Thought and it's origin.

Thoughts and perceptions spring up from unknown sources. Our perceptions are a combination of those perceptions which we like, and those which we do not like. Sometimes, we like certain perceptions, and sometimes we dislike certain perceptions. We may carry forward our dislike of a perception, to a perception which we normally like. This mode of function is also true of thought, free from emotion. We may progress our thought on a subject, along any line, that our thought may take. Normally, our thought is guided by our emotions, and our emotions are guided by thought, simultaneously. But, though the one guides the other, thought is completely independent of itself, and emotion is completely independent of itself, which also infers, that thought and emotion are completely independent of one another. All our perceptions are completely independent. Then, how do we gather our perceptions into one perception? That which makes us gather all our perceptions into one perception, is not known, because our perceptions do not know themselves.

How can one transcend perception?

How does one transcend the thralldom of perception? There are times, when we feel that we are bound to our perceptions, even when we do not want to be. I mean to infer, that we do not want to perceive in a certain way. Hence, when we do not want to perceive in a certain way, we create conflict in ourselves. How do we overcome the thralldom of conflict? It is our perception, which makes us perceive. We act according to our perception. I myself, would rather transcend the perceptions of favorable/unfavorable. I want to see, that which is beyond positive and negative. I have experienced, that when I am experiencing positive perceptions, then I am not in control of my positive perceptions, because I do not know what I will perceive in the future, even if the future perception is going to be positive. The positive perception, may lead to a negative perception, also, without me being aware of it. To take this further, If I look for positive perceptions, I may encounter a negative perception. Positive perceptions are perhaps instantaneous. It is perhaps unrealistic to engineer positive perceptions. If we cannot engineer positive perceptions, then what is the way out? We can be unattached, perhaps, to our perceptions. If a person is attached to his/her perceptions, then he/she is responsible for the perception, in his/her view. If we try to engineer positive perceptions, then like is the case of an innovator, we are not sure of the end result. What is better, being in a favorable situation, or perceiving a negative situation positively? The former, perhaps. So, perhaps, one should act, without looking at the positive and negative. Is this ignorance, or is trying to engineer positive perceptions ignorance, when one encounters negative perceptions?

Perception.

Perhaps, one wants to be free from the thralldom of perception. When one is in conflict, perhaps, he does not want to perceive in the normal manner. Perhaps, he/she wants to accept perception, then. How is a person opinionated about perception? How does a man become opinionated about perception? Is our opinion about perception, as colorful as we make it out to be, or are we seeing the personal, in what is very impersonal? I mean to infer, that however personally we take our perceptions, are they impersonal? And, are we expressing being impersonal, by being personal? We are very sentimental, about some perceptions. Are these sentiments, not impersonal, but we see them as personal? How do we form perception? How can we be free from perception, when we want to be? Is it possible to be free from perception? If not, then how do we instinctively, and intuitively, try? The trying is as instinctive, and as intuitive, as drinking water, or eating. Then what stops us? Perhaps, the perception, and it's opposite perception, work, one after the other. When we are drinking water, we are aware of the drinking of water, and also of the effect, of the drinking of water, consecutively. To be free of the perception of drinking the water, we have to be free of the perception of the effect of the drinking of the water. When we drink the water, we feel pleasure because our thirst is being affirmed, when we are quenching it. After we end drinking the water, we may feel a bit low, because we are now negating the thirst. We may feel low, because we are thirsty, no more. First, we want to feel thirsty, then we do not want, not to feel thirsty. So, ultimately, all the time, we want the same thing. Then, how do we perceive the difference in our perceptions, when we perceive, the same thing all the time?

What does perception depend upon?

What does perception depend upon? Perception depends upon the memory of past perceptions. We identify our perceptions, through our identification of our past, similar perceptions. Should perception be completely free, from past perceptions? Human beings, tend to disagree. We have to depend on our past perceptions, because it makes identifying our present and future perceptions easier. Or, that is our perception. But is the immediate earlier perception, a valid perception? Why do human beings make so many faulty perceptions, if such be the case? And, then, why do they mind doing so? Perception is instantaneous, so why do we deliberate on our perceptions?

