| |
PERCEPTION
By
the strictest logic, we may conclude that, if perception is indeed
everything, as it is so widely claimed, then everything is also
perception. (If A = B, then B = A.) If we emphasize the word "everything"
in this popular adage, we are, as if by magic, offered a glimpse
into the utter deceptiveness inherent in the ubiquitous act of perception:
Everything is perception.
If this is true, then the world (and
everything in it) may not be at all what it appears to
be (what it appears to be is, after all, its perception).
And one of the most illusory perceptions
of all is surely the one we have of our own selves. Yes, that which
we so easily think of as “us” is also a perception.
In the same way that that which we think of someone else is a perception,
so is that which we think of our own self.
When we think about our selves,
we merely sense the perception of our selves, not our actual selves.
We can never know our true selves.
We can only know the perception of them.
The so-called true self is
nothing more than an abstraction, fabricated out of nothing but
words.
However tautological it may sound,
it must nevertheless be stated:
There is a difference between
the perception of an object and the object itself.
Here is an object (A), and here is
my perception of the object (B).
A does not equal B.
A is A, and is whatever it is; likewise
with B.
We may enjoy the amusement of placing
B alongside of A, but that is all that we are doing, placing B alongside
of A. We are performing or managing juxtaposition. We are not actually
touching, (or affecting) A by placing B alongside it.
But .... here is an enigma:
Let us call the universe A.
What we say about the universe is
B.
Does the universe somehow sense B?
Is it in any way affected by B?
If the universe is all that there
is, then what is said about it (B) is also a universe action, an
aspect of A.
What does this mean?
Is B even possible?
Could we really separate the universe
from its actions?
And what about us? Are we not actions
of the universe?
..........................................
I do not know me; I only
know my perception of me.
I misspeak to say that I know my self.
I only know what I think about my self.
What I think about myself (B) is not
my self (A).
My self is an object (or is it a subject?)
of my thinking, or at least it tries to be such an object (or subject).
This sounds strange, to say the least.
It is not really the self that is
trying to be an object of thought.
It is the thought itself
that is seeking the self as an object of thought.
It may be an aspect of my self, something
that my self is doing.
I think Watts is right; I cannot know
my self any more than I can look at my own eyeballs without using
a mirror, an object outside my self.
But even if I were to use a mirror
to look at my eyeballs, I would not be seeing my actual eyeballs;
I would be observing a reflection of them.
..........................................
Is the perception of your self coming
from your self?
Is it possible that the perception
of your self is an action going on outside of you, in the same way
that your thinking seems to be?
We have no control over our thinking,
its process, a certainty that is proven by the fact that we think
even while we are sleeping. We are not voluntarily thinking any
more than we are voluntarily beating our own hearts. Thinking is
happening to us, whether we want it to or not (short of
suicide). The perception of our own self, therefore, may not be
our perception in the same way that our thinking is not
ours.
..........................................
Why should I worry about the content
of my mind? I didn’t make it.
It may feel as if I have the power
to place certain ideas in my mind by reading or listening, but what
about the impetus that compels me to take the action to indulge
in such behavior in the first place?
I think about picking up a book and
reading it. Why?
Is the prompt to do so actually mine?
Is the field of thinking that is going
on constantly in the background mine? The field of thinking that
provides the context for the notion to select a book?
What if the book is by an author I
have read before, whose writing I like?
Why did I like the author? What formed the basis of my likes and
dislikes, my tastes? Did I form such bases? When? How?
I don't remember putting my gene package
together. Do you? We are born with whatever tendencies and tastes
and predilections we are born with.
And we are born without choice. Life
happens to us (in much the same way that thinking does).
We don't go out and shop for it, or go on a hunting excursion in
search of life. No, Life finds us.
Life brought us here - and will take
us away. We belong to it; it does not belong to us. It puts us together
on a mere whim. And just as capriciously (it seems) releases us.
We should constantly remind ourselves
that we are not doing much of anything. The universe is
in action doing us.
We worry about our health. Why? It
is not our health There is no us. There is only
the universe. There is only Life. Both are inexorable, beyond our
control.
We are all greatly deluded, duped
and deceived by our culture and the language that shapes it. It
is the society around us that programs us to believe that we are
a “who,” that enslaves us with that bugbear it calls
“identity.”
Life brought me here without my choosing.
Life will take me away from here without
my choosing (unless something really tragic happens that might prompt
me to want to leave).
But there is no such thing as me.
There is only the universe acting
as me. The universe is pretending to be me, although … it
is not really an act of pretending. The action itself is very real.
It is a real action, just like the action of a play. It too is very
real action. The actors truly are acting. They are not acting as
if they are acting. They are truly acting.
In the same way, the universe is acting
me. I am a role it is playing. If it likes the role, it may play
me again - and again. The role is a real role. It is really happening.
But I am not the who that
is playing the role. There is no “I”. At least not the
sort I have been programmed to believe in, not the kind that society
would have me embrace (and whose sufferings it would have me endure).
The “I” is the universe itself. It feels like me
because it is concentrated inside my head.
But the very same thing is concentrated
inside of your head as well. The same “I” is in you.
The “I” that is in me is the same as that which is in
you, the very same. We are greatly deceived by our human
culture into believing that we have (or are in control of) our own
individual “I”.
|
|