I just read another post that mentions a time when one “sees things as they really are”. I take it that there is implied “as opposed to how they appear” at the end.
Apart from the difference of an absence of attachments and “self” which I would regard as experienced mentally as opposed to through the physical senses, is the experienced visual field etc… altered when seeing things as they really are?
I think the answer is yes. To begin with, I take the saying to see things as they really are to be a paraphrase of the stock passage found in Ud 1.10 and SN 35.95 “when in the seen there is only the seen, when in the heard there is only the heard, etc…” ending with"there is not you in that". This is metaphorically “reaching the end of the world” in AN 4.45 and is a place where “water, earth, fire, and air find no footing” in Ud 1.10.
I am pretty sure I am an outlier here. I take the phrase literally. The internal image in the mind’s eye would appear very close to the relatively flat, grainy image on the retina. Ancients might have thought it to be the image on the eye’s lens. Given that perception has ceased, the process of translating this input into an internal world of objects in three dimensional space distinct from one another with their own identity in a spatial relationship to me and each other, ceases.
I believe this collapse from three dimensions into two is where water, earth, fire, and wind find no footing and is the metaphorical end of the world. With the loss of an implied point of view, there is no you in this.
A change in perception or its absence would seem to me to result in much more than simply knowing something intellectually. It would be a radical change in how the sense data is experienced.
I’d say that in the suttas, it has two conjoind meanings:
Positive meaning: One understands how suffering arises and ceases, temporarily and permanently, and also how inconvenient is to just search for the temporal ceasing of particular “sufferings”.
Negative meaning: One stops interpreting sensory data under false and unskillful views that perpetuate suffering.
And I’d add that it definitely does not mean to process sensory data without any interpretation or point of view.
EDIT: Added a point based on some posts written by other users afterwards.
I take the phrase literally. The internal image in the mind’s eye would appear very close to the relatively flat, grainy image on the retina. Ancients might have thought it to be the image on the eye’s lens.
can you explain that you mean by this?
I believe this collapse from three dimensions into two is where water, earth, fire, and wind find no footing and is the metaphorical end of the world. With the loss of an implied point of view, there is no you in this.
Anyway the ‘‘three dimensions’’ are a creation of perception for the three-dimensionality
of our image of the outside world is learnt. So in what way would there be a collapse? Are you referring to the visual experience with the eyes closed?
My two cents:
As I see it (no pun intended haha) what happens is that a lot of times the mind realisez the insight and “what we see” is just a way that perception has to symbolize what was understood.
I think that you are creating a dualism between visual experience (however deep) and intellectual knowing. In this you are leaving aside the knowing of wisdom, the intuition, the insight aspect, what is called “the eye of wisdom”.
MN 43:
“Friend, what can be known by purified mind-consciousness released from the five faculties?”
“Friend, by purified mind-consciousness released from the five faculties the base of infinite space can be known thus: ‘Space is infinite’; the base of infinite consciousness can be known thus: ‘Consciousness is infinite’; and the base of nothingness can be known thus: ‘There is nothing.’”
“Friend, with what does one understand a state that can be known?”
“Friend, one understands a state that can be known with the eye of wisdom.”
“Friend, what is the purpose of wisdom?”
“The purpose of wisdom, friend, is direct knowledge, its purpose is full understanding, its purpose is abandoning”
In another way, there would be a change in perception because of the fact that:
I am saying that seeing things as they really are is the same as when in the seen there is only the seen. So what is only the seen? Only the seen is the sensory input prior to sanna/perception. We know now that the excitation of the rods and cones in the retina is that input. This input is captured in a slightly curved, essentially flat retina. Ancients would not have known what a retina was. They might have thought the image on the lens of the eye was the input. Either way the image captured is two dimensional.
When the seen in not only the seen, we see three dimensional space because sanna/perception notices cues of relative depth as well as making use of stereographic vision to place objects in 3D space. The cessation of sanna leaves the 2D image intact.
