user5000: Here's an interesting situation.
Let's say we have to persons. Tom and Happy. Both have the same desire: "I want a new car." The strength of their desires are equal. Tom lives in universe A, Happy lives in universe B. Both universes are exact copies of each other, everything is the same, timeline is the same, events are all the same, everything,.. Tom and Happy are copies of each other, clones, but there's just one little difference between the two universes: Tom suffers, Happy does not suffer.
Tom suffers: "I have an old car with bad engine and that's why I'm not happy. I want a new car."
Happy does not suffer: "I have an old car with bad engine and I'm happy. I want a new car."
Both persons want a new car for the same reasons: "Because it's old and has a bad engine."
The only difference between Tom and Happy is that Tom is suffering because of his old car with a bad engine; and Happy is not suffering because of his old car with bad engine. There are no other differences between Tom and Happy and the two universes they live in.
We can see that both Tom and Happy have the same motives for getting a new car: old car with bad engine.
If Tom and Happy have the same motives for getting a new car, both will exert the same amount of energy to get a new car. So, both will do the same exact actions in their universes to get a new car. So, both will get a new car at exactly the same time. 
But Tom has one motive more than Happy: Tom is suffering! Does that mean that Tom will get a new car quicker than Happy?! If Tom has more motives than Tom, than it's logical that Tom will be more proactive in getting a new car than Happy? So, the question is: who will get a new car quicker, Tom or Happy?
The real question is: is suffering a motivator? Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold? Or is suffering not a motivator? If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life? What did Buddha say above this? I'm a beginner and I'm sorry if I don't understand, I hope someone can shed some light on this topic. Thanks

user5000: I thought about it. I think that suffering is not a motivator. 
We believe suffering is a motivator because we don't see the reality as it is. 
On the deepest level of our true self, every desire always arises within our true self, independent from pain and/or suffering and/or anything else, from nothing but God, because we (our true self) want it to arise. It arises because we (our true self) JUST WANT it to arise. Our desire is clean, perfect, clear of all impurities. Then, we (ego) attach suffering to the desire: every suffering always arises within our true self, from nothing but God, because we (our true self) JUST WANT it to arise. Our suffering is clean, perfect, clear of all impurities. Then, we, our UNTRUE self, our egos, attach suffering to the desire and mistakenly see it as "Oh, I desire because I suffer". The truth is "I desire because I desire to desire", "I suffer because I desire to suffer" - that's on the deepest level.
But, if we move one step closer to the surface, away from our true self, away from God, closer to our physical world, we desire because of pain (we cannot remove pain, that's just how it is, it's in our nature, it's how our body is made). So, blinded by our egos, because of the nature of our physical bodies, "I desire because I desire to desire" becomes "I desire because I feel pain". The key is to realize that we do not desire because of suffering: we desire because of pain. Suffering comes after pain.
But, if we move completely to the surface, completely away from our true self, completely away from God, to our physical world, we think that "we desire because of suffering". So, blinded by our egos, "I desire because I desire to desire" becomes "I desire because I suffer". That's not true. First, we feel pain. Out of pain we desire to desire and there comes desire. Out of pain we desire to suffer and there comes suffering. It's pain->desire->suffering. We can't see it this way because we are blinded by our ego (and probably because of other layers between our true self and the ego).
If all our desires come from pain, and all suffering comes from pain, it cannot be that suffering intensifies (motivates us more) our desires. Pain intensifies (motivates us more) our desires, not suffering, because our desires come from pain. Suffering is just a byproduct of pain, one more obstacle that we need to overcome in order to remove the pain. Thus suffering is not a motivator. Suffering is an additional ("not needed") obstacle to overcome if we want to remove the pain.
Suppose this scenario:
Tom and Happy go for a walk in nature. They get a thorn in their foot. Both will feel the same pain, but Tom will suffer, and Happy will NOT suffer. Let's see how would both react when they get a thorn in their foot.
Tom will suffer: "Aaaa! No! It hurts! Where did this thorn come from??!! Aaaa! S**** thorn!". He will franatically move his hands, he'll be angry, he'll jump up and down, breaking things. After 15 seconds he will calm down, sit on the ground and try to remove the thorn from his foot. He'll be nervous and angry. He'll find out that his fingernails are not long enough to grasp the thorn. He'll say "Aaaa! S**** thorn! Why did this happen to me?! Why are my fingernails soo d*** short!" and will punch his fist in the ground. Then, he'll calm down, focus on the thorn and eventually pull it out.
Happy will not suffer: "Aaaa! No! It hurts!". He will sit on the ground and try to remove the thorn from his foot. He'll find out that his fingernails are not long enough to grasp the thorn. Then, he'll focus on the thorn and eventually pull it out.
What do we see here? Happy is more effective in removing the thorn than Tom. We see that suffering is an obstacle towards reaching our goals. Suffering is not a motivator. Pain is the motivator. Suffering and pain are not the same. Suffering is always internal. Pain is always external.
In my first example with "the old car", pain is "old car with bad engine". Pain is external. "old car with bad engine" is like a thorn in the foot, the only difference being that a thorn is physical pain, and "old car with bad engine" is usability pain (getting late to work, not safe for driving, unreliable transportation, dirty interior, etc.). Pain is a motivator - that's why Tom and Happy both want a new car. 
Suffering is not a motivator. Suffering comes after pain. Suffering manifests in Tom in the form of anger and sadness. Suffering is internal. "old car with bad engine" is pain, anger and sadness that comes out of pain is suffering.
Who will get his new car first? The answer is Happy. The less you suffer, the more motivated you are. Or lets put it this way: pain and suffering is both suffering. If you remove suffering completely, then you suffer less. If you suffer less, you don't have to deal with your suffering to achieve your goals, you have one obstacle less towards reaching your goal, so you're more motivated to work towards reaching your goals if you suffer less. The less the obstacles, the easier the work, the quicker you reach your goal!
Here's something for perspective. Suppose you get a thorn in your foot (or you want a new car; it can be any desire):
Pain Suffering
0    0         You do nothing.
50   0         You remove pain the 10th day.
100  0         You remove pain the 5th day.

