Seeing is enough---from the source!
But what does one see?
"One" does not see. There is neither "one" nor "two", neither "self" nor "other", neither "subject" nor "object". Just a seeing of suchness as such.
Just a seeing which is both see-er and seen?
Which is neither see-er nor seen.
Pure non-objective relation.
Non-objective relation between what?
The "relation" is between phenomena, between mutually-dreamed objects, but the seeing is noumenal.
But what can mutually-dreamed objects do?
Nothing, their mutuality is also dreamed.
That is why it is true seeing: there is neither subject nor object, self nor other.
You mean because false or inferential seeing is excluded?
"False or inferential seeing" being conceptual interference.
I think I almost understand! Tell me more.
That is enough. Telling, even when it is possible, only hinders essential apprehension.
Because the essential apprehension is in-seeing?
In-seeing is cut off by out-seeing. In the absence of out-seeing it is present.
But what is present?
The source of all seeing. That alone is presence. In-seeing does not mean looking in one direction instead of in another, "in" instead of "out", from the same center, as is commonly supposed, but seeing FROM within instead of FROM without, seeing from the source, which is noumenon, not from manifestation, which is phenomenon.
So it really should be not "in-seeing" and "out-seeing", but "inside-seeing" and "outside-seeing"?
Inelegant and still inaccurate, but certainly less misleading! The one is whole-seeing, the other divided-seeing: that is the essential, for a spatial discrimination could not be correct.
This sounds important?
How could it not be? Perceiving is everything, "Seeing, seeing, seeing", as Rumi cried---and he was not referring to the phenomenally-based observation of objects by subjects, but to the noumenally-based in-seeing that is devoid of both!
---Wei Wu Wei