Do Australians MIND that they do not have a vote?

[Brucenkhamen]

What's the difference between practising and cultivating?

These terms are used synonymously.

If you have to think about what awareness is then you don't know what awareness is. There is no description of awareness available.

That is the whole point of practice. To experience it. If I gave you a description it wouldn't be what it is. Describe the colour blue to me.

I don't have to think about awareness, I have to think about what you mean when you use the word awareness because you do so ambiguously without regard to normal english usage and refuse to define it.

Yes if you gave me a description that wouldn't be what it is, that's why I didn't ask for a description, I asked for a definition.

Why should I describe the colour blue to you when I'm sure you are quite capable of experiencing it for yourself? However if you asked me to define it I'd be happy to do so rather than obfuscate with profound sounding waffle as that way in future every time I used the word blue there would be no confusion.

Blue is a colour.

[VincentRJ]

Why should I describe the colour blue to you when I'm sure you are quite capable of experiencing it for yourself? However if you asked me to define it I'd be happy to do so rather than obfuscate with profound sounding waffle as that way in future every time I used the word blue there would be no confusion.

Blue is a colour.

How do you know that Trd is not color blind?

Perception of color is a useful analogy to explain that what we imagine to be reality is merely a construct of the human brain.

Color in general has no objective reality. It is no more than a sensation or experience in the mind. We have no way of confirming that one individual's sensation, resulting from the reception through the eye of a particular wavelength of light, is the same as another person's sensation. However, we do know that the differences between such sensations of the different colors, can vary. When the ability to construct or imagine such differences vary considerably or significantly from the 'norm', we call it color blindness.

Most people are described as trichromats, that is, they can experience 3 primary colors, red, blue and green. However, a few people are tetrachromats and can experience 4 primary colors. Many types of bird, fish, reptiles and insects are also tetrachromats.

I imagine it would be impossible for a trichromatic to experience the sensations of certain shades of color that can be experienced by a tetrachromat.

[trd]

What's the difference between practising and cultivating?

These terms are used synonymously.

If you have to think about what awareness is then you don't know what awareness is. There is no description of awareness available.

That is the whole point of practice. To experience it. If I gave you a description it wouldn't be what it is. Describe the colour blue to me.

I don't have to think about awareness, I have to think about what you mean when you use the word awareness because you do so ambiguously without regard to normal english usage and refuse to define it.

Yes if you gave me a description that wouldn't be what it is, that's why I didn't ask for a description, I asked for a definition.

Why should I describe the colour blue to you when I'm sure you are quite capable of experiencing it for yourself? However if you asked me to define it I'd be happy to do so rather than obfuscate with profound sounding waffle as that way in future every time I used the word blue there would be no confusion.

Blue is a colour.

So to reiterate. I don't see how right action can be practised whereas you do but you call it cultivation.

[trd]

What's the difference between practising and cultivating?

These terms are used synonymously.

If you have to think about what awareness is then you don't know what awareness is. There is no description of awareness available.

That is the whole point of practice. To experience it. If I gave you a description it wouldn't be what it is. Describe the colour blue to me.

I don't have to think about awareness, I have to think about what you mean when you use the word awareness because you do so ambiguously without regard to normal english usage and refuse to define it.

Yes if you gave me a description that wouldn't be what it is, that's why I didn't ask for a description, I asked for a definition.

Why should I describe the colour blue to you when I'm sure you are quite capable of experiencing it for yourself? However if you asked me to define it I'd be happy to do so rather than obfuscate with profound sounding waffle as that way in future every time I used the word blue there would be no confusion.

Blue is a colour.

Your need for a definition of awareness is as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour.

[Brucenkhamen]

So to reiterate. I don't see how right action can be practised whereas you do but you call it cultivation.

You don't know how to practice right action? How strange, do you only know how to practice wrong action then?

The 5 precepts would be a good start.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

Your need for a definition of awareness is as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour.

