Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
It's obvious enough from this that you are just not very bright.

I think you know the answer to that.

HA yeah - you are plug-stupid; thick as two short ones; missing some marbles; cerebrally challenged; dull; witless; hit by the stupid stick; empty headed.

On a side note to the topic, that you would say such a thing indicates that you are suffering.

Suffering is caused by ignorance caused by attachment. Anger is caused by attachment which is threatened, and habitual anger can easily slip into hatred, thus the slippery slope into evil.

This is true not because mind says so. This is inherent to the nature of mind and saying so is mind looking at the truth of its nature, a capacity for self-reflection which is the advantage of a human birth. Buddha used suffering to illustrate this because suffering is universal to existence, but need not be due to this capacity of awareness, which can be compromised.

Much goodness and love to you Hobbes the chooser.

Walker wrote:The Buddha used suffering to illustrate this because suffering is universal to existence, but need not be due to this capacity of awareness, which can be compromised.

Much goodness and love to you Hobbes the chooser.

There is no suffering without awareness of it. It's just plain stupid to suggest otherwise.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:On a side note to the topic, that you would say such a thing indicates that you are suffering.

Suffering is caused by ignorance caused by attachment. Anger is caused by attachment which is threatened, and habitual anger can easily slip into hatred, thus the slippery slope into evil.

This is true not because mind says so. This is inherent to the nature of mind and saying so is mind looking at the truth of its nature, a capacity for self-reflection which is the advantage of a human birth. Buddha used suffering to illustrate this because suffering is universal to existence, but need not be due to this capacity of awareness, which can be compromised.

Much goodness and love to you Hobbes the chooser.

There is no suffering without awareness of it. It's just plain stupid to suggest otherwise.

Obviously, given the direction of your attention the following phrasing doesn’t communicate what you should hear. Saying it this way leaves an opening for misinterpretation, and such doorways tend to enthusiastically fill first.

Buddha used suffering to illustrate this because suffering is universal to existence, but need not be universal due to his capacity of awareness, which can be compromised.

Given your wont displayed in your posting, here’s the meaning phrased again for your wont.

Because he observed that suffering is universal to existence, Buddha used suffering to illustrate the causal source of suffering by teaching the nature of mind. However, because of mans’ incarnated capacity for awareness undistorted by ignorance, man need not suffer. Non-suffering awareness of suffering is the consequence of awareness undistorted by ignorance.

Is it a trait of Canadians to call things stupid that they don’t understand? Or, is this condition merely a shared universality of ignorance.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:The Buddha used suffering to illustrate this because suffering is universal to existence, but need not be due to this capacity of awareness, which can be compromised.

Much goodness and love to you Hobbes the chooser.

There is no suffering without awareness of it. It's just plain stupid to suggest otherwise.

The only thing I'm suffering from is reading Walkers dumb posts.