I am really confused by this.  Scene - in the underdark.  the monsters are about 60 away with a light source of 35 feet around the 2 monsters.  now my character is about 60 feet away from them?  At what point can I see them and what point can I not see them?  If I have dark vision of 60' and do not have dark vision of 60'

If they have a light source, then you can see them from a long way away, since you having darkvision is irrelevant. You are seeing with normal sight because they are in physical light.

If you are not near a light source, then the monsters can only see you if you are within 60 feet of them.

Sight works like normal sight does in real life.

The rules start applying when both you and what you're trying to see are in dim-light (like walking outside without a torch and using the starlight and moonlight) or darkness (complete absence of light).

If what you're seeing is in bright light, such as from a torch, then you can see them easily - with great clarity if several hundred feet away, or with less clarity but still enough to see them even from miles away.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Sight works like normal sight does in real life.

The rules start applying when both you and what you're trying to see are in dim-light (like walking outside without a torch and using the starlight and moonlight) or darkness (complete absence of light).

If what you're seeing is in bright light, such as from a torch, then you can see them easily - with great clarity if several hundred feet away, or with less clarity but still enough to see them even from miles away.

 This is how it should work, but not how it is written. It is written that "Darkness creates a heavily obscured area." and "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely." Taken literally, darkness in D&D is as opaque as fog.

Although, the rules do seem to indicate that it only matters whether what you are looking at is obscured,  not what is between you and it.

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Sight works like normal sight does in real life.

The rules start applying when both you and what you're trying to see are in dim-light (like walking outside without a torch and using the starlight and moonlight) or darkness (complete absence of light).

If what you're seeing is in bright light, such as from a torch, then you can see them easily - with great clarity if several hundred feet away, or with less clarity but still enough to see them even from miles away.

 This is how it should work, but not how it is written. It is written that "Darkness creates a heavily obscured area." and "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely." Taken literally, darkness in D&D is as opaque as fog.

 
It's only referring to when you're trying to see something inside the darkness, as detailed by the second line following what you quote.

The problem people keep having from the rules is that they're thinking it is like in previous editions such as 3.5 - where everything is a rigid mechanical precision of language. D&D 5th edition isn't written that way, it's written using common parlance, idiomatic speech and with the expectation of everyday understanding. If I were talking to you outside of this game - and just said to you "the room was dark so it blocked vision entirely" do you take it to mean that if somebody opened a door to a lit room it would remain dark and invisible? No. Because you understand due to common knowledge and logic that Im just describing the darkness blocked me from seeing what was in the room only.

If we went with the strict way, as you imply, then once you stand in a dark room you're utterly blind to everything in the world and your eyes suddenly become unable to ever perceive light from anywhere that is not immediately sourced in your space. No. That's nonsensical. So, clearly, the rule, when factoring the second sentence, is only about what you're trying to see. The object in darkness is blocked, but the well lit room a ways off in bright light is not blocked.

Seems to me this is easily solved for non-magical darkness. If you're in the light, you're not in darkness and the effects of darkness no longer apply to you.

I did edit my response to indicate that. (see above)

But the point I was really trying to make (and I think you'd agree with) is that the rules on vision and light are a mess. Consider the sections on heavy and light obscurement. The one for lightly obscured areas seem to indicate that it is the viewer's condition that matters, while the heavily obscured area rule indicates it is the subject's condition that matters.

Edit: And the two sentences of heavy obscurement directly contradict each other. The second indicates the subject's state is all that matters, whereas the first sentence states unequivocally that heavily obscured areas "blocks vision entirely." Those two ideas are irreconcilable, all you can do is choose to use one or the other.

It could be worded better. This is the downside of using this type of language: it doesn't flow well and can result in confusion in areas like this.

This is why 3.5 and Pathfinder are more robust. The rulings are more linear and consistent where they need to be. Granted, less adaptive, but still.

Something like light and vision shouldn't really be a "rule" - we understand how light and vision works, so just leave it up to the DM to apply advantage/disadvantage from the environment as they think necessary. It's what a lot of other systems do.

I think the rules for vision and light are pretty good if they only applied to things like magical darkness and fog and even dense foliage where there is an actual barrier to vision and light. But at the same time, it's hard to have a rule for darkness that doesn't apply to non-magical darkness when that is far and away the most common kind of darkness adventurers are going to run into.

So yeah, I would agree that it's a bit messy. But just like the rules for heavily obscured and the blinded condition, they can be sorted out just by adding or changing a word or two so I don't let them become a barrier to mellifluous gameplay.

The rules assumed the monsters do not use light and you do.   Not always true.

I think that the lighting rules should be separate (even if they impose similar effects) from the obscurement rules: obscured areas should be line of sight blocking effects applying to any areas anywhere between the subject and viewer, and lighting should impose its own set of separate penalties based only on the lighting of the subject (not at all the viewer).

I guess where my confusion is coming from is if I'm in darkness and someone has a light source I know that for a certain amount away I am able to see where that light source is coming from. 

If I am in that light source I can only see as much lumantatiin it provides me.  

If I don't have dark vision and looking from the light out say it only gives me 30 feet. 

I guess I understand just seems confusing to me lol

Who's saying you only get 30 feet if you're in light? The mechanical text of darkvision reads "You can see in dim light within [X] feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light," where X is your darkvision range. So if you have 60-foot darkvision and a torch that provides bright light for 15 feet, and dim light for a further 15 feet, your darkvision allows you to see as if you were in bright light for 30 feet (15 feet of bright light + 15 feet of dim light), and dim light for an additional 30 feet (the remainder of your darkvision's range).

If you and an enemy both have 60 foot darkvision and are 60 feet away from each other in total darkness, you can see each other as if you were both in dim light. If the enemy has a torch, you can see them normally (they are within the radius of a bright light source) and they can see you as if you were in dim light (you are in darkness, but within range of their darkvision).