However, I wasn't able to find any articles that specifically investigate the compatibility between the world's major religions. The areas where different religions are "on the same page", and are able to understand each other and (in the better cases) to respect each other; vs the areas where they're on a different wavelength, and where a poor capacity for dialogue is a potential cause for conflict.

I have, therefore, taken the liberty of penning such an analysis myself. What follows is a very humble list of aspects in which the world's major religions are compatible, vs aspects in which they are incompatible.

Compatible:

• Divinity (usually although not universally manifested by the concept of a G-d or G-ds; this is generally a religion's core belief)
• Sanctity (various events, objects, places, and people are considered sacred by the religion)
• Community (the religion is practiced by more than one person; the religion's members assemble in order to perform significant tasks together; the religion has the fundamental properties of a community – i.e. a start date, a