Brucenkhamen

Awareness is not a process or part of any Buddhist psychology. Awareness is like the cinema screen upon which the movie is projected. The movie is mental process. The movie begins and ends but the screen remains untouched and is uninvolved. It is merely the witness of the movie. Nothing that happens in the movie can affect the screen. Scenes of fire will not burn it. Scenes of a flood won't make it wet.

I didnt ask you what awareness is like, I know what it is like, I asked you since you dont believe it is a function of the mind (ie a mental process) what you believe it is. So while your analogy sounds quite profound and paints a good picture about what awareness is like as an answer to my question its basically BS.

So if you dont believe awareness is a function of the mind (ie a mental process) what you believe it is?

The interesting thing is I pasted the phrase Awareness is like the cinema screen upon which the movie is projected and the top half dozen or so hits appear to be theistic in nature, so youve got a few buddies.

We shouldn't pay much attention to the dictionary definition. The dictionary isn't concerned with ultimate knowledge but only with what most people experience which is thinking that they are a mind and body. If the screen mistakenly thinks it's the movie then dukkha arises.

If you dont want to use English then you are only going to confuse your reader, then what is gained? Religious and technical groups do develop their own jargon, I understand that (Buddhists do it too), but if they cant translate their jargon into English vernacular when needed then I doubt they really understand what they are talking about.

Can you translate your usage of the word awareness into English?

What you call a complex array of mental processes is neither here nor there. It's just a concept. There is only one thing you can truly know and that is what is happening in the present moment. That is all. Right here, right now. There is no past, or future. And in that present moment there will be a thought or no thought. What happens in the past is just a memory, but that memory is a new thought happening in the present moment.

If you appreciate that then all you have to do is to find out what is the source of these thoughts and discover that it is silence. That knowledge replaces all scripture.

The first paragraph is all very true but pretty much irrelevant to the question I asked.

The source of the thoughts is the conditioned mind, silence doesnt produce thoughts but thoughts arise and pass away within the backdrop of silence.

If clear seeing has nothing to do with objects, then it can have nothing to do with the process that brings them into the conscious mind either.

Of course the objects are involved in the process, the point is they are not the main thing as far as practice goes.

Just to show I can do BS too "Awareness is like the sky upon which the clouds move. The clouds are mental processes. The clouds begin and end but the sky remains untouched and is uninvolved. It is merely the witness of the clouds. Nothing that happens with the clouds can affect the sky. Lightening will not burn it. Rain won't make it wet".

All religions get distorted over time as people look for ways to get religious consolation without having to make meaningful changes to their lives.

The concept of merit does this in Thai culture, while it's mentioned in Buddhist scripture not in such a way as to be a central practice and not a boy scout like points system that the word merit implies.

Generosity is a good trait to cultivate, and some Thais are very genuine about it, but I think looking for something in return is not generosity.

I am emphatically not using the word awareness as a euphemism for God. That would be just another concept. I only ever talk about what can be experienced. You are self aware. You are sentient. You can be aware of an object. This is known to you. It is self evident to you that you are aware.

Thats good to know, it sounds then like we are talking about the same thing here.

Mind and perception by the senses appear from this background awareness. Mind is dependent on awareness but awareness is not dependent on mind. Clearly there can be awareness without mind. Anything which is not awareness is a concept and is of dependent origination.

Oops I spoke too soon. Awareness is a mental process, its a function of mind, so clearly awareness is part of mind not the other way around. How do you reconcile your definition with the English language definition? "awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.". Is there a less confusing term you can use so that we can know what exactly it is you are talking about in terms of Buddhist psychology?

How can you not be attached to awareness. It is what you are. You cannot let go of awareness. Where would you go? You can let go of identification with an object of awareness. Awareness remains. Perception and interpretation of phenomena is of the mind. You cannot rely on it

By not being attached to what I am. Being attached to what I am simply means Im not willing to change, Im sure you wouldnt endorse that view. It looks like you understand the word attachment differently as well.

The point is moot though, I am not just a single mental process (called awareness) but a complex array of mental processes working together with a body thrown in for easy transportation. Dont take this tongue in check description too literally though its just meant to put awareness in context.

I think one of the biggest misunderstandings is when Buddhists often say that they need to see things for what they really are. Clear seeing. As if objects will somehow appear different if you wake up. It is very simple. What destroys illusions is letting go of the false personal self and identifying with the unbounded. I don't mean as an idea or concept but as an actual shift of consciousness. Keep meditating.

