A deeper look into the seer and the seen duality, and how it relates to suffering
When we feel disconnected from the things that bother us then we are in conflict; and conflict leads to suffering
Vic Shayne
author
13 Pillars of Enlightenment: How to realize your true nature and end suffering
Nearly everyone suffers in a psychological sense, no matter how rich, poor, connected, or disconnected to other people, handsome, ugly, tall, short, talented or untalented. Suffering is our inheritance owing to our reaction to thoughts, memories, beliefs, ideas, and mental impressions. And this suffering is connected to the way that the mind splits consciousness into the me versus you, or the seer and the seen.
The causes of suffering and sorrow, which are the contents of consciousness, are common to all of us regardless of how they manifest and the particular cause. We may not consciously recognize this, because it’s nearly impossible to see ourselves as something other than a sense of self that is separate from these contents. After all, merely because it is the self that is assessing the self, we cannot see the truth of what we are or the totality of consciousness. We have learned to make an object out of everything in our world: we are the subject (an image) and what we see is the object (another image).
When we feel disconnected from the things that bother us then we are in conflict; and conflict leads to suffering. One of the ways that this belief in separation manifests is in the creation of the self and all that it senses and interacts with. In other words, we perpetuate a subject-object relationship. In cruder terms, it’s me against you and them against us. We carry out this idea of separation to the nth degree — the self against the environment, other people, the animal kingdom, objects, tribes, teams, another political party or religion, the world, nature, and so on.
Instead of seeing things as they are — a perpetual dynamic, complex movement — we see things that are the images of our own creation.
What we see is what we are. Consciousness knows this, but the limited self does not. Of course we can know this intellectually, but there is no real realization of this. Otherwise we wouldn’t have so much violence and discord in our world.
The seer is of the past and what he sees of himself is also of the past. In trying to end our suffering we have the seer that is an accretion of thoughts, knowledge, ideas, memories, judgments, etc., seeing or trying to appraise or react to its own consciousness. The seer is the seen, but to actually grasp this one must enquire into the self without any judgment, criticism, knowledge, or preconceived notions. It takes a clear, nonjudgmental mind, a clean slate, to know that you are whole.
If we want to enquire into what we are with the intent of eliminating suffering, we cannot create a division between who we are and what we are made of. The “me” or “I” is made up of all the so-called problems (the contents of consciousness) that we face in ourselves, such as anger, greed, pettiness, frustration, desire, and so on. And if we do not want to suffer from these aspects of the self we may try to see them for what they are, to observe them and recognize them by letting go of beliefs about things and about who we believe we are. If, however, we approach them with the intent to act upon, or change or improve them, we do so with a fragment of the contents of consciousness that we call “me.”
The “me” is a representative of the whole of consciousness but does not realize this truth. The “me” is not separate from the contents of consciousness; it is made out of them. Without them the “me” could not exist. If you remove anger, jealousy, hate, violence, greed, and all the rest — from good to bad — from the equation then there is no “me.” By the same token, when this “me” observes its own contents it is observing itself: The observer is the observed, the seer is the seen.
How to step out of this
Now, how can we see what we really are with a seer that is fragmented and made of the same stuff as what it is trying to see or act upon it? When I observe anger, am I, as the observer, different from the anger? We can see this much easier and much more readily in other people. And this may be the benefit of having relationships, because everything we see is a reflection of our own contents of consciousness. We are fond of pointing to another person and saying, “Look at that idiot over at the buffet! He’s so greedy as he fills his plate with food he won’t even be able to eat.” Yes, he is greedy, but are we free of greed, even if our greed manifests in a different way, such as trying to control our children or spouses or blocking someone from having what they want because we want more and more for ourselves?
Jesus said it too
I think it was Jesus who was credited with saying that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. The message here isn’t that we should control ourselves or act like we love one another. Instead it’s a suggestion to look at what we are. Of course, the wisdom is lost on most people — including, ironically, the most religious among us — because they have little awareness of who they are and what it means to be free of attachments and identities, which is a prerequisite to displaying compassion. And instead of running around singing Jesus’ praises and telling everyone else how to act, maybe it would be best to actually internalize his words and test them on yourself. Or listen to Buddha or some other sage who knew what he was talking about.
The conflicted self
When there is a division between the observer and the observed there is conflict. The observer may oppose, escape, hope to change at some future date, or defend her greed or anger, attempting to act upon it and alleviate her own suffering. But she is in actuality acting upon herself and never recognizing that there really is no separation. A person who tries not to be angry is, in fact, angry. Can you see this? If I am trying to be a better husband or child then I obviously believe I am not a good husband or child. What is the goal? The self, which is the product, or representative, of consciousness, is trying to change itself without knowing that’s what it is doing. It is like trying to pull up a long piece of wood while standing on it and then wondering why you cannot lift it.
The self is out of control
While psychology, therapy, or positive thinking is useful in so many respects, if we are totally honest, open, and astute we can see that trying to change ourselves is folly. Why? Because the self (the one who is trying to be the healer) is the one who needs to be healed; it is in conflict with itself, its own contents. How many people can you point to, including maybe yourself, who have vowed to change yet relapsed back to where they were when they began? We see this all the time with dieters, smokers, gamblers, abusive relatives and partners, and candidates for anger management courses. The intentions may be good and noble, but the methodology doesn’t work. Of course we can control ourselves, and in society, to have relationships with others, this is often necessary. But if you want to alleviate your suffering there is no way to find success through control.
Can conflict come to an end?
If the self is making a claim to know itself then it can easily fool itself into a false sense of enlightenment or transformation. Clarity of mind doesn’t mean that life suddenly changes for the better and that we are without problems. What it instead implies is that we see things as they are as a whole. The entity that does not like what it sees, or accepts this and rejects that, is the self that is appraising and judging itself by applying the biases it has been conditioned to adopt.
The self is a fragment of consciousness, it is not whole and therefore it can never behold the whole or totality of life. Therefore, the self must become absolutely quiet so that a clarity of the mind becomes evident. This clarity is not something you work toward or something that takes time; there is an immediacy to it, because it is always present; it’s just that the self is always obscuring it. The clarity is what exists fundamentally, beneath the self, and it is the self that comes and goes. As long as the self exists, however, there will continue to be its duality of the seer and the seen, the seeker and what is sought, the dreamer and the dream, and so on.