What does one perceive?

What does one perceive constantly? This question is of importance, to everyone, because our perceptions make us happy or sad. To put it starkly, we have been perceiving everything as we have been perceiving everything else. If someone tells you that you have changed in your outlook, can you convince yourself, that you have changed? All your perceptions can be identified by you, as having been experienced before. If you perceive a perception felt by you, for example, happiness, you know what happiness is. If you perceive unhappiness, you know what unhappiness is, too. If someone remarks that you have changed, what has perhaps changed, is either how you perceive perceptions, or how you react to them, or perhaps, it is a case of both. I do not believe, that perceptions matter, because they are not a constant, after any given point of time. Even if one feels that one's perception is steady, what is one comparing that steadiness, to? If your perception is steady, if you tell yourself, that your perception is steady, then, that is a change in perception. Do you tell yourself, that you are happy, when you feel happy? Then how do you accept your happiness? In this instance, you are busy telling yourself, that you are happy, when you are happy. Do you perceive sameness, when you perform actions? You may not identify the actions that you perform, as identical. But are they basically the same. When you try to differentiate between drinking water, and eating food, you may encounter frustration. Why am I telling myself to differentiate between eating and drinking, you may ask. When we try to identify minutely, what are we trying to identify? What we try to identify minutely, does it exist in isolation? In what context, does it exist in isolation, if it does? How does the isolation matter? I will now point out, what I feel is important. Is it not better, to look at perception not minutely, but to perceive generally? If one is looking at a colourful painting, does one identify all the colours in the painting, all the lines, and so on, if one is not so inclined? Does one get lost in the individual colours, of the painting, and not regard the painting? One may not like an individual colour in isolation, but may like the colour, as a part of the painting. So, how important is our perception, when we perceive? As long as the perception lasts? Is it definite, how long a perception lasts? In my opinion, perception is ever changing, to the minutest degree, to which time may ever be divided. If this be the case, the question to be asked is, how is one perception different from another? How is it possible to identify, that one perception can be different from another, when perceptions never cease to change? Is it the case, that change and changelessness, is the same state, or in other words, that change and changelessness, cannot be differentiated, because they are one and the same? What is easier to accept, the concept of change, or the concept of changelessness? How does one accept what does not appear to be change, and what does appear to be change, at different times? Does the answer to the question have any significance to our lives? This question has to be answered, by ourselves, to ourselves.

The Law of Gravity.

I was contemplating on the basic impetus to existence. Supposing, a man has a spade, which the man does not know, is a spade. Also supposing, he, by an act of instinct, starts to use the spade, to dig. He does not know what he may get by digging. He digs, and finds Gold. He does not know what Gold is. He digs further and finds Diamonds. He dosen't know the use of diamonds either, and he keeps on digging. Now, what is the impetus that made him dig? The perception of the spade. The spade, is it's perception, in the eyes of the beholder. The spade is a spade, because it is perceived as a spade. Hence, what is the cause of the use of the spade, by the person? The existence of the spade. If there is a theory of existence, the theory is a universal theory, pertaining to all laws of perception. If we contemplate the law of gravity, what causes the apple to fall from the tree? Not gravity, only, but the apple itself. The apple falls, because it is an apple. The cause of the apple to fall is the apple. The cause of life, is life. I do not dispute the existence of God. I believe in God, but life is its own impetus. A man does not eat to live. He eats to eat. He breathes to breathe. We are connected to that, which is life, by perception. When we perceive, we are connected to our breath, by what we perceive. We are theoretically, perceiving the whole chain of what supports our life, by the end to our perception. When we perceive a tree, we are perceiving the chain of our perception, which we perceive as starting from our breath. So, every law of existence, perhaps, is a law unto itself. It does not need the support of other laws, to exist as a law. Furthermore, all the laws are identical. This is just an assumption. If the apple, in the law of gravity, falls to the ground, on its own accord, and because it exists as an apple, then the Earth, too, may be existing as an apple. A Black Hole is a void, which holds nothing, but which can swallow whole galaxies. What if the earth was an apple, and was following the law of gravity, to fall inevitably, into a black hole, like a falling apple? What if the hypothetical apple was not the Earth, but the Milky Way? What if the hypothetical apple was not our galaxy, but the whole material universe? What if there is no cause for the existence of the universe, and the universe supports itself, as the universe. What if, the universe exists of it's own accord, and ceases to exist of it's own accord, too? This may imply, that if the creation of the universe is essential to the existence of life, then the dissolution of the universe is equally essential to the existence of life. Also, we see innumerable apples, and they all fall to the ground. Perhaps, infinite universes will be created, and they will all dissolve. Perhaps, we do not know, what we have surmised. An apple is a perception, and we change our perception, when we do not view the apple we have eaten, but we view other apples, and we eat other apples. And we also cease to exist, as perceptions of human beings, as also the perception of the apple eaten, ceases to exist. This is an infinite chain of creation, and millions of black holes may exist, which may be a part of an infinitely greater plan.

