Seeing

[deci belle]

Good points, Urpflanze!

 

Seeing is subject to the situation. Seeing is whatever is. The context is the situation including one's outer conventional relationship and responsibility to it. Anything beyond that is a personalistic interpretation. This IS an abstraction.

 

This is because seeing is functionally enlightening being, which is nonpsychological awareness. This is the working definition of spiritual activity. As such, this is inherent objective selflessness as is responding to Suchness as is.

 

Where this does not go along with the temporal is up to seeing itself as the real is not outside the karmic.

 

 

Is not "seeing" the achieving of an operational level of transparency within a context?

 

Yes. That is a way to put it.

 

 

Can we ever "see through" any thing - achieve an absolute objective transparency in all its contexts?

 

The dharma-eye is just this. Seeing through creation is the open function of one's selfless dharma-eye.

 

 

And suppose we do achieve this ability to "see through", what will then there be left to "see"?

 

Seeing through the world is enlightening being. This is the light-function of adepts, sages and buddhas. With nothing left to see, there is nothing left to do. This is release here and now from the karmic matrix wherein one transforms one karmic cycle.

 

This is the meaning of the saying that "sublimated physically and spiritually, one smashes space and enters the Tao in reality; planting lotuses in fire, going through endless transformations".

 

 

 

 

ed note: add last line

Edited December 25, 2013 by deci belle

[Brian]

Seem to be two parallel threads going on here...

[deci belle]

Yes, Brian! Vous beat me to it~

 

It would be most considerate of Songstan to draft his comments and edit them BEFORE posting them here— how about it, Songstan?

 

Please avoid using threads as a scratch-pad for your thoughts, ok?

 

 

 

 

ed note: add note to Brian

Edited December 26, 2013 by deci belle