Is Perception Reliable? - 6th Sept. 2016

I would say that I only know of it, yeah, through perception, yeah. And I can't guarantee that my perception is reliable. Very good. But I can't deny that it's appearing. So I would say the appearance of it is reliable.

Very good, very good. So he said something very beautiful, which was to say that 'I cannot be sure that my perception is reliable.' So all that is perceived in this way, then, if you keep it aside, then what remains? And for everyone, I can just share a few things. So if we can see that our sight is unreliable—the video, you'll see that your hearing is unreliable—our touch and taste, as it is, all of us have had experiences where it is unreliable. Then we can say that at least the perception of this outward-seeming realm seems to be unreliable because I cannot even trust my senses. So if this is left as unreliable and therefore not—beautifully you say—not to be in denial of the appearance, but on the reliability of what is appearing. So that if you keep aside the unreliable, then is there something else that can be relied upon?

So it feels like there is a sense of perception which doesn't rely on any senses, yeah. And it's empty of content somehow. It's empty of perception somehow.

So it's like—take an example. What do you mean, 'sense of perception which is'?

So it's not a sound, it's not—it's got no image, it's got no color, it's got no size. It's that upon which the senses appear. The um, sense of maybe vibrations... what about imagination? Yeah, also sense of perception which can bring memories, imagination, thoughts, sensations of the body. But we've seen that memories are very, very unreliable. Our thoughts are supremely unreliable and lying, clear, blatantly lying anyway. So memory is gone, imagination is just imagination, therefore by definition unreliable. Is there any reliability found even in this seemingly inner perception?

Only—only the sense that it's there. Because it seems like the sense that it's there isn't—it's not—it's not reliable in that way because it's empty. Yes. Um, does that make sense?

Elaborate a little more.

So because it's not presenting anything, because it's not got any—

What is not?

This inner perception. This sense of perception. Yes. Like that upon which everything else appears—imagination, senses, memory. Yeah. Perceived? Yes. Or known? Yes. Independent of everything which appears on it? Yes. So it's not presenting anything which could be labeled reliable or unreliable. It feels like it's outside of those categories. Yes. Because reliable means, you know, 'is what I'm perceiving things as they are?' or maybe as another would perceive them. But it's—it's earlier than that.

So would you say that this inner perceiving, phenomenal perception, although it is inner, is reliant on anything at all?

Yes. Okay, yes. So you mean that you have to exist for this to exist? Yes. And I'm just trying to see if they're the same thing. It felt almost as though like I could just see and then attention started—

What you're really contemplating is: because you perceive, 'I perceive therefore I am', is that what you're saying? Yeah, like is—is that on which all of these things which appear, is that the sense I am itself? Or is it just a kind of screen of perception which couldn't exist, yes, without the sense I am? Yes. Does it have any correlation with the—the what I call the twin of being, which is attention? This perception, whether outward or inward, isn't it directly correlated with that which we call attention also?

Is what correlated with attention?

This inward perception.

Inward perception? It is. But I'm struggling to—to actually see what the relationship is.

Is it possible to perceive without getting some attention?

No. But—but it's also possible to perceive attention.

Yes. So how do we perceive attention? Is it the same quality of inward perception that perceives attention?

No.

Okay, that was quick. So then you must have the answer then.

Yeah, it's separate. The perceptions are—attention is prior to per—any perception. Yes. Yet, yes, attention, yes, can fall on this. Yes. So the perceiving of attention, how is this different from the perceiving of a phenomenal, whether inward or outward?

Because it seems that attention can't find attention. But yet when I—if I try and bring my attention to my attention, it seems to dissolve back into a deeper—

Yes, yes. So it's like that can't be seen, but it knows attention. Yes, very good. But it also feels phenomenal. Very good. So see if you can wrap this up now. What if you discovered in this being, you see, that all phenomenal perception needs attention? But how is attention itself perceived? You say it is not perceived in that same way, but it is known. This knowingness, awareness of attention, you see, can you—can you take it forward from this?

It feels like that is the feeling I am.

How? Just—it gets—so we can look—we're looking together. How is the I am known?

Just intuitively. Like without—without needing to be seen. It's just—it is.

I am. How is it different from how attention is known?

It feels more like—oh, it feels more like a lack of attention is shouting 'Eureka! Eureka!' before he's even said that.

The—for attention to be perceived or known—let's use 'known' as a better word—I feel we don't need attention, you see? You see? And yet for any phenomenal perceiving, we need attention. Yes. So—so are you saying that you're innately aware of this attention in some way?

Yeah. Yeah, it's just—it—it just feels like in order to enter that perception, it's felt that—so when—when does the question... so can I stop being? Or like something dissolves back into being.

Exactly. Now to then—it's good, you're doing well—to then re-enter—I don't want to say 'bring attention to'—to then come back somehow, or to bring focus back into the dimensions of—the dimension of perception, yeah, it feels that something starts to move. Move from the pure being. And in order to—it's kind of single out a certain perception, like a sound maybe, it—something contracts. But it's like a very natural contraction. And—and it's—but that—so that movement of attention can't find beingness; it can only dissolve back into beingness. Yes. Is there ever the experience of, or the knowing of attention, when there was no sense that I exist or being?

No.

So there must be being for there to be attention?

Yes.

Is there ever the experience of beingness without there being any attention?

Yes. Well, it's—it's like a potential for attention is always there, but it's not required.

Very good, very good. Yeah. You don't—therefore, now if I was to say something like: for phenomenal perceiving to happen, there needs to be the sense of existence working in consonance with this play of attention. Both are prerequisites for any phenomenal perceiving. Is it?

Yeah. Yes.

Versus for awareness to be aware of itself, would you say that that is a—that is a part of this perception?

No.

You see, to see this is very important. And like I was saying yesterday also, much too often phenomenal perceiving is getting mixed up with awareness itself. So this beingness then, yeah, prior to perception, not dependent on attention, felt but not really—not perceived in that way, not seen or not—not really tangible in any way other than 'there it is', the backdrop or—or whatever. Yeah. And—and yet at the same time, like you said, we cannot truly say that attention is not there, because it seems like it is there but it's not moving in the phenomenal realm, isn't it? Right.

Attention—it's like attention reaches for a specific, and being isn't specific.

Yes. And yet there have been instructions from the sages which have said 'keep your attention on being itself', you see? What must then be implied is that, see if possible, keep your attention at home. Yeah. Unmoving, unchanging along with the phenomenal content of the world. And it's very restful. Like it's almost like that is home for attention, but it's maybe just so used to going out. And it needs to go out as well—I mean, it needs to go out to hear these words or it needs to go out to cross the road or something. But it—yes. That which is aware is unreliant on attention or being in any way, isn't it?

Yeah, that's just—yes. For—I have to be honest and say that to try and move or to try and somehow go beyond this beingness seems like there's just a habit to pick it up with the mind and to try and understand it and—

Yes. So I feel kind of like it's enough. Yeah. But now like it's been something that—noticing recently is just—just knowingly be the beingness is enough.

It is. It is more than enough. It is knowing God. Yeah. What can be—what can be not enough about it? Enjoy. Spacious. Yes.