03. Concepts and Belief's

As humans, we experience sensations of sight, sound, and more. In truth, it could be said that there is a knowing of these sense perceptions—of sight, sound, and so forth. One could even suggest the existence of 'visual knowing' and 'audible knowing', and so on. The mind acts as a tool that interprets these sensations dualistically. It often creates a sense of a separate 'me' perceiving these sensations as 'objects' to be known. In reality, it subconsciously turns these sensations into 'objects' to establish a counterpart or a complementary subject, allowing for the emergence and maintenance of a sense of duality.

Although we typically believe the mind is located in the head, we won’t delve into the specifics now, but this analysis aims to understand how sensations are interpreted and stored in memory. This leads to the creation of a 'subject' as 'we' and a set of independent 'objects' as 'the world', external to the subject, by ascribing 'meaning' through conceiving or experiencing sensations as objects in concepts. Such meaning is often automatically attributed by what could be considered a 'cosmic intelligence'; although we often consider it our own, it might be more appropriately labelled as universal. It is the 'intelligence' that life embodies, unfolding 'forms' and attaching meaning to these 'forms' as if they were real and independent 'objects', creating an objective 'subject' as 'me'.

For instance, consider when we see an object (like a tree) with its brown, thick trunk and branching into leafy limbs. This particular sight is segmented from the rest of the visual experience and compared with our accumulated knowledge, conceptualized simply as a 'tree'. Initially, the word 'tree' merely represents the shape or form, serving as a term for communication. However, through repeated use, it gains its own significance and characteristics. Over time, the word 'tree' comes to represent the tree as an independent entity, almost as if the tree itself demands to be known as 'tree' since its inception.

We could provide numerous similar examples of how, as we progress through life, we begin to believe firmly in the reality of a 'tree', such that considering the word 'tree' to solely indicate its shape or form seems outright silly. It must be seen as a 'tree' in its own right, and if the tree refused its identity as such, it would be deemed 'doomed'.

However, there's a flaw in this perspective. If we were to ask someone what they understand by the word 'leaf', they would confidently say ‘yes’. Yet, we have various kinds of leaves – from small 'touch me not' leaves to big banana leaves, dry leaves, wet leaves, green leaves, brown leaves, and so on. The word 'leaf' is insufficient to comprehend its reality; it serves as a communication tool. 'Leaf' is a 'meaning' attributed to IT, something agreed upon, serving as a limitation of the human mind regarding IT. IT perpetually surpasses such limitations projected by 'man'. We often perceive our own projected knowledge about 'what' IT is, and we'll 'never' perceive IT as 'IT'. There is no way to experience IT other than through the knowledge we possess about IT; in the absence of a concept, nothing is experienced.

This manner of giving 'concepts' the status of 'things' over time imbues them with a reality in our minds. The 'reality' of 'forms' is purely mental. Objectification involves realizing forms in separation, using knowledge or concepts. In reality, the subject, object, and sensation are simply inseparable, except through the mediation of the 'mind', which otherwise constitutes all as 'One' 'process'.

In this manner, all 'objects' appear real. For instance, take a flower: the feeling associated with the flower seems more real than an assembly of its leaves, stem, and petals. When we see the flower, the parts lose their reality, and when we focus on the parts, the whole loses its reality. It's a paradox. If the whole is the sum of its parts, the 'feel' of the whole should be the 'feel' of its parts combined. This sense of reality about the flower is not derived from the object but rather from the knowledge within us and our conditioning to believe in concepts as reality. We recreate the form in our minds, attributing reality to it through our knowledge as 'attributes', and then experience its 'reality'. There's nothing wrong with this, as it's simply the way the mind functions.

Consider a patch of powder on the floor. Amid this powder, trace a flower with your finger. Chances are, you are more likely to 'see' a flower as the absence of powder. Therefore, the absence of powder becomes the presence of the flower. Similarly, the absence of space equates to the presence of forms, and they are interdependent; one cannot exist without the other. This demonstrates the unreliability of reality, which necessitates its 'negative' to affirm its positivity.

The reality of the world resides in our minds; out there, there are only forms—actually, only 'form' in the singular. Some are fixed forms, like stones, some are partially animated forms, like trees, and others are fully animated forms, such as cars, people, or flowing water. Just as we impose the reality of the word 'Flower' onto the shape and form of the object when it's seen, we similarly ascribe the character of 'Tom' and 'Nanda' onto human forms and respond accordingly. This behavioural pattern is largely beyond our control because it occurs rapidly and is upheld by belief systems passed down through generations. It's not incorrect, but it's an entirely skewed version of reality.

Since the mind assigns meaning to what is seen, it also compels the perception to be conceived with meaning. This becomes a method of communication where the conviction that 'forms' are 'objects' is passed down through generations, and the 'false reality' about things becomes deeply ingrained, almost as if it's hereditary. The world of concepts evolves into a world of 'things', becoming a full-fledged reality.

The 'Thingness' of the object, which is just knowledge from memory, or mental stuff, gets projected onto the form, and the form gets transformed into the thing in the mind. Therefore, what we perceive is actually a concept of 'what is' analyzed by the mind and not ‘what is’ itself. form and the form is transformed to the thing to the mind. So what we see is actually - is a concept of 'what is' as analysed by mind and not as ‘what is’.