The motive of life.

A human being needs no reason to live, as he needs no reason to die. A human being functions as any animal which is seen, to be living. There is no difference between the needs of an animal, and the needs of a human being. If animals are so inferior, then why have the different animal species, not destroyed each other on a mass scale, like human beings have done in war? I believe, that if a human being can exist without the impedance of an ego, then he becomes the most enlightened of all living beings. The sorry state of affairs is, that some human beings behave not better than animals, but they are more apparent in their animal behavior, than the animals themselves. What separates the man from the animals? I believe that it is reflection. If a dog sees himself in the mirror, then he will react at the reflection, as if the reflection is another dog, or he will be indifferent to the reflection. Human beings behave similarly, when they see other human beings, and living things. However, when a human being looks at his reflection, he examines his reflection, because he knows his own reflection. It is best, when a human being looks at others, too, as his own reflection, instead of looking at others as extraneous factors. If a man reflects, on what he observes, then he will perhaps, live a better life, than the animals. What causes a man to reflect? If a man sees a bond with another human, as he bonds with himself, then this causes him to reflect, perhaps. The persons who teach reflection to another person, first, are the parents to the child. If reflection is inculcated, then it is inculcated first from the parents from the child. I first explored the goodness in myself, by contemplating the goodness of my mother. I identified the goodness of my mother, with the goodness in myself.

Positive and negative perceptions, and their effect.

What is a positive perception, and what is a negative perception? Is it primarily, a movement of perception, governed by emotion? In a given situation, we may perceive the situation negatively, another person in the same situation, may perceive the situation positively. If I can convince the other, that my negative perception holds precedence over his positive perception, then is my perception more right than the other's perception?

How do we value, gain and loss?

What is gain, and what is loss? When we gain, what do we gain exactly? Do we not loose something, when we gain something? Are we aware of all our gains, and all our losses? When we make a purchase, there is a gain of goods, and a loss of currency. We gain, instantly, as we loose, in a transaction. Are all gain's and losses of the same nature? If we make a gain now, the consequence of which will make us loose at a later date, then can the gain and loss, not be seen as a simultaneous happening? Is a financial transaction, the most visible example of the process of gain and loss?

Perception of Loss.

How does one perceive loss? Do we loose, or are we lost, to what is lost? This is the conundrum which is worrying and bothering, perhaps. Perhaps, we are both lost to what is lost, and we also loose what is lost. If we accept this basic surmise, then the burden is lost from loosing. Then, we are perhaps glad, that we lost. If we perceive loss in a certain manner, then we are not bound, by our negative perception of loss, perhaps.

Brahman and it's realization.

There are some people who are not eager to react to a stimulus. This is not agreeable to such persons. Such people, are out of place reacting to either a favorable stimulus, or an unfavorable stimulus. Perhaps, such people are under the influence, of what The Hindu's term as 'Brahman'. What Brahman is, cannot be described. What is good and evil, can be described, as can a holy and unholy experience. Happiness and unhappiness can also be described. But at best, these experiences cannot be described adequately, because, either the expresser of these experiences, cannot describe the experience adequately, in his own estimation, or the person to whom the experience has been expressed, cannot understand the situation satisfactorily. If an experience cannot be described properly, then, the experience cannot be communicated by the self, to the self. It is just to be experienced. Brahman unlike other experiences, cannot be described at all, because it is not an experience, experienced through stimuli, and reaction. One cannot separate the stimuli, from the reaction, in the experience of Brahman. This experience is said to be the most fulfilling of all experiences. Any reaction is an unsatisfactory situation, in the reaction. The experience of Brahman, is the most peaceful and fulfilling of all experiences.

Emotion and interaction.

