Why do people have the desire to talk?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby encode_decode » Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:52 pm

The question is starting to go stale in my mind due to how long it has taken me to find a place where I am happy enough to ask.

I have looked around the Internet for an answer and have only been met with disappointing results that deal with the practical nature of talking.

I am looking for more introspective answers that I can build some sort of pattern from.

I know the question is vague and would be happy to elaborate on why I am asking. Another way I could ask is; why do you have the desire to talk?

Any input would be very welcome.
encode_decode
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:44 pm

Hello and welcome to the forum.

encode_decode wrote: Another way I could ask is; why do you have the desire to talk?

Well, it sounds at first like a practical question and surely you received all sorts of replies about the nature of communication, socializing as well as information exchange. So I'll skip all that and assume you mean the desire to talk beyond the notion of exchanging information or to establish some social bond by the exchange. Then we're looking at as well excessive, meaningless, compulsive forms. Including of course social media exchanges with images and chats, tweets and all that.

Douglas Adams jokingly theorized that if human beings don't keep exercising their lips, their brains would start working. There's some truth in that since talking could very well, just by the overproduction of signifiers, be able to drown out the actual meaning or thought connected to the words. This would take one into the broader social theory that our society is overproducing reality and as such, is losing reality at the same pace. Signifier production (production of pure connection) here seen as part of the broader reality construction.

Beyond theorizing, there are certainly various social passions and desires at play in most of our communications. My own idea on this would be: through talk or writ people are able to produce or maintain their self. And within a society obsessed with the notion -- and upkeep -- of a personal self and the freedoms related to that self, one needs to keep propagating it: self survival! If needed, indeed even through silly, void conversations. Including the act of tuning into those of others (like with radio or television). Even writing on a forum using philosophical topics will have that element of identity. At least I'm quite aware of producing not only words or ideas but also a self-concept by doing so.

Not sure if this is the type of answer you were looking for. But with a vague question, you're bound to get vague or varying answers. Unless you were asking it in a Zen type of fashion as potentially you or the ones replying to you will have to engage in a lot of talk, elaborations or even disagreements on the topic.

Perhaps the desire to talk, deep down, is then related to this desire to question?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5890
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby encode_decode » Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:46 pm

@Diebert van Rhijn

Actually that is exactly the type of answer I am seeking. With what I do it sometimes pays to be vague and I used to think this was unfortunate.

I am reading a little about "atomic impressions" and thought by being vague I could get the type of answer that you gave. I hope that makes some sort of sense as I am not really well versed in philosophy.

I was trying to prompt an introspective answer through the vague method I used to ask the question which I guess is like an "atomic impression". I am at the very least inspired by the idea of an inception of thought based on signifiers drawn from what we hear or read of other people and am hoping I can extend this to cover other aspects of our existence to help me understand the nature of consciousness and self-concept.

The overproduction of reality is a problem I am facing at a simpler level for the time being and I think that through communication we are somehow able to deconstruct these overproduction's and store these results mentally as some sort of reference/s that propagate both ways to what is being referenced and to the reference/s.

I had a desire to ask this question - I received a great answer. Thank you for that.

What I like about this kind of question is that the answers provide insight to answers from similar questions and by that for example; Why do people have the desire to think/learn/like/hate?

Some of this stuff is admittedly over my head as you can probably tell and I have already read through your response a few times to provide a counter-response.

Thank you for welcoming me to the forum.

:)
encode_decode
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby jufa » Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:40 am

In the reading of the post in this topic, I find Diebert van Rhijn
through talk or writ people are able to produce or maintain their self.
offering very sensible. Irrespective of what is considered ones outer objective vision, and inner subjective feelings, self is always attempting to break away from the power of earth's intellectual mentality to find the balance which will eliminate the Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde personalities which continuously are at war with one another within the self for dominance.

Self, then, is always seeking knowledge to break from the quicksand which pulls it downward. Communication then, from this POV, is seeking a ladder of confirmation which will allow one to step upward beyond the quicksand of human mind, into that realm of invisible fortitude where all human knowledge derive from. Confirmation is, therefore, one own voice telling one "I knew this all the time, but had to hear it from the depth of my own Conscience." So, from this POV, people are talking to themselves for the wisdom to see beyond the rhetoric of words of others, which are only relative, but not true to the true 'meaning' of SELF (whatever either of these are).

The world we live in is the world of our thoughts, and the universe of our thinking. The desire to talk is the need to expand Mother Earth's limited conjectures, in the temporary world of human eternality. What desire was there for anyone to speak to be born into this world? Should one find words, or language of need to be born, one has the answer to "Why do people have the desire to talk?"

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
jufa
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby encode_decode » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:29 am

I thought I would post a copy of another post here so if the other two threads are deleted as per my suggestion everyone would understand it was done because Diebert and I are willing to put aside our differences regarding recent events.

@Diebert

I think the best two threads I initiated were:
    1. Why do people have the desire to talk?
    2. Where does meaning come from?

We could just delete the two particular threads with the following titles:
    Farewell Everyone :)
    Cause and effect
Both of which I initiated and have no reason to believe serve any further purpose.

We can put all of this behind us. I think that this sounds like a good idea. What do you think?

