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.