Clear seeing means letting go of the false personal self and identifying with the unbounded, it has nothing to do with the objects that are being seen and has everything to do with the mental phenomena involved in that seeing process and how one understands what does the seeing.

As I understand, pain is a mental reaction which informs us, via our nervous system, that something is wrong. Are you basically saying that Dukkha is a mental reaction to a mental reaction, and is just an unnecessary and purposeless escalation of that necessary pain, which results from our lack of wisdom?

I'd say pain is a physical reaction as the nervous system that carries those impulses is physical and you feel it on the physical body. Of course the awareness of the experience of pain is mental just like the awareness of the experience of everything else that you experience.

But either way Dukkha is an unnecessary and purposeless escalation of that unpleasantness as you say, if you sit long enough in meditation to feel pain you can observe the pain and the reaction to the pain and see that the latter is worse than the former.

We unnecessarily escalate emotional (ie mental) pain in the same way.

Basically the more we try to push away the unpleasant and the more we try to grasp on to the pleasant the more friction we create, this is normally an involuntary reaction however if we can see this happening then we have the opportunity to drop it.

So I ask again, what is the ultimate purpose of these higher states culminating in full enlightenment or Nirvana?

I guess we can assume that 'suffering' is a mistranslation of the Sanskrit/Pali word 'Dukkha'. Suffering is a necessary part of life, a temporary state of affairs which performs a useful role in warning the mind about potential dangers, such as sticking one's hand in a fire, or grasping a prickly thorn in one's hand.

It's also necessary as a sign that something is wrong in the body and that one might require medical treatment. Without the effects of suffering one might be unaware of the presence of a potentially deadly disease which, if not treated in its early stages, might result in death.

Now, if one avoids using the word 'suffering' as a translation of 'dukkha', and instead one uses words such as anxiety, stress, and unsatisfactoriness, then that makes more sense, but still not complete sense because those conditions probably still play some useful role in informing the mind of some imminent danger. For example, if I were to attempt to lift a particularly heavy log into a wheelbarrow without any awareness of stress, I might do serious damage to my back.

I think you are circling around the nail, just not quite hitting it on the head. Nibbana/Nirvana simply means the cessation of Dukkha. Higher states of Samadhi are just something you can experience on the way to that it gives you the mental clarity to see past what most people get caught up in.

Dukkha is not pain and its not unpleasantness, Dukkha is the mental reaction to pain and unpleasantness. The point is pain and unpleasantness is a compulsory part of life but the mental reaction to that pain and unpleasantness (ie Dukkha) is optional and Dukkha snowballs and turns small pains and problems into big ones. As you pointed out, anxiety, stress or unsatisfactoriness are better translations for this.

I think it is fair to say as youve eluded that Dukkha plays an important role in motivating us to improve our lives and/or avoid danger, and it has probably played a big role in the advances weve made over the centuries. However wisdom can also perform this function and it can do so without the anxiety, stress or unsatisfactoriness.

I'm sensing some confusion on this point. I'm referring specifically to thoughts, and the cessation of all thoughts, not the cessation of all mental activity.

That's better. However it still is not the purpose of meditation as you suggested, it is part of the map of meditative experience of course, and some traditions place more emphasis on it than others, but don't mistake it for the purpose.

How would you know if the mind is being deceived. What is your criteria. If something is a false or misleading impression of reality that would only be true if you know what reality is in comparison with an illusion. It's circular logic because you are on the path to find out what reality is, but before you find out, you are already deciding what an illusion is compared with what you have yet to find out. That's just a mental construct and is itself an illusion. Awareness alone is real as it is unchanging and has no beginning or end unlike phenomenon which appears and disappears. You cannot differentiate between one phenomenon being real and another being false.

If you are not a fully enlightened arahant then the mind is deceived to some extent by definition, this is why the practice tis to continue to examine and question what one believes to be real. There is no need to decide what illusion is to do that.

Awareness is constantly changing like all mental faculties, the reason for our disagreement here is that I use the word in the normal English usage ie "awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact" whereas as far as I can tell you are using the term as a euphemism for God. Its hard to reach an agreement language is misused.

I can understand how people get attached to awareness, once we discover it in our meditation and notice how relatively calm and constant it is, how tangible and pleasant the sense of presence is. We need to cultivate it without reifying it or deifying it, its a process of letting go.

How can one phenomena be real and another false? Phenomena are just phenomena, our perception and interpretation is the problem.