So, the more pain, the more motivated you are. Or: the more pain, the quicker we achieve our goals because we want to remove the pain.
Pain    Suffering
0       0         You do nothing.
50      50        You remove pain (and suffering) the 15th day.
50      80        You remove pain (and suffering) the 20th day.
50      85        You remove pain (and suffering) the 30th day.
50      90        You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.

So, the more suffering, the less motivated you are. Or: the more suffering, the more obstacles we have in achieving our goals.
Pain    Suffering
0       0        You do nothing.
50      50       You remove pain (and suffering) the 15th day.
50      80       You remove pain (and suffering) the 20th day.
50      85       You remove pain (and suffering) the 30th day.
50      90       You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.
60      90       You remove pain (and suffering) the 60th day.
60      95       You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.
70      95       You remove pain (and suffering) the 90th day.

So, the more suffering, the less proactive you are. The more pain, the more proactive you are. Or: The more suffering, the more obstacles we have in achieving our goals. The more pain, the quicker we achieve our goals because we want to remove the pain.
We see that pain will always be present. We can do nothing about it. But suffering can be removed. There's no sense in making our lives harder than they already are.
Did I miss something?

user3551: In your example you stated that both Tom and Happy had cars that had bad engines.
Tom was unhappy and Happy was okay with it.
So right from the beginning we can see that their happiness did not depend on whether or not they had bad engines but their reaction to it.
Therefore one must apply the same conclusion to the outcome of getting a new car.It's not about who gets the new car first,it's their reaction to it.
Happiness depends on reactions to circumstances.Not circumstances themselves.
Is suffering a motivator?
Yes absolutely.When the Siddhatta saw suffering he decided to pursue the spiritual life.Sometimes living in deva like bliss masks the true nature of reality.That it is impermanent,not self,and suffering.
Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold?
Yes that is why the human realm is the best place to practice the dhamma.One has their fair share of happiness and suffering.It is balanced to some extent.
If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life?
That's like saying bleeding will motivate you to bandage yourself.But if you do bandage yourself,then the bleeding will stop,then how are you going to bandage yourself..?? 
Removing suffering is the goal.

