Vishontar-jyu, If you have to leave, you have to. I surely will miss and treasure this conversation. I appreciate your time and effort to explain the things you have learned. I certainly understand what you have explained and agree with them to a large extent. And as for the things we disagree or understand differently, it should not make us uncomfortable. As they say, differences and diversity are to be accepted and celebrated. Since this might be the last posting on this subject for now, I would like to recap my arguments above and clarify a thing or two. I might have sounded, however, I was in no way glorifying "intelligence" and dismissing "discipline" IN GENERAL. We were talking about "learning" (not "enlightenment" yet) and I was more into a RIGOROUS estimation of RELATIVE contribution of these factor to 'learning'. RELATIVE is the key word. And that's all about my arguments. Simply put, my argument was- for a GIVEN task of learning, NOT ALL individuals require the SAME LEVEL of "discipline", because "intelligence" is another variable. And this is a verifiable truth. However, that [truth] was not only the reason I was insisting on it. This has a very important practical implication that goes against what I would dare say Buddhist lifestyle. Simply put, the above argument implies that a UNIFORM LIFESTYLE for a DIVERSE POPULATION would be irrational. Now, it's not difficult to view how an argument against a 'uniform lifestyle' is also against the Buddhist lifestyle. I will not go beyond that on this. If we talk about "enlightenment" instead of general "learning", Buddha's law might make better sense. But then, Buddha did not guarantee "enlightenment" to everybody. So to recommend Buddhist lifestyle for "enlightenment" would be a pure GAMBLING ;-) . But seriously, the notion of "enlightenment" itself is problematic. I was hoping we will reach to this point in our discussion and will be able to talk about it in the way you define it. That did not materialize. Let's work with a limited and working definition of it for now, something like "an extra-ordinary power of knowing/sensing/understanding things". We can define it in unlimited way if we want. However, the limited definition alone will show how irrational that MIGHT sound from a scientific perspective. First and foremost, why human brain HAS TO HAVE this POTENTIAL ? Why ? Has somebody designed it that way ? I hope you are getting where I am getting to. Human brain came into existent quite recently through evolution of life which started some 3500 million years ago. Why does it have to have a potential of doing miraculous things ? There is no reason, no logic, no rationality for it's unlimited or super-power. I will have to explain it a bit more, however, it makes sense to speculate that whoever has claimed "enlightenment" was actually "hallucinating". And hallucination only goes so far. Let's leave "enlightenment" for now. Let's get back to what you described as the "Universal Law of Learning". We have already discussed the content and I tried to show how it needs to be modified in order to make it accurate. Now, it makes sense for me to comment on the GRAND designation of "Universal Law". I understand (and I respect it too) how a faithful person can make such a grand claim. However, as a professional skeptic, I have, let's say, a professional obligation to register my disapproval :-) So here I go. First of all, why "universal" ? Learning is not limited to human species. All living organism has to "learn". Only the level of complexity of "learning" depends on their evolutionary hierarchy. The component of "discipline" is not involved in other species. Okay, let's limit the law to human only- "Universal Law of Human Learning". Now the problem starts right there. Because human learning has components of it's predecessor species' "learning". That's where the basics are. Needless to say, that's not where Buddha looked to formulate the law. So, let's recognize Buddha's limitation. Now the notion of "Law". You (or Buddha) claimed that it is an unmodifiable law. We already discussed about it and I already pointed out the places where modification/accommodation is necessary to make it more accurate. Let me repeat some and add more. "Discipline, Awareness and Wisdom" as a universal law of learning is imperfect in the following way. First of all "awareness" and "wisdom" are not two different things. I mean their difference is artificial, not natural. Then, as I explained above, "discipline" is not universally required. Worse, Buddha defined "discipline" hardly relates to learning. The "rate determining step" in learning is "attention". 'Attention' does not come from Buddhist "discipline". It comes from (i) "attraction" to the subject, (ii) "will" to learn that. Distraction is a factor, but it is not limited to "bad" conduct. I mean, "good" and "neutral" conducts might distracts too. If something important to you is happening elsewhere, that distracts you. See how many places there are to modify Buddha's "universal law of learning" ? So, Vishontar-jyu, this is in no way to dismiss Buddha's preachings, but to show flaws/imperfections in them. No doubt that Buddha was a genius. However he was human. And human has limitations. Because we are not designed by a perfect designer. We are designed by an imperfect designer who cared only for survival and continuity of human race (natural selection). Everything else was byproduct of evolution. There is no rationality for natural byproducts to be perfect. No rationality at all. There is no rationality for Buddha's brain to be perfect. No rationality. There is nothing wrong to be in imperfect. I can still revere the imperfect Buddha. He has done enough good things. That's good enough. Nepe