Quote Originally Posted by Mario92 View Post
You've given me reasons. What I lack now is any evidence of this actually happening.

You claim perfection is possible. A lifetime absolutely, 100% free of any negativity, including the boredom that comes as a result of only positive experiences. A lifetime completely free of regret, empathy for those in need, physical pain (hahah, good luck), discomfort, awkwardness, unobtainable desires, work you don't fully enjoy, etc etc etc. Now, perhaps you could explain to me how this is possible.
We're speaking for the scope of the human suffering, all of which can be transcended. It may be harder to conceptualize when you state "100% free", because suffering is ultimately a relative subjective quality and isn't really quantifiable beyond the scope of calling it 'human suffering' alone, so let's just stick with that for now.

All of the things you state are not suffering itself, but conditions for suffering. These conditions can be part of life without actual experiential suffering on a deeper level. The point is not to argue for the human condition itself, because it is possible to still exist in the human realm and be free of much of the suffering that the vicissitudes of life would otherwise induce. It is only a matter of consciousness and orientation.

As I stated before, the same local conditions 'for suffering', may give different responses and experiences to each individuals who have different orientations/outlooks to life. When you state the typical vicissitudes of human life as an argument against complete bliss or perfection, you are really only limiting the scope of the argument to individuals who are unwilling to transcend their conditions mentally/spiritually, and thus, inevitably subjecting themselves to those conditions. Again, this only applies to people who look for the solutions (peace) where they're not (human conditions), or on the flip-side: those who are altogether unwilling to change and discipline their mind. An argument for an 'average' person is an invalid argument against a 'peaceful person.'