The Origin of Perception, (Continued).

I had intimated earlier, that I feel, that no creation is greater than any other. There have been great prophets, who have intimated otherwise, but I honestly feel a bit differently. But here, I do not refer to the holy people, or any overly important persons. I feel, that human beings are not in sync with creation. A stone is as much conscious as a human being. When a human being expires, his body is perceived to be as lifeless as a stone. No life is seen in a dead body. How is a stone any different? If a human body is considered to be of as much consequence as a pebble on the road, after death, where is it important, when alive? Or we can say, that the human body is as important, dead, as when alive. But what I want to express, is that if we can walk on the earth, and we have done so, and if the earth does not mind, then I have a feeling, that all creation is equal. I am as equal as anyone, or anything. More importantly, we can see this equality in human beings, as they are very similar to one another. So if there is a basic unity, whey do we perceive differences? When we perceive differences in ourselves, we accept those differences. Why do we not accept those differences in others, or other forms of existence, if I can be pardoned? Because we really cannot accept differences in our perception of ourselves. What I have expressed, I have made a concept of, after lengthy and heartfelt use of logic. However, the more narrow logic is, and the more it is not stressed, the more logic is accepted. So, another aspect of perception comes to mind. which is, that without explanation, the use of logic is nonsense. Can I believe, in my opinions, which I have deduced in my mind? Are they perfectly acceptable? I mean, can a person accept my expressions, as they are, without trying to express their expressions? If a person sees my words, can he not maneuver away from what my words exactly mean? Are words merely words? Has perception nothing to do with words, which merely expresses perception? I had mentioned earlier, that perception is a plane of existence. If so, then why do we have to explain our plane of existence, to others, as if the others are not human beings, like ourselves? Why do we accept our expressions not being accepted? We take it for granted, when we are not understood. Do people take it for granted, when we do not understand them? What are we trying to perceive, above perception? Perhaps the nature of perception is such, specially perceptions expressed as ideas, that they contradict each other. If I love someone, I feel happy. If I am angry with the same person, I will dislike him, regardless of my love for him earlier, or regardless of the fact, that I will love him later. Let others be, can I believe my own perceptions, regardless of others believing in them? If love has nothing to do with perception, then neither does hate. When I say that love has nothing to do with perception, I do not mean that love is not a perception. I mean that love is a completely independent perception. If love is a completely independent perception, then all the other perceptions might also be completely independent. So we go up the wrong tree every time we feel we are going up the same tree. Or we are going up the same tree, without being certain, that we are going up the same tree, we went up countless times before. I am reminded of Hindu Philosophy. Hindu Philosophy states, that the more I learn, the less I learn. The more I see, the more I hear, the more I taste, the more I say, and the further I am away from the truth. So if we are, the situation is frightening. But if we are not frightened in our current circumstance, how can a mere idea be frightening? We are used to our existence, just as a fire eater can expertly put fire down his throat, in a circus. Or perhaps, we do not know what a fire eater really does.

The Origin of Perception (Continued).

Are perceptions original? Is there any originality to the perceptions of individuals? When I ask the question, how do I want to answer the question? What is the answer, that I seek? The seeking of the answer, tells me, that I have not formulated my reply, but that I want to discover my reply. Why do two people feel that their perceptions are individual, and that the perception of the self, is beyond the comprehension of the other? This is again, because, we see diversity. A man may be in different circumstances. For example, he may need to dress differently, or he looks different. Why are we so considerate to our own perceptions, and not so considerate to the perceptions of the others, at the same time? Because we believe, that we are in different boats. In other words, we are not sharing the scenario. What is the cause of different perceptions? Diversity in perception. Perhaps, perceptions are not different. We find our perceptions different, when we comprehend our perceptions as different. Why is this so? Perhaps, because we tell ourselves to perceive our perceptions as different. Again, why? Because we make ourselves want to. All desire is manufactured by ourselves, if we so desire. Why do we so desire? Why do we not desire? When we do not want, when our senses are satiated. When do we desire, when our senses are not satiated. We must look at the contradiction. When one situation is in existence, the other is not. Because we feel good, by our desires, and foolish, when our desires are not satisfied, this makes us very determined not to be foolish to ourselves, and this makes us determined to gain our desires. What causes us to depend on perception? When we need to depend on perception, when we feel, without control, or think without control. By 'without control', I mean, we feel unease sometimes, when we are feeling, or thinking. Feeling and thinking can be spontaneous, or a consequence which is not spontaneous. What is spontaneous behavior? That behavior which does not cause unease either to ourselves, or to the others. So, what is perception? Perception is a plane of existence. However, we perceive even when we are not aware of our perception. We exist all the time. What is so special, that we perceive only in a given circumstance? For example, Sigmund Freud said, that the dream state, determines how I behave in my waking state. Some say, that death is not existence. How do we know? How can we say, that we are existing at the moment? If I say that I exist because I breathe, then if I do not breathe, is my existence in question? Why is my existence not in question at the present? What I am aware of is, is that we are not happy with our perceptions all the time. We want to negate our unhappy perceptions, and not wish them to exist. We think unhappy thoughts, and we do not wish those thoughts to exist. We are aware when we are happy, simultaneously of our unhappiness, by the contradiction which is happiness, and unhappiness. I have ended for today, perhaps, I can continue another time.