I do not meditate with my eyes closed. Nowhere in in the canon does it say to close your eyes when you meditate. Imagine watching a 3D movie and taking off the special glasses they give you. The 3D image in your mind will become a 2D image. The change is very dramatic. Think of a child’s pop up book. Elements of the picture pop out of the page giving it depth and collapse back when you turn the page. The loss of depth is the collapse. The implied point of view also vanishes.
I would say that the delusion is in the creation by sanna/perception of an implied point of view that puts you “in the world”. When sanna/perception ceases, the implied point of view vanishes and so you are no longer in it.
By intellectual knowing I mean conceptual knowledge. The canon makes a distinction between direct or bare knowledge and conceptual/formulated knowledge.
Oh the meditating with the eyes open is very interesting indeed. When I try it anyway because of relaxing the eyes tend to close. U got any tips and tricks?
AN 4.49 seems to give a good description of “seeing” through the inverted/disordered perception, especially the verse portion:
“Perceiving permanence in the impermanent,
perceiving pleasure in what is suffering,
perceiving a self in what is non-self,
and perceiving attractiveness in what is unattractive,
beings resort to wrong views,
their minds deranged, their perception twisted.
Such people are bound by the yoke of Māra,
and do not reach security from bondage.
Beings continue in saṃsāra,
going to birth and death.
But when the Buddhas arise in the world,
sending forth a brilliant light,
they reveal this Dhamma that leads
to the stilling of suffering.
Having heard it, wise people
have regained their sanity.
They have seen the impermanent as impermanent
and what is suffering as suffering.
They have seen what is non-self
as non-self and the unattractive as unattractive.
By the acquisition of right view,
they have overcome all suffering.” -AN 4.49
It’s interested that the mistaken ‘views’ are described as sañña here, (perception) and ‘seeing’ correctly as ‘ dakkhuṁ’, related to the verb passati.
(dakkhati=passati)
One from Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo here. I was surprised when she said “Buddhist meditation is with the eyes partially or fully open”. There was a D&D thread on eyes open/shut for meditation here; no explicit EBT instructions though it would appear.
There seems to be connotations of the mind opting for one over the other as if it were an option, maintaining the disorder. Clearly, a lifestyle of sensuality would prioritize permanence, pleasure, beauty and self, so it just seems to be a matter of assuming one over the other - a general intention implicit in the choice to behave with one end as the priority (Snp 2.7). In the end, this “twist” is not actually possible - it is factually impossible that the pairs could be reversed and the order changed. Not knowing this is a “twist” in the first place, it seems to be a literal assumption of a misshapen landscape, which would apply to the field of perception, as I read it.
Absolutely. Deeper in the sense that the change that facilitates “seeing” is available for discernment through avoiding behavior (of body, speech and mind) that contradicts the nature of the view being sought.
Just an additional, small, reminder: “Context” (Maybe this is mentioned already, or it is too technical for the intention of your question, so please pardon me).
I think, one aspect of the “seeing things as they really are” is that things, but much more scenes, that we see (and translate into our inner world-conception), have a context - which needs to be considered when we see something. A very nice visualization is the following scribble that I’ve seen much recently on a friendly website
(but of course this is not only meant for the pure visual aspect in the semantics of “I see”/“you see”)
…=========================================================
I’ve once un-cached an even sweeter one, which works with a much simpler visual frame. Enjoy:
To see utterly not just the ‘four’ but the ‘seven’ noble truths, i.e., the seven things as they really are, is a more complete view in context about life in the world.
When we meditate we may “see” all sorts of weird things in our mind’s eye, especially if we are visual types. I’m an artist so I tend to see lots of images. My teachers advise me to ignore ALL of these.
I think that in this phrase “to see” just means to understand. Think of the common rejoinder, “Oh I see!” which everyone uses a lot in the sense “Now I understand, now I get you.”
May all beings come eventually to understand the true nature of things.
May all beings come eventually to understand the true nature of things.