#inthought - The Difference Between Observation and Perception , does one lead to the other?

26 August 2019 : 9.35 pm.

This will be a rather tricky issue to discuss, because we would be going right into the very tool we are using for our examination. The very fact of reading these discussions of _inthought you are making an observation provided your level of attention is of a sufficient quality so as to give you an insight into what you are observing. That very insight should give you a subtle change within your being, and in that we would say that there is perception; or it has taken place. This is really a discussion into the art of seeing, because there are very many tricks which can arise from this observation and if one is not clear on what it is they are observing they may fall into a trap of self-delusion. It is rather something which demands complete attention and a great deal of energy to observe and in that observation perception takes place, and that very perception is action of our consciousness; that is, a change takes place. When there is no change, then there is a self delusion taking place, so what is the root of this self delusion?

The observation would have it that, one has to see clearly what it is they are looking at, because there is the seeing of something just with our eyes, and then making knowledge out of it, which means it has become part of memory, and there nothing takes place apart from the creation of a memory and that is not perception, it is simply looking, like an optical camera would, but it would not register at ones depth of being. So when one looks at this it is easy to see that memory in itself is what interferes with perception, and that is what prevents observation. The reason this is so, is that memory in itself implies time, that is the time in which the memory was created and that is separate from the actual moment, because the moment is always moving, but the memory is locked in the past. This can be applied to any situation, and can be most apparent when practiced in nature. One can look at a tree,or a flower or a small plant and in that very looking, there is act of recognition and naming and categorising and in that very action one is locked in the past, referencing all past knowledge and experience and laying it over the same observation and in that more memory is formed. This prevents the very looking at the flower and what it is doing, what it actually is and in that there is no perception only observation and analysis. When one is free from the need to know, recognise, name and evaulate every object/situation in ones observation one can ‘see’ clearly exactly what is going on, and that very ‘seeing’ has a clarity about it, and perception takes place, which is an action in itself.

Read more »

#inthought - The Root of Dualistic Thinking

This would not be the first instance of writing about duality, in itself as a concept. There would not be a need to define or describe the nature of dualistic thinking, but rather to elaborate on the path of observation which aimed to describe duality. The most common dualistic thinking expressed by most today is in the sense of morality, which really seems to be the basis of behaviour in relationship , either between ourselves or the environment within which we find ourselves caught in. The distinction between good and bad can be seen as a measure of describing the nature of action, since all our expression takes place in the form of action, either action in speech, gesture or creation. Our ability to set attributes of observation to action seems to stem from the observation of the ideal expression of life, and relationship. The basis of which stems from the general nature of the relationship with this ideal in some religions know it as God, or nirvana, or the ultimate realisation of being, so in essence we can state that a dualistic assertion, either as good or bad is actually a description of the relationship between the nature of the particular action and the ‘ideal’ so to speak. A movement towards it, may be seen as an ideal, hence ‘good’ and a movement away from it may be seen as ‘bad’. So by this, it can be seen that dualistic thinking is basically a judgment according to an ‘ideal’ and as such may not be describing what is actually taking place. To percieve duality one has to transcend duality as it is taking place, which means one has to observe fact, which is what is actually taking place and perception is observation because it is actually taking place.  The nature of attachment to observation determines how one cognises the nature of their observation and the conclusion which is reached is ultimately based on their state of intelligence.

The most common example of duality is in the description of the general basis of behaviour, which is a way of classifying human action according to an ideal set of behaviors, something which can be hard to fathom, since ideal human action is something which has a rather great difficulty in its description, and therefore, we have used religion to describe superlative human traits which are said to exist far beyond the realm of perception. We have therefore developed intermediaries between these non-physical traits through text and speech as a reference for the nature of the dualistic description of human behaviour. This inevitably breeds conflict because, one bridges action and perception through judgement, therefore  all action then takes place according to whether it conforms to an ideal which has been described through a particular religious text or doctrine and so there is never action which is purely based on perception, all action becomes divided as it has to conform to the past which may be text based, speech based or image based. So all action takes place according to the past, and is never based on what is actually taking place, which is what breeds conflict.

Read more »

#inthought - Desire and Conflict

Desire and Conflict

One of the biggest challenges of any mind is to separate concept from truth within its waking world of experience. Our minds have grown and developed from an early age in a technological society will have had to deal with a great deal of concepts. This ability to deal with concept has been described conceptually and we have even devised tests to determine our ability to deal with concept. The IQ test is a modern day test which is rather believed to test the intelligence of an individual. I could bring into question its ability to test or determine the true nature of intelligence of a human being, and with the belief in the infinite nature of intelligence of the human mind, one can only ask which mind has come up with the IQ test. It will be very clear from this onset that an IQ test is really a test of adaptability to modern life, because it rarely takes into account the intelligence required to navigate and survive in a natural environment, where the amount of data any living brain is able to gather is nearly infinite within such a setting.