Thanks for that definition, so if we use it with some of your recent statements about awareness here is what we get...

What we need to do is cultivate as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour....

No, what we must do is to turn the attention back to the source of thought, from where it arises, which is undifferentiated as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour...

To go back to as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour from which mind and perception arises...

As useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour alone is real as it is unchanging and has no beginning or end unlike phenomenon which appears and disappears...

Of course when I say cultivate as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour, I mean to turn back to it...

As useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour can be experienced separately from thought, free of thought, and it is something that has been talked about way before Buddha was born...

Mind is dependent on as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour but as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour is not dependent on mind.

I'd say it's about as useful as using a single word on a discussion forum really rather a lot without regard to it's english definition and without explaining what it is that you are referring to.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

How do you know that Trd is not color blind?

I don't, which is why I see no point describing something I experience but he might not experience. However if I tell him blue is a colour then he knows every time I say blue it's not a name of a species of animal for example. This is more useful than nonsense along the lines of "blue is so profoundly spiritual you'll never know it unless you experience for yourself... but I do :)"

[VincentRJ]

How do you know that Trd is not color blind?

I don't, which is why I see no point describing something I experience but he might not experience. However if I tell him blue is a colour then he knows every time I say blue it's not a name of a species of animal for example. This is more useful than nonsense along the lines of "blue is so profoundly spiritual you'll never know it unless you experience for yourself... but I do "

But surely you also experience awareness for yourself. Everyone knows what 'being aware' means, don't they? Every morning when you wake up from a night's sleep, or a dream, you get a strong sense of suddenly being aware of your surroundings, don't you? I do.

The problem as I see it is in defining the nature of an awareness which is uncontaminated by conditioned and prejudicial thoughts, biases, automatic responses of likes and dislikes, and various other associations which we might not be able to articulate because they reside in the subconscious.

This is why it makes sense to me, that to achieve such a state of 'uncontaminated' awareness, requires the cessation of all thought.

To describe this experience of such an 'awareness without thought' would be like trying to describe the nature of the sensation from the perception of the color blue, to a blind man. That's a reasonable analogy, isn't it?

[Brucenkhamen]

But surely you also experience awareness for yourself. Everyone knows what 'being aware' means, don't they?

Indeed I do, and yes you'd think most English speakers would know what it means. See Wikipedia for it clearly listed under Mental Processes for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mental_processes

However you may have noted trd does not consider it to be a mental process, I think therefore "What do you think it is then?" is a reasonable question.

[trd]

How do you know that Trd is not color blind?

I don't, which is why I see no point describing something I experience but he might not experience. However if I tell him blue is a colour then he knows every time I say blue it's not a name of a species of animal for example. This is more useful than nonsense along the lines of "blue is so profoundly spiritual you'll never know it unless you experience for yourself... but I do "

But surely you also experience awareness for yourself. Everyone knows what 'being aware' means, don't they? Every morning when you wake up from a night's sleep, or a dream, you get a strong sense of suddenly being aware of your surroundings, don't you? I do.

The problem as I see it is in defining the nature of an awareness which is uncontaminated by conditioned and prejudicial thoughts, biases, automatic responses of likes and dislikes, and various other associations which we might not be able to articulate because they reside in the subconscious.

This is why it makes sense to me, that to achieve such a state of 'uncontaminated' awareness, requires the cessation of all thought.

To describe this experience of such an 'awareness without thought' would be like trying to describe the nature of the sensation from the perception of the color blue, to a blind man. That's a reasonable analogy, isn't it?

You have correctly identified the transition between sleep and waking state when you awake in the morning and when awareness is uncontaminated by thought. This small window can be very useful as a time to inquire into the nature of that awareness before ego aserts itself once more and is experienced as body, mind and world. It will be clear that awareness is not a mental process. A process requires movement or action, whereas unconditioned awareness is passive. It is the unchanging witness of changing phenomena.