When we feel emotion, we must understand, that our emotions are singular to us, at that moment. Or, in other words, we must understand, that in our situation, we are not interacting with the situation, exactly like the others are. Perhaps, when I come to comprehend this situation much deeper, I further realize, that if I am unhappy in the situation, then I am the only one who may be. When a person feels unhappy, and is aware of the unhappiness, then the unhappiness is misplaced. What is the cause of this unhappiness, which we feel is misplaced? Is it ourselves, as being unhappy in this situation is not constant for everyone? How should I deal with the situation?

Knowledge.

Why does a man, or woman, want to acquire knowledge? When a man or a woman wants to acquire knowledge, he, or she, does not know what the nature of the knowledge will be, after acquiring the knowledge. What does a man or a woman, search for in the pursuit after knowledge? Does the gaining of a particular branch of knowledge, bring with it's acquisition, endless satiation towards the quest for knowledge, in general? Perhaps, we are satiated towards the quest for knowledge, after a period. I mean to infer, that after a while, we are not driven by the quest of knowledge, as eagerly, as we were before, or are at present. So, is the pursuit of knowledge, just an automated and natural occurrence in the psychological functioning of a human being? Is the quest for knowledge, a different quest, than what we believe it to be? I mean, do we pursue knowledge of a different kind, than what we believe we are pursuing, when we believe we are? Perhaps, knowledge is like splitting hairs, and gaining satisfaction at the result of the splitting. What if the hair was not split? Then, we would not have satisfaction, at the splitting. My preoccupation, with learning, is that when I am learning, I am wondering, whether I am learning, too much, or too little. I would like to learn, just as much as is required, at the moment. This is the stimulus for my inquisitive nature. Perhaps, my search for knowledge, is a direct response to this stimulus. Is this the case with others, too? How then, does one define the term knowledge? knowledge is perception. Perfect knowledge is perfect perception, in accordance with the perceiver. If a person can acquire perfect knowledge, for any length of time, and he is conscious of this perfect perception, then what happens to the quest of knowledge, of the person?

The control of perceptions.

How does one practice self control, and hence practice the self control of how we perceive? One must feel as one is not, not in control of one's perceptions. For example, one must not feel while one is perceiving, that one is perceiving a perception too much, or too little, but that one is perceiving, just so. This is the easiest method of practicing self control. Perhaps, if we pay attention on our perceptions, we are carried away by our perceptions, hence, we must not get carried away by our perceptions.

How do we perceive good and evil?

What is the way, in which we perceive good and evil? Is perceiving good and evil selfishness? What is good, and what is evil? What is evil and good, is usually well comprehended, but why is not one comprehension of good and evil acceptable to all? Even in one family, family members comprehend good and evil differently, from one another, sometimes. Perhaps, all negative perception is bad, and all positive perception is good. I am never on the side of one, who justifies his negative perception, at the cost of someone else's situation. When one justifies negativity, then one is being perceived by someone else as being evil, or bad, and, negativity is being justified all around, then, and hence, one cannot say, who the particular guilty party is.
How exactly do we perceive evil, and good? When we perceive another person taking advantage of what they see is a negative situation, which pertains to us, to their advantage, then we perceive evil, on their part. Perhaps, the opposite of an evil perception, in my interpretation, is a good perception.

Positivity and Negativity.

What is a positive outlook to life, and what is a negative outlook to life? I have come to be aware, perhaps, that when a positive outlook is in conflict, then one encounters a negative outlook. Feeling negative, has nothing to do with what one feels is the object of one's negativity, perhaps. Feeling negative, has to do with how positive one felt, before one encountered the feeling of negativity. Or, if one naturally feels positive about something, how one reacts to a negative perception of that something. So in reality, perhaps, the most negative people, are also the most positive people, and the opposite to the perception mentioned just before, is also true. If some memory that one cherishes, makes one unhappy, then one must learn to comprehend, that what we cherish and what we dislike, are not that important. What is perceived to be positive, and what is perceived to be negative, are the most abstract perceptions. In other words, our perception of positive and negative, are not based on any concrete reasons. We may say, that it is appropriate for one to cry in one circumstance, and inappropriate for the same one to cry in a different circumstance.