Between the physiological procedure of seeing and that which is called „primal repression" by Freud,¹ there is a desire to see, a desire for visual sensation, and it gazes as it wants to .... , that the eye can't see what is shown at all, the gaze is too restless, saccadic, and follows the desire of visual motion. Beauty also fascinates our gaze, especially the 'gaze-image' of the master.

Kirpal Singh's darshan, his imaginary signifier, was then able to provide something similar to 'gaze constancy' to the advantage of omni-perception (in a reciprocated way, as compared to a film), because these revealed something of their own (probably through having too unstable, saccadic eyes, or supported by the 'id-izing' transference by the follower).

Kirpal Singh was able to uphold his own gaze within an imaginary signifier reduced to a pure SHINES. While in a film, as Metz says, there is found an „accepted and prescribed credulity", Kirpal Singh's darshan was an accumulation of 'omni-perception' in one gaze, which therefore awarded stability². Such omni-perception, which plays a role in 'darshan', is something quite different to the above mentioned 'clairvoyance' of precognition.

While precognition consists of relatively precise perception of relations, and through precisely visualizing assumptions (conjectures) the way science does in applying precise calculations, omni-perception is a kind of all-round perception, or of synchronous perception. In such a case, you can't see all and everything, but rather - as is claimed by children - you see things in a non-Euclidean perspective.³ So to say: you are 'on the scene', indeed completely absorbed by the picture and identify with a certain perspective, orientation, or observation mode.

„A subject becomes an object of its own perception", as is expressed by another film-theorist.⁴ It regards itself in an at least very simplified (though already implied, symbolical) form. Linke pointed out, that this also occurs in religious experiences, and could be explained by coupling of neurons.⁵

In the same way also psychological explanations are valid, how I have tried to describe in fig. A complex gaze forces to finally give the picture a revealing key. Exactly that happens in the real darshan between teacher and devotee.

1 The 'primal repression is a psychic anticathexis like an anti- or second drive.

2 Metz, C., Der imaginäre Signifikant, Psychoanalyse und Kino, Nodus (2000), where the author describes how the attentive viewer of a film himself becomes a constituting authority of imagination, „...makes the movie himself...", meaning: is ‚omni-perceptive'. Though ‚revealing talk occurs, it is too far away from the individual's own speak.

3 Carnap, R., Einführung in die Philosophie der Naturwissenschaften, ...... (Introduction into the Philosophy of Natural Sciences), Ullstein (1986) p. 177 - 183

4 Rudel, F. M., Video et Cogito, Verlag Blaue Eule (1985) p. 213. For Kirpal Singh, though, a strong subject simultaneously remained.

5 Linke, D. B., Religion as a Risk. Spirit, Faith and Brain, Rowohlt (2003)