The meaning, I give to desire is “Thought interfering the sensation”.
Therefore, desire will be there inside me forever.
That was a nice question. 
Yes, I had a similar understanding after watching that video (Awakening of Intelligence).
I personally cannot say anything about thought at present, as it is dependent on many different aspects of person.
Thought is the limited content of our consciousness, which can expand and contract over time. It is the result of experience being recorded and then held in memory, either accurately or inaccurately, precisely or shoddily. And also thought uses images and ideas to move from one point to another. Is there anything else?
That is what we are going to find out. We shall discover the whole purpose through the act of questioning. In other words, we are not using purpose or motive to direct the question, which is our usual gambit. Do you see the difference? We are putting a question which has no immediate answer, which is now about whether thought can come to a stop but also includes the earlier question of looking at and facing our own disorder. These are not really two separate questions but are merely two forms of verbal expression exploring the same issue. And we have to question disorder, which is essentially thought, otherwise there is very little point in going through the rest of our lives. When we question something without purpose or motive it means we are willing to look right into the heart of it without turning away to something else. Any purpose or motive narrows our view.
So we may discover that instead of looking directly at disorder, we are more interested in finding an escape from disorder through the invention of ideas that offer the illusion of order.
Thought parses the world into ‘separate’ objects then acts upon them: compares them, stores them in memory, grasps at them, recoils from them, etc. Likewise, thought conjures up an abiding independent self who does the acting.
What, if any, mental activity is not either thought or influenced by thought?
Yes, thought breaks things up into pieces. Our mental activity is the movement of those pieces. So thought is never whole while it is moving. However, this movement brings into being the idea of an entity separate from the movement, which is perhaps nothing more than another piece or fragment of thought.
Paul thanks for your answer,
I am in the middle of some work, I will respond to you after 36 hours.
Movement or not, once thought divides what-is into separate objects, the wholeness of what-is is lost (to the mind of the thinker).
Yes, the I might be nothing more than a thoughtform, singularly compelling for sure, persistent as all get-out, realer feeling than almost anything else … but an imaginary thoughtform nonetheless.
Or it might be something utterly different, something unfathomable.
How do you know that you don’t?
From a lifetime of experience. I have never seen evidence that my thoughts-feelings were the same as another person’s thoughts-feelings. Similar, sure. Identical, no. Have you?
Thought cannot wholly capture or wholly meet anything through its own activity. Now, this is very clear, isn’t it? But is it wholly clear?
No. I am (thought is) not fully convinced. I can relax and let thought expand to take in the whole. (Or so it feels.) It’s not the normal way of thinking, it’s more observing or awareing, but thought still seems to be involved.
Exactly. So thought can only be fully and wholly convinced when it is no longer involved. Any involvement, even the tiniest amount, prevents the realisation of wholeness. Whether it is the wholeness of confusion or of anger or of any other psychological attribute or problem doesn’t matter.
Paradox alert! Thought would need to be both gone and convinced.
Thought keeps thinking: There’s nothing I can’t do if I put my mind to it! And that includes grokking the whole. As to why it’s never seemed to work, well, thought has an answer to that: These things take time, gotta keep trying.
The notion of bowing out seems just plain stupid to thought. “Why would I ever do that?! I just haven’t ‘come into my own’ fully yet!” And if I experiment with thought bowing out, it jumps back in (afterwards or sometimes during) and screams louder than ever: “Don’t be such a gullible idjit! I’m the way.”
Even when thought is not as arrogant as depicted above, it can’t quit because no-thought is death, and death is incomprehensible.
You have said that we would discover the purpose by the act of questioning and it seems to me that again a motive to discover the motive. Anyways, I replied to you because my motive is to understand the nature of mind and without that, I would not have spent my energy.
Paul, you have said that purpose will narrow down the view and I totally agree upon that what you said. As I know that the surrounding environment is packed with full of information, which I personally cannot mentally process.
From this set of information, I infer that you tried to mention the difference between the questions coming from the minds with and without motive. Can you elaborate it in another way? Such that I can understand your intent clearly.
After reading your comment, I got a pair of questions,
Q What is disorder, in the present context?
Q What are the implications of motive in a person’s life?
Anybody can answer my questions, please share your thoughts.
Yes, completely certain that it is the right thing to keep out of the way. I don’t see the paradox. Usually, thought is never certain of anything in any sphere of its activity. Indeed, that’s the whole point of thought: to sift through as much evidence as possible before arriving at a conclusion. Can’t it simply conclude right at the start that no amount of energy will provide it with an answer? In other words, the energy that thought creates in sifting, analysing, measuring and comparing any aspect of the psychological field of existence can only ever create more confusion in the mind. A quiet, still mind can’t create confusion. Then there is no paradox. The paradox exists when one is uncertain; and this uncertainty sustains the activity of thought.
A motive involves the expenditure of energy: you pay attention because you want to understand. But is attention different from understanding? Does an attentive mind actually need to understand anything at all? Therefore, the roots of all our disorder may be found in our desire to understand, to comprehend, as though the understanding of a problem is somehow different from the problem. The desire for the understanding of our disorder immediately takes the mind away from the fact of its own inherent disorder. Can we first be attentive to the disorder as it actually is, without any trace of influence from a mind that wants to grasp, control and understand what it is looking at?
The paradox I see is that thought can’t at the same time (now) be certain and be absent. But it’s not important, there’s no need to discuss it.
Thought might respond:
A quiet, still mind can’t do much of anything, except sit back, relax, and watch. Which is appropriate for some situations, taking in the beauty of a tree, but not for others, responding to your message.
Understanding involves thought processes but for attention, there is no need for thought. Yes, there is a difference.
Yes, otherwise it is impossible to communicate with other people to convey what I have observed in the attentive state. (In fact that is the essence of scientific research )
Sir, you have used the word “disorder”. Surely you must have observed something in your mind and named it a “disorder”. When you communicate with another person about a disorder (Which you have observed), just saying a name may not point to the phenomenon which you have observed.
For probing your understanding of “disorder”, I have asked the question “What is disorder?”. If I do not see, what you saw with that description (disorder) then the whole point of this discussion will be impractical.
Irrespective of disorder (In the present case), a quiet mind can see, feel, touch, and hear without any thought to a thing. The tricky aspect is that when the mind wants to make others understand what it has observed, thought is the only way to communicate.
Hope you understood, my intent.