That way the forum can return to enlightenment, the absolute, genius and The Wisdom of the Infinite - I am not sure what anyone else thinks about this; it is just an idea.
encode_decode
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby jufa » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:43 am

encode_decode wrote:I thought I would post a copy of another post here so if the other two threads are deleted as per my suggestion everyone would understand it was done because Diebert and I are willing to put aside our differences regarding recent events.

@Diebert

I think the best two threads I initiated were:
    1. Why do people have the desire to talk?
    2. Where does meaning come from?

We could just delete the two particular threads with the following titles:
    Farewell Everyone :)
    Cause and effect
Both of which I initiated and have no reason to believe serve any further purpose.

We can put all of this behind us. I think that this sounds like a good idea. What do you think?

That way the forum can return to enlightenment, the absolute, genius and The Wisdom of the Infinite - I am not sure what anyone else thinks about this; it is just an idea.


This thread, and the other you listed here should not be deleted from the standpoint they deliver the Cause and Effect which has brought back rational deduction to ego's, and have started a healing process this forum needed to be what it is intended to be.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
jufa
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:52 am

Most of the talking you'll hear is due to ignorance. Why is there so much ignorance? There's nearly zero education in wisdom going around. Generally people are about as ignorant as they were when they were five, probably a lot more so.

Talking is just one of the ways in which people seek to quench desire, or satisfy longing and lack. It also serves as a form of ego propagation as Diebert described.

The real question is, why is there desire, longing and lack? God unfortunately forgot to include a manual for beings informing them of their true nature.
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Pam Seeback » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:44 pm

JohnJAu wrote:Most of the talking you'll hear is due to ignorance. Why is there so much ignorance? There's nearly zero education in wisdom going around. Generally people are about as ignorant as they were when they were five, probably a lot more so.

Talking is just one of the ways in which people seek to quench desire, or satisfy longing and lack. It also serves as a form of ego propagation as Diebert described.

The real question is, why is there desire, longing and lack? God unfortunately forgot to include a manual for beings informing them of their true nature.

If desire or longing was not present to bring you here to post what is right and true according to John, then what brought you here?

Desiring to say what you are is not desiring to ego-talk as in "I have a girlfriend" or "I like the colour green" or "Jazz tuns me off", rather, it is the experience of bringing forth, in words, the entirety of the causality of the moment (the truth) of My life or existence.
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Nikola tesla » Thu May 04, 2017 7:55 am

I believe or may have come to a exact conclusion that people have a desire to talk because of the eruption of neurological brain synap dis-rupture going on in the brain which release nerve tension and blood flow to the "Orbicularis oris muscle"

In other words talking is contagious someone says hello to you what do you say or if someones talking or just standing there whispering in someones ear your going to talk no matter what...

Just a thought of thy mind :D
Nikola tesla
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Thu May 04, 2017 8:27 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:If desire or longing was not present to bring you here to post what is right and true according to John, then what brought you here?


But it was, the desire for non-desire.
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Pam Seeback » Fri May 05, 2017 12:08 am

JohnJAu wrote:
Pam Seeback wrote:If desire or longing was not present to bring you here to post what is right and true according to John, then what brought you here?


But it was, the desire for non-desire.

Which is a different desire than the desire for continued desiring - an important distinction. Where desiring for continued desiring keeps the mind turning and churning on memory loops of images and thoughts (which at its peak can result in the experience of intense suffering), desiring for non-desire serves (via mindfulness and wisdom of form impermanence) to (eventually) bring the suffering of attachment to desire to an end.

It is beneficial to address the experience of desire as it governs every aspect of our feeling (attachment) world, from the hellish realms of object fear and aversion to the heavenly realms of object bliss and absorption. To deny the human condition of desire is foolish, but to consider it a permanent state is equally as foolish. Ergo, the desire for non-desire. :-)
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Fri May 05, 2017 10:00 pm

That all seems accurate to me.

Pam Seeback wrote:to an end.


It seems to be an obvious and unavoidable truth that this 'goal' is an incredibly unlikely occurrence as long as one maintains a 'worldly life'.

"Meditation in the midst of activity is a thousand times superior to meditation in stillness."
Hakuin

While it is necessary that one achieve the superior wisdom described in this quote eventually, for one to be successful in bringing about the conditions that lead to desire coming to an end, it seems that worldliness would need to be rejected, at least to some degree. Hence the Buddha's suggestion for wise living: Robe, alms bowl, foot of a tree.

Pam Seeback wrote:keeps the mind turning and churning on memory loops of images and thoughts


To clarify what I wrote above, what you've described here along with suffering in general, is unlikely ever to cease while one is maintaining car/relationship/family/entertainment/bills/work/friends/study. The average western lifestyle.

So the question then becomes, what kind of lifestyle is reasonably achievable that has conditions which are prime for the progress of such wisdom? Or do we put our focus straight toward achieving the superior goal? (A mind of wisdom which is undisturbed in the midst of activity.)

Delusion, worldliness, maya the deceiver, all very sneaky. They can draw you in and have you forgetting you were ever interested in wisdom for a long while if you're not careful.
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Pam Seeback » Sat May 06, 2017 4:40 pm

It would seem that a person who understands that desire for an object causes the delusion of subject-object separation along with its corresponding emotional suffering experience of fear, lust, anger, longing, etc., would use that understanding in their life regardless of their physical environment.