5000: <p>Here's an interesting situation.</p>

<p>Let's say we have to persons. Tom and Happy. Both have the same desire: "I want a new car." The strength of their desires are equal. Tom lives in universe A, Happy lives in universe B. Both universes are exact copies of each other, everything is the same, timeline is the same, events are all the same, everything,.. Tom and Happy are copies of each other, clones, but there's just one little difference between the two universes: Tom suffers, Happy does not suffer.</p>

<p>Tom suffers: "I have an old car with bad engine and that's why I'm not happy. I want a new car."</p>

<p>Happy does not suffer: "I have an old car with bad engine and I'm happy. I want a new car."</p>

<p>Both persons want a new car for the same reasons: "Because it's old and has a bad engine."</p>

<p>The only difference between Tom and Happy is that Tom is suffering because of his old car with a bad engine; and Happy is not suffering because of his old car with bad engine. There are no other differences between Tom and Happy and the two universes they live in.</p>

<p>We can see that both Tom and Happy have the same motives for getting a new car: old car with bad engine.</p>

<p>If Tom and Happy have the same motives for getting a new car, both will exert the same amount of energy to get a new car. So, both will do the same exact actions in their universes to get a new car. So, both will get a new car at exactly the same time. </p>

<p>But Tom has one motive more than Happy: Tom is suffering! Does that mean that Tom will get a new car quicker than Happy?! If Tom has more motives than Tom, than it's logical that Tom will be more proactive in getting a new car than Happy? So, the question is: who will get a new car quicker, Tom or Happy?</p>

<p>The real question is: is suffering a motivator? Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold? Or is suffering not a motivator? If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life? What did Buddha say above this? I'm a beginner and I'm sorry if I don't understand, I hope someone can shed some light on this topic. Thanks</p>
 5000: <p>I thought about it. I think that suffering is not a motivator. </p>

<p>We believe suffering is a motivator because we don't see the reality as it is. </p>

<p>On the deepest level of our true self, every desire always arises within our true self, independent from pain and/or suffering and/or anything else, from nothing but God, because we (our true self) want it to arise. It arises because we (our true self) JUST WANT it to arise. Our desire is clean, perfect, clear of all impurities. Then, we (ego) attach suffering to the desire: every suffering always arises within our true self, from nothing but God, because we (our true self) JUST WANT it to arise. Our suffering is clean, perfect, clear of all impurities. Then, we, our UNTRUE self, our egos, attach suffering to the desire and mistakenly see it as "Oh, I desire because I suffer". The truth is "I desire because I desire to desire", "I suffer because I desire to suffer" - that's on the deepest level.</p>

<p>But, if we move one step closer to the surface, away from our true self, away from God, closer to our physical world, we desire because of pain (we cannot remove pain, that's just how it is, it's in our nature, it's how our body is made). So, blinded by our egos, because of the nature of our physical bodies, "I desire because I desire to desire" becomes "I desire because I feel pain". The key is to realize that we do not desire because of suffering: we desire because of pain. Suffering comes after pain.</p>

<p>But, if we move completely to the surface, completely away from our true self, completely away from God, to our physical world, we think that "we desire because of suffering". So, blinded by our egos, "I desire because I desire to desire" becomes "I desire because I suffer". That's not true. First, we feel pain. Out of pain we desire to desire and there comes desire. Out of pain we desire to suffer and there comes suffering. It's pain->desire->suffering. We can't see it this way because we are blinded by our ego (and probably because of other layers between our true self and the ego).</p>

<p><strong>If all our desires come from pain, and all suffering comes from pain, it cannot be that suffering intensifies (motivates us more) our desires. Pain intensifies (motivates us more) our desires, not suffering, because our desires come from pain. Suffering is just a byproduct of pain, one more obstacle that we need to overcome in order to remove the pain. Thus suffering is not a motivator. Suffering is an additional ("not needed") obstacle to overcome if we want to remove the pain.</strong></p>

<p>Suppose this scenario:
Tom and Happy go for a walk in nature. They get a thorn in their foot. Both will feel the same pain, but Tom will suffer, and Happy will NOT suffer. Let's see how would both react when they get a thorn in their foot.</p>

<p>Tom will suffer: "Aaaa! No! It hurts! Where did this thorn come from??!! Aaaa! S**** thorn!". He will franatically move his hands, he'll be angry, he'll jump up and down, breaking things. After 15 seconds he will calm down, sit on the ground and try to remove the thorn from his foot. He'll be nervous and angry. He'll find out that his fingernails are not long enough to grasp the thorn. He'll say "Aaaa! S**** thorn! Why did this happen to me?! Why are my fingernails soo d*** short!" and will punch his fist in the ground. Then, he'll calm down, focus on the thorn and eventually pull it out.</p>

