How should one relate to perceptions?

Perceptions are personal. Also if one may think similarly, what a person wants from perception, is to perceive the object of perception starkly. When I say, that a person wants to perceive the object of perception starkly, I mean, that he wants to be objective about what he perceives. When a person is not comfortable with the perception which he is perceiving, he is not being objective about the perception. One may be reflective about perceptions, even when one is not thinking with the aid of words. If one is attempting to look beyond what he is perceiving, or is looking for to perceive beyond the apparent perception, then perhaps, this is a form of reflection. A person cannot perceive what cannot be perceived. Hence, when one tries to perceive beyond the apparent perception, one gets a different perspective to the previous apparent perception. This form of reflection, may make a person more unbaised in his perceptions, towards himself and towards the others. Now we are established in the fact, that the object which is being perceived is the same. So, how do we have different perceptions about what is perceived, if we reflect on our perceptions? If what is perceived is apparently unchanging, for example the perfume, then I might surmise, that the apparent difference in perception, on reflection of the previous perception, is just that: apparent. The later apparent perception, and the original perception, is the same perception. Then why do we feel the difference in the previous and the later perceptions? The reason may be, how I relate to the perception, now, on reflection, and how I related to the perception, before reflection. What causes this change in relation? The change is caused due to the changed perception, which is perceived because of the senses. How can I perceive differently with my senses at different periods of time? In other words, how are my senses relative? This question does not need to be answered. The answer for this question is stark. We can see a banana, as well as an apple. This is a change in perception, and there is no question of why we see a banana and an apple, differently. If one wants to eat a banana, the apple may be disappointing, to perceive for some, while for the others, it may be not. Why do we identify changes in perception? Because we want to. Hence, we are disappointed in the apple, because we want to be. How do I perceive the banana, and apple? I perceive the two fruit, because of past perceptions. I identify that the banana is yellow, and that the apple is red. I further identify, that the banana is soft, while the apple is hard, and so on and so forth. What causes confusion in perception? When one does not perceive the perception clearly. What is the cause of this? When one is not inclined to perceive the current perception clearly. Why is one not so inclined? Because the association of the perceptions cannot be identified.

Good and Bad.

I am often struck, about the dicotomy of the existence of good and bad. When I see something appalling to me, I ask, how can it exist? It then strikes me, that what exists, cannot be differentiated into good and bad. When a man, acts in anger, his anger is not seen as bad, by him. It is seen as good by him. Those who are perceived as acting in an appalling manner by others, feel particularly, that they are behaving in a good manner. So we can say, that all human beings believe in good, and not bad. I came to this conclusion, because I do not believe in the existence of evil. If a man is kiiled in an act of self defense, by another, then he was killed, not because he was bad, or evil. Islam is a misunderstood creed. Mohammad called his most favored general, 'The Sword of Islam'. The sword cannot be compared to a human being. Hence, the general whom Mohammad referred to, was not a practicing Muslim, in the normal sense. Perhaps, I am wrong. When a person is in conflict, he does not regard religion. Is a man, who is in conflict with another, consider the other to be a Muslim, if the other is a Muslim? In the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, who was the more pious Muslim, between the ruler of Kuwait, and Saddam Hussein? There will be conflicting opinions on this topic. Those who identify evil, and believe in the identification, work with evil in mind. I may have seen evil, but I never believed in my perception. The stronger the perception of good, the stronger the perception of evil. One believes strongly in evil, because one believes strongly in good. In the instance, of evil, the person who sees evil, and is not understanding, to himself, spreads the evil, he sees. There is perceived oppression, in the world, in Darfur and other regions, because the perceived oppressors are acting for good, in their own self interest. The powers that be, cannot act any differently, in their self interest. The indigenous people of Darfur were crushed, and the world community condemned the Sudanese President. The Americans are seen as the occupiers of Iraq, by some Muslims. Now the Sudanese President is considered a war criminal. How would any other Sudanese President, in his place, have acted differently, if he felt similarly to the Sudanese President? If I was the Sudanese President, and I felt like him, and if I was in the same circumstance, then I would act exactly like him. Now, did President Bush abdicate the Presidency of the United States, because he was not appreciated by many? I speak neither for the Sudanese President, nor for President Bush. How can one act selflessly in this situation? Like I said before, one does not take any action personally, and neither for the sake of business, if I may add. If I were to be bitten by a dog, and if I cursed him, he may not understand, the motive behind the curse. I personally would hold no ill will against the dog, but I would certainly discourage the dog, from biting me. If the dog is persistent, then I will have to defend myself, or risk being killed, if I take no action. Why should I feel good, if I kill the dog, or the dog runs away? Should I feel happy, and rejoice, at the running away of the dog? Are human beings at the present time, puerile, and very unsophisticated? It is all very well dining at the Four Seasons in Manhattan, but the Four Seasons does not change the cause, which causes me to dine at the Four Seasons. Perhaps, I have said, what I needed to express, to myself.