[Brucenkhamen]

You have correctly identified the transition between sleep and waking state when you awake in the morning and when awareness is uncontaminated by thought. This small window can be very useful as a time to inquire into the nature of that awareness before ego aserts itself once more and is experienced as body, mind and world. It will be clear that awareness is not a mental process. A process requires movement or action, whereas unconditioned awareness is passive. It is the unchanging witness of changing phenomena.

I don't believe you.

Sleep is contaminated by thought, it's called dreaming, there is no such moment. Awareness is also present during sleep time to varying degrees for much of the time depending on how lightly you sleep.

If awareness were truly unconditioned then it would not need to be conditioned by wakefulness, I agree with you that awareness is passive in nature though.

[trd]

You have correctly identified the transition between sleep and waking state when you awake in the morning and when awareness is uncontaminated by thought. This small window can be very useful as a time to inquire into the nature of that awareness before ego aserts itself once more and is experienced as body, mind and world. It will be clear that awareness is not a mental process. A process requires movement or action, whereas unconditioned awareness is passive. It is the unchanging witness of changing phenomena.

I don't believe you.

Sleep is contaminated by thought, it's called dreaming, there is no such moment. Awareness is also present during sleep time to varying degrees for much of the time depending on how lightly you sleep.

If awareness were truly unconditioned then it would not need to be conditioned by wakefulness, I agree with you that awareness is passive in nature though.

There are three states of consciousness, sleep, dream and waking consciousness. In sleep there is no mind, no body and no world. In dream there is mind, no body and no world. In waking state there is mind, body and world. Underlying all three states is awareness which alone is real. The three states are merely appearances and are unreal. If you say that awareness is passive then we are making progress. If awareness alone is real then it is that we want to know. Know that, become that and right action becomes spontaneous right action as it aligns with your true nature in the egoless and desireless state and no new karmas will be created.

[Brucenkhamen]

There are three states of consciousness, sleep, dream and waking consciousness. In sleep there is no mind, no body and no world. In dream there is mind, no body and no world. In waking state there is mind, body and world. Underlying all three states is awareness which alone is real. The three states are merely appearances and are unreal. If you say that awareness is passive then we are making progress. If awareness alone is real then it is that we want to know. Know that, become that and right action becomes spontaneous right action as it aligns with your true nature in the egoless and desireless state and no new karmas will be created.

Nonsense.

[VincentRJ]

There are three states of consciousness, sleep, dream and waking consciousness. In sleep there is no mind, no body and no world. In dream there is mind, no body and no world. In waking state there is mind, body and world. Underlying all three states is awareness which alone is real. The three states are merely appearances and are unreal. If you say that awareness is passive then we are making progress. If awareness alone is real then it is that we want to know. Know that, become that and right action becomes spontaneous right action as it aligns with your true nature in the egoless and desireless state and no new karmas will be created.

Nonsense.

However, we should be clear that the expression 'nonsense' does not refer to an objective condition of reality, but is merely a way of expressing the fact that the person who is making the statement, 'nonsense', is unable to personally make sense of the statement, for whatever reason.

[trd]

There are many who completely identify with ego and are in bondage in the field of action. And there are others who through practice have some direct experience of the unbounded but still cling to conceptual ideas as if their life depended on it. These are often in a darker place because they find themselves doubting what is real and believing what is not real. They become stuck and in frustration proclaim "nonsense" through non understanding of both sides of the coin. The truly ignorant only think one side is nonsense so they have an easier time. So we should show compassion for those straddling two worlds, one of emptiness and one of form and who haven't yet realised they are both the same.

[Brucenkhamen]

There are many who completely identify with ego and are in bondage in the field of action. And there are others who through practice have some direct experience of the unbounded but still cling to conceptual ideas as if their life depended on it. These are often in a darker place because they find themselves doubting what is real and believing what is not real. They become stuck and in frustration proclaim "nonsense" through non understanding of both sides of the coin. The truly ignorant only think one side is nonsense so they have an easier time. So we should show compassion for those straddling two worlds, one of emptiness and one of form and who haven't yet realised they are both the same.

