Why do we have to go elsewhere? Why don’t you go elsewhere if we are not what you would like to find? And obviously you are not listening. In order to answer your question we would have to clarify what suffering means and what the self means. Unless that is not clear one cannot answer your question. We humans suffer. That is obvious. People suffer. You will not deny that or?
1 Like
Yes, it’s your preference, your interest, your wanting, which you are unwilling to turn aside for. You aren’t interested in what others prefer, what others are interested in, what others want - because others are ‘outside’ you, and it is all about you, right?
I will “go elsewhere”, thank you. You carry on with yourself - it is all you ever seem to do anyway. 
I don’t know about the other 2 geezers, but you seem to have mistakenly lumped me into the wrong category. I was actually asking a question about your claim, inquiring with you, not denying its veracity. See below :
Or what? How can you say it is obvious that people suffer and yet still ask for clarification about what suffering means?
But you went off to a theoretical scenario pretty quickly, didn’t you? Can we first of all take in the full significance of what it means to suffer.
We can’t know this, we can only speculate, though it does seem to be a good bet.
No, it is much simpler than all that. I don’t want to waste your time with all this. We could go around this subject of suffering for the next ten years and get nowhere with it. Haven’t you already spent twenty years doing exactly that? Or we can go straight to the heart of it. The self has never suffered a thing. It has done everything but suffer. This is a shocking statement, I know, but if we are committed to having a dialogue we should really expect a few shocks.
What is more simple than what you want Paul?
Your presence would be appreciated on the “What is Death?” thread. That is, unless the presence of the “What is Death?” thread means that you cannot be there. 
They are both very good. Once this show folds, we’ll start from there.
What you don’t want. That’s far simpler. It is far less complicated and confusing because the whole self is exposed.
No, what you don’t want. That’s simpler still 
That’s what I said. What you don’t want; what I don’t want - it is the same thing.
What you don’t want is to explore on any one else’s terms other than your own. Given that you continue to hold to this, despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you that this is what you are doing (for several days days now), what you don’t want seems to be much more simple for you to look at than what other’s don’t want.
Quite right. Spot on. But I’m not sure what my terms are. I have only my own eyes and ears. These eyes and ears may be deceiving me, especially once my brain gets involved in it.
Your terms are to ignore the world ‘out there’ and assume that we have already observed the world ‘out there’, so you can quickly move on to the world ‘in here’ about which you already seem to have very sharply delineated assumptions (that impede any exploration of the world ‘in here’). Your eyes and ears have their merits, right?
No, I am not ignoring out there. On the contrary, out there is perhaps all there is. That’s why I want to be completely sure of the accuracy of the observer first of all, even before looking out there.
Yes, you are the saying the same thing Paul - you want to begin ‘in here’ because you have assumed that you know something about what is ‘out there’, when you haven’t even tried to look with your eyes and ears.
Okay - you don’t think I should use similes, to ask my question. Should I ask the question again (more simply - like : what do you mean)? It is to do with your claim about suffering.
Ok. Start the thread.