Heh. I told you, Diebert, that you would continue arguing even though your case had been blown out of the water. You scramble with your qualification that suddenly it's now only *one* type of dukkha to which you were referring (this is the first I've heard of that!), but even then you're on no better ground. Notice the quote provided by that Wikipedia page of sankhara-dukkha: "a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life". Notice that? It applies to ALL forms of life. Of course, this will not be enough for you either...
As for the distraction and derailing, I do think that you didn't communicate very clearly, and whether or not it was intentional (it might not have been, it might have simply been poor communication), it did have that effect.
As for the warped view: see above.
As for afraid and insecure, you are best placed to judge that: after all, "know thyself" is your dictum. It's possible that I made a poor inference there, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't true to at least *some* extent.
As for hiding, well, I actually remembered something significant and personal that you've revealed, so I take that back somewhat: you have, after all, revealed that you were once a committed and practising Christian, and that you have witnessed faith healings whose recipients you followed up with over a long period of time later. I do think, though, that you tend such a lot towards abstraction and a sort of depersonalised approach that it's not always easy to work out what you stand for, who you really are.
-------
John,
Yes she was referring to me living with my brother, which at the time was already changing, I'm now in qld. Of course none of that is relevant to the topic.
It's absolutely relevant to the topic. The point is that you deny that compassion is worthwhile/useful (for animals etc) whilst simultaneously accepting compassion from others. That's hypocrisy.
I only wonder how you kid yourself with this false 'compassion for all beings'. I'm pretty sure you mean 'compassion for all beings I come in contact with'. It's not like you run around trying to solve animal suffering, moving ants from pathways and fencing off roads.
There is so much human-caused animal suffering that it's not difficult to start to make a difference, and not just to animals with which you come in contact. Dietary and similar choices (clothing, furniture, etc) are the best way to go about that, but there are other ways, like refusing to support zoos, circuses with animal performers, rodeos, etc, like supporting organisations that work for animals, and like speaking up against cruelty and abrogation of rights. I'm working on an advocacy site at the moment, which is a way of encouraging other people to make the same choices.
I'm sure you like to convince yourself you do a lot or a little to help, but best you end your own suffering first, (emotional suffering which you have admitted), remove all that darkness and egotism which constantly effects your emotions and judgement before becoming a missionary preaching what is right and wrong, truthful and psychopathic. Lately it seems you've gone down the same path as Alex, dishing out opinions while completely denying and avoiding the subject matter of the forum without any reason as to why it's so absurd.
Blah blah: as with Diebert's view that dukkha does not apply to animals, this forum's views on the self are warped. I don't "avoid" this, I have written plenty about why that is. Happy to link you to some of it if you haven't read it yet (most of it was before you arrived here, I think). As for fixing oneself before fixing the world, the two are not mutually exclusive.
