The search for man.

What does man search for? Man has many positive experiences, as well as negative experiences. I may be happy being rich, famous, and being generally positive. But, why would I want to be all those things? Why does a human being want to be happy? Because otherwise, he would be unhappy? So, is being happy, a cover up for being unhappy? Does the human being feel, that I would otherwise be miserable, so it is best that I am happy? So, in a way, we are in a bind, to our happiness, and unhappiness. What the human being does not realize is, that an unhappy person, does not want to be unhappy. He, too, wants to be happy. But, can he help his unhappiness? Could he stop his unhappiness from not happening? If such be the case, that a person cannot stop unhappiness from happening, then, can a person stop happiness from happening? Then, further, why does a person look for happiness? Does the search for happiness, make a person look at unhappiness as unacceptable, and only happiness as acceptable? Is the search for happiness, the cause of the reason for us encountering unhappiness? Is the quest for peace the reason for encountering anarchy? There does not seem to be anything beyond peace and anarchy, happiness and unhappiness, but some people look beyond nonetheless. What are they looking at? Are they searching for a higher truth than happiness and unhappiness, peace and anarchy? What is that higher truth? The cause of happiness and unhappiness? Or even beyond that? To be fair, a person, if he looks beyond happiness and unhappiness, does not know what he is looking for. The search may be as elusive as the search for impossibility, but such a person is very patient in his search.

What is pain?

Pain is perhaps, a reaction to the self, more than a reaction to stimuli. It is we, who respond to the stimuli. Stimuli is a series of stimulus. What is stimulus? Stimulus is any reaction, to phenomenon. What causes us to react in a dual nature to stimulus? We either react positively, or negatively to stimulus. Why do, we, more importantly, react sometimes, in extremes, to stimulus? All stimulus, should be a neutral experience. Then, why do we see the positive and negative to stimulus? We may perceive the same stimulus as broadly positive at one time, and broadly negative at another time. What is the change perceived in the stimulus, so that we can feel the stimulus as positive, and the same stimulus as negative? Is not the difference in our own reaction? What is an intense stimulus, and what is a moderate stimulus? When we perceive warmth, we respond moderately, and when we perceive intense heat, we respond appropriately. What is this appropriateness? Is not the cause of our pain, ourselves?

Love.

A person may love anyone. The qualities found in one person, are also found in other different persons. A person may be shown love towards himself/herself, by many people. What makes the love shown by some persons very positively particular, and the love shown by other persons seem very general, if this be the case? Nothing in particular, comes to my mind. Then, why is love important? Why is a person looking for love, to share? What is love? I believe, all loss of inhibition, towards another person is love. I do not believe, that a person is deliberately uninhibited towards anything. But if a person can be unintentionally uninhibited towards another person, then, that is love, in my humble opinion. The more a person is inhibited towards another person, the more he dislikes the other person. Or, the more a person feels inhibited when he is with another person, then, the more he dislikes the person. The more a person is unconsciously uninhibited with a person, the more he likes or loves the person.

Freedom From Perception.

When a person professes to want to be free from misery, what does that person want to profess? Does he want to profess, to be free from the thrall of perception? After all, it is perception, which makes him miserable. What is perception? Is hearing, a more important perception than sight? When we deduce, and adduce, do we hear more than we see, or do we see more than we hear? What about the sense of touch, when we see and hear? I believe, that touch, sight, smell, and hearing are the same perception. A man who regards his sense of sight more than his sense of hearing, does he deduce and adduce more than a person, who regards his sense of hearing, more than his sense of sight? Is the sense of sight, superior than the sense of hearing? Does a blind man not see? Does a man, who cannot 'smell', not smell? What causes a man to loose sight, and sense of smell? Does not a blind man, see darkness, and does not a man who does not smell, smell what cannot be smelled? Does not a human being want freedom from the thralls of the very perceptions of the senses, that make him enjoy the sense objects, at one time or another? How can a person be free from the thralls of the senses? Is a blind man free from the thrall of the sense of sight? Is a deaf man, free from the thrall of the sense of hearing? What can cause a man, to be free from the thrall of the senses? I do not believe, that the senses can cause a person to be free from the thrall of the senses. Then what can cause a person to be free from the captivity of the senses? Not the disregard of the senses? Nor the regard of the senses? How does one neither disregard, nor regard the senses? By not trusting the senses? How does one not trust the senses? Would a man who sees a ghost, trust his senses? Do we trust our senses? If we can wish our senses away, in misery, then are we not very fickle in our trust?