Perhaps for some, becoming a monk as did Hukuin is perceived to be the 'fast track' to extinguishing the fire of desire, but for most, especially those who have a family at the time of their awakening, a less-intense path to liberation would seem to be the more reasonable path/choice. Obviously the householder faces a greater challenge in making time to study and meditate, but in my experience, when they are successful, the family can only benefit from their efforts.

Regardless of the environment the awakened person finds themselves in, it would seem that mindfulness is the key to ending the suffering of object-desire.
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby encode_decode » Sun May 07, 2017 12:55 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:Perhaps for some, becoming a monk as did Hukuin is perceived to be the 'fast track' to extinguishing the fire of desire, but for most, especially those who have a family at the time of their awakening, a less-intense path to liberation would seem to be the more reasonable path/choice. Obviously the householder faces a greater challenge in making time to study and meditate, but in my experience, when they are successful, the family can only benefit from their efforts.

I think you make a good point here Pam.

Pam Seeback wrote:Regardless of the environment the awakened person finds themselves in, it would seem that mindfulness is the key to ending the suffering of object-desire.

Sometimes it is difficult to maintain that mindfulness though. I don't suffer the object desire but I do suffer from the desire to get my work done which can be just as bad.

I am doing a lot of mentally intense stuff and my logic gets screwed up regularly. I am just glad to be involved in a project where the leader is much older and much wiser than I and has been able to bring me back down to earth several times now. This wisdom also makes me pay more attention to my own(or lack thereof at least).

:)
encode_decode
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Mon May 08, 2017 9:12 pm

Pam Seeback wrote: would seem to be the more reasonable path/choice.


It might seem that way, but in what way is it actually more reasonable?

As far as I've come to understand it, beyond what might be described as intellectual or conceptual insights into the truth, there is the core of the path to enlightenment, the truth in action so to speak, and if it is to be spoken of in degrees or in terms of progress/completion/what is the greatest wisdom, I understand that as being manifest in one who is entirely free from worldly attachments, from distinctions such as aversion/preference, from vain thoughts, from any actions that are based on attempts to 'maintain', or at least, from any such distinctions/motivations at all, whether they maintain or not. Essentially as a being who, due to causality, has risen above all worldliness and in a way above the consequences of causality ('never to be reborn, never to return to existence'), where there no longer remains a person, decision maker, or practitioner of mindfulness. This to me is how I understand the goal of non-desire. A thorough "having let go". I understand verses such as these as being expressions of this:

"Other people have what they need;
I alone possess nothing.
I alone drift about,
like someone without a home.
I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.

Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull.
Other people have a purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind."
Tao te ching

Or all throughout texts such as the Ashtavakra Gita:
"And when the sun sets,
he rests where he is."

"The belief in duty
creates a relative world
for its performance.
The wise one knows Himself
to be formless, timeless,
all-pervasive, immaculate,
and thus transcends duty and world"

At least this view is in line with how I have come to understand reality pointing toward what is true. A complete and literal exhaustion of effort, duty, and anything resembling the drive of necessity to maintain a worldly life. (A mother needing to console one's child, for example.) How else could there be a thorough extinguishing? Every time causality deems to throw you into a hole, you'd fight tooth and nail in the effort to get out. Every time you're accused, you'd fight tooth and nail in speech to defend yourself, and so on. These seem like unjustifiable indications of egotism and attachment, they also seem completely unnecessary in the light of the wisdom of true nature. Except perhaps when perceived by one who is deluded with the notion that 'it's all no difference so I may as well', which appears like a survival of the ego excuse from my understanding. (Perhaps I am wrong and something along these lines is possible without such changes, I know that it is at least to some degree, I just doubt whether a co-existing is achievable. Or perhaps the first is only necessary initially and temporarily, stepping back from the hindrances of a worldly life so that one can more easily habitualize such wisdom, perhaps I am just thrown off by the apparent difficulty of taking it the whole way while maintaining.)
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Pam Seeback » Tue May 09, 2017 12:43 am

John JAu: As far as I've come to understand it, beyond what might be described as intellectual or conceptual insights into the truth, there is the core of the path to enlightenment, the truth in action so to speak, and if it is to be spoken of in degrees or in terms of progress/completion/what is the greatest wisdom, I understand that as being manifest in one who is entirely free from worldly attachments, from distinctions such as aversion/preference, from vain thoughts, from any actions that are based on attempts to 'maintain', or at least, from any such distinctions/motivations at all, whether they maintain or not. Essentially as a being who, due to causality, has risen above all worldliness and in a way above the consequences of causality ('never to be reborn, never to return to existence'), where there no longer remains a person, decision maker, or practitioner of mindfulness. This to me is how I understand the goal of non-desire. A thorough "having let go". I understand verses such as these as being expressions of this:

"Other people have what they need;
I alone possess nothing.
I alone drift about,
like someone without a home.
I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.

Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull.
Other people have a purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind."
Tao te ching

Or all throughout texts such as the Ashtavakra Gita:
"And when the sun sets,
he rests where he is."

