Nepe Dai, I already wrote that I got to leave Sajha for now. However, I must respond something because you are putting false blame on Buddha. Exactly. It depends. And then what is required is not "discipline" per se. What is required is the attention. So any action ( no matter how "immoral" it is in other's view) that does not hurt ATTENTION significantly does not hurt LEARNING significantly. You are absolutely right. If you are alcohol adict. If you chase somebody else's wife. If you involve in intense quarriling, fighting, gambling, cheating, goofing, backbiting, stealing. Still you can learn Farming. But it will be hard for you to learn biology. To learn biology you have to have some more discipline because you need little more attention. Your attention should last at least few seconds. But those who has to learn about thier mind, they need unwavering attention for hours. They need blameless, perfect discipline. A tiny little mistake they have done will break their attention. Then the MOST IMPORTANT thing for learning is sufficient degree ofINTELLIGENCE required for that particular whatever is being learned Now I am pretty sure either you don't read my postings or you don't understand them The basis of intelligence is primarily genetics. Environment has a way too lesser contribution than genetics has. In contrast, Buddha's preaching insist that environment is everything. This is where Buddha fails. Who told you Buddha said it is environment? If you have heard from someone take it as false. If you have read somewhere cite the refrence. I don't completely believe it is genetic either. I have seen fool offsprings of wise parents and wise offsprings of fool parents. Two twins also can't have equal intelligence. You are a biologist Please enlighten me. Is it true what you are saying? would use the word "complexity" for "subtle". You are wrong! It is other way around. You get subtal if you divide and disect and subtal is always simpler. DNA is complicated, it is gigentic but if you divide it and disect it you will get atoms, they are simple. They are just made up of simple three particles, electron, proton and neutron. Some people are NATURALLY unequipped to explore themselves with required accuracy and efficiency. Not some everybody are naturally equipped, they got to do. And even for the people who are equipped, if the purpose is to get to the correct information, a COLLABORATIVE project with more intelligent people rather than a lonely exploration by oneself will have more success rate. Wouldn't it ? You can always discuss with intelligence people. You can always learn from intelligence people. But is there any way to share your feeling. How can I feel what you feel? How can you feel what I feel? A lonely experiment has more chance of acquiring erroneous information (illusion). Actually this is where Buddha appear to be anti-scientific. I have thought I will explain Dhamma in scientific language. You discouraged me! Your postings clearly shows that either you don't read my postings or you don't understand it. learly Buddha did not care (I mean was not careful ) about truth. What he cared is to REPLICATE his EXPERIENCE (which might, actually does, include ILLUSIONS/HALLUCINATIONS). Buddha failed to be careful to distinguish or to give importance to distinguishing TRUTH from ILLUSION. The only way to distinguish TRUTH from ILLUSION is peer-review by competent reviewers. This statement is making me sure that I wasted my time.