I took a look for myself but they're all in Pali.

Meditating on an idea won't establish any degree of Samadhi. Only if we let go of the thought or object do we experience the non dual state of samadhi. Again you are trying to determine what is real with mind. That is not possible. Peeling away layers and suchlike are just mental constructs.

Actually we are not trying to determine what is real, what are trying to determine what is not real and until they develop a microscope for that the mind is all we have. So the process is one of observing what we think is real not to reinforce it but to challenge it, to let go of identification with it.

Samadhi itself is not a direct cause of awakening because awakening is acausal. However Samadhi will nourish the fruit on the tree, but will not cause the fruit to fall from the tree. That final falling away of attachment to a personal self is without cause and is unfathomable. But if you think it's not enough, you have to consider what it is that will be enough. If it has anything to do with thinking, that cannot be it. Of course when I say cultivate awareness, I mean to turn back to it. It is always there. It cannot not be there. All appearances arise from it. It is to identify with the unbounded and not the limited self. It is that disidentificarion with the limited which destroys illusion.

This is why we use the word cultivation, we cannot cause awakening however we can nourish fertile conditions.

Sure. Here's one such site. http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/stopping_thought.html

And here's an extract:

"Meditation means the cessation of thought. For years we practice, and like any other art, we get better at it each day.

The practice of meditation is emptying the mind. When the mind is empty, completely empty, its perfect meditation. Its really that simple."

Seriously? You're getting your Buddhism from the "Quotations by Zen Master Rama"? Do you really think he is a Zen master? A quick look around his site reveals it as being as new agey as they come.

I didn't really expect you to come up with something from scripture but I thought at least you'd be able to find something said by a reputable Buddhist teacher

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on the various styles of meditative practice that are taught, but I've always been under the impression, for at least the past 50 years, that the aim of Buddhist meditation is to reach a state of 'emptying the mind of all thought'.

About time to empty your mind of this then, if you want to empty your mind get a lobotomy.

The mind functions on mental activity, it never stops, a mind that is fully stable-ised and aware is still functioning and still doing it's job it's just the out of control and useless thoughts that have stopped being a problem.

There are many different interpretation of vipassana but if you are saying it is about analysing what is real and true, then it is a really worthless thing to do. How can the mind make such judgements. All phenomena which consists of the aggregates, both mental and physical, are illusions because they are changing and impermanent.

Just because something is changing doesnt make it an illusion. Looking at the definition of illusion we can see illusion is about the mind being deceived

illusion

1. something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.

3. an instance of being deceived.

Mistaking that which is phenomena for reality, or mistaking that which is impermanent for permanence would both be examples of illusion. As everything is subject to change seeing that change for what it is isnt illusion.

My understanding is that the Buddha never taught vipassana for these very good reasons.

He never taught it as a meditation technique as such, thats because its a result not a method. However he did talk about vipassana rather a lot. A quick search of Suttacentral yields over a hundred hits, would you like me to post some for you?

Meditating on the idea of impermanence won't help much.

Meditating on an idea of any kind wont help much, other than to help establish a degree of Samadhi, thats why as nongai suggests we use what is real and true is the starting point of our meditation practice. Of course as we do that, if we do it properly, we start to discover some of what we thought is real is not and layers of deception or distortion start getting peeled away.

What we need to do is cultivate awareness.

To experience the one pointesness of mind which we call samadhi. This is the Buddha's ultimate teaching.

We are agreed that what we need to do is cultivate awareness, I like your choice of the word cultivate here.

However, If you think Samadhi is the Buddhas ultimate teaching you havent really been paying attention. The main point of difference of his teaching was that Samadhi (which was well known at his time) alone is not enough and does not ultimately lead to awakening or liberation

As I understand, the purpose of meditation is to still the mind and achieve a state of 'awareness without thought', or a state of awareness free of all thought.

I do not interpret this as meaning free of just some thoughts, the thoughts one has decided are distracting, but literally free of all thoughts, at least during the higher states of Samadhi, which one should be progressing towards if one is serious about meditation.

This is not correct, you've said it before it wasn't correct then and repeating it won't change that.

It's definitely not correct for vipassana practice, for jhana practice it might be true description of as a characteristic of the experience but I don't think it's true decription of it's purpose.

There are lots of references to this quality of the 'cessation of all thought' in Buddhism, but the bliss of Nirvana is sometimes described as a state beyond even the cessation of all thought.

Can you cite a few of them please.