"The belief in duty
creates a relative world
for its performance.
The wise one knows Himself
to be formless, timeless,
all-pervasive, immaculate,
and thus transcends duty and world"

At least this view is in line with how I have come to understand reality pointing toward what is true. A complete and literal exhaustion of effort, duty, and anything resembling the drive of necessity to maintain a worldly life. (A mother needing to console one's child, for example.) How else could there be a thorough extinguishing? Every time causality deems to throw you into a hole, you'd fight tooth and nail in the effort to get out. Every time you're accused, you'd fight tooth and nail in speech to defend yourself, and so on. These seem like unjustifiable indications of egotism and attachment, they also seem completely unnecessary in the light of the wisdom of true nature.

To demonstrate how I experience wisdom of the 'householder', let's look at your example of the causality of the mother comforting her child. For the sake of argument, let's say the child is five years old and was called a name that caused him or her to cry. Where an ignorant mother would most likely focus in on the self concept and say things like "I know you are are hurt" or "He didn't really mean what he said", the wise mother would downplay the event, focusing instead on the truth of its impermanence. And when the child is older, the mother has the opportunity to discuss why she didn't focus on self consciousness, potentially opening the door for her child to seek wisdom for him or herself.

Except perhaps when perceived by one who is deluded with the notion that 'it's all no difference so I may as well', which appears like a survival of the ego excuse from my understanding. (Perhaps I am wrong and something along these lines is possible without such changes, I know that it is at least to some degree, I just doubt whether a co-existing is achievable. Or perhaps the first is only necessary initially and temporarily, stepping back from the hindrances of a worldly life so that one can more easily habitualize such wisdom, perhaps I am just thrown off by the apparent difficulty of taking it the whole way while maintaining.)

I hope with my examples above that I have explained how one can co-exist with wisdom and their worldly life. I gave examples of a mother and child, but such examples apply also to friendship and life-partner relationships. You are young to have discovered wisdom of ultimate reality, I assume you are single and childless. Which means you have the opportunity to work through any feelings of lust or desire to procreate before they manifest as physical realities. Most certainly I can see how this would greatly decrease kammic 'charges' that eventually must be extinguished.

Related only in that the wise householder has 'others' around them to stave off loneliness, I imagine that for those who are actually living the dedicated wisdom life that they would benefit greatly from belonging to a spiritual community wherein loneliness and boredom would not arise to potentially 'knock' them off their path of desiring to end desire. After all, the Buddha had a community of disciples wherein he could frequently preach his wisdom, as did Jesus, both keeping to their respective spiritual 'families' until the moment of their deaths.

I am not saying this is your experience, only throwing the thought out there for reflection on its merit.
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Sat May 13, 2017 11:05 pm

To sum up my point, I doubt that it is actually possible to make "worldliness" ( A life including those common aspects listed earlier) compatible with a life in which wisdom is the priority. Your reply did not seem to provide reason (if it exists) to alleviate this doubt.

In reply to your mention of Buddha/Jesus, as I understand it, they acted so only because of their intention to "save all sentient beings" after the fact of final enlightenment. (In Buddha's case at least, if we're to judge based on the stories.)

Also, someone who has wisdom to a degree would not face the problem of boredom or loneliness, especially in a significant way that would knock them off course, because the task realized is too great. I'm reminded of a Christian on an advertisement describing how foolish it is to let the desires of this short life ruin all of eternity ahead of them. How could one with a degree of wisdom become bored when their actions are known to be the deciding causal factors in the future of a never ending samsara?
That same logic might also apply to 'taking care of a kid'.
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Pam Seeback » Tue May 16, 2017 6:23 am

John, I replied to you then deleted the reply. The reason doesn't matter. A few hours ago, out of the blue, all sense of subject was gone. Things are what they are. Don't know how long this undisturbed experience of 'is ' will last. Will let you know.
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Tue May 16, 2017 3:27 pm

It might be a good time to realize, that in the experience of "Things are what they are", there is only reality, nowhere to be seen is there "death is the end", is there?

"The end" is barely even a fantasy. Fantasies can at least be conceptualized. At least two of the words in "married bachelor" are known things. The end is a logical impossibility that cannot even be thought about or described. It is not that I have faith in any eternal existence, it's that I only know reality, and have no faith in the end. You might also come to see that the belief in "death is the end" is likely based on an intellectual dependence, on hearsay, the claim "Those scientists know what they're on about" is a commonly used religious-level declaration of faith. It's blinding or comforting enough to metaphysically confuse and convince an 'intelligent man' that the true reality is actually "floating balls in infinite space".

If you know yourself, you'll find that almost all of the knowing was pretense, you've got an empty mind, a ghost town of the present wherein no world exists at all. It's all about the independent path. Wisdom dictates you ought to reason with 100% independence, relying on not a single sentence you've ever heard or read, meditating/contemplating, becoming familiar with silence.

The 'bewildered burdened beasts' who focus on and judge patterns in form, designating them as 'empirical evidence', then concluding that this so-called knowledge of causality explains the origin of being itself, are perfect examples of "deceived by maya". The ignorant are drawn into the illusion of the world, grasping at mirages and dreams which barely last two seconds, they are the sort to compete with, have sex with, or be friends with, empty puppets (worldly people). Even those with an inkling of wisdom will likely still daily placate delusions of worldliness for fear of hurting the other or themselves with the truth.