Having said this, one can only ask, what is desire and what relationship does it have to conflict? The old Sanskrit teachings have stated that, in the mind all division breeds conflict, this can be a rather difficult statement to fathom because the very nature of survival in the modern world requires that one divides and categorises elements of one’s experience. The very nature of modern life implies that all action, tasks and objects be divided from each other through some form of categorisation which is what we have come to term as the order of the way things work, but this only describes a certain kind of order, an external and rather crude order where everything has a discrete place or position relative to another. This order is used to describe the relationship between objects or elements of this reality, such as human relationships in a family as brother, sister etc. The nature of thought would have it that categories can only be formed from a set of attributes around the subject or object and can never encompass the whole thing and by that nature that intelligence will always be incomplete and hence breed conflict in one aspect or another.

Desire on the other hand is a relatively similar sort of observation, because when one looks at the nature of thought and observation we will see that desire is not something to be described nor can it be objectified. The only way we can deal with desire is to see how it comes about, and that can tell us a lot about its nature.

In order to learn about desire we have to observe ourselves, and the way in which desire comes about, and within this observation we have to be very careful about how it is we observe, because as soon as we become idealistic or conceptual about what we are observing, then we may fall into the trap which may prevent us from seeing the desire actually. In this sense we have to look at the operation of thought in observation, which means that we have to see how thought reacts at all times, and that is something which can be difficult to do. Suppose one is walking in a shop and see’s a shoe upon that observation

of the shoe thought takes place, to categorise, name and even possibly proceed to image one-self wearing that shoe, all these images produce a pleasure in the thought, and from those pleasurable images there is desire, which is what the mind pursues -the pleasure of the image. The nature of thought would have it that it is limited, and any image it produces is not complete, or whole, therefore it will always create conflict, which may manifest itself during the pursuit of that image. Many of us have very many images in our heads, these have come from the many desires we have picked up during the course of our lives, and from consuming various types of media and entertainment. It is perhaps that the many images which we have formed of ourselves and our need to become has created so many desires that we pursue them irrespective of the limitation which may be produced by our thoughts in pursuit of that desire. Could desire perhaps be the root of conflict in the world, and is it possible to be free from desire..?

Read more »

#inthought - The Nature of Understanding

The Nature of Understanding

 Understanding seems to be one of the functions of the brain which cannot be put into words, but the nature of the mind which has understood can somehow be put in a logically discernable manner. A state of understanding can somehow be placed into a state of contentment, in which the mind does not continue to churn over and process or hold in its space the information which it does not understand. Lack of understanding implies that the mind is not identified with the particular idea or information, therefore it has no place in the current order of the operation of the particular mind, and hence breed conflict with that which it does not understand. This occurs when the mind finds classification of knowledge in other aspects which it does not identify as parts of its own, and ignores it for its use, until there comes an experience which makes use of information or ideas about the particular subject with which we have the limited understanding. One would need to get in to the process of learning and make a difference between learning and simply gathering information, because learning can imply that the mind of the learner is simply gathering information as knowledge. A demonstration of what one has learnt would be, to put it into action, the knowledge which one has in a manner which would be useful to not only one self, but the next individual, this would inevitably show that one has a clear understanding of their knowledge. So by this observation, one would inevitably see that there is a difference between knowledge and understanding; and knowledge without understanding may breed conflict up until such a time the mind comes upon an experience which will put that particular set of knowledge into action in a relatable manner to the experience of the individual. Experience can only have meaning if the particular experience is not divided into different aspects of itself such as dividing the experiencer from the experience as well as a constant assignment of what is known to what is being experienced, otherwise it breeds conflict and denies understanding.

Read more »

#inthought - The Importance of Identifying with the I

The 'I' is the root of operation of thought, and most of what we call action in its sense is based on what we think of our selves. In many ways, the way we think about ourselves determines the nature of our action. What ever task we set ourselves to, the root of action will always be the 'I'. If the 'I' is not consistent with the thought and hence the feeling, which usually expresses itself as negative emotion, then the proceeding action will be incomplete, sloppy, or in a sense carried out with a diminished sense of attention. So it is important to feel good before acting.