Interesting, because the popular image in Buddhism is that of a person sitting cross-legged with eyes closed, trying to still all thoughts.

That's the popular image, and it's true sitting is very important if one is establishing Samadhi or wishes to experience jhana. This image I think also often remains with experienced meditators for a long time, though sooner or later with vipassana practice one realises that continuity of practice is what is most important. One discovers that the stability of mind and awareness experienced in sitting can be extended outside of sitting so the difference between sitting and other activities isn't so stark.

Do you know which groups these are that consider, in particular, 'sitting meditation' of secondary importance? I can understand that 'walking' meditation might be considered of secondary importance, but not so much 'sitting meditation'.

My teacher Saydaw U Tejaniya is definitely one. I recall him once being asked why we have sitting and walking in the centre, he said to give people something to do otherwise they'd wander around getting into trouble.

Ajahn Chah, and possibly the Thai Forest tradition as a whole, the emphasis is more on lifestyle, mindfulness, and the vinaya.

The Mahasi tradition, though you wouldn't think so considering how rigid their sitting and walking regime is, but I think after practising for some time it dawns on you that the mindfulness of daily activities is just as if not more important and this is practiced just as rigidly as sitting and walking in Burmese centres.

The Insight meditation society, though teaching styles are variable there is a lot of influence from the above 3.

Ajahn Naeb I think didn't use sitting and walking at all.

Luang Por Teean uses a practice which I think is more like seated Tai Chi.

No need to say it, Bruce. I've already told you.

The Santi Asoke group regard 'sitting and walking' meditation as a waste of time.

In what dictionary are "secondary" and "waste of time" synonyms?

Skewed for the better, in my opinion, and not only in my opinion.

Perhaps then you could explain the benefits of focussing on ones left nostril instead of following all 16 tetrads of the anapanasati sutta, or focussing on candlelight over establishing awareness of changing mental phenomena as they arise and pass away.

The Santi Asoke people also practice an unorthodox method of meditating. Here's a description:

"The Asoke people do not meditate in the traditional way by sitting or walking. This is regarded by the Asoke people as a waste of time, and a way of escaping the reality of the world. Instead, they practice with open eyes, engaging energetically in any type of work. The main point with work, is hence not the result nor the gain, but the process itself."

You say that like you are not aware that all Buddhist meditation traditions give importance to practicing mindfulness throughout ones daily activities, though to be fair some traditions are better at explaining it than others. In fact in some I'd say the sitting and walking meditation is secondary and is primarily to establish a momentum of mindfulness that can be continued under any circumstances because it's the continuity of stability of mind, awareness, and equanimity which is important.

The sitting and walking sets up a controlled environment to establish a taste of mindfulness so that one can recognise it throughout the day, and a momentum that provides the energy to keep at it, and of course this in turn provides energy and momentum for your sitting practice. Without establishing that I doubt one can really practice effectively, I think one would just end up gazing at wallabies and contemplating the profundities of life following ones whims. One needs to build from a solid stable foundation first rather than skipping the first steps under the delusion one knows better.

Of course I have. I just described a simple practice of painting a retaining wall, whilst meditating. I think that's more sensible than focusing on a candle light, or on one's left nostril.

It seems that not only you are lacking in experience of Buddhist-style meditation practices, your theory is pretty skewed.

If what you call meditation practices, painting retaining walls and gazing at wallabies etc, were working I think you'd have gained an understanding by now that restless speculation isn't constructive.

Putting aside the ultimate purpose of Buddhist-style meditation practices which is a long term and philosophical question, can you speculate on what the short and medium term purposes are I wonder?

I don't think you've made a strong case, Bruce, so far.

I don't think you are even on topic, I don't have the patience to try and work out if you still have point worth responding to.

Without such references to a specific standard or ideal, a description that something has a temperature of 40 degrees would be meaningless unless we had experienced the sensation of a 40 degrees temperature.

Just as the ideal of a world without unfairness is meaningless unless one has experienced it.

To fix it by effectively trying to escape from life (or the wheel of life), on the grounds that there will always be some degree of suffering, however mild, seems a bit extreme, doesn't it!

How does this complete escape from the cycle of life fit in with the Buddha's teaching of the Middle Way, that is, everything in moderation?

The escape from samsara/life world view that the Buddha integrated from the Jain teachings doesn't seem so meaningful to people who haven't grown up with it I think. I don't know about other people but I'm more interested in experiencing freedom from suffering in the lifetime that I am familiar with.