In complete independence, do you really expect or reason out 'the end'? Maybe you give others too much credit? Anyone with awareness, being realistic, should have come to realize that most people, even the intelligent seeming ones, (and I have no way to describe it properly without over exaggeration) are very much like autistic, feminine children during period week with ADHD, that are also overcome with confusion/desire/vanity/egotism/delusion. No values, no virtue, no authentic interest in wisdom or philosophy.

"Look upon
friends, lands, wealth, houses, wives, gifts--
and all apparent good fortune--
as a passing show,
as a dream lasting three to five days.
10.3
Where there is desire,
there is the world.
Be firm in non-attachment.
Be free of desire.
Be happy.
10.4
Bondage and desire are the same.
Destroy desire and be free.
Only by detaching from the world
does one joyfully realize Self.
10.5
You are One—
Awareness itself.
The universe is neither aware
nor does it exist.
Even ignorance is unreal.
What is left to know?
10.6
Attached as you have been to
kingdoms, sons, wives, bodies, pleasures—
life after life—
still they are now lost forever.
10.7
Prosperity, pleasure, pious deeds...
Enough!
In the dreary forest of the world
the mind finds no rest.
10.8
For how many lifetimes
have you
done hard and painful labor
with body, mind and speech?
It is time to stop."

At least, that's in line with my current understanding. I look forward to decades of further contemplation and meditation, considering all available views and possibilities. One has to be certain where wisdom is concerned.
If you want to wait around with some mindfulness until you kick it, thinking that'll be the end, feel free. But how on earth does one reason that wisdom, non-desire, or any of this is important in that scenario? According to you it'll be worthless in decades at most. A year flies by in what seems a few moments, with barely a second to contemplate anything. If I thought that were the case I'd be out partying and doing drugs.

It seems to me that you simultaneously accept many of the ideas put forth by buddhism, yogis, monks and sages, while denying the most significant and clearly spoken of their conclusions: "Eternal life". I would guess that it likely has a causal relation to misunderstandings surrounding rebirth/explanations of the lack of any enduring self substance or ego.

I should add that this view is not based on any desire for it to be so, or any teaching, but on personal contemplation and insight. I assume I'd actually be glad if I somehow discovered "death is the end" to be the correct understanding. Anyway, I regard it a possibility that the final wise goal may be the complete extinction of all forms of existence.
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Pam Seeback » Fri May 19, 2017 12:19 am

John: "The end" is barely even a fantasy. Fantasies can at least be conceptualized. At least two of the words in "married bachelor" are known things. The end is a logical impossibility that cannot even be thought about or described. It is not that I have faith in any eternal existence, it's that I only know reality, and have no faith in the end. You might also come to see that the belief in "death is the end" is likely based on an intellectual dependence, on hearsay, the claim "Those scientists know what they're on about" is a commonly used religious-level declaration of faith. It's blinding or comforting enough to metaphysically confuse and convince an 'intelligent man' that the true reality is actually "floating balls in infinite space".


I was not speaking of the end of anything except attachment to the subject, the I, aka attachment to things. Things do not end.

If you know yourself, you'll find that almost all of the knowing was pretense, you've got an empty mind, a ghost town of the present wherein no world exists at all. It's all about the independent path. Wisdom dictates you ought to reason with 100% independence, relying on not a single sentence you've ever heard or read, meditating/contemplating, becoming familiar with silence.

You are right about the knowing of self being a pretense, but the knowing of things is real, things are reality.

Reasoning is not knowledge. Reasoning is speculation of a causal link. The smell of a rose is knowledge of the rose. Love for the rose is the knowledge of love. A prick from the thorns of a rose is knowledge of the rose. Knowledge of things takes place in the silence of reasoning.

The 'bewildered burdened beasts' who focus on and judge patterns in form, designating them as 'empirical evidence', then concluding that this so-called knowledge of causality explains the origin of being itself, are perfect examples of "deceived by maya". The ignorant are drawn into the illusion of the world, grasping at mirages and dreams which barely last two seconds, they are the sort to compete with, have sex with, or be friends with, empty puppets (worldly people).

Even those with an inkling of wisdom will likely still daily placate delusions of worldliness for fear of hurting the other or themselves with the truth. Anyone with awareness, being realistic, should have come to realize that most people, even the intelligent seeming ones, (and I have no way to describe it properly without over exaggeration) are very much like autistic, feminine children during period week with ADHD, that are also overcome with confusion/desire/vanity/egotism/delusion. No values, no virtue, no authentic interest in wisdom or philosophy.

And your aversion toward these autistic, feminine, empty puppet, ADHD worldly 'children' is not egotism? Oh the irony that 'getting rid of desire' includes unwholesome desire.

At least, that's in line with my current understanding. I look forward to decades of further contemplation and meditation, considering all available views and possibilities. One has to be certain where wisdom is concerned.

If you want to wait around with some mindfulness until you kick it, thinking that'll be the end, feel free. But how on earth does one reason that wisdom, non-desire, or any of this is important in that scenario? According to you it'll be worthless in decades at most. A year flies by in what seems a few moments, with barely a second to contemplate anything. If I thought that were the case I'd be out partying and doing drugs.

You do realize you contradicted yourself, a natural byproduct of metaphysical reasoning. You told me to reason totally independently, "relying on not a single sentence you've ever heard or read" and yet here you propose for yourself 'decades of further contemplation and meditation, considering all available views and possibilities'.

