A few years ago, I'd have soaked up this book up, swallowed it whole. But now? I find myself arguing with it and thinking its theories to be too sacarine and simplistic. To me, the thesis seems to be, ''treat your life as if its a movie you're watching about somebody else'' and if you can do that, then you'll be free of your own worst enemy, yourself, and all the potential unhappiness in the life that you're watching.
Also, I'm one third in without a great deal much gained by this. But, I'll keep going -- this is my first Ramadan and so this is a good thing even if it plunges me into despair and a sort of existential crisis. Unlike before, I realize now that Buddhism isn't easy, because it's not inherently at-ease with the world as it once used to seem. I get upset with it, reading just 7 pages at a time, then I go to Murakami and he seems to confront these same issues, often finding the same results, but in a compelling way because unlike this writer, he doesnt seem to view Buddhism's answers to suffering as inherently correct and complete, and even pinpoints the more painful parts about letting go and become more of a compassionate spectator. Likewise, for me, it's more a question of, is suffering even something that I should be trying to avoid, lessen, or remove from my life? I used to value simplicity, but there's a thing as too much of it. So now, I'd say that I think NO. Also, if you view death as a very firm end to everything, then it seems OK and acceptable to grasp at the ephemeral things life has, even while being aware of their ephemerity. To reject it all because of the ephemeral and transitory things is to shoot yourself in the foot because the toe itches, it seems to me. OR maybe even because of that very reason, that's all the chance to get the most out of it, even while stumbling over yourself and making yourself very unhappy a lot of the time.