As one would observe themselves, the idea of the I becomes more and more ingrained as one proceeds throughout the activities of the world. The I, which is a definable set of memories of existence of the awareness which we identify with is partly limited through the use of simple word, and through the use of societal (other) descriptions. Simplify the language in the society and you can simplify the language with which the I can be described.
Why should one be accepting of word descriptions of the I, why is human description unappreciated?

The reason why the unappreciative nature of observation comes up is because of the acceptance of word, descriptors as the true description of the I. I am of the belief that societies once existed in a manner that the I could and did not be fully described. This allowed for space of the ‘extra special’ elements to be expressed. The understanding of us and life in general relates to the way the mechanism of description relates to ourselves. This gives it space in operation, and the space of operation determines the energy which can be harnessed for operation of these mechanisms. Subtle energies should be left to subtle processes, and subtle processes can be given subtle energies to work with, it is simply the mechanism of the reality; it is what keeps the order of operation. The order of operation can be said to be of energy and space, orientation and function, or mechanism of function.

Read more »

#inthought - The Awareness of Thought

A rather tricky article to write, since it has many ways to intepret and view. It is rather difficult because the nature of reading, and the nature of conversation are two completely different scenarios in the mind of many. In reading text, the intepretation and sight of the what is read, is purely for the intepretation of the reader, whereas conversation and dialogue, there is a constant sharing of intepretation so as to have the same mind about the subject. So what is it which interferes with intepretation?

Various faculties of the brain are responsible for activities we intepret as existence, and much of the basis of our action stems from such faculties. If we were to ask, what is it which the brain listens for in order to act? Be it reading a book, or watching a drama, or driving an automobile, one rationalises action against what they are seeing. Which part of the brain is thus responsible for the action, whether it is contemplation or the scripting of a new idea. We have come to use words and symbols as a means of pointing out what is in our minds, such symbols have been used to communicate in various ways for the longest time. They lay in the part of our mind, which we have access to during most of the day. It is the repository for all the experience which we have come identify and communicate and create much of the useful artifacts of our world. It has become the basis of our work and thus what we identify with, it is the labels we use to characterise the world and each other.

Much of what I am describing here is the ability to think, or to contemplate or to have useful action. It is the voice in our head, the memory of a past pleasure or pain, or the knowledge about a particular subject. That operation is thought, which is really the past, laying dormant in our brains ready for us to make it the present. It is the recognition through sight sound or smell. It is thought, so can we be aware of thought as it operates in our lives..? and this can leave us with the question, is anything new the result of thought, or is it some other action independent of thought.  

Read more »

#inthought - Duality is Physics of the Mind

 "Part of understanding the world comes from learning that the world is undefinable. It is made up of goo and prickles, sometimes one may say that it is made of gooey prickles or prickly goo. It is really dependent on how you look at it." These are the words of a famous philosopher and scholar of the early 70's who goes by the name Alan Watts.

To anyone who is not vaguely interested in philosophy or the arts, will see this or hear the statement and immediately rubbish it as banter worthy of a kindergarten audience, however, this may play a very important role in understanding the human mind in the 21st century and how it as developed or evolved as a result. A more relatable explanation of the statement may be that in life, some experiences may be good and others may be bad, and one may state that life is one bad experience with moments of good experiences; while another may state that life is one good experience with moments of bad experiences. In the end the experience is the same, that is one will have gone through the same motions and emotions as the other individual, but will have two completely different interpretations of the experience which they may have just had. While some may argue this statement, the arguments will always stem from the same place within the mind, and thats the part of  the mind which deals with the experience one has, this is a part of the mind which is always present and working, if it was not we would have trouble seeking to function in the modern day existence. To operate a vehicle we need some sort of experience in operating it, to instruct a computer we need some experience in computing to cook we need to have experienced cooked food, this may be extrapolated to many aspects of our life albeit with varying complexity.

The human mind, with its incredible and often infallible complexity cannot be understood using mere text and books, one has to dive into the experience of life fully in order to even have an idea of how the brain may work. This does not, however, stop one from attempting to understand even a small part of how this organ works. So far it has become prevalent that there is a function to the brain which is common to most if not all humans, it is what is passed down from adults to new born babies in the process which we refer to as upbringing and it is the same processes we instill in practices and institutions in which we call culture. It is important for man to cooperate together with himself, nature and animals for his survival, the mechanism which has been developed is called culture, and this cooperative mechanism has changed the way the brain works, but not in its entirety, but rather in the areas which we recognise as being necessary. This means there are certain rules of the operation of mind which most of us are aware of, these rules are complex and varied and they change very little, over the course of our lifetimes, they may be analogous to the laws of physics. The physics we refer to is classical mechanics, which is the description of objects as they interact or move about in free space.