My advice (born of experience) to you? Experience fully your aversion toward the world. If you do not turn it outward on the world, you will find the wisdom you seek.
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Fri May 19, 2017 10:15 am

It's odd how you manage to brush over something so obvious. You were speaking about the literal end of the consciousness experience itself, an end to the arising of sensation and thought, a literal end to the being and existing you know now...the common concept of "death is the end" that many others imagine will be the case, and then you twist it around as just saying "things do not end"...obviously not, of course things don't end, I was referencing you and what you know daily. We're talking about your being here, and, in a display of what seems like a lack of understanding, you bring up ending egosticial attachment, subject, the I, as if that's the same thing as consciousness... How could you possibly equate egotism and the entirety of the reality of your experience? And I can't even see how you reason a connection between this enlightenment and bodily death? This is not at all what the Buddha meant, quiet obviously, I say so because it seems like you mismatch some of your own insight with hearsay and conclude in what, when looked at as a whole, makes little to no sense, and has no basis in reality.

It seems clear this is what you meant to imply with your question about belief in eternity and unwavering faith. What else could you have meant? Feel free to make a clear statement on the matter otherwise.

Also, ignorance and disbeneficial distractions are ofcourse to be avoided, there is nothing egotistical about that. It's simply a realistic description, I'm not talking about my feelings here. Perhaps attachment does not allow you to realize or admit that the description was pretty accurate, if exaggerated, it makes clear the point and refers to very real truths. Which part of what I said was unrealistic? Or what world have you been living in where such tendencies and traits are not the norm?

There was no contradiction. The words rely, consider, and independent reasoning, are not contradictory.

I said not to rely on, and spoke of reasoning independently, that doesn't imply excluding reading or listening to others. The point is to figure out the truth for yourself independently by way of contemplation and meditation, it's perfectly fine to consider others views, as long as you are understanding anything from the ground up, having wholistic and personal insight based on reality the whole way through, finding where each point either fits reality or diverges from it, rather than taking leaps on hearsay and faith. No reliance there, just comparison.

For your own sake perhaps take the time to actually contemplate on life and death, and see that your expectation of an end to your very real very being, your very real and personal experience, is unwarranted and delusional. The Buddha taught an end to the enduring of any form or personality, not an end to the reality of being. (Except perhaps for final extinction which was the matter of questioning.) Beyond that, he clearly referred to the ongoing experience of life after life. This is only relevant because hearsay seems to be your method of understanding.

And if that's not the case, perhaps once after years, actually attempt to explain how you've reasoned out the expectation of a cessation to the reality of your being come bodily dissolution?

If there's any line of reasoning which fits into reality, and doesn't include a reference to the brain/body as origin to being, I'm yet to see it.

I'm also yet to see anyone attempt to reason brain/body as origin to being. It's simply laughed at and scoffed over as if such a huge metaphysical assumption is warranted and need no explanation because science.

The contradiction here is in being advocates of the Buddha's enlightenment or Jesus, then simultaneously of death as finality. It denies the very foundation of the teachings at the core of sages, monks, yogis and gurus you lot quote. From Hakuin to Lao Tzu, Buddha to Huang Po, Jesus to Zhuangzi. And how is this obvious and glaring elephant in the room dealt with? "Everyone else but this forum just misunderstood those teachings and rebirth doesn't refer to rebirth and there's no life and death anyway, I was never born and cannot die, except when the body dies I'll be the classic version of "dead", tho we can't be more than 99.9% sure as no one has ever died and spoken of what happens."
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Pam Seeback » Sat May 20, 2017 2:02 am

John: It's odd how you manage to brush over something so obvious. You were speaking about the literal end of the consciousness experience itself, an end to the arising of sensation and thought, a literal end to the being and existing you know now...

I was speaking about wrong view of the existence of (a) subject. Period. Consciousness is not an existent subject, therefore I was not speaking about the literal end of the consciousness experience itself. Things and consciousness are one and the same experience. I am, you are, that experience.

As an aside, it is distracting to use unnecessary 'punch' words such as "odd". Why not simply ask a direct question or make a direct statement?

the common concept of "death is the end" that many others imagine will be the case, and then you twist it around as just saying "things do not end"...obviously not, of course things don't end, I was referencing you and what you know daily. We're talking about your being here, and, in a display of what seems like a lack of understanding, you bring up ending egosticial attachment, subject, the I, as if that's the same thing as consciousness...

How could you possibly equate egotism and the entirety of the reality of your experience?

You incorrectly reasoned my wisdom. Ego represents belief in an existent subject (wrong view). Another way of saying this is that ego represents wrong view of a knowable cause.

And I can't even see how you reason a connection between this enlightenment and bodily death? This is not at all what the Buddha meant, quiet obviously, I say so because it seems like you mismatch some of your own insight with hearsay and conclude in what, when looked at as a whole, makes little to no sense, and has no basis in reality.

Any reference I made to bodily death is related directly to the truth that it hasn't happened yet, therefore, cannot be spoken about except by way of speculation. Speculation is not truth. Speculation is not direct experience. Long ago I believed enlightenment happened at bodily death, but my current thoughts about death and enlightenment are in no way is a representation of these old beliefs.