Hallelujah!

... and there are those who are holier than thou, puffing up their ego preaching profound sounding riddles, not interested in subjecting their ideas to the scrutiny or analysis that discussion forums are normally made of, unable to answer simple questions in simple english for fear their persona of spirtuality will be lessened.

Thaivisa is not a pulpit.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

There are many who completely identify with ego and are in bondage in the field of action. And there are others who through practice have some direct experience of the unbounded but still cling to conceptual ideas as if their life depended on it. These are often in a darker place because they find themselves doubting what is real and believing what is not real. They become stuck and in frustration proclaim "nonsense" through non understanding of both sides of the coin. The truly ignorant only think one side is nonsense so they have an easier time. So we should show compassion for those straddling two worlds, one of emptiness and one of form and who haven't yet realised they are both the same.

Hallelujah!

... and there are those who are holier than thou, puffing up their ego preaching nonsense, not interested in the scrutiny or analysis that discussion forums are made of, unable to answer simple questions in simple english for fear their persona of spirtuality will be lessened.

Thaivisa is not a pulpit.

Thaivisa can be anything that you want it to be. Hallelujah!

[Brucenkhamen]

Thaivisa can be anything that you want it to be. Hallelujah!

Alas not for me, I am but a mere mortal.

[camerata]

Enough of the quibbling and personal remarks. If you are going to disagree on basic terms that can have many meanings, like "awareness," I suggest you give us support for your definition from a reliable Buddhist source. Part of the problem here is that AFAIK Bruce's background is mainly Theravada Buddhism while Trd's is mainly Vedanta (which may or may not be similar to Mahayana). If the disagreement on a particular term stems from two different, ancient schools of thought, it's unlikely it will ever be resolved.

[trd]

Enough of the quibbling and personal remarks. If you are going to disagree on basic terms that can have many meanings, like "awareness," I suggest you give us support for your definition from a reliable Buddhist source. Part of the problem here is that AFAIK Bruce's background is mainly Theravada Buddhism while Trd's is mainly Vedanta (which may or may not be similar to Mahayana). If the disagreement on a particular term stems from two different, ancient schools of thought, it's unlikely it will ever be resolved.

Sorry camerata but if you want to impose a form of censorship on how common words like awareness are used and defined then that's when I make my exit. You don't need to be a Buddhist or a Vedantin to discuss what awareness is.

[nongai]

Vipassana as is often taught has 16 steps too... but one might progress through them or leap frog, without even being aware of them.

The Sixteen Stages of Insight

http://www.vipassanadhura.com/sixteen.html

The eight steps I referred to earlier, enlarged from the four steps of sotapanna, sakdagami, anagami, arahant, included the two stages of each which are the path and fruit, mak & pon in Thai.

Much of the eightfold path is covered by keeping the precepts.

Edited June 1, 2016 by nongai

[camerata]

Enough of the quibbling and personal remarks. If you are going to disagree on basic terms that can have many meanings, like "awareness," I suggest you give us support for your definition from a reliable Buddhist source. Part of the problem here is that AFAIK Bruce's background is mainly Theravada Buddhism while Trd's is mainly Vedanta (which may or may not be similar to Mahayana). If the disagreement on a particular term stems from two different, ancient schools of thought, it's unlikely it will ever be resolved.

Sorry camerata but if you want to impose a form of censorship on how common words like awareness are used and defined then that's when I make my exit. You don't need to be a Buddhist or a Vedantin to discuss what awareness is.

No you don't, but this is the Buddhist forum and if you (or others) are going to bicker endlessly about basic terms, I suggest you keep the discussion relevant to Buddhism.

[VincentRJ]

Vipassana as is often taught has 16 steps too... but one might progress through them or leap frog, without even being aware of them.

The Sixteen Stages of Insight

http://www.vipassanadhura.com/sixteen.html

The eight steps I referred to earlier, enlarged from the four steps of sotapanna, sakdagami, anagami, arahant, included the two stages of each which are the path and fruit, mak & pon in Thai.