One such law which has been part of the acute awareness of everyday existence is the law of opposites, which simply describes that everything has its opposite which means there only two forms to the experience, nothing more. Just as light is opposite to dark, fast to slow, clean to dirty, good to bad and the list goes on. This is something which many religions of the east, particularly Buddhism, and vedic philosophy have been aware of as one of the common features of the physical mind, and that is what they have termed as duality.

Duality is one of the functions of the mind which overlays what ever it is that one experience to a mechanism of judgment and catergorisation of objects and movements. Depending on what one has learned in their early years right up to the present moment of their life, this categorising mechanism operates to varying degrees and intensity throughout ones experience, while everything in the prevailing reality is fundamentally neutral. All categorisations form the basis for even more experience which allows the mind to form even more categories of experience even if the experience has no direction or motive. One such mechanism of duality which we learn in our early years is that of dividing human beings into one of two categories, which we know as man or woman. This mechanism has been translated down the tree of life and all living organisms can be classified as being male or female, and these classifications relate only to the recreational or reproductive nature of the organism and nothing else; if we wish to understand the organism even further the mind divises even more classifications for which it can use to place several other attributes of the organism, and this is what is referred to as learning. It is easy to see how the early forms of dualistic learning can propagate through the years of the learning mind which is what can form the basis of experience and learning and this is what forms the basis of the conditioning of the mind. This is a very important and beneficial aspect of the mind in the search for intelligence, but intelligence is a very tricky aspect of the human mind which we have not come to understand to this present day, despite the fact that we use our intelligence in our daily existence.


Intelligence like all things in nature has its limitations, and the limits of intelligence are subtle and varied, and only the intelligent human being is able to be aware of these limitations and transcend them, the most obvious limitation to intelligence is to be aware of the problem of clinging to one particular aspect of what the mind knows, because what needs to be known is constantly changing and moulding to the constantly changing reality.

Limitations of the mind may lie in the way it functions. One of the most compelling attributes of this philosophy may be able to be used to observe the mind itself; which is a supple and often steady organ which moulds itself according to its experiences and will mould its function according the experiences it has had. One of the most common features of this function is memory, which while it may be useful in most instances, sometimes functioning through memory may have its effect on limiting the way it functions. One such instance is in how it defines the reality in which it exists, in that the world is either one thing or another, good or bad, fast or slow. It separates variable character from the dynamic world into understandable categories, based on what it has experienced, which gives rise to what we have called learning.

Learning itself is a very complex activity which cannot be described simply by the ability to store memories, as that categorisation itself has limitations. The reason for this assertion may be derived from the observation of a computer, which is an instrument with tremendous capabilities of memory, but we do not say that a computer is intelligent. It may be intelligent in one area of operation such as mathematical computation, but it cannot learn to play Beethoven's 5th symphony, it can only recall the human recording. So by this logic we may extrapolate to the mind that such learning by intense categories is limited, it is so because of the overuse of memory, which dulls the mind into thinking in terms of memory, and operating in that way leaves no room for something new, something never before experienced or catergorised. The world is not black and white, rather it is made up of many shades and colours which in themselves may transcend the limits of category. Just like the human brain, reality is vastly complex and often un-understandable by the same method of operation, and to say there is only one way of operating, is like saying there is only one law of physics, but when we observe the open reality we often see many laws of physics operating on objects some we know and others we do not understand.

Just as to your organism, which the mind has tried to understand is often operating under many laws and patterns, some we know others we do not even know whether they exist or not, and are often subjects of intense debate. The brain has tried to understand our organism through this same dualistic method, by separating is as body and mind; that is to say, the body is different from the mind and that is the limiting operation of this idea. This is because one may think that the body operates separately from the mind and vice versa, in this way there will always be conflicts in the way one tries to understand their self. Some religions, particularly of the far east, or the Asiatic reigions have been able to transcend this paradigm, they have always known other rules of conciousness, and have communicated them using various symbols and teachings, and one of the most famous symbols is that of the yin-yang.

The symbol has many interpretations depending on the direction from which we are observing, one could look at the black dot in the white space, or the white dot in the black space and infer that there is a mind in a body, just like there is the body in a mind. The two cannot be separate, therefore the conflict can be resolved and new learning can take place, through further questioning.

Read more »