<p>Happy will not suffer: "Aaaa! No! It hurts!". He will sit on the ground and try to remove the thorn from his foot. He'll find out that his fingernails are not long enough to grasp the thorn. Then, he'll focus on the thorn and eventually pull it out.</p>

<p>What do we see here? Happy is more effective in removing the thorn than Tom. We see that suffering is an obstacle towards reaching our goals. Suffering is not a motivator. Pain is the motivator. Suffering and pain are not the same. Suffering is always internal. Pain is always external.</p>

<p>In my first example with "the old car", pain is "old car with bad engine". Pain is external. "old car with bad engine" is like a thorn in the foot, the only difference being that a thorn is physical pain, and "old car with bad engine" is usability pain (getting late to work, not safe for driving, unreliable transportation, dirty interior, etc.). Pain is a motivator - that's why Tom and Happy both want a new car. 
Suffering is not a motivator. Suffering comes after pain. Suffering manifests in Tom in the form of anger and sadness. Suffering is internal. "old car with bad engine" is pain, anger and sadness that comes out of pain is suffering.</p>

<p>Who will get his new car first? The answer is Happy. The less you suffer, the more motivated you are. Or lets put it this way: pain and suffering is both suffering. If you remove suffering completely, then you suffer less. If you suffer less, you don't have to deal with your suffering to achieve your goals, you have one obstacle less towards reaching your goal, so you're more motivated to work towards reaching your goals if you suffer less. The less the obstacles, the easier the work, the quicker you reach your goal!</p>

<p>Here's something for perspective. Suppose you get a thorn in your foot (or you want a new car; it can be any desire):</p>

<pre><code>Pain Suffering
0    0         You do nothing.
50   0         You remove pain the 10th day.
100  0         You remove pain the 5th day.
</code></pre>

<p>So, the more pain, the more motivated you are. Or: the more pain, the quicker we achieve our goals because we want to remove the pain.</p>

<pre><code>Pain    Suffering
0       0         You do nothing.
50      50        You remove pain (and suffering) the 15th day.
50      80        You remove pain (and suffering) the 20th day.
50      85        You remove pain (and suffering) the 30th day.
50      90        You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.
</code></pre>

<p>So, the more suffering, the less motivated you are. Or: the more suffering, the more obstacles we have in achieving our goals.</p>

<pre><code>Pain    Suffering
0       0        You do nothing.
50      50       You remove pain (and suffering) the 15th day.
50      80       You remove pain (and suffering) the 20th day.
50      85       You remove pain (and suffering) the 30th day.
50      90       You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.
60      90       You remove pain (and suffering) the 60th day.
60      95       You never remove pain. You give up. You become depressed.
70      95       You remove pain (and suffering) the 90th day.
</code></pre>

<p>So, the more suffering, the less proactive you are. The more pain, the more proactive you are. Or: The more suffering, the more obstacles we have in achieving our goals. The more pain, the quicker we achieve our goals because we want to remove the pain.</p>

<p>We see that pain will always be present. We can do nothing about it. But suffering can be removed. There's no sense in making our lives harder than they already are.</p>

<p>Did I miss something?</p>
 3551: <p>In your example you stated that both Tom and Happy had cars that had bad engines.</p>

<p>Tom was unhappy and Happy was okay with it.</p>

<p>So right from the beginning we can see that their happiness did not depend on whether or not they had bad engines but their <strong>reaction</strong> to it.</p>

<p>Therefore one must apply the same conclusion to the outcome of getting a new car.I<em>t's not about who gets the new car first</em>,it's their <strong>reaction</strong> to it.</p>

<p>Happiness depends on reactions to circumstances.Not circumstances themselves.</p>

<p><strong>Is suffering a motivator?</strong></p>

<p>Yes absolutely.When the Siddhatta saw suffering he decided to pursue the spiritual life.Sometimes living in deva like bliss masks the true nature of reality.That it is impermanent,not self,and suffering.</p>

<p><strong>Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold</strong>?</p>

<p>Yes that is why the human realm is the best place to practice the dhamma.One has their fair share of happiness and suffering.It is balanced to some extent.</p>

<p><strong>If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life</strong>?</p>

<p>That's like saying bleeding will motivate you to bandage yourself.But if you do bandage yourself,then the bleeding will stop,then how are you going to bandage yourself..?? </p>

<p>Removing suffering <strong>is</strong> the goal.</p>
