His questions, understandable for one seeking only an intellectual understanding of Buddhism, misses a major thrust of Buddhism–that the teachings are a tool. Mr. Blairon misses the points when he says that there is no “free will” in Buddhism. If there were no way to change the outcomes of cause and effect, the Buddha said there would be no path (no tool to effect change in one’s understanding or grow wisdom.

The path the Buddha outlined in not nihilistic, as Mr. Blairon seems to suggest, and in fact that was one of the extremes the Middle Path avoids. Through meditation and practicing of the “gradual path” one can condidtion the mind to react and act in ways more beneficial, ways that in fact offer more control over the habitual and the seemingly unending ruts that we fall into without even understanding why. I believe Mr. Blairon might do well to practice and see if in fact the “Path” offered by the Buddha does change one’s understanding and as a result one’s “actions” in this world and put away the suffering that binds us to this world.

It is understandable, Mr. Blairon’s reasoning that is, since he seems to be appalled at the face that there is nothing that makes Mr. Blairon be Mr. Blairon, nothing permanent to cling to as I, Me, or Mine.

It might help if the critic know that the Buddha said that all he taught was the cause of suffering and the end of suffering, and experience the path, then come back and write another review. With metta, Devamitta