what do humans really want?

[11011]

i agree peace of mind is important to many people; i would even put it ahead of survival since the concern over survival usually consists of perception of future or anticipated threats rather than immediate actual threats

if one has peace of mind, survival will not be of concern, neither immediate nor future threats.

can one have peace of mind in the midst of threats to ones survival?

i believe so, if one does not care if they live or die.

this is consistent with Buddhism with states that attachment to things is the source of all human suffering, which presumably includes life itself.

i think this is generally true, however i don't believe Buddhism represents the highest level of human happiness. i think it is only 1 part of the equation. in particular, i think its teaching of self-neglect (detachment from human desires/indulgence) is unnecessary, and that while eliminating a source of suffering perhaps, it also eliminates what could be the only philosophically valid purpose for living - indulgence.

while i concede that indulgence can be a source of suffering, i do not think this is inevitable as Buddhists say it is, and the solution is not moderation or something of that sort, as those in the west might interject.

do you think indulging human desire - either all human desires, or just some particular - is incompatible with peace of mind, or can one have their cake and eat it to, as it were?

can one indulge to the fullest - at least certain human desires, perhaps again only the most valid or worthwhile - yet return to peace of mind afterwards, or will such indulgence erode peace of mind, or make it untenable?

[Walker]

11011 - i agree peace of mind is important to many people; i would even put it ahead of survival since the concern over survival usually consists of perception of future or anticipated threats rather than immediate actual threats.
- Important is a value judgment.
- Seeking peace of mind causes all motion of mind and body, which is not a value judgment.


11011 - if one has peace of mind, survival will not be of concern, neither immediate nor future threats.
- That’s because the little pig lives in a brick house that the big bad wolf can’t blow over.


11011 - can one have peace of mind in the midst of threats to ones survival?

i believe so, if one does not care if they live or die.
- Mountain climbers, base jumpers, bull fighters, tight-rope walkers … they all care to live, and likely feel more alive than when tapping at a keyboard, all safe and secure.


11011 - this is consistent with Buddhism with states that attachment to things is the source of all human suffering, which presumably includes life itself.
- ignorance caused by attachment is the cause of interpreting events as suffering.


11011 - i think this is generally true, however i don't believe Buddhism represents the highest level of human happiness. i think it is only 1 part of the equation. in particular, i think its teaching of self-neglect (detachment from human desires/indulgence) is unnecessary, and that while eliminating a source of suffering perhaps, it also eliminates what could be the only philosophically valid purpose for living - indulgence.
- Renunciation is a sutra teaching, which you misinterpret. Buddhism is not limited to sutra teachings.
- You obviously don’t know enough about Buddhism to make valid negative comments concerning a tradition much older and wiser than you.


11011 - while i concede that indulgence can be a source of suffering, i do not think this is inevitable as Buddhists say it is, and the solution is not moderation or something of that sort, as those in the west might interject.
- Ignorance is the source of suffering.
- Indulgence is killing five quail when you only need three.


11011 - do you think indulging human desire - either all human desires, or just some particular - is incompatible with peace of mind, or can one have their cake and eat it to, as it were?
- Peace of mind is individually defined: it can be both journey towards, and destination arrived.


11011 - can one indulge to the fullest - at least certain human desires, perhaps again only the most valid or worthwhile - yet return to peace of mind afterwards, or will such indulgence erode peace of mind, or make it untenable?
- You can’t go home again.
- Permanent peace of mind is perpetual, which means it's independent of circumstance.

The real question is, since buddhas and arhats know permanent peace of mind independent of circumstance, then what is their motive force? Why move a muscle or think a thought?

[11011]

Seeking peace of mind causes all motion of mind and body, which is not a value judgment

what if you're meditating?

Mountain climbers, base jumpers, bull fighters, tight-rope walkers … they all care to live, and likely feel more alive than when tapping at a keyboard, all safe and secure

false.

some people are very sensitive and would feel just as live or more tapping at a keyboard due to base temperamental differences...because peace of mind is independent of circumstance.

why don't you apply what you say? maybe because you don't really believe it...

You obviously don’t know enough about Buddhism...

you're right i don't hahaha

however, the point is more on that perspective, not how it fits into Buddhism. one form of attachment is preoccupation with something. indulgence is a form of preoccupation (with human desire)

i'll get back to this point though

Ignorance is the source of suffering

what about intentional ignorance, that is ignorance based on the knowledge that knowing would cause more harm than good in relation to a goal?

