xtracorrupt wrote:That perspective would be dissatisfied but the sentient being causing the action would lose attachment to the dissatisfied perspective as he would be only bringing happiness therefore avoiding attachment to dissatisfaction.
gregkavarnos wrote:Want to rephrase this? It doesn't really make sense.
I think a lot of what your saying involves a lot of assumptions which are wrong because they involve suffering, Also ''it doesn't really makes sense'', how are you able to judge what makes sense and what doesn't? Are you the master of understanding? You have full comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't? If so, how come there is still suffering? I don't understand how you can have full understanding of what makes sense and what doesn't, but still allow suffering to occur? So are you saying suffering makes sense, suffering is justifiable?? What I ''said'' didn't make sense however because it involves dissatisfaction, in this case it's the perspective being dissatisfied therefore imposing it has need(s) and therefore imposing its need/needs need satisfyng therefore imposing it/their incompletion involves suffering, anyhow any phenomenon involves suffering because it involves belief that something must occur, therefore imposing that we have needs, in this case suffering is coming from the phenomenon that dissatisfaction needs to occur.
Also if someone has bad intention yet causes only goodness, then its not bad intention. Also interesting, how you said causing happiness is capable of being a mistake.
Also, if the Gautama was a complete buddha and new the exact consequences of something, Why would he allow further suffering to occur? Again it seems to me like your making wrong assumptions because they involve suffering.
I am making these assumptions because i have attachment to expressal, sorry