It seems clear this is what you meant to imply with your question about belief in eternity and unwavering faith. What else could you have meant? Feel free to make a clear statement on the matter otherwise.

I hope I made my position clear.

Also, ignorance and disbeneficial distractions are ofcourse to be avoided, there is nothing egotistical about that. It's simply a realistic description, I'm not talking about my feelings here.

Perhaps attachment does not allow you to realize or admit that the description was pretty accurate, if exaggerated, it makes clear the point and refers to very real truths. Which part of what I said was unrealistic? Or what world have you been living in where such tendencies and traits are not the norm?

Your tone reflected the emotion of aversion. Aversion is related to desire. In the desire to end desire, is it not wiser to use the neutral, logical language of philosophy rather than the emotional, therefore more obtuse language of convention?

There was no contradiction. The words rely, consider, and independent reasoning, are not contradictory.

I said not to rely on, and spoke of reasoning independently, that doesn't imply excluding reading or listening to others.

If you didn't rely on (need) the thoughts of others, how could you read or listen to them?

The point is to figure out the truth for yourself independently by way of contemplation and meditation, it's perfectly fine to consider others views, as long as you are understanding anything from the ground up, having wholistic and personal insight based on reality the whole way through, finding where each point either fits reality or diverges from it, rather than taking leaps on hearsay and faith. No reliance there, just comparison.

No, the point is to see what is true and what is false.

For your own sake perhaps take the time to actually contemplate on life and death, and see that your expectation of an end to your very real very being, your very real and personal experience, is unwarranted and delusional. The Buddha taught an end to the enduring of any form or personality, not an end to the reality of being. (Except perhaps for final extinction which was the matter of questioning.) Beyond that, he clearly referred to the ongoing experience of life after life. This is only relevant because hearsay seems to be your method of understanding.

And if that's not the case, perhaps once after years, actually attempt to explain how you've reasoned out the expectation of a cessation to the reality of your being come bodily dissolution?

If there's any line of reasoning which fits into reality, and doesn't include a reference to the brain/body as origin to being, I'm yet to see it.

I'm also yet to see anyone attempt to reason brain/body as origin to being. It's simply laughed at and scoffed over as if such a huge metaphysical assumption is warranted and need no explanation because science.

The contradiction here is in being advocates of the Buddha's enlightenment or Jesus, then simultaneously of death as finality. It denies the very foundation of the teachings at the core of sages, monks, yogis and gurus you lot quote. From Hakuin to Lao Tzu, Buddha to Huang Po, Jesus to Zhuangzi. And how is this obvious and glaring elephant in the room dealt with? "Everyone else but this forum just misunderstood those teachings and rebirth doesn't refer to rebirth and there's no life and death anyway, I was never born and cannot die, except when the body dies I'll be the classic version of "dead", tho we can't be more than 99.9% sure as no one has ever died and spoken of what happens."

I do not know the cause of the above rant as I am not interested in life after death. I only mentioned it because you did and only in the context of making it clear that since it hasn't happened yet, it does not merit thinking about.

To clarify by simplifying, all that needs to happen to be free of desire is to end belief in an existent subject or cause.
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Sat May 20, 2017 2:28 pm

"I was speaking about wrong view of the existence of (a) subject. Period. Consciousness is not an existent subject, therefore I was not speaking about the literal end of the consciousness experience itself. Things and consciousness are one and the same experience. I am, you are, that experience."

You spoke of the continued existence of your being/experience as a matter of mere speculation, or as a belief that would require faith, so you are speaking about the literal end of the experience itself, simply by way of acknowledging it as a possibility at death. Even to say that you are unsure is already enough clear indication of your views on life and death, and a lack of wholistic understanding regarding existence and egotism. While what you have said here: "Ego represents belief in an existent subject (wrong view)" is entirely accurate, it seems you are understanding this truth only within the confines of a certain metaphysical world view. "Contradictions being a natural byproduct of metaphysical reasoning", also entirely accurate.

The position you demonstrate seems to be founded upon metaphysical delusions, on fundamental assumptions which perhaps you don't realize you are making. Namely these delusions are:

That the individual experience/existence you know now may have had a beginning or may have an end.

That the continuation of your experience (whether ego-delusion is present or not is irrelevant here) is dependent upon any of the things of the world, such as the body.

That experience indicates the existence of things which hold some sort of enduring nature, for any length of time at all, such as a body.

That your existence is a result of causality which is somehow distinct from causality (as it must be if you speculate a possible end to it, since reality has no end) rather than the truth that you are one with causality/reality/god.

In other words, that life and death are a result of causal processes, rather than the truth that casual processes and existence are one and the same. Death is better described as a mere illusion of maya, it's relevance is in its significance in terms of ignorance and karma.

By way of meditation and contemplation one gains clear insight into the nature of reality, thus one comes to know the correct relevance of death very clearly. It does not require having a recorded death-experience on memory or dvd to verify such undersranding, and it has nothing to do with speculation.

To explain:
To understand ultimate truth one need only sit in reality undisturbed by delusion, and there the nature of reality is present.
Concept-clinging works mostly as a hindrance to insight.

