[The expression:] ('through the eyes') might sound strange to the western intellect, but means: 'spiritual', mental, through inner, mutual consent up to identification. Psychoanalytically: Identification with the symptom. The analyzed individual is not to identify with the analyst's Ego,
but with the symptom (in the end mutual), whereby Lacan also insinuates 'Sinthom' (as in: An attribute of sin, ‚sainthomme' (holy man) and Saint Thom (Thomas of Aquin)1.
We can gain understanding from these insinuations, i.e. why and how a 'master' (Jesus Christ, too) 'bears' the sins, or symptoms, of the people of his time: Simply through identification! This is easily understood once we return to the concepts of 'gaze-image' and echo-discourse. 'Through the eyes' is to be understood as a meeting of follower and teacher in a combination of 'gaze-image' and rhetoric. A meeting so intense that they find themselves 'written' into a mutual conjecture!
We are aware of the existence of literal signifiers that are straightforwardly 'inscribed' in man's flesh through first relational experiences in life. They are inscribed, as a conjectural science, as objects in the set theory, as a 'passion of symbols', or as a symptom / sinthom.
1 Lacan applied wordplay with the words symptom, sin-thome, saint-homme and synth-homme. His attempt was to show the way from a simple neurotic symptom, which can be dissolved through analysis, to a ‚sin'-thome, then to saint-homme (holyman) and finally to synth-homme who would represent an artificial, self-creating man. Such man would bear sins, understand mankind's suffering as common suffering and arrive at a new, artificial 'organization of enjoyment'. (D. Evans, Wörterbuch der Lacanschen PA, Thuria & Kant (2002), p. 274) E. Erikson expresses himself in the same way in his book 'Young Man Luther', and emphasizes that Luther, due to a father-complex, accepted the main problem of the society of that time and did the 'dirty work' no one else wanted to do.