Indulgence is killing five quail when you only need three

but having 5 quail is better than having 3 isn't it?

The real question is, since buddhas and arhats know permanent peace of mind independent of circumstance, then what is their motive force? Why move a muscle or think a thought?

so they don't die? they have to eat and stuff you know.

also, is their peace of mind really independent of circumstance, if buddhas and arhats do the things they do in part because it enhances their peace of mind which i believe is the case? i mean isn't that the point of the rituals? or maybe the rituals including meditation were just required to get there. however, once enlightened why do they continue to do them then?

what is the connection between the rituals and their state of mind?

[Walker]

Indeed, all good questions that don’t answer the real question.

If you're sincere about knowing and not just frivolous, begin with researching ngöndro purifications, the practice of which requires the guidance of a qualified teacher not ego. You may find that the guidance consists of ignoring you until you have proven your worth via the purifications, to get an answer to a question.

“Life is on the wire, everything else is just waiting.”
Karl Walenda

Closer to death, closer to life.
Every farewell to a loved one is the last farewell.

That's the best anyone can do.

but having 5 quail is better than having 3 isn't it?

Ever read Carlos Castaneda?

The lesson of the quail anecdote is to touch the world* lightly or the world may not let you get out alive.
(If by "having" you dubiously mean keeping 5 quail alive and not killing 3 to eat, then starving yourself of energy required to walk many miles won't help you much, the 5 will fly away, and you will foolishly die.)

In lieu of the arduous ngöndro purification and preparations that clarify questions, you may want look into Zen, which is a sutra practice along the lines of renunciation and aimed at the leaves rather than the root. Solve a koan to the teacher’s satisfaction and many of the piddling questions will answer themselves, you’ll naturally be more aware and considerate, thus less likely to waste the teacher’s time.


* that you have created from within

[commonsense]

Buddha et al aside for now, what is it that human beings want? Peace of mind? Ignorance and bliss? Total knowledge of the world around them? What does all humankind, not merely icons of the past, want? What would the average human want or what would be the median of all the wants? I think that’s what the OP was getting at.

[11011]

more like what would be the root of all wants.

humans have needs. these needs can be attenuated or exaggerated but they can't be eliminated and so we accept them, pending replacement of the human stomach with battery.

wants though...are different. they vary far more in humans - by culture, sex, time and space...every possible factor. not only do they contract and expand accordingly, in some they appear to not legitimately exist at all.

but that doesn't mean they are frivolous. our wants heavily determine whether we will be happy or depressed; they determine our quality of life beyond basic needs. they can even drive some to suicide; others to great heights or achievement.

the kicker though is that we can, given this widespread variation, probably choose our wants precisely because they are shaped rather than innate. it may be an individual choice or a group choice to the extent they are shaped by others as well.

we know there are widely varying cultures around the world, and in each of those cultures, to the extent the people are socialized into them, and accept them as reality, they will value different things, and feel all sorts of positive or negative emotions accordingly, as well as stable psychic constructs. their self-esteem will vary according, sense of power. achievement, etc.

that is if you took one person socialized in one culture and planted them in another what they would gain or lose as far as their wants is concerned would vastly vary. someone who raised to value wealth, where that is the measure of a person in culture, would for example suffer greatly in a comparatively impoverished community, just from the blow to their self-esteem alone, yet the natives of such a community may be perfectly happy, having a different culture of their own and practical value set in line with their culture/world, passed down generations and which they thoroughly acknowledge as reality.

but are any of these wants essential to humans, that is independent of culture? are present when we are born or arise naturally as we develop? or are they imprinted on to us by our worlds?

what is common across all of them?

excluding wants that are actually just indulgence of needs, for example someone who desires more food than they need to survive, although this too can be influenced from without, it appears to me that what humans really want, not need, is to be part of something bigger than themselves, that if you look at variation in wants cross-culturally, that is those particular wants or values that differ and which are not basic needs, it seems such wants are connected to some notion of being part of something bigger than the individual animal human. whether it's carrying the torch of civilization as some upperclass peeps see, or being the ultimate servant to their lord, or being the finest craftsmen, or one of the mothers who gives rise to one of these others, whatever the valued role in that culture or subculture is, that is what appears to me to be what humans really - a valued role.

you might say in turn, what of the mountain climber, or risky motorcyclist...these are individual pursuits that don't really benefit or do anything for anyone other than than those doing them, but is that really true?

if such person were isolated on an island with perhaps no hope of seeing humanity again, do you think they'd be motivated to climb a mountain just for the thrill - with no one to witness or share their story with? maybe, they might, but they would bask in the thoughts of others' reaction in their imagination. it could even just be to prove something to themselves, but what is the source of that want to prove? is it not others?

we are born into a world of meaning, as fundamentally isolated individuals we find pain in isolation, comfort in belonging and being a part of a world where we are valued. is this the root of all wants - every single one if we were to break it down?

