K: Wait a minute. I am not sure. Is perception partial? I have investigated
through the senses—the senses creating the ‘I’, investigating the ‘I’. The activity
brings a lightness, a clarity. Not entire clarity, but some clarity.
P: I would not use the word ‘some clarity’, but ‘clarity’.
K: It brings clarity. We will stick to that. Is that clarity expandable?
P: The nature of seeing is such—I can see here, and I can see there, depending
on the power of the eye.
K: We said that perception is not only visual but also non-visual. We said
perception is that which illuminates.
P: I would like to ask you something. You have said that seeing is not only visual
but also non-visual. What is the nature of this non-visual seeing?
K: The non-visual is the non-thinkable. The non-visual does not pertain to the
word; it does not pertain to thought. That is all. It is without meaning, without
expression, without thought. Is there a perception without thought? Now proceed.
P: There is a perception that can see close, that can see far.
K: Wait. We are talking only of perception—not duration, length, size or breadth
of perception, but of perception which is non-visual, which is neither deep nor
shallow. Shallow perception or deep perception come only when thought
interferes.
P: Now, in that, is there partial or total stripping? We started with that question.
F: She is asking this: In every perception, there is the non-verbal element of mere
sensation; then there is the psychological superimposition. Is there a state of
mind in which superimposition does not occur and there is no stripping?
P: That is right. Perception is perception. We are asking: Is there a perception in
which stripping is not necessary?
K: There is no such thing as an everlasting perception.
P: Is it identical with what you call intelligence?
K: I do not know. Why are you asking that?
P: Because it is timeless.