Seeing as language/speech can be defined as the symbolic representations of thought - and thought being an expression of conditioning and motive - I have no immediate answer to this question.
One reason is probably the desire for knowledge - inquiry can often be the expression of fear, search for security, confirmation etc… the exigence of the known;
If one starts with an inaccurate or incomplete definition of language/speech the outcome will also be inaccurate or incomplete.
So my question is what exactly is the function of language/speech?
Even dialogue uses this function and in dialogue all the other events can be expressed like egocentrism, LOVE, etc. etc. …b
Perhaps you are seeing too much. Do you see me? That’s our start, isn’t it?
Hello? (Is this word - and my use of it, motive free?)
That’s what we’re going to find out. Unless we are sure about the nature of our relationship to the world, moving on to consider things like universal mind makes very little sense. Because if we are already creating stories about each other, about the things that are right in front of us, goodness knows what we might do with the other less tangible aspects of our lives.
How would we know that we have a motive?
Okay, I’ll bite. Why?
You’re biting because you don’t know. So that’s a big part of what is behind our talking to one another. Are we therefore talking in order to reach a place of knowing? That would be one reason.
Wouldn’t the most logical thing - for those people raising this point - be to remain silent or set up separate thread where they can talk about how useless it is to talk?
Although this thread began with a question about “universal mind”, it seems clear to me that the topic moved on to what is meant by a quiet mind or brain. As K says in one of the extracts above
can our brain, to understand all that immensity be quiet?
This is the current question I thought was being explored.
However, if no one is interested in this topic anymore - as now seems to be the case from the ensuing conversation over the last few hours! - I would be happy to begin a separate thread with the topic of a quiet brain.
Would a universal mind be bothered about where it went? That’s the first point. Therefore don’t we have to be completely aware of the workings of the personal mind first before we are free to go off to look at the universal?
No-one is saying that it is useless to talk. On the contrary, we are finding out the very value of talking, which includes all its dangers and distractions.
I’m resisting interpreting them, because I think my interpretation might be quite different from your intention. And for me “the universe manifesting mind” doesn’t convey much without interpretation.
the idea I’m using is that every concept/phenomenon exists/manifests thanks to the existence of everything else.
Dependent origination sounds like, ja? I don’t see how this relates to “universe manifesting mind.”
Is that not what we (you) mean by quiet mind?
What is a quiet mind? Is it a mind that wants to touch the unknown - or at least touch something imagined by the known to be unknown? Is it a mind that is separate from all those things?
There are different kinds of quiet, right?
- There’s the quiet of no phenomena, silence. This kind of quiet can be sleepy or alert.
- There’s the quiet of flow, full self-less immersion in a task.
- The quiet of phenomena coming and going without a trace.
And so on.
For me ‘quiet mind’ means, in the context of this discussion, the alert version of 1/3: Few phenomena arising, those that do arise come and go without a trace, general sense of alertness and openness.
Do it! That way this thread can drift back to its original theme: universal mind.
Ja. You might be placing mind outside the universe, or somehow separate from everything else, if we accept co-dependant origination. Mind would be the only thing that exists independantly (special pleading must be demonstrated not to be a fallacy)
Not sure how this stands given the new Quiet Mind thread? You could establish common ground for everyone in your opening for the QM thread, help things stay on track.
Aha! I see. I think each Kinfonet member needs a universal decoder ring (UDR) that translates what is said to something intelligible for the ring wearer. Do we all have our own language?
Is the original expression in words from the Teaching only thought? I don’t see as such.
Here is thought in function from something more than itself.
It seemed that you did understand my meaning - you even recognised the school of thought. I am just telling you what you are meaning 
There’s a lovely thread that has just opened up titled “Why talk at all?” I’m certain your contributions would be greatly appreciated there.
Yes! It would probably be good if I understood what I was talking about, right? 
1 Like