TT-jee, No you have not yet BOUGHT the book. You have only ORDERED it. There is a subtle difference. Once you PHYSICALLY possess the book you have ORDERED, then you can say you have BOUGHT it. Effect of the discourse with Vishontar-jee. Hehehe. But seriously, thank you. *** *** *** *** *** *** Vishontar-jee, My reply to TT-jee above is also to a kind of prelude to my emphasis on the importance of ACCURACY in analytical job. I will come to that point shortly. So, first of all, thank you so much for finally starting to serve us with Buddha's teachings. Starting with the fundamentals was so appropriate. I hope as you bring more we will have more material to discuss about. As for this "fundamental" part, my first reaction would be- considering Buddha's own time, when prevalent religious dogma regarding acquiring knowledge, power and happiness was through invoking and pleasing IMAGINARY Gods, Buddha's SIMPLE and REALISTIC approach is mind-blowing, to say the least. However, if we examine Buddha's thesis on it's own merit (not on the demerits of other religious teachings) and particularly in light of today's knowledge and, this one I emphasize extremely much, with the standard of accuracy, then I think they will turn out to be IMPERFECT and LIMITED. Before taking specific cases, I would like to say something of a fundamental importance- my take on the source of IMPERFECTIONS in Buddha's teachings. When I say something like IMPERFECTION of Buddha's teachings, you must have realized how important is what I am going to say. So here it is. Most of the things (qualities) Buddha talks about exist in gradation, in degrees, in quantities, in variability, in diversity and the most important of all in a form of COMPLEXITY. Buddha fails to take account of them, treats them as if all of them exist in exact and simple bi-form (yes/no, presence/absence, right/wrong, good/bad). Failure to take account of variability and lack of knowledge of complexity of the world on Buddha's part has led him to reach to many inaccurate conclusion and unnecessary recommendations. (A rather too strong claim on my part, however I intend to show how as we go along. So more discussion on this in future. For now let's focus on "Shil-->Samadhi-->Pragya" theory.) I already explained in my earlier posting how a person with LESS THAN A PERFECT "discipline" but with a sense of MANAGEMENT of time can learn things perfectly provided he has sufficient INTELLIGENCE and a WILL to learn the given thing. It is clear from this that a PERFECT "DISCIPLINE" is not essential for acquiring KNOWLEDGE. SMARTNESS (management of time) can compensate that. A perfect "discipline" is essential for nothing except for itself. I mean if you need to prove that you are in a perfect "discipline". For everything else, imperfect "discipline" might still do. I will take a break here. More during future sessions. Vishontar-jee, we don't have to spend too much time in this one. We can go to next one as you have promised. Nepe