

So 'just an experience' - Not 'an experience witnessed by the eyes'?

Also (and quite important really) which sense is being used to witness the eyes seeing?
There is no "sense" used to determine that seeing happens through the eyes.

Then how is it understood that the 'eyes' are seeing?
How are you making this statement?
Could 'eyes do the seeing' be just an idea? A thought?

When eyes are closed is a computer screen seen?

Regardless of eyelids, there is still 'seeing' - Either of blackness, or a computer screen.
I am asking in the experience of 'seeing' what is doing the 'seeing'?
Is 'the eyes are doing the seeing' an actual experience or an idea of what is happening?

If we track back a little way to where you suggested a 'body/mind' was doing the seeing, is this an actual experience or an idea of what is happening?

Do you experience a body/mind doing the seeing?
Do you experience a pair of eyes doing the seeing?

Just to track back, in the sentence 'I see', I am asking what is the 'I'. What is doing the seeing?
What does the word point to?
Is 'I', 'a pair of eyes'? Or is it something else?

Xain ♥

[matumba]

Hi Xain,
I believe I now get the confusion, but not 100% certain. I will not use the quotes because I think this may address the crux of the issue.

Seeing is just an experience, but the eyes dictate what is visually seen. There is no real witness that can be identified, but there is the experience of seeing something – and whatever is aware of that can be called the witness.

So it is unknown what is witnessing or aware of the seeing – and that may be where my confusion is. Seeing happens, but what is seen changes with the action of the eyes. I don’t know what controls the eyes and their function.

I do know that the experience of WHAT IS SEEN changes with the eyes, but not the experience of SEEING itself.
Is that where I’m getting off track? I’m confusing the experience of what is seen (which changes with the eyes) with the experience of seeing (which is independent of the eyes)?

I have felt thick headed about this and like I'm kind of treading water. I have had difficulty separating what is seen from the action of seeing as they seem inter-related. I think your latest post caused me to separate those. Am I on the right track here?

Thanks,
John