The debate on good and Bad.

What is to be done, which is good, and what is not to be done, which is bad? This is the debate which has it's origins, from the time, when man was conscious about perception. Generally, what we believe in is good, and what we disbelieve in is bad. I may believe, that eating a pastry may be good, and the resultant effect, which the eating of the pastry may have on me, will be bad. Now, was the idea, of eating the pastry, so good, if the action may not be good for my constitution? Is life like this situation, where we eat the pastry, and regret the consequences of the eating? How is it that we can exist in such a paradox? The better the pastry, the bigger the regret afterwards, perhaps. It is perhaps more important to me, how I view the eating of the pastry. Now, how can we say that good and bad exists, if what I have just expressed is true? There is no question of good and bad, if I want to eat the pastry, and I know that the pastry may make me suffer a heart condition. How can I believe in the good taste of the pastry, and disbelieve in the heart condition which may arise? But perhaps, human beings perceive in this manner. I eat the pastry, which is good. Then I get a heart condition, which is bad. Then I visit the doctor, which is good. Then he gives me an exorbitant medical bill, which is bad. Has a human being really believed in this paradox of existence? I have experienced a situation in my life, which I have accepted, totally, as neither good nor bad. I am completely satiated by the experience. I find this contentment in the experience, to be unsurpassed. It must be the best thing to happen to me, but I cannot call it good, even if the word good is the only word which exists in my vocabulary. I would rather not describe the experience. Why? How can one describe, what is neither good nor bad? How does one describe contentment? There is no reason for contentment. A person is not content, because there is a reason. My saving grace, in the past, was that I tried to fit in very consciously with what was good and bad, and never fit in. I did not know contentment then. So this contentment, must have existed when I was not aware of the contentment. I tried to fit into good and bad, as a child, among my peers, as an adolescent, as an adult, and I have not succeeded, in the least. Perhaps the reason is that when I justify the good I do, I also justify the bad I do, because of the good that I do.

How can one understand a misunderstanding?

how does one misunderstand a situation? What is there to misunderstand in a situation? A perception always has two sides to the perception. The same perception may be viewed positively or negatively.I do not say, that one should disregard one's negative perception. But one should not disregard another's negative perception, either. The only way, not to disregard one's negative perception, is not to disregard another's negative perception. Because it is not appropriate, that I disregard the negative perception of another, I do not disregard the negative perception of myself. The bane of society, is that they cannot bear to have negative perceptions, else, why would they continually experiment with negative perceptions? A person may have a negative perception of another, but he cannot bear the negative perception of that other, which is directed to himself. Does the person mean to imply, that the cause of his negative perception, does not have the appropriate justification to have a negative perception, toward the person who is negatively perceiving? The humorous reality is, that if I feel negatively towards a person, I feel that no perception of that person is justified. He may smile, laugh, cry, be hateful, but I perceive that person according to the measure of my perception. This is important to me, because I do not want to undermine my perception. My perception is being undermined by what I perceive, and how I perceive, anyways. Hence, the vicious circle of negative perception. When the one is perceiving negatively, the one is perceiving the negative situation. He is in the process of the negative perception. The one may want to find a way out of his negative perception, but in wanting to find the way out of his negative perception, he is in the process of the negative perception. The way out, perhaps, is not to disregard the negative perception, but not to regard it either. For example, if I see a situation negatively, what causes my negative perception? The answer may be, in the origin of your negative perception, or on the perception, when you began to have the negative perception. When one explores this avenue, one realizes, that it may be a gesture or a word of another which caused one to perceive the other negatively. In society today, the one is not bothered about how others perceive the one, but the one is bothered about how the one perceives the others. The general perception is not important, but the individual perception is paramount, whether it be of the self, or of the other. I hope I have elucidated my perception of a misunderstanding. I have come to my conclusion in the perceived process of understanding, and not dwelling on the cause of general misunderstanding.