So, face to face with Kirpal Singh, you could be that ‚fortunate spectator', who clings to himself with an invisible thread of gazing, a spectator, who wears himself out in a pure gaze. Here, a spectator would happen across his previous identification with an (invisible) gaze instance.
It concerns: his proceeding identification with the (invisible) see-instance.
In this way, the viewer gets the impression that he himself is the subject, but in terms of an empty and absent subject, in terms of pure gaze-capacity (any content is on the side of the seen).1 Any content was on the side of the teacher, but then, also on the side of the follower. For in that 'darshan', complete gaze-capacity, gaze-constancy, and mutual revelation were so very much revealing, that It began to speak.
It is such a incipiwent speaking revelation around which film-theorists center their knowledge. Here we could also ideally speak of the 'mental'. However, and this should again be stressed: the so-called 'mental' is not free, independent thinking that may lead to elaborated philosophies or complex scientific formulae. In yoga the 'mental' refers to a terminology, or rhetoric, such as is found in theosophy and anthroposophy, and which refers to mystic predecessors.
People speak in the general and even philosophical discourse of the 'mental', of the 'intellectual' as a definite idea. But it isn´t so. While the gaze- and picture-story of film, as I was saying earlier, usually causes a loss of reality, Kirpal Singh's rhetoric, supported by his imaginary signifier, could have been constructed in a way that a follower would have been led into - as I mentined several times - a 'more realistic direction'.
However, there is more to it than that. It did not deal with real knowledge, which is produced - unwisely - by the university discourse. The latter, namely, provides for insight into the path taken that leads to knowledge and not only to a vague 'mental'. The french psychoanalyst Lacan said that the mental in reality does not exist. He calls mental-systems daffy and weak-minded.
1 Metz, C., The Imaginary Signifier, Nodus (2000) and Language and Cinema (2000) p. 77