Much of the eightfold path is covered by keeping the precepts.

Thanks for the link to that very detailed description of the 16 stages, Nongai. However, I'm still puzzled as to the ultimate purpose of this state of enlightenment. Surely the goal of being free from rebirth would appeal only to those who are sorry they were born, and who find life in general pretty miserable and intolerable, and not something to be repeated.

In other words, cessation from the 'Wheel of Life', or the cycle of rebirth, sounds like some sort of program to help the suicidal. For example, the Buddhist advice sounds like, 'If you commit suicide in this life, it won't solve your problems, because you'll be reborn in an even worse condition, next time round. Become a Buddhist monk instead'.

Now I have no general objection to such a program. I would absolutely not recommend suicide as a solution to any condition (except perhaps in circumstances where euthanasia might be justified), but it's well-known that people with 'mental issues' are not advised to practice Buddhist meditation in retreats, because strange, unpredictable and harmful things can happen.

Hope my post is not too confrontational.

[Brucenkhamen]

However, I'm still puzzled as to the ultimate purpose of this state of enlightenment. Surely the goal of being free from rebirth would appeal only to those who are sorry they were born, and who find life in general pretty miserable and intolerable, and not something to be repeated.

In other words, cessation from the 'Wheel of Life', or the cycle of rebirth, sounds like some sort of program to help the suicidal. For example, the Buddhist advice sounds like, 'If you commit suicide in this life, it won't solve your problems, because you'll be reborn in an even worse condition, next time round. Become a Buddhist monk instead'.

I think most people brought up with a western/modern world view find this uninspiring. I don't know how pervasive this it was in the Buddha's time but it was a Jain world view or possibly older.

I think your assumption that no rebirth = eternal non-existence is just an assumption, I don't think that's necessarily the case, and an assumption based on an individualistic world view. The Buddha made it clear that it's not about self and that clinging to self view is a major part of the problem. Therefore I think on an individual level it's irrelevant what happens to you as an individual at death, what is relevant is the degree of awakening here and now not just for you and me as individuals but the human condition as a whole.

[VincentRJ]

However, I'm still puzzled as to the ultimate purpose of this state of enlightenment. Surely the goal of being free from rebirth would appeal only to those who are sorry they were born, and who find life in general pretty miserable and intolerable, and not something to be repeated.

In other words, cessation from the 'Wheel of Life', or the cycle of rebirth, sounds like some sort of program to help the suicidal. For example, the Buddhist advice sounds like, 'If you commit suicide in this life, it won't solve your problems, because you'll be reborn in an even worse condition, next time round. Become a Buddhist monk instead'.

I think most people brought up with a western/modern world view find this uninspiring. I don't know how pervasive this it was in the Buddha's time but it was a Jain world view or possibly older.

I think your assumption that no rebirth = eternal non-existence is just an assumption, I don't think that's necessarily the case, and an assumption based on an individualistic world view. The Buddha made it clear that it's not about self and that clinging to self view is a major part of the problem. Therefore I think on an individual level it's irrelevant what happens to you as an individual at death, what is relevant is the degree of awakening here and now not just for you and me as individuals but the human condition as a whole.

This still doesn't make sense to me. The Buddha, during his night under the Bodhi tree, supposedly recalled thousands of past lives, in all their detail. A person who is not awakened, and who is reborn at a lower level, will likely never get the opportunity to recall previous lives, in his current life. He'll have to improve his behaviour in order to be reborn at a level which gives him the opportunity to realize full enlightenment.

If there's nothing after death, no heaven nor hell, no reincarnation or rebirth, then the only issue is how to make the best of your current life; how to get the most satisfaction from your current life, and how to die peacefully, with minimum discomfort. (I'm in favour of euthanasia, by the way).

