How should a man live ideally?

Perhaps, man should not be aware of his own persona. I mean to express, that man should not be aware of his persona, and he should allow thoughts to come, as and when they come.

What is the nature of belief?

When a person believes, then does he believe completely? I mean to express, that belief is based on certain parameters of perception, and not on all parameters of perception. For example, if I believe that a certain writer is a good writer, then that is based on certain parameters. Can my belief about the writer's writing's change, if the writer's parameters of his writing's change, and he implements the changed parameters in his writings? I believe, that everyone will agree in the affirmative, including me. What is the difference between knowing and believing? When a person sees the colours of the chameleon change, then he is not in doubt about the colours of the chameleon previously seen. Or will he doubt his powers of sight? I would, doubt my powers of sight. Perhaps, others would use the difference in the perception of sight, to their advantage. After doubting my powers of sight, I would take the nature of the chameleon to be what it is, if I have observed the chameleon over a period of time. Is there anything that belongs in this world, that does not change like the chameleon? Am I not like the chameleon, that I want the world not to be like the chameleon?

Now, I come back to the question, what is the nature of belief? Why do we want the colours of the chameleon, not to change? What are the colours of the chameleon, which we do not want to see change, if at all? Because of these few colours, which we do not want to see change, we would rather, no colour of the chameleon change, even though we may like the colours, later. Perhaps, the nature of belief, is self gratification of our perceptions. If so, then how do we self gratify our perceptions? Our perception is like a machine, for utilization. The more we utilize the machine, the more we use perception, and the more it is gratified. If our perceptions are gratified, then what need is there to gratify them further? The nature of gratification is such, that gratification is not satisfied, by the experience of gratification. Gratification would like the experience to be gratified, further.

What is the nature of knowledge? When there is no need to gratify our perception, then that state is perhaps, called knowledge. When, we are delighted by our perception, but do not seek any more perception, then that state is knowledge.

Training the self, to be the self.

In life, we try to be different things to different people. We try to be what people want us to be, and what we want ourselves to be. Some people, after experiencing these states of existence, perhaps, are not what people want them to be, or what they want to be themselves. The exist as themselves. This, in my opinion, is the best way to be.

Identification of the self.

If I were the body, then would I identify with the body? As a further explanation, let me say that we identify with a wooden door, when we see one. Because we identify with the wooden door, we identify the door. So, it is very obvious, that we identify with our physical bodies, as not being an extraneous physical body, but we identify our physical bodies as us. Why is this so? The answer to this question is obvious, but I am looking for the not so obvious answer. How can the senses make us identify with themselves? If the senses can be identified, then to which realm do the senses belong? Perhaps, we identify with the senses, not individually, but as a 'package'. Which means, that we sense as a combined whole of all sense perceptions. As a further explanation, it may be surmised, that if we lost the sense of touch, then we would loose all our other senses of perception. I seriously feel, that the soul does not perceive. This is because, the soul would not be able to perceive multiple perceptions. Perceptions are singular in their individual sensations. If the soul was a perception, then it would just feel one sensation. It would not have the ability to perceive perceptions perceived by different sense organs. What is the soul? We answer our questions with the help of perceptions. What if the soul cannot perceive? Can the soul then answer the question, "What is the soul?" If we can identify extraneous physical phenomena, including our physical bodies, then what we cannot describe, perhaps, is the self. If we cannot describe the self, then how do we identify the self, by explaining the previous sentence? This is all a matter of conjecture for myself, as I have not experienced the soul, as it is. If the soul is not associated with the body, then is the soul situated in the body? If the soul is not situated in the body, then is it situated in the physical world? If not in the physical world, then where is it situated? Remember, what we identify, is the physical world. How do we identify? Through our senses. If the soul is not situated in the physical world, then where is the physical world situated? In our senses? So in other words, we see the world, because we condition our senses to see the world. Have we conditioned ourselves to see the world? Apparently. Can it be possible, that just as we can transport ourselves, from one place on Earth to another, that we have transported ourselves to life? That though God exists, he has not transported us to life? If we cannot see God, at present, why is our soul associated with God, before we are alive? I mean, we are equally associated with God, as is the rest of creation, not less, nor more. We have discussed perception, but how does perception work? How do we associate emotion, with perception? Perhaps, without emotion, we would not perceive? But in other terms, emotion is perception. If emotion is perception, then how are we aware of our emotions and perceptions? Why cannot they exist, without we being aware of them? Is it because, though they are the same entity, we are aware of 'them' as two separate entities? Is this how perception works? "Perception through division"? Then, what causes conflict in perception? Is perception a perpetual conflict of the senses? Does perception occur, because it is a conflict of the senses?