Take it away for even a few moments, a silent mind, and you'll immediately realize that there's existence, not death. Seriously, take a look around you, check the room, where is non-existence besides as shallow concept? What you know, the only thing anyone knows, is existence, and thus no death as an end is even within possibility.

You prove the point yourself right here:
"Any reference I made to bodily death is related directly to the truth that it hasn't happened yet, therefore, cannot be spoken about except by way of speculation. Speculation is not truth. Speculation is not direct experience."

Yet you speculate an entirely unknown transformation beyond what you know. You believe possible "the end of experience", an impossibility.

To understand that death cannot cause a cessation to experiencr itself doesn't require speculation or faith or belief. No ideas or beliefs are necessary to absolutely exclude the possibility of death as an end. It is like imagining a beheading and then expecting you will drop dead; the beheading is unreal and the expectation is delusional.

It only ever made a semblance of sense from the perspective of standard materialism. (The delusional views which you and a few others indicate are present when you twist or cherry pick half the words of the wise men you quote. It's as if you're affected by a sudden blindness when reading the most clearly spoken of the verses, and I presume, according to all indications thus far, this tendency is due to a very obvious faith in materialistic notions you've likely heard told since birth. Notions no one here even attempts to reason out, like salminoltas core assumptions, they sit hidden from penetrative insight, fundamentalist beliefs which couldn't possibly be doubted.)

Ofcourse life and death "merit thinking about". If you're interested in wisdom you ought to be interested in this:

"To clarify by simplifying, all that needs to happen to be free of desire is to end belief in an existent subject or cause."

Inaccurate as one need also set ones karma (habit energy) right, which is the question at hand, it also follows one life after life. (Literally.)

That is why. And if this view is somehow wrong, I would very much welcome and appreciate being corrected with reason. If I'm entertaining delusion, don't leave me to roll around in it please.
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby Pam Seeback » Sun May 21, 2017 2:58 am

Pam: "To clarify by simplifying, all that needs to happen to be free of desire is to end belief in an existent subject or cause."

John: Inaccurate as one need also set ones karma (habit energy) right, which is the question at hand, it also follows one life after life. (Literally.)

That is why. And if this view is somehow wrong, I would very much welcome and appreciate being corrected with reason. If I'm entertaining delusion, don't leave me to roll around in it please.

While you understand rebirth of karma to be a literal causality a continuing self, I do not. This explains the contrast of our wisdom views. The reasoning behind my giving up of this literal view vis a vis Buddhist doctrine is simple: it flies in the face of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, a doctrine that has proven, for me, to be logically sound. As I see it, while belief in a continuing karmic self or consciousness helps one develop a sense of morality with regards to the future, ultimately the truth of an impersonal causality trumps this belief.
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why do people have the desire to talk?

Postby JohnJAu » Sat May 27, 2017 2:40 pm

It appears to me that your focus is too much on what seems logically sound in concept rather than what is logically sound and aligned with the individual experience of being.

The Buddhist doctrine of no self teaches that there was never any self to begin with, not one created at birth, not one now, and not one that will come to cessation at death, so what you've said makes little sense. Perhaps you don't realize that you are implying that there is indeed an enduring self, just for now while the body endures, a self whose existence will apparently cease at death.

I suggest again this twisted view is due to a lack of independent contemplation and meditation, but there is much I could say in the way of speculation, reason and suggestions which may help to elucidate.

It seems you understand "causality" as a reference to a hard physical enduring reality which through circumstance (and even the play of atoms/matter apparently) has come to form a real enduring body and accompanying consciousness/senses. This is what really flies in the face of Buddhist doctrine.

The truth is that "Causality" is a designation describing the observed sequencing or working of nature. Reality tho is not and should not be equated with causality, reality is indeed understood only through the 'direct knowing', the experience/being you know daily. Buddhist teachings about causality exist for one purpose, to lead to the recognition that suffering is dependent on desire, and that sufferings end must be caused. They are not intended as an attempt at describing some sort of metaphysical structure permeating reality.

The purpose of wisdom to is to lead to a rising above of worldliness. Your view is a worldly view, it's borne of attachment to illusion and mirage, and the resulting delusional belief that there is an existent and enduring world, when in truth the world is nothing more than the play of empty, impermanent, shallow forms, and the blinding desire for them which distorts this insight. Causality has relevance only to you and your individual being, yet you constantly seem to attempt to include the totality in your reasoning, likely imagining a universe of matter, apparently completely unaware of your own true nature (Oneness with God). All that can be known, all that exists for you, is the known individual being, thus, for all intents and purposes, all that exists is you. You and reality are the very same thing. Your experience is 'the mind of god', the Tao, endlessly at play, and the world is likened to a dream.

The goal is to recognize and karmically habitualize the mindfulness that you are entirely alone, and in that way even in itself the world is but an illusion, so act accordingly, desire attains nothing, you are the beginningless and endless reality, unaffected by the seeming of life and death. Due to egotism/vanity/attachment, you wander samsara, life after life, hurrying and hastening, exhausting effort in duty and personhood. You see, it's all to be taken literally, but forgetting the language, it's very obvious in your own experience if you take an authentic and independent look, free of concept clinging. Hence I suggest more meditation and contemplation in solitude.

Will add to/edit this comment later, as I understand a lot of what I've written so far is incomplete as reasoning/vague.
JohnJAu
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm


Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests

cron