The Origin of Perception (Continued).

What do we comprehend, when we use our perceptions? What do we want to comprehend, when we use our perceptions? We do not perceive very differently, from the previous similar perception, every time we perceive. For example, when I see two different beautiful pens, they are basically beautiful pens, or basically pens, or basically writing instruments. Is the basic situation then, that we want to find diversity in our perceptions, at some time, and that we want to find unity in our perceptions at other times? Perhaps, just perhaps, when we are happy, we want to express our happiness in diverse ways. also, perhaps, when we are unhappy, we want to find the unity of happiness. Then, perhaps, unity of perception brings peace, and diverse perceptions bring unhappiness. By peace, I mean, supreme happiness, and contentment, and not dead emotions. I do not say, that perhaps diverse perceptions cause unhappiness, but diverse perceptions lead to unhappiness. What is unhappiness, then? Perhaps, the inability to deal with diverse perceptions. When one believes one has seen a beautiful pen, and then one sees an ordinary pen, the belief that one has seen a beautiful pen, and the belief that one has seen an ordinary pen, after the beautiful pen, causes confusion in perception, and hence, unhappiness. I must add, "perhaps". Then also, "perhaps", one must aim for unity of perception. I have finished my post for today, perhaps, I will continue some other time.

The Origin of Perception.

I cannot say, that I have tried to think about this topic, before starting on this post. I am trying to advance this post, by advancing my perception. This is how I attempt to blog new posts. To come back to my topic, how do we find the origins of perception? In perception, when perceiving, we look forward. Hence, to get the origins of perception, we have to negate, positively what causes perception. Perhaps, while remembering past experiences, our perceptions are progressing. How do we regress our perceptions? By regress, I do not mean go back to archaic perceptive beliefs, but the reversal of the perceptive process. If all perception is progressive, then the most regressive personality, is actually progressive. Those who do not see progress and regress in their personality, they do not move in the realm of new perceptive processes. If progress is moving forward, what is moving backward? Is it regress? regress from what? What are we looking for in progress? To come toward the culmination of the process of progress. By this sentence, I mean, to move to a level of progress, that after which we cannot progress any further. This is an idea, but is it really so? Does anyone want to progress, for the sake of progress only? Why should I progress? For what reason should I progress? Would I be content, if my need for progress, ceased to be a need? If I am wanting perfection in my progress, what was the imperfection in the origin of my process of progress? When did I start to want to progress? What was the need for me to begin my quest for progress? Was this need in me, before my birth? Is it possible, that a baby can have a need for progress before being conceived in the womb of it's mother? I find the idea as impossible, but if we are progressing, then the progress was under way, before our conception, in our mother's womb. This is impossibility, becoming possible. But, we must admit, that we were not aware of our existence, before our conception in our mother's womb. Now, we are aware of our progress. The idea of 'progress', originates from the influence of Western Europe. An Olympic swimmer like Michael Phelps, measures his progress, by defeating his previous records by millionth of seconds. This is perhaps the nature of the awareness of progress. What is it, that we want to gain from this awareness? Is the fact of the matter, that when we make records, we believe that they will not be broken? Who will not break the records? If no one will, 'no one', includes ourselves, the cause of the records. Is the cause of perception different in different circumstances? Is a perception not a perception, in different circumstances? If all perceptions are basically perceptions in different circumstances, then what is the difference between the concept of progress and regress? Will Michael Phelps be Olympic Champion in 3100 A.D.? Will he continue to break his own record for the remainder of his life? I do not ask the obvious questions, only the questions which need to be answered. What do we gain from our concept of progress? An Ostrich mentality? I ask this not derisively, but in a perfectly clinical manner, and I am not a clinical psychologist. Is the "Ostrich Mentality", or the desire for the "Ostrich Mentality", the cause of our problems? Why do we need an "Ostrich Mentality"? Is it because, we want to hang on to the perceptions of the past? If we hang on to old perceptions, what do we perceive? What we are perceiving now? What are we perceiving now, that which we have not perceived before? For an example, changes in ourselves, which we have not experienced in ourselves, before, perhaps. We are happy, if the changes are fortuitous, and unhappy, if the changes are unfavorable. But we do not believe, that the impossible can occur. If a man sees a ghost, he will take his sighting of the ghost as a fact, if he believes, that he is perfectly sane. Why are we not incredulous to change perceived in ourselves? Because, we have experienced the change within ourselves as the change within other people, in different times, and not related to ourselves, when we have perceived the change in the other people. I have completed what I had to express, and will expound, perhaps later, when I have the chance.