Relating to Stimuli.

How does a human being relate to stimuli, or in other words, how should a human being relate, pertaining to stimuli? Should the relation to the stimuli be personal, or otherwise? What is the term 'personal' to infer in relation to the previous sentence? Is it best not to relate to a stimuli in a manner, which disparages the possibilities of existence of other stimuli? When do we become personal towards a stimuli? All stimuli are associated with the self. When we perceive a stimuli, we are the perceiver of the stimuli, and we are also the perceived stimuli, as we are perceiving the stimuli. But are we the perceived stimuli, or are we our perception? How are we connected to the perception, by what we perceive, and what is perceived, and how we perceive? Are we the perceived stimuli, as we perceive the stimuli? Can it be, that our perception is equally how we perceive, and what we perceive according to our perception, and what the perception is in reality? Or in other words, are we perceiving the truth, completely, but we are not ready to accept it, because we are looking at either what we perceive, or how we perceive, or what is perceived, or a combination of any two of the values of perception, mentioned, instead of all three? Does any perception consist of all the three values mentioned? If it was so, if it is not, then how would our perception work for us? If our perception has to do with it's incompleteness, then why is that so? Perhaps, we are very to do with furthering our perception, instead of perceiving, if we should, completely. We perhaps, feel inadequate about our perception, any perception, and when we believe in our perceptions, then we are perhaps conscious of our beliefs. Is this not a lack of our powers of perception? Does any person feel that he is very perceptive anytime?

The Nature of Perception.

When we perceive, we perceive our perception. For example, if we perceive our mother, it is our perception which perceives our mother, where our mother exists as different from our perception. We normally perceive as follows: We perceive our mother, and we feel that our perception is a part of ourselves, and hence, we further this particular feeling, by feeling further, that since our perception is a part of ourselves, our mother too is a part of ourselves, being the object of our perception. Our mother is connected to us by our perception, hence, since our perception is ours, the object of our perception, too is ours. So, the object of our perception belongs to us, because our perception belongs to us. Now, if our mother was not there in our perception, then she would not belong to us, because we would not perceive her through our perception. This is the logic of perception. But, does the perception belong to us? Are we in control of our perceptions? For example, if we step on a thorn, accidentally we would feel pain, despite the stepping on the thorn being an accident. Hence, if the cause of the perception is separate from the perception, is not the perception, too separate from us? The feeling of pleasure and pain is incidental, as we cannot, for example, avoid pain, and the feeling of happiness or pleasure is not a constant for all time. What perceives the perception, if the perception is different from the self? The answer is nothing. If our perception is separate from ourself, then what perceives? Nothing. Because, we cannot identify, what perceives in ourselves, through our perceptions. We find ourselves in a strange bind, which is, to me, the bind of life. How can our perceptions be false, if we perceive? The answer may be, a perception is only a perception. The bind of life may be answered by the following example: What is good? That which is not bad. What is bad? That which is not good. And we find ourselves in the bind of positive and negative, which is constant, and complete. There is no way to move out of this bind, through the consideration of only good and bad. What is beyond positive and negative? Neutral? Or positive and negative? How does a person perceive directly beyond good and bad?

The search for truth.

Why is the human being in search for the truth? Because, his perceptions differ at different times. I may see the color blue, but I can also see the color red, in different circumstances. Sometimes, I want to know, exactly what I am perceiving, or what I have perceived in the past. This is because, I want to know, whether all my perceptions cannot be misplaced by my mind. How is the truth important? If I see what is normally blue, and my mind identifies it as red, then I have seen red, instead of what is blue. So, in this case, the truth is neither blue, nor red. The truth is not blue, because I have perceived it as red, and the truth is not red, because the actual color is blue. Now in the given scenario, if I am desperately in search of the truth, then is it possible for me to comprehend the truth? If not, then how is truth important? What is the truth? Is the truth how exactly I see a given circumstance? My mind may not be aware in the given circumstance. Then do I depend on what I have not seen in the circumstance, so that I see the circumstance better?
Let us be specific. There is a concept called truth. Now the concept cannot be based entirely on perception, through the physical senses. Then, what can the concept of truth be based upon? My belief? What is belief based upon? Is the search for truth through the senses futile? How does one exist with the senses? Is this an important question?