One can never have direct perception into the motives and values of another person.
What is another person? What is the mind of another person? Is it any different from one’s own mind? Be logical about this and we won’t need to rely on guesswork or pretence. Where we see motives and values we are not seeing the other person at all.
The past is dead. It can’t meet anything.
It seems to me that there are two questions here:
Question number 2 would appear easier to answer. Can we look at an example? I am sitting with a friend, talking, and my mind is wandering all over the place. I am not really listening to or looking at my friend with attention. My level of awareness is low because I am absorbed by the chatter in my head.
Would we agree that direct perception is not taking place here?
Question number 1. I am sitting with a friend, talking, and I am listening with full attention. I am observing my friend silently and notice how she is speaking, what she is wearing and perhaps how she is feeling.
Is direct perception taking place, at least to some extent, in the scenario above? Is direct perception connected with awareness and attention? Or is direct perception something else entirely?
A mind that says direct perception cannot perceive the motives of others, is radically different from minds that know nothing of direct perception.
The past is dead. It can’t meet anything.
The present can meet whatever is presented, be it dead or alive.
I would say No, although it is more attentive, more earnest, than perception usually is.
Logically, perception can only be direct if it is not directed, not distorted by beliefs about what supposedly is or is not, should or should not be. By definition, direct perception is unbound, unlimited by a mind that is too afraid to behold what is actual.
Direct perception isn’t real for me because me doesn’t want to see what is real, but wants only to sustain its illusions.
You are missing the point. When we see motives in others it is only ourselves we are seeing. And anyone can have a direct perception of their own motives.
Not always true. Sometimes we project. Sometimes we see things that aren’t projections.
And how do we know the difference? Or is this yet another projection, saying, ‘I know’?
It could be - as long as I am not trying to perceive in a special way. As long as I am not checking myself to see if I am perceiving correctly/being attentive. Basically, as long as I am absent.
Direct perception could be defined as whatever is perceived without comparison, before naming, absent judgement, before analysis etc
We know in the usual way: the evidence
As when I watched that eagle attack the osprey just now…there was nothing but that moment.
Its a jungle out there! 
Which is their behaviour, language, actions. But if you want evidence about the mind of another, the motives of another, you are looking in the wrong place by looking at them. Far more important than concerning oneself with the motives of others, which is really rather a self-indulgent occupation, surely it is much more interesting and valuable to be concerned very deeply about the motives and machinations of oneself. There, the evidence is right in front of you; it cannot be argued about. The evidence lies in one’s own behaviour and reactions, even about the most trivial things. But if one is looking at one’s own behaviour and reactions in order to change and improve them, motive is again involved; therefore, it is a superficial interest.
Why don’t you work all this out for yourself? Why ask me anything? In the asking of another for help or for clarification or for the justification of their actions, there is your motive in the very asking of the other.
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps it would be interesting to explore the relationship between attention and perception. I understand from the teachings, though I might have got this wrong, that the more attentive one is, the clearer perception is. If I am aware and attentive, is there less “me” there, and so less interpretation of the present through past knowledge and experience?
The whole question of attention/awareness and deliberateness might also be worth exploring. If one sets out to be attentive, does this have a negative impact on the level of attention? Is there an element of “letting go” in awareness which allows it to flow?
Now you’re using confusion to make your case. Let’s go back to your statement that direct perception cannot perceive the motives of others. I said that you can’t know this unless you perceive directly, and clearly, you do not.
I say that neither you nor I know what direct perception is, other than conceptually. If you can’t admit to this, don’t waste my time.
This is your problem, your responsibility, not mine. That’s a direct perception.
No, it’s you conclusion. Please quit wasting my time.
No, it is not my conclusion. You are wasting your own time the moment you pay more attention to the motives of others than to your own. That’s all. You are making a game of it. So you are bound to get bitten.
You are wasting my time with your pronouncements. You don’t know what direct perception is and you can’t admit it.
I admit it. I don’t know. I have never said I do. Hopefully now you can have some closure on it.
Hopefully you’ll quit presuming to know more than you do.