Why we say ‘seeing is believing’ and not ‘hearing is believing’? Why the word ‘hearsay’? In the world of experience, seeing is also a form of sensing, right? Eyes enable sight. And ears enable hearing. But, still we say I saw it with my own eyes attaching a supremacy to that sensorial process over the other senses. Some say seeing is not always believing, but believing is seeing. Hence we call the sages ‘seers’. A seer is someone who can see into the future. A predictor, a clairvoyant. That presume the existence of an inner vision as opposed to an outer, real world vision through the lens of a human eye. What does it all imply? Are these merely a matter of cognitive relativity of sensorial processes or is there a deeper metaphysical connection between a human becoming a ‘being’ relative to space, time and a causal connect among them? The object of seeing, hearing and the collective sensorial experience is to verify what is seen, heard, perceived and create one’s own set of beliefs out of it. Then we begin to say, I know it. Knowledge as a resultant of verified facts, absorbed from the world around us, when distilled with ‘pure reason’, it becomes ‘categorical imperative’. A purer, higher form of epistemological existence within. Transcendental it is. The purest form of knowledge within each one of us with its universality making it verifiable, relatable, objective and that which is beyond interpretation. Is that called Truth or God? ‘tat tva masi’..