The concept that life is a gift, a wonderful experience and opportunity to explore the wonders of nature, and the universe at large, seems to be missing from the Buddhist philosophy.

[Brucenkhamen]

If there's nothing after death, no heaven nor hell, no reincarnation or rebirth, then the only issue is how to make the best of your current life; how to get the most satisfaction from your current life, and how to die peacefully, with minimum discomfort. (I'm in favour of euthanasia, by the way).

Sounds like a good plan. Different people have different ideas how to get the most out of life though, once you've had a taste of awakening, dare I say "awareness", then the more common ideas about how to get the most out of life don't cut it anymore.

The concept that life is a gift, a wonderful experience and opportunity to explore the wonders of nature, and the universe at large, seems to be missing from the Buddhist philosophy.

You're right. Ironically I started this path with a "stop the world I want to get off type attitude" but have found over the years practice has made me appreciate my life much more. When I listen to question and answer times at retreats etc I find people are much more positive and in love with life than the Buddhist introductory blurb would suggest there should be.

Why is that? I think when people learn to be present and aware and start to let go of craving and clinging to what they thought would make them happy there is a lot of freedom in that. When you stop trying to fight or run away from Dukkha you find it starts to become more manageable.

[VincentRJ]

You're right. Ironically I started this path with a "stop the world I want to get off type attitude" but have found over the years practice has made me appreciate my life much more. When I listen to question and answer times at retreats etc I find people are much more positive and in love with life than the Buddhist introductory blurb would suggest there should be.

Why is that? I think when people learn to be present and aware and start to let go of craving and clinging to what they thought would make them happy there is a lot of freedom in that. When you stop trying to fight or run away from Dukkha you find it starts to become more manageable.

Can't disagree with that. Achieving equanimity, clarity of thought and a sense of being in control of 'oneself' is a worthwhile goal. I can't think of a more appropriate word to use than 'oneself' in this context.

[VincentRJ]

Perhaps a way of explaining the use of the term 'oneself' in the context of 'being in control of oneself', despite the fact that Buddhism teaches that the 'self' is an illusion, is to imagine that, as one gradually let's go of the self as a result of an awareness that it is an illusion, there is less 'self' to control, and therefore there is a sense of greater control.

[nongai]

However, I'm still puzzled as to the ultimate purpose of this state of enlightenment. Surely the goal of being free from rebirth would appeal only to those who are sorry they were born, and who find life in general pretty miserable and intolerable, and not something to be repeated.

In other words, cessation from the 'Wheel of Life', or the cycle of rebirth, sounds like some sort of program to help the suicidal. For example, the Buddhist advice sounds like, 'If you commit suicide in this life, it won't solve your problems, because you'll be reborn in an even worse condition, next time round. Become a Buddhist monk instead'.

You are probably fortunate to not have had much suffering in your life.

The Buddha often said to his monks " isn't it about time you got bored with all this suffering, going round and around being reborn in various states in the cycle of samsara, and have been doing so since beginningless time?" because when he looked back and back and back through his past lives after enlightenment he found "a starting point was not evident".

Thus we can assume that the past and future are infinite and we have always been stuck in this cycle until now. In this rare lifetime we have been born human when a Buddha has recently been here and his teaching is still available. We are not blind so we can read his teachings, we are not deaf so we can hear them, we are not crippled so we can get to places to hear the teachings and to practice them, we are not born where religion is not free to be practiced such as some communist countries, we are not so poor as to have no free time from feeding ourself and family to be able to study and practice. If in Thailand we can find many places to go on retreat and get instruction and be fed and provided for by well meaning benefactors to assist us in our way. A fortunate rebirth indeed, so let us not waste it.

rebirth is followed by sickness, old age and death, so suffering is sure to be met in any life. so the only way to avoid suffering is to avoid rebirth.

what causes rebirth? karma which has been created in past lives, so to avoid birth needs us to avoid creating any more karma. This can only be achieved by practicing 4NT & 8FP until we achieve at least the first stage of freedom...Sotapanna.

