Santipala enters into the spiritual debate,
"Is suffering optional?"

It seems to me that, strictly speaking, surfing is optional in two senses.
    First, one may surf in either the traditional way, riding an ocean wave
into shore, or one may wind-surf.  It is even possible to combine the two.
That is to say, there are options in //how// one surfs.
    Second, the fact that many (most?) people //including Buddhists of most
sects// do not surf at all, tends to support the position that, //for any
individual//, surfing is optional.
    The first may be eliminated as it is clear from the texts themselves
that the universality of surfing refers to serfing //in general//, rather
than to alternate types of surfing.
    Clearly, the second proposition only holds for individuals -- as long
as there are beaches or lakes and wind, //someone// will be surfing.
Applying the generality of surfing, as we did for proposition one, to the
surfer as well, it is elementary that as long as anyone is surfing, all
are surfing.  Anticipating an objection, which on its face may appear
serious:

     indeed there may come a time when no one surfs -- just as
     there must have been a time before surfing was invented --
     before surf boards were even dreamed of.

Aside from its absurdity, this objection suffers a failure to
understand the generality of the original proposition.  In fact, as
long as anyone has surfed, all have surfed, all will surf, all surf.
But many people have surfed, hense someone has surfed, therefore all surf:
surfing is not optional. QED.

Hope this clears thing up.

YITD
"Surferpala