[Walker]

Buddha et al aside for now, what is it that human beings want? Peace of mind? Ignorance and bliss? Total knowledge of the world around them? What does all humankind, not merely icons of the past, want? What would the average human want or what would be the median of all the wants? I think that’s what the OP was getting at.

Peace of mind.

[gaffo]

if death is inevitable, do humans really want to survive? and procreation is arguably just an extension of this fear - of dying.

how can someone really want something that is so irrational, that cannot be obtained under the circumstances of the human condition.

i cannot help but think that survival and procreate may not be humanity's purpose, let alone what they really want. it does not fit in with the human condition. fits nicely with theories of evolution and whatnot but not with the human condition as we really experience it.

through out reason (overated)- that leaves emotions, so ya procreation is apt.

[gaffo]

Buddha et al aside for now, what is it that human beings want? Peace of mind? Ignorance and bliss? Total knowledge of the world around them? What does all humankind, not merely icons of the past, want? What would the average human want or what would be the median of all the wants? I think that’s what the OP was getting at.

Peace of mind.

yes agree.

[-1-]

Buddha et al aside for now, what is it that human beings want? Peace of mind? Ignorance and bliss? Total knowledge of the world around them? What does all humankind, not merely icons of the past, want? What would the average human want or what would be the median of all the wants? I think that’s what the OP was getting at.

Pleasant stuff changing to slightly unpleasant, and then back to pleasant; and a wide variety of it.

The problem of deciding what makes humans happy, a "median" or "average" is a misleading proposition. Humans need change to experience, and a constant "peace of mind" would drive anyone nuts after a few weeks of stagnant experience of it.

You can't have a good meal unless you sit down to it when hungry, and hunger can be slightly to hugely discomforting, but it is discomfort in the main.

You can't have a nice time with your lover / spouse in the bedroom, unless your hormone levels are high, and they can't get high unless you give them time to rise; and when they've risen, you get a slight discomfort.

You enjoy Beethoven or Bach or the Beatles, or some of the more moderns, but constantly listening to "Fur Elise" or to "She Loves You Yeah, Yeah, Yeah", the two penultimate hit successes of Western Civilization, would drive you nuts.

So change is essential not only for sensing things, but also for happiness.

This is where the Buddha went wrong. And Jesus. Constant happiness will destroy anyone.

If you don't suffer, you don't enjoy the stoppance of suffering. And it does not have to be a traumatic suffering... it's enough to want a beer on a hot day, or to crave the sincerely inviting look of a sexually exciting person at you as you walk down the street.

[Age]

Buddha et al aside for now, what is it that human beings want? Peace of mind? Ignorance and bliss? Total knowledge of the world around them? What does all humankind, not merely icons of the past, want? What would the average human want or what would be the median of all the wants? I think that’s what the OP was getting at.

Pleasant stuff changing to slightly unpleasant, and then back to pleasant; and a wide variety of it.

The problem of deciding what makes humans happy, a "median" or "average" is a misleading proposition. Humans need change to experience, and a constant "peace of mind" would drive anyone nuts after a few weeks of stagnant experience of it.

You can't have a good meal unless you sit down to it when hungry, and hunger can be slightly to hugely discomforting, but it is discomfort in the main.

You can't have a nice time with your lover / spouse in the bedroom, unless your hormone levels are high, and they can't get high unless you give them time to rise; and when they've risen, you get a slight discomfort.

You enjoy Beethoven or Bach or the Beatles, or some of the more moderns, but constantly listening to "Fur Elise" or to "She Loves You Yeah, Yeah, Yeah", the two penultimate hit successes of Western Civilization, would drive you nuts.

So change is essential not only for sensing things, but also for happiness.