The quest in man.

What does man quest for? What does man want to affirm, when he encounters new experiences? Is there a reason that he wants to encounter new experiences, or is there no reason? After a while new experiences become old experiences, which is normal. How will the old experiences in the future, be any different from the old experiences of the present? I mean, the old experiences in the future, will loose their novelty, once they loose their association with 'new'. Is the quest, for which man embarks, just a momentary psychological satiation, for however long the moment lasts? What does one gain, after one has finished with new experiences, and can experience no more? Perhaps, man tries to satiate his need of pleasure, by indulging in different pleasurable experiences. What is notable is, that when man is on his deathbed, he may be content with the pleasurable experiences, and may see his many experiences in the world, as a justification to his death in the end.

The difference between 'Brahman' and 'Maya'.

The Avatar Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa said, that Brahman and Maya, were identical like milk, and it's whiteness. He also said, that what cannot be described by the human tongue, is what Brahman is. What we see all around us, is a manifestation of Maya. In other words, what cannot be described in Maya, by the human tongue, is what Brahman is. But, we must remember, that Maya, and Brahman, are inseparable. Then, how do we differentiate between what can be described, and what is beyond description, if both are identical in nature? In my opinion, Human beings are familiar with Maya(the female principle of creation). When in conflict, a human being wants to be familiar with Brahman(The male principle of creation) , which he/she is not capable of, when he /she is familiar with Maya. Why do we see what is apparent, which is Maya, and not what is hidden, which is Brahman, when Brahman is as apparent as Maya, being identical to Maya? The Muslim faith calls itself a faith which completely submits to God. Is it, that the conflict between Brahman, and Maya, is one which happens, because of no reason, because, how can that, which is identical to itself, be in conflict with itself? Is it, that the more one is in conflict, the more one sees the difference between Brahman and Maya? Is it a fact, that the appreciation of the opposite sex, is in actuality, a conflict, and that the more one sees a difference between the sexes, the more the one is in conflict?

The Perception of Good and Evil.

How do we perceive good and evil? Those who do good deeds or evil deeds for granted, are usually deemed by many, as doing evil deeds. Good deeds and evil deeds are the perception of the present, by those who are perceiving the deeds done, by the person doing the deeds. Hence, when we laugh, it may be seen as an evil deed, if we are laughing at when people see is an inappropriate moment. So, if we take our perception of good and evil for granted, towards other people, it is problematic for ourselves.

Emotion and reaction.

When we engage in action, we are acting, according to our awareness of the action. How are we aware of the action? We are aware of the action perhaps, at an emotional, and an unemotional level, too. How is this so? Can it be, that the movement of the mind, is independent of the emotion? Is the awareness of the feeling of no emotion, an emotion, too? When we feel no emotion, and we are aware of it, we are aware of what emotion, is, to be aware of its absence. We are aware of the absence of emotion, even if we are not contemplating it.This can be, because, we act, in the absence of the contemplation of emotion, too. So, is the mind, an exercise, irrespective of the intellect, and the emotion? If the mind can think without feeling, then the mind can feel without thinking, too. If such be the case, then feeling and thinking are two conflicting actions of the mind. Hence, is it desirable, whether thinking dominates feeling, or whether feeling dominates thinking? Perhaps, neither should dominate the other. What happens if feeling dominates thinking? Then perhaps, thinking is bound to feeling. Similarly, if thinking dominates feeling, then feeling is bound by thinking. When feeling is bound by thinking, then, perhaps, it is more detrimental to a person, compared to when thinking is bound by feeling. Or perhaps, both are equally unacceptable, if they are. When a man feels, that he is unemotional, in a situation, or when a man feels, that he is emotional in a situation, then the man feels inadequate, perhaps. He wonders, whether, he is reacting adequately.