(September 17, 2013 at 11:52 am)John V Wrote: As noted in another post, there's a reason that the doctrine isn't explicitly stated.
It would be too easy to understand?
(September 17, 2013 at 11:52 am)John V Wrote: You don't seem to understand: if we don't have free will, then it's nonsensical to say we're suffering, or even to call us "we." A better analogy then an anthill would be a really complex novel.
Even a lizard can suffer. I'm not sure about ants. To deny the existence of suffering is to deny your own experience. If you can prove that suffering requires free will, you'll have proven free will. Get to work, I'm rooting for ya.