This is where the Buddha went wrong. And Jesus. Constant happiness will destroy anyone.

If you don't suffer, you don't enjoy the stoppance of suffering. And it does not have to be a traumatic suffering... it's enough to want a beer on a hot day, or to crave the sincerely inviting look of a sexually exciting person at you as you walk down the street.

But the 'happiness' in question is not the one you are portraying here.

If you want/crave some thing for "happiness", then what is it that is lacking?

Also, if you feel/experience any "suffering", then what is it that you are expecting out of being alive and living?

There is NO "suffering" and there is NO "happiness", as such, when one is Truly content with the life that they are living. If one is always content, then they constantly happy, which is what those human beings with labels such as "buddha" and "jesus" were referring to.

Feeling hunger, sometimes, might be, as you said, a "discomfort" at times, but in accepting that this just a very normal situation, then contentment remains, and one can still remain in constant happiness.

[Walker]

This is where the Buddha went wrong. And Jesus. Constant happiness will destroy anyone.

You neglect to take into account the stillness within all movement, the axis of the spinning top, and the still balance of the snow lion's big old tail that allows her to run down, up, and across a somewhat vertical cliff at high speed.

Buddha, Buddhism, Buddha-nature, none need defense from misunderstanding.

Consider this topic offshoot.
You exist within this realm.

What are the conditions required for existence within this realm?

- The written word as exposition, or question, or description, or fiction, or poetry, or logic, or stream-of-consciousness, or hieroglyphics, or numbers, and/or,
- A somewhat coherent presentation, and/or,
- Links to visual images and the written words of others, and/or,
- Links to sound recordings.
- Technology.

What are the conditions required for existence outside of this realm?

- None of the above.

Conclusion: Buddha didn’t even have access to this realm to exist within this realm, so judging Buddha from within this realm subjects conclusions about Buddha's outside-of-this-realm existence to within this realm, which must rely on inherent assumptions which just naturally lowers the truth potential of insights.

Do you see?

Buddha is beyond your limitations of comprehension.

Nothing to get defensive over this truth. It's just the way things are.

[-1-]

Do you see?

No, I actually don't see. What you wrote is incomprehensible to me.

It's not a problem of miscommunication, either.

Buddha is beyond your limitations of comprehension.

Nothing to get defensive over this truth. It's just the way things are.

It's just the way things are not. Only madmen's concepts are beyond the limits of comprehension. If it's human-made, then it's human-digestible (intellectuality, not food.)

[Walker]

Well, perhaps if you give it as much consideration in the reading as the writing required you may see the meaning, 'cause I see no need to dumb it down.



Human athletes really want non-conceptual animal balance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj0EVT-Ekog

(Isn’t God so mean to let that little critter get bit. Some would say because of this, God is evil. Oh yes, they would, in the dumbed-down interpretation.)

[commonsense]

Buddha et al aside for now, what is it that human beings want? Peace of mind? Ignorance and bliss? Total knowledge of the world around them? What does all humankind, not merely icons of the past, want? What would the average human want or what would be the median of all the wants? I think that’s what the OP was getting at.

Pleasant stuff changing to slightly unpleasant, and then back to pleasant; and a wide variety of it.

The problem of deciding what makes humans happy, a "median" or "average" is a misleading proposition. Humans need change to experience, and a constant "peace of mind" would drive anyone nuts after a few weeks of stagnant experience of it.

You can't have a good meal unless you sit down to it when hungry, and hunger can be slightly to hugely discomforting, but it is discomfort in the main.

You can't have a nice time with your lover / spouse in the bedroom, unless your hormone levels are high, and they can't get high unless you give them time to rise; and when they've risen, you get a slight discomfort.

You enjoy Beethoven or Bach or the Beatles, or some of the more moderns, but constantly listening to "Fur Elise" or to "She Loves You Yeah, Yeah, Yeah", the two penultimate hit successes of Western Civilization, would drive you nuts.

So change is essential not only for sensing things, but also for happiness.

This is where the Buddha went wrong. And Jesus. Constant happiness will destroy anyone.

If you don't suffer, you don't enjoy the stoppance of suffering. And it does not have to be a traumatic suffering... it's enough to want a beer on a hot day, or to crave the sincerely inviting look of a sexually exciting person at you as you walk down the street.

I agree. I just wonder how to reconcile the happiness that change brings with the unabated fear and anxiety that change brings to some humans as well.