Many Thai people think that Nibbana means extinction. They are afraid of it because they cling to life, even if there is suffering. The Buddha never said that Nibbana means dissolving into nothing.

He said when asked that ' continued existence does not apply.... no continued existence does not apply... ' what he was trying to explain is that nibbana is beyond the comprehension of those yet to achieve it, so it is impossible to explain it in a way people can understand. This is a three-dimensional world as far as we understand. If we tried to imagine what it would be like in a five or ten or fifty dimensional world we could not comprehend it.... same same.

[VincentRJ]

However, I'm still puzzled as to the ultimate purpose of this state of enlightenment. Surely the goal of being free from rebirth would appeal only to those who are sorry they were born, and who find life in general pretty miserable and intolerable, and not something to be repeated.

In other words, cessation from the 'Wheel of Life', or the cycle of rebirth, sounds like some sort of program to help the suicidal. For example, the Buddhist advice sounds like, 'If you commit suicide in this life, it won't solve your problems, because you'll be reborn in an even worse condition, next time round. Become a Buddhist monk instead'.

You are probably fortunate to not have had much suffering in your life.

I've certainly had my share of suffering in terms of 'unsatisfactoriness', but probably not with regard to extreme pain. I recall a few years ago, when I had an accident and slipped on a wet surface, resulting in a fractured wrist as I slapped my hand on the ground to protect myself from the fall, I was asked in the hospital how I would rate my pain on a scale of 1 to 10.

I found such a question very odd and explained that I couldn't give a meaningful answer because I'd never experienced a level of agonizing pain that I could rate as 10, so it was impossible for me to scale the pain in such a manner.

rebirth is followed by sickness, old age and death, so suffering is sure to be met in any life. so the only way to avoid suffering is to avoid rebirth.

Such statements are examples of the negative and nihilistic aspects of Buddhism. The impression created is that ultimately there is nothing we can do about suffering except to cease being reborn, by achieving a state of Nirvana.

I'm reluctant to accept such a view, although I can sympathise with it. I think we are gradually making progress in reducing suffering, for the majority of people. However, because the mind is so easily tricked, we get the impression (from news and anecdotes) that suffering is an ongoing, continuous, unabated problem, from generation to generation, from century to century and from millennia to millennia.

I would question this, from my knowledge of history. Populations were much smaller in the past, and the percentage of people enduring unimaginable suffering would have been much greater than today.

For example, today on the news, which covers most of the world, almost every bad event is broadcast several times throughout the day. If one child has been killed by a parent, it becomes a major news item. If one person is killed in a road accident, it becomes a major news item, at least locally. Every turn of events in Syria resulting in casualties of innocent citizens is immediately broadcast. The emphasis is on bad news rather than good news, and the proliferation of technology which makes such reporting so efficient and immediate, world-wide, creates the false impression that our situation is as bad as it has ever been, with regard to general suffering.

The historical evidence of situations in the past, strongly suggest this impression really is false. I don't want to upset readers by describing the horrors of the past, but if you do your own research, it should not be difficult to appreciate that centuries ago, life for a large percentage of the population really was very awful by today's standards.

These are the conditions that would have prevailed 2,500 years ago during the lifetime of the Buddha, and later when his teachings were first written down in the form of the Pali Canon during the 1st century BCE.

Those who are approaching Buddhism from outside of the tradition, such as Westerners with a philosophical bent, need to take the historical situation into consideration. What motivated Gautama to embark upon his quest for 'enlightenment', was probably the sight of extraordinary and extreme suffering outside of the palace grounds, which would never be seen in a modern Western society where we tend to take good care of our sick and elderly people and don't expect them to lie in the gutter, screaming in agony, as I've occasionally witnessed in Nepal and India.

However, don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing the benefits of the Buddha's teachings. I'm merely saying that his teachings are a positive response in relation to the awful conditions that prevailed during his lifetime in ancient India. Such conditions do not prevail in advanced societies.