Seeing Counts

In response to the question if repetition/reminders have value:

It’s the seeing that counts, not the doing.
Seeing doesn’t need to be done, it happens anyway.
It’s effective to be pointed to this fact again and again until it is seen without another reminder.
To emphasize repeated practice emphasizes the doing and is therefore totally misleading.

Share if you like

4 Responses

  1. How is it that practice is doing and pointing is not doing?? You’ve made an arbitrary distinction here that doesn’t make sense! If “seeing” happens anyway, why does it need to be pointed to??

  2. The difference is that doing a practice tries to change something or to achieve something whereas seeing ‘what is’ or ‘what is happening’ doesn’t imply any change of ‘what is’ or ‘what is happening.’
    In ‘my’ lifestream, the pointing to what is happening anyway was most helpful.

    In my opinion, that’s all a ‘facilitator’ can do: point out what is already the case, but what is not realised to be already the case by many people. In my vocabulary, following a pointer is perhaps a ‘turn of attention’ that lasts for a split of a second. You could call it an extremely short ‘doing’ that immediately shows that nothing needs to be done. With ‘practice’ or ‘doing’ in general, I associate activities that take time to accomplish a set goal.

    1. I still believe that your argument is logically flawed ( as is Tony Parsons’, by the way! ) It’s kinda like having your cake and eating it too. You want to do away with all kinds of practice ( or “doing” ) yet you want to hold on to the idea of “pointing”, which allows the teacher/ student interaction to continue. Surely the student driving across town to see the teacher and receive a “pointing”, is a kind of doing!! I’m only saying these things because I believe that absolutely everything we do is a “practice” and some kinds of practices can be valid … as long as we go into them with clear eyes!

  3. Yes, the clear eyes could be the main factor in any doing. I agree that this topic is controversial. In principle, I like the idea that methods contribute. They certainly do in the field of ‘personal development.’ When it comes to recognising boundlessness, that is the freedom from identification with any mind-body, then, in my opinion, the ‘clear eyes’ are the essential part. By the way, the non-identification with a mind-body does not necessarily imply that there is an interest in dropping individual tools of expression. I have been thinking a lot about ‘individuality’ and that freedom from identification. They don’t exclude each other, contrary to many statements of known speakers.

Leave a Reply