Can you give me some examples of modern situations in modern, developed societies being as unfair as they have always been? Are you referring to the horrors of wars?

Surely it's a no brainer... Some people are rich, others are poor. Some are beautiful, others are ugly. Some live a long life, others die before their time... need I go on?

To be aware that some condition, or state of affairs, is not fair, one has to be aware of what fairness is. Something that is 'not fair' is 'not fair' only in relation to something that is fair.

Fairness is an ideal and a concept, you're measuring reality against that ideal, measuring how it is against how it should be is Dukkha.

I'm alive. You're alive. We are both part of life. If we are aware of what fairness and unfairness means, then we have to conclude that life is both fair and unfair.

However, having become aware that certain conditions are unfair, is it not reasonable and rational to strive to change them and make them less unfair. I'm sure those Kalamas from the village of Kesaputta would have agreed with me.

Yes we can reduce unfairness in how structure our society and live our lives, western democracies have reduced unfairness in many areas compared with the monarchies and dictatorships of the past for example but many areas are still as unfair as they always have been. We can't eliminate unfairness as it's an underlying principle, we can't replace reality with an ideal, the mature thing is to play the hand you've been dealt to the best of your ability.

What I'm questioning is the fairness of a system or philosophy that promotes a way of life as being the only method of achieving the most prized goal in life (escape from the wheel of life), when such a way of life, to effectively escape from life, has to exclude for practical reasons the majority of the population who are required to feed and house those who choose to strive to achieve that ultimate goal of enlightenment.

Life isn't fair, if one sees the Dukkha pervasive in life I don't think one would expect life to be fair.

Do you think it unfair that everyone can't be a doctor or everyone can't be a lawyer? Only if someone is prepared to make the sacrifices in terms of time, money, effort, and giving up the other things one could be doing is it possible.

The path to awakening is no different, you get out of it what you are prepared to put into it.

There's no doubt that freeing the mind from hatred, greed and delusion, is beneficial for oneself and others. However, when one applies that same standard of critical thought to the issues of complete abstinence from sex and even the accidental killing of worms in the soil should one attempt to till the earth, then it's difficult to understand how that could be good for oneself and others, the emphasis being on 'others' with an assumption that 'others' means 'all others', rather than select groups of 'others'.

It might be good for oneself if one decides to live the life of a monk, and it might be good for other select groups leading a life-style similar to that of a Buddhist monk, but it cannot be good for everyone, because, as you've pointed out, lots of people have to continue having sex, killing worms and having children in order to support that select group that is trying to achieve the highest goal of 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Why is someone else's choice not to have sex any business of yours? or mine? People are free to choose that lifestyle or not, it's their business. Sure in traditional Asian cultures young men are coerced to ordain for cultural reasons (usually temporarily), but I don't think there is the evidence the Buddha encouraged such a practice.

If someone is serious about their practice and wants to simplify their life all power to them I say, and if they find they don't like it they are free to return to householder life so I don't see the problem here.

Nobody ever died due to lack of sexual intercourse or from lack of killing worms.

I'm just trying to get my head around this apparent irrationality of a teaching that claims to show how to reach an ideal state of affairs, or most joyous state of mind, at a widespread religious level that (I imagine) is intended to apply to everyone, yet is reliant upon the reality that most members of the religion are not going to strive to achieve that ideal state of affairs.

I think you are taking an idealist position and Im taking a pragmatist position.

If you look at the Buddha portrayed in the Pali Canon I think he is very much a pragmatist whereas if you look at Mahayana Buddhism there is a lot more idealism, for example you can delay your enlightenment until youve saved everybody else... you can get more idealistic than that.

Perhaps this is just the difficulty that Westerners face, who don't accept the reality of Karma and Rebirth. In my original post I raised this issue that Buddhism, without the belief in Karma and Rebirth, seems to lend itself to descriptions of nihilism, whereas traditional Buddhism doesn't seem to fit into this category because Karma and Rebirth will ensure that there is a constant supply of lower forms of life which are reborn as humans.

These teachings can be really problematic if you interpret them in a subjective individualistic kind of way, especially in light of the teachings of Anatta. However the way I see it is that its not personal rather its that the underlying principle of life is cyclical and a constantly changing array of causes and conditions We are all in this together and everything I do has an affect however little if not on me then on the people around me or those in the future. The important point is to put care and attention into my current actions rather than speculate about the future or high minded ideals.

Can we assume that the trillions upon trillions of lower life-forms, including microbes in the soil as well as cockroaches, birds and cows, are all instinctively striving to be reborn as a higher form of life? Is this ancient concept of Karma perhaps equivalent (very roughly) to the Darwinian theory of Evolution?

You can assume all you like but if these assumptions dont indicate or affect how I should live my life and practice here and now I cant use them so I dont care.

You don't need painkillers or a cure if you have avoided suffering in the first instance. Surely that's clear. Having failed to avoid the suffering, painkillers can be a part of the cure if they reduce inflammation, which Ibuprofen is claimed to do, for example, although I admit I tend to favour natural remedies for any ailment, including quieting the mind through meditation.

But the point is you cant avoid suffering, just like you cant avoid gravity. You can avoid specific instances of suffering, you can minimise suffering on an ongoing basis but you cant avoid it as a characteristic of being alive.

Perhaps I'm being too literal here in my response to your comments. I would prefer to treat any cancer by 'doing nothing', that is, completely relax and not even bother to eat. There's a lot of scientific evidence that shows that serious fasting for long periods can kill cancer.

Our body knows how to deal with a shortage of food. Cancer cells don't. They'll starve to death before you do. Unfortunately, only those on the Buddhist path, or similar, are likely to have the will-power to refrain from eating for a significant period.

If you are ever in the position to prove your theory that would be quite the medical breakthrough.

Perhaps my use of the word Nihilism is not the best choice of words. I'm using it because of its etymological meaning of "nothing at all". I'm associating it with a philosophical or religious outlook that promotes an ideal model of behaviour requiring a complete abstinence from sexual activity for the best chance of success, and perhaps the only chance of success, according to Theravada Buddhist tradition..

If someone has dedicated their life to the path than I think the lack of sexual activity is a very small price to pay. The lack of family and children is a much bigger price to pay but the simplification of your life releases an incredible amount of time and energy.

The same is true if you dedicate your life to something else, like saving the whales for example, its the dedicating your life that counts. The thing is that its a choice.

In other words, if everyone were to strive to behave in that ideal way according to this philosophy, and were successful, the human race would become extinct.

Furthermore, such a philosophy implies that the only reason we continue to survive and proliferate is because of 'unenlightened' or bad behaviour in previous lives. What word would you use to describe this state of affairs?

And if pigs could fly the airlines would become extinct. Its never going to happen and the Buddha never expected it to happen which is why he setup a symbiotic relationship between the sangha and the laity.

The word I'd use for this state of affairs is nature or instinct.

Surely trying to avoid suffering in the first instance is the best strategy. Of course, if you have failed to avoid suffering, for whatever reason, then you have to face up to it, try to understand it and let go of it.

That would be true if Dukkha were the cause, but its the symptom, we need a cure not painkillers.

Just like cancer Dukkha and its causes left to its own devices will continue to snowball and multiply so one needs to eradicate the tumor rather than just minimise it.

It's frequently stated in Buddhism that 'birth' is suffering. You can avoid introducing that suffering by not having children. There's where the nihilism comes into play.

What you call Nihilism Id call birth control, a lot of people choose not to have children because they know it is hard work, that doesnt make them Nihilists as most go on to live productive lives.

I think Nihilism would be not acknowledging your children as being relevant or worthy of your care or attention.

I'm getting a strong sense of duality in your reply, that is, the concept that one is either suffering or one is not suffering.

Surely there are countless degrees of suffering ranging from unbearable suffering, which results in one passing out, to very mild discomfort or anxiety which might be considered as insignificant in relation to even the very moderate pleasures of life. (The Middle Way).

I would consider my own suffering to be in that category of very mild.

All forms of Dukkha are Dukkha, it doesn't matter whether they are intense or mild as the point is that Dukkha is a human condition and there is a solution.

I don't see what duality has to do with it, every concept when defined excludes everything outside of that definition, can you give an example of a non-dual definition of thing/concept?

If birth is suffering, why would any person attempting to achieve enlightenment or the cessation of suffering, want to introduce yet more suffering by having children? Isn't this a form of nihilism?

If your child comes home from school and says maths is boring why would you want to introduce more suffering by sending them back to school?

Because this is how life works, you dont solve the problem of Dukkha by avoiding it you solve it by facing up to it, understanding it and letting go of it.

I dont see any connection with Nihilism.

Note that giving up sexual activity is an implied requirement.

Seems reasonable, though there is no indication at what point in the path this may need to take place, some people do it after their children have left the nest for example.