The process of perception.

I believe, that the process of perception, is totally a reaction to the earlier perception, before the process of perception. Perception is a prison of it's own making. When we perceive negatively, our perception constricts. Any strong perception, is a prison, because a strong perception becomes it's own effect, and hence, it's own cause. For example, a strong positive perception, becomes impetus, for a further strong positive perception. How we form the further strong positive perception, is totally up to our imagination, or how our imagination directs the perception. Hence, our perceptions and feelings are like a rolling stone. When we want to be positive, when we are negative, we find that we want to justify the negativity, because we need not justify the positive. The positive is it's own justification. The positive needs not a further part, to make it whole. When we try to make a negative feeling into a positive one, we only perhaps, justify the negativity, of the feeling, when we dwell on the negativity. This is ironical, since, we want to make positive, what we feel is negative. We have never justified what we feel is positive, to ourselves. We have justified what we feel is positive, to other people, who feel that our positivity is negative. When we find positivity in negativity, we perhaps are insecure, because we found negativity, in the first place, in what we know find positive. Hence, some of us, know not whether to mind the positive perception, or the negative perception. Perceptions need not be seen as positive, or negative. Perceptions are just what one perceives, or what the sense organs perceive for one. How do we find negative and positive permutations to them? What we see as positive, we may see as having negative implications later, and the reverse of this is also true.

How do I relate to myself?

I believe, the best state of being, is when one is with oneself, and with no other preoccupations. For example, I would like to cultivate a state, always, which is like sitting cross legged alone in a room, being preoccupied with nothing in particular, but being preoccupied in the most general manner possible. In this state, perhaps, there is meditation. The state mentioned above, refers to a mental state of being, instead of a physical state of being.

Associations of Perception.

All perceptions are associations. One may be a non-'violent man, but one may resort to violence, if one has associated perception with violence. What makes a man resort to violence? Perhaps, the same perceptions which make a man resort to non-' violence. There is an involvement of a conscious choice, in violence, and equally in non-'violence. Some people, cannot be by intent, violent, just as others, cannot be by intent, non violent, perhaps. A violent man does not need to think, when he is violent. A non-'violent man, is similar, when he is non violent. Perceptions are assimilated, due to certain ways. Perceptions may be sought after, or they may be encountered in everyday life. A man does not have to perceive similarly, to another man, to be similarly violent. A person does not perceive similarly to another person, who is nearby. Just as a person looks at a scene from a different angle to another person nearby, so a person perceives from a dissimilar angle from amother person's perception. One does not need to resort to justification, to be violent. A man may be violent, in a scenario, where another is non-'violent. ( I am using the concept of violence, to explain my understanding of perception). Perhaps, where a man does not justify violence, then violence need not be justified. I believe, that one must try not to make another justify violence, by actions which are inappropriate.

God and the God apparent.

I believe in God without being implicit about my belief in speech, in my normal exchanges of speech. I have just started reading Dr S. Radhakrishnan's book on Indian philosophy with intent. He has stimulated some perceptions on God. God apparently exists, and there is no place where he does not exist, but he cannot be fathomed, nor perceived, as the man wants to perceive him. This is a dichotomy of a very profound nature. Man does want to perceive God, but he is unable. Man is capable of perceiving God, as he perceives his surroundings, but is unable. I do not mean that man wants to see God in form. I mean to say, that we are perceiving God, and yet we cannot identify the perception. We do not perceive God, or so we feel. But we are perceiving God. That has been the reality of the great servants of God, and of those whom God loves unimaginably, and that is the reality for me too, even though I do not perceive God every moment. If God exists, and there is no space which is not occupied by God, then how do we not perceive God? Is it possible to perceive the only thing which exists? Can perception perceive itself? I do not mean to say, that we should all perceive ourselves as God, but I mean to say, that the only meaningful existence in existence, is God. So if only God exists, then why do we see God in so many forms? Why do we perceive ourselves? Are we perceiving 'ourselves', when we perceive ourselves? We perceive others, too, like we perceive 'ourselves', and like I said, God is the only meaningful existence. So, what do we perceive, when we perceive? How do we perceive everything, except God? Which believer of God, does not want to perceive God, above any other perception? Why can we not identify our perception of God, like our other perceptions, even if the perception will not be like other perceptions? Perhaps, we have to look beyond. Beyond our normal perceptions. How do we do that? By contemplating our perceptions? Perhaps. If we contemplate our perceptions, we are likely to gain an insight to our perceptions. I have come to realize, that the most passionate experience, is just complete dispassion, which has been colored by passion. Another person may feel, that our passion is out of place, when they see us passionate about something. Who is to say, whether the other person is right or wrong?

Relating to Experiences.

How do we relate to experiences? I mean, an experience is an experience. How do you relate an experience, to an experience? Or, how do you relate a different experience, to a present experience? A person perhaps, feels inadequate, when he relates an experience to a different experience. For an example, if a person wants to understand another person, then he takes the help of another a different understanding, to help understand, what he wants to understand. As a further example, a person takes the help of feelings, to understand thought. Without emotion, or feelings, it is impossible to understand the words in thought. A feeling, is what exactly? What do we relate to, when we feel? Do we relate to the whole experience, on the basis of our feeling? For an example, if I am feeling angry, and someone wants to placate me. Then, I might become more angry, because I want to relate to my thought, on the basis of my angry emotion. A person normally becomes angry, because he wants to relate to an experience, with the help of a different experience, not knowing, that the two experiences, are not similar. When a man is very emotional, he wants to identify a present situation, with an earlier situation, which identifies with the present emotional experience, and he is very intent, on doing so, especially if the emotion he feels is negative, or if he is insecure of the experience. I may continue my expressions on this topic later.