Knowledge is information your intellect is able to understand.
Wisdom is your intelligence at work; deciding the best way to use your knowledge through understanding.
**cmyk **
Agreed.
This is, perhaps, the colloquial use of the word “wisdom,” but certainly not how I am using it. Your definition does not allow wisdom to exist independent of intelligence, which is exactly the opposite of my definition, which states precisely that they are, indeed, separate entities.
Then you might respond, “Well wouldn’t you claim, Friedah35, that there’s wisdom in your “enlightened” words, which are produced by your intellect?”, trying to catch me in my own logic. Here is the thing; if you see wisdom in my words, you will then see wisdom everywhere, absolutely. (likewise, if you see wisdom everywhere, you will see wisdom in my words) However, if you do not see wisdom in my words, then you will not see the sort of wisdom I speak of, anywhere. Since wisdom is absolute, it is an all or nothing thing, which the intellect, that is relative, cannot comprehend.
Now, you may see the colloquial version of wisdom in places, and not others. You may see intelligence in many places. But again, the wisdom I speak of is entirely separate from intelligence. Do not confuse them.
So then what are Christ, and teachers like him, trying to accomplish with their insightful commentaries and analogies, metaphors, anecdotes, etc, if they cannot force wisdom into you with their words? Well, rather than forcing it, they are making efforts to inspire you to inspire yourself to awaken to the wisdom within you! Once you do this, all of life’s experiences become clear.
Gozu
[QUOTE]
You seem to believe human beings have an infallible control over their state of mind if they so choose. I do not believe that is accurate. The moment you start starving or someone starts shocking your testicles, you will be overwhelmed.
Human beings DO have infalliable control over their state of mind, if they so choose. You bring up extreme examples of PHYSICAL suffering, but what I am talking about is suffering of the egoic MIND, which is under our control, even in times of intense physical pain. Again, contemplate Christ on the cross. He went through the greatest of physical torture to prove this point. That is His gift to us; to show us our own potential to control our inner experience, if we so choose.
Further, in regards to starving; contemplate those who fast for spiritual purposes. Contemplate Gandhi, who nearly starved himself to death in peaceful opposition to civil war in India. Do these examples not speak to you, and to your own equal capacity for power over self, as a fellow human? Or do you feel as though these people are, somehow, inherantly better than you, so much so that it is actually a rediculous notion for me to suggest such equality?
Someone who is zen has no attachment with their body, and therefore, would gracefully accept the here and now, whether it be in pleasure, or in pain.
I don’t argue that the theoretical concept of the Soma is far more effective than current drugs. I was merely pointing out that we are heading in that direction, needlessly (for the most part) I might add. But the efficiency of the drug doesn’t effect my two numbered points regarding their relationship with a zen-like state. In fact, the more efficient the drug, the more clear my point becomes, at least from my perspective.
Comparative thinking is that of the egoic mind. So I agree. But even more dangerous is when the egoic mind tries to be absolute, when, by nature, it cannot. Now THAT is dangerous.
Gozu
Be sure to read the quote box in the above post, as I didn’t close the quote tag and so my first response is stuck inside the box.
One more question, following some Doper’s upthread: How much suffering have you endured, personally? Go into as much detail as you desire.
You seem to be drawing on a lot of ideas from Buddhism here, but kind of mashed in with Christianity and other new-agey stuff. Are you Eckhart Tolle by any chance? Because that would explain a lot. He has some valuable stuff in his books, but it’s all so thoroughly infused with his sense of self-importance it’s kind of difficult to take him seriously.
How did you achieve the state that you call enlightenment?
Also, why did you start this thread? If you are enlightened, you must contend your ego had nothing to do with it, and I have a hard time believing that given your claims.
And, cmyk, you don’t post often enough.
Edit: I advocate that each person does what makes him/her happiest, but I wanted to mention that I don’t think it’s fair that Buddhism gets such a ‘‘pessimistic’’ rap. It can be a very positive paradigm for many people.
Only Sith deal in absolutes…
But that above quote sorta irked me, as it’s an “all or none” sort of statement, and I do tend to dislike those. It’s sort of the same as trying to ask us “Am I enlightened?”- it’s an all or none sort of thing. By seeing it in absolutes, you’ve lost sight of that which should not have been seen to begun with.
Well, alright, but what about the rest of them? That’s the biggest problem I think at times- no matter how enlightened one is, you will not be able to enlighten everyone, and so people will be playing by different rules than you (said to the enlightened person in general).
So how do you propose to deal with them?
People will still cause pain, suffering upon others, and do “sinful” deeds of various levels to their fellow men, uncaring of whatever state of enlightenment their victims have attained. So what should the enlightened do in the face of such people? How much of the here and now can you accept, and how much can you turn the other cheek? Though there is suffering in the world, though there are thousands dying and starving, and though there are many misdeeds being done throughout the world- what can you really do as an enlightened person for that?
If one has no attachment to their body, should they have cares or attachment to others? Why should they care then if the un-enlightened refuse to be enlightened or turn away? What should they do? Spread the Enlightened Truth? Try to Help their fellow man, even if it means attaching significance to the insignificance of this world? Why should they have certain levels of hippocracy when dealing with outsiders versus how they view their internal states?
Basically, do you advocate the state quoted here:
- Someone who is zen has no attachment with their body, and therefore, would gracefully accept the here and now, whether it be in pleasure, or in pain.*
And if YES, then what do you propose about expanding that view towards other human beings? Shouldn’t we accept their pain as the here and now, and have no attachments to the sufferings of others nor the joy of others as well? As it’s all just temporary- the here and now solely?
ZebraShaSha
I am not sure what this would prove. Suppose that I recently got into an accident, leaving me with locked-in syndrome, writing only with the movements of my eyes. Does that make my words any more inherantly wise? Conversely, suppose I am a spoiled rich kid who has never broken a bone, and who grew up with a silver spoon in hand? Does that make my words any inherantly less wise? If it makes a difference, then you are judging and labeling, not realizing that all suffering is perceived by the minds of those observing through a relative lens, but to the sufferer, “a person’s toothache means more to them than an earthquake that kills thousands in China.” (Dale Carnegie) In this way, I would argue that the main character of “Cruel Intentions” (Ryan Phillipe?) suffers more than Gandhi… well in “Ghandi.” Now objectively speaking, does it seem like Ryan should be suffering? Of course not. By contrast, would Gandhi have a much greater cause for suffering (starvation)? Certainly. But subjective experience hardly ever conforms to objective expectations.
But I see what you are saying… has my philosophy, my supposed enlightenment, been put to the test? Well, since the New Year, which is the point where I would say all this began, several things happened to me which would likely cause suffering in most people. My girlfriend and I, of 3.5 years broke up. My living situation did not allow me to move out, so we have continued to live together in the months since (a la “The Break Up”). The dog of my childhood recently died. My parents, who have been married about 30 years, are on the verge of divorce. But I almost blush in listing these things, because I don’t feel like they are so bad at all. I have not “suffered” in response to them, and I almost feel like, relatively speaking, they are nothing… because they are.
But ironically, most of my suffering in my life, which took place before the New Year, has been in response to events of relatively less magnitude than the ones I bring up above! Now I recognize that it was all self imposed; reactions which I felt were justified for the situation, at the time, no matter how trivial, and so I would dwell in them, allowing them to define myself. Looking back on it all, it seems almost as if a part of me *wanted * to be miserable. Then I realize that the part of me was my ego, which simply wanted to identify itself as something… and “miserable” is certainly something. It so interests me how people (my old self included) will destroy themselves in vain attempts at sympathy, failing to realize that people are either acting through their ego so they don’t really care, or are enlightened enough to see that you are doing it to yourself and that their sympathy will do nothing for you. Either way, you are alone, in such cases, to suffer your self-imposed suffering.
Okay, then you and I have very different interpretations of what wisdom is. For me, wisdom is something that is a byproduct of intelligence + knowledge + experience.
If intelligence is an individual’s capacity for understanding knowledge. Then wisdom is the construction of that knowledge and experience into novel connections of insight that is either imparted by that individual, put into action, or kept to themselves.
I think I almost see it as opposite of how you propose. Our intellect is something that, once we reach adulthood, pretty much becomes solidified. So I see that as a constant to our individualism. However, our wisdom that we form from all the knowledge we gain through experience that our intellect can decipher, combined with the experience that vets our mistakes and enforces our successes, is an ever changing animal. That is the thing that is relative.
I cannot fathom that wisdom is some absolute “thing” that I merely have to awaken within my mind, that will allow me to suddenly realize some universal truth about reality. Rather, I see it as something that informs my behavior, my words, and might one day lead to true insight. But as you can see, this is rather pliable, and is dependent on the intellect, knowledge and experience of the individual.
To reset this conversation, I can’t figure out what lifestyle you propose to live? If it’s merely that of acceptance of all the shit in this world, I think more people than you think have already come to those terms. It’s nothing at all novel and easier said than done. Yet, it is a philosophy I adhere to.
You talk a lot about achieving a state of “no-mind”. Can you clarify what this is, and how to live life in our society in such a state? How has this state of mind changed your day-to-day living, and how will you react when, god forbid, you lose someone that is very close to you? The kind of enlightenment you talk about seems quite daunting, if not entirely at odds with human nature itself.
olives: If only I could obtain half of your eloquence and clear-minded posts. Anyway, I’ve always been very interested in buddhism. There’s a lot of healthy living and a perspective that rings true that I wish most people would look into further. I’ve started to delve back into some general philosophy reading and can’t wait to get to buddhism and eastern thought.
Ah, this is what I was sort of wondering with my own questions above. I know you haven’t gotten to it yet, but it’s being insinuated here. I shall read your answers with curiosity whenever they come.
Olivesmarch4th
For the most part, I am not purposefully drawing upon anything… although you might argue that I am drawing upon Christianity due to my references to Christ… I’d agree with you except Christianity’s dogma does not actively teach the message of Christ as I have expressed it in this thread.
I would say, though, that the articulation and conceptualization of wisdom is the act of the mind’s filtration of what the heart is trying to express. And since the mind operates in references, comparisons, analogies, metaphors, and explanations (read: words), and since there is nothing new under the sun… well you see where I am going with this.
But for the record, I think Eckhart Tolle’s work is inspired, and that he is enlightened. So, needless to say, I don’t see the sense of self-importance in his writing which you make reference to, and while I am sure an argument could be made in your favor, I think any self-importance expressed would completely undermine his message.
Many who speak of their enlightenment will cite a singular moment where they came to such a realization. Buddha, sitting under his tree, would be of this school. But for me, it was more of a process. My New Year’s resolution was to become abstinent from all intoxicants, set a solid sleep schedule (no matter what day of the week), eat in such a way that grains, fruits and vegetables are the primary source of caloric intake with meat as merely a side (as opposed to the main course), work out regularly, and read very often. After a few weeks, a newfound clarity began to come over me, and it started with this simple notion: “While I may not be in completely control of the events which occur around me, I am in control of my reactions to these events.” (It is worth noting that my lifestyle change was likely not a necessary catalyist, but merely a sufficient one.)
With each passing day, the implications of this became more and more clear. I found myself looking up meditation techniques and giving them a try; silencing my mind. Now I wasn’t merely feeling clarity… I WAS clarity. Then, I felt myself drawn to religious texts. I re-read the New Testament, as well as the Gospel of Thomas, both which offered me newfound insights into the nature of Christ and His message. I would sit in silence and contemplate passages, whereupon all this… inspiration… would come to me in the silence. Then I would write pages and pages of notes of my thoughts, which would flow out of me smoothly and articulately. What fascinated me most was that, during these sessions, I, not only, never paused to think… but hardly thought at all.
I would then go to book stores searching for more to read on the topic of spiritual enlightenment. As life would have it, it seemed that I would find the perfect book for whatever it was I was seeking, by spectacular coincidence. Conversations with God (Neale Donald Walsh), Eckhart Tolle (The New Earth), Eli jaxon-Bear (Sudden Awakenings into Enlightenment), and most recently, and perhaps most impressively, a tiny book I bought for $2 at a book exchange shop, which literally fell into my lap as I was shopping, printed back in the '70s, “The Gospel According to Zen.” I am so impressed by a passage I just read minutes ago, that I feel the need to share it:
What was so amazing about reading these writings by these authors was that as I was reading… it felt almost as if I could have written it all. I TRULY understood exactly what they were expressing. Further, there were so many instances where I would stop reading to write something in the margins, then notice the next paragraph would go into exactly what I had written. I started calling it, “predictive reading”, and noticed that I simply couldn’t help getting ahead of myself. I knew where the writing was going, before it got there. It was an incredible experience.
So what has allowed me to continue in this way of life, this way of mind (or no-mind if you will), is just how easy it is to continue once you start! You begin to watch, in awe, other people’s minds literally driving them crazy. You see the futility in it all. You are constantly reminded that their over-active mind’s limbs flailing wildly as they are helplessly being carried down the river of life, is exactly the opposite of what you want! So much struggle, so much futility! It never accomplishes anything! So I ride the river. I accept the rocks, the bumps, the waves. And I see the beauty in them. For without them, how could I ever appreciate the calm?
So that leads me to this question, where I am now. I send out the intention for other inquiring people to become involved it is hard to be objective about your state of being, when you are nothing but your state of being! Further, I wanted other people to question me, to inquire about my experience, so that I could learn more about my experience, by way of their subjective opinions and thoughts about my experience, but more importantly, so I could share it with others, who may, in fact, be along the same path as I, or even, further than I!
Now, I cannot say for certain that my ego has nothing to do with it. But that was part of it to. I wanted my experience challenged, as I am sure others would want to challenge it! Further, I wanted to know if I would feel anything when people were cynical, when people laughed at my expense, which I was sure they would. I wanted to discover if I would become angry, irritated, frustrated, anxious… and I am happy to say that I haven’t felt any of these emotions yet. I am strangely detached from other people’s comments, but intensely interested at the same time.
RoOsh
Absolutes are not inherently dangerous… but they often are when it’s the ego talking. Let me try to articulate this.
Labels and judgments are absolute statements from the egoic mind. It is a way of simplifying a complex world of relativity, by placing an overlay of what is seemingly absolute. But it is an illusion, and it doesn’t take much to discover this. I could label someone “evil”, but are they evil, say, compared to Hitler? Compared to Hitler, that “evil” person is now more like Mother Teresa! And I am sure, in the great realm of history, there have been people with evil dispositions so great that they make Hitler seem tame by comparison (and if you cannot imagine such a disposition, suppose that Hitler never personally killed anyone (is this true? I don’t know). So then an argument could possibly be made that some sadist who rapes and kills young girls would be far more evil, am I wrong?) So, in this realm of relativity, no matter how dominating a characteristic in a person, there is seemingly always someone else who dwarfs it. So now perhaps you can sort of see why the ego’s absolutes are never actually absolute, and can be quite misleading in their nature.
So the way to see through all this is to break it down to this absolute: Beings who are being controlled by their egoic minds, and those who aren’t. All egoically-run beings are susceptible to the “sins” of the Ten Commandments or the Seven Deadly Sins. To what degree depends often on what their society regularly allows, but perhaps more importantly, what they can get away with while still maintaining a sense of righteousness. In other words, what sorts of behaviors can their cunning ego rationalize away into acceptability?
On this point, consider that, as far as I know, no cartoon villain, who openly embraces and admits to their evil, actually exists. Bin Laden, for example, truly believes in, and is righteous towards, his cause, and can rationalize it quite well. This has earned him, reportedly, a relatively significant following. On the other hand, Bush, likewise, believes in his cause, is undoubtedly righteous towards it, and can, and does rationalize it at every opportunity (although he may not be able to articulate this rationalization so well 
).
Of course, the all is in the small. We see microcosms of these grand conflicts on a daily basis, with the same underlying motivations (ego) and the same sorts of rationalization strategies. But people will always try to say how they could never act how another person, whom they are daming, acts. This is the basis for their damning of that person. But then, how often do you find that you cannot admit that you are wrong in a conflict, and so you double-down, and become even more vehement in your righteousness as a result? Next thing you know, your doubts about your reasoning fade away, and you become completely attached to your story. You believe it, picking and choosing the facts accordingly, and slightly altering the series of events to fit your narrative. You tell it to friends, hoping they side with you. You tell it to co-workers, hoping they nod in agreement. The end result is a long-lasting grudge which forms between you and another which could have been avoided if you didn’t mind taking a hit to your ego… but your ego minds this, and will stop at nothing to fight for its own sense of righteousness. We see it in the small and we see it in the all.
My point is that Original Sin is the way of the ego. It is a misguided way of life, buying into the illusion that is based on individualism, divisiveness, attachment, that death is the end, that you need things, and that there isn’t enough for everyone. Relatively insignificant acts of egoic behavior are then simply microcosms of relatively significant acts of egoic behavior. Therefore it makes sense when people make the claim that all sin is the same in God’s eyes, in that all sin comes from the same exact source: the ego. So, Christian theology may have a point when they make the claim that a sinful soul suffers damnation. Sinful = egoically motivated, damnation = separation from God. Since egoic behavior rests on the assumption that you are separate, then you are separate from the oneness that is life, that is love, and that is God, Himself.
RoOsh
You treat them as an enlightened person would treat everything else in life; with loving acceptance. If they, by playing by different rules, do not treat you back with loving acceptance, you lovingly accept them nonetheless, and turn the other cheek. Any other reaction would be to cause your SELF suffering.
Now, I am not advocating being a push-over. In response to foul treatment, hold strong to the truth of your heart. For example, if you are in the process of been robbed, yes, turn the other cheek. But then afterwards, certainly DO call the police. But don’t upset yourself over it. If you are being treated in what you decide is an unfair fashion, in one way or another, speak from your heart to the oppressing force. Fear not, because you have no attachment or expectation regarding the outcome. And if it does not go in such a way that is preferable, and there is nothing you can do further, accept this, and allow your mind to silently move on, until it feels like the distant past, and your mind no longer desires to go back to examine the issue. If a loved one cheats on you, holdfast to your love, but allow your lover to go free. Accept this choice on their behalf, and know that since you truly love them (and all of life), there is nothing they could do to break down that love… but they certainly could make it change forms; from romantic and sexual, to a loving acceptance of reality. So if you feel the trust has been permanently severed, go your separate way, not in bitterness, but again, in acceptance, and then focus your attention toward the opening up of space in your life for a new romantic love to emerge.
People will still cause pain, suffering upon others, and do “sinful” deeds of various levels to their fellow men, uncaring of whatever state of enlightenment their victims have attained. So what should the enlightened do in the face of such people? How much of the here and now can you accept, and how much can you turn the other cheek? Though there is suffering in the world, though there are thousands dying and starving, and though there are many misdeeds being done throughout the world- what can you really do as an enlightened person for that?
You simply accept it, but you do allow the state of your Self to overflow onto those around you, and hopefully, you can spread the way of loving acceptance, if not through articulation, then by example. Here is a metaphor I came up with recently which may explain this overflow mechanism, and also how preferences can exist without attachment.
Imagine a body of water as large as the ocean, completely full so that a single additional drop would force another single drop onto land. Conversely, imagine a shot glass in exactly the same state of complete fullness. The water, in this case, is representative of fulfillment, passion, love, etc. Now I state, and I mean this fully, that I would rather be a shot glass full, than an ocean missing a drop. This is the nature of absolutism, the best I can express it; that the full shot glass is entirely equal to the full ocean, even though the amount of water is so exponentially different.
Granted, I would certainly PREFER be a full ocean than a full shot glass. In this way, I would rather be rich than poor, good looking than ugly, athletic than slow, etc. But these aspects are trivial compared to the question of: Is it full? So, naturally, I would rather be poor and fulfilled than rich and missing a drop. You see what I am saying?
This is because that drop missing will drive the ocean crazy. It will not appreciate all the trillions and trillions of drops it already has, but that ONE it doesn’t have (the nature of the ego). Further, there is a hole at the bottom of the ocean, and each time a new drop comes in to seemingly replace the missing area, a drop falls out from the bottom. No matter how many drops materialize, then, there is always something missing. In this way, a rich person missing a drop may try to take part in philanthropy, give to the poor, do community service, but it is all in vain efforts to complete their SELF, not for the spirit of giving! They feel like they are lacking something, so how can they ever truly GIVE? So they can never feel the joy of giving, or for that matter, of life itself!
Meanwhile, each drop that falls upon the shot glass overflows onto the area around it. It is already full, and NEEDS NOTHING MORE, so all it can do is give, and spread the love around. So for the enlightened person, who needs nothing, they will live their lives in loving service to others, knowing that they are the perfect ones to do this, since they actually enjoy it! In this light, consider Christ. It is easy, then, to understand why He was willing to die on the cross to set such a remarkable example; He had no need for his body… but WE, collectively, had a need to see Him die with grace and acceptance. So He gave us this.
RoOsh
While I didn’t directly address each additional specific question in the rest of your post, I feel like I may have adequately responded, nonetheless, in a more broad way. What do you think? (Notice I forgot to put in the quote box one of your questions, so it appears like part of my text; my bad.)
“How you get so big eating food of this kind?”
I would like for you to elaborate on the underlined portions actually:
I also would like to see you put together these two thoughts:
You say their [the enlightened]'s sympathy [so they understand/realize] will do nothing, so should they offer it then? Your first quote seems to imply that the sufferer is alone to deal with it, because those who offer help/sympathy will do so vainly due to their egos, while the enlightened will realize that offering sympathy will do nothing.
So does loving acceptance then not involve caring/sympathy for your fellow man?
And if you should accept your fellow man, to what extent should you help them? Your policy seems a bit selfish, in that self-suffering should be avoided, especially with dealing with others. I should care for everyone and accept everyone lovingly, however, I do not desire to increase my own self-suffering.
Why should I even care about self-suffering, if I am enlightened, such a thing does not exist, it’s just temporary. Same with trying to alleviate the sufferings of my fellow man. I should accept him certainly, but offering him sympathy or help would go against the idea it seems of understanding “suffering” and “non-suffering” as I should believe that neither truly exist, those are only values that burden the “ego’ed soul”.
Or are you implying that perhaps I should try to go beyond MY Ego, but recognize that others have an ego, and thus the rules don’t apply for my fellow man? I may not see the existence of suffering/non-suffering, and I may realize that they are all parts of the Ego… But my fellow un-enlightened man hasn’t realized that. So I should modify my behaviors to help HIM alleviate his suffering then? It seems impractical and hypocritical to say that I don’t believe in suffering and I don’t believe in such thins, as they are only temporary states, and a true “enlightened” one should see beyond the normal, but then to go to a friend and say “Hey, I’m sorry about you losing your girlfriend. Bummer. Let’s go talk about it.”
If I would not do that for myself (being enlightened and all), why should I do that for others?
Basically, how does altruism and recognition of pain’s temporary hold fit into an un-altruistic, selfish, and often pain-filled society for your definition of the Enlightened person?
Your knowledge of the things of enlightenment are great, and your answers clear and concise. But like everyone else I would like to know more. We humans have a physical aspect as well as an emotional aspect. When I become enlightened (20 years ago) I studied the path daily and learn much knowledge, but I found that the emotional part of enlightenment, love, caring and compassion did not come so quickly. I have spent many years practicing “love your enemy” and other great themes of enlightenment. I would like your take on the emotional part of enlightenment.
There is a huge difference between an intellectual understanding and embracing of certain spiritual teachings and the application of those teachings in our day to day life. You can post about them and sound profound all day long and it doesn’t indicate much about how enlightened you may or may not be.
I lean toward the “if you think you are enlightened , and find that evokes some sense of pride and accomplishment within you, then you probably aren’t”. Since I can’t judge your behavior I refrain from making a judgment call
For what it may be worth, I once heard a story about Maher Baba and a pupil. I don’t know whether it’s true, and people will argue about particulars, but it’s an apt metaphor, I think, in any case.
Baba was asked by a student, “Master, do you believe that the Christ is God?” Baba said yes. The student asked why, and Baba replied, “Because He said He is.”
The incredulous student pressed on, “But Master, why would you believe Him just because He says so? Anyone can claim to be God. I myself might make such a claim. If I say, ‘I am God’, will you believe me?”
Baba said, “No, I would not.”
“Why not?” the student protested.
“Because you’re not,” Baba replied.
Do we have proof of this? My own experience and my limited knowledge of human history seem to suggest that a human being’s environment has a big impact over his or her state of mind.
Suffering is suffering. I don’t see any way of separating “physical” suffering from “suffering of the egoic mind”. All suffering is in the mind anyways. If the “suffering of the egoic mind” was under our control, why does everybody break under torture.
I’m not sure crucifixion is the greatest of physical tortures either. Quite frankly, I might prefer to be crucified than to have my testicles electrified for an equivalent time period. Further, you don’t know what Christ was thinking or what he intended unless you use the Bible as evidence. Which you cannot do as it is vehemently disputed as an accurate historical record.
Hunger strikes are voluntary, starvation is imposed on you. I have fasted in the past and I have been very hungry. I have never been unable to obtain food for weeks, while watching my wife and kids slowly die of hunger. That’s what I’m talking about.
Humans have existed and suffered for a long, long time. Perhaps we’ve been trying all along to achieve the zen state you describe, using thousands of religions as guides to achieving it. So far, it’s not working all that great. Maybe it is an asymptote that can be desired but never reached.
ps: I congratulate you on making the time to answer the deluge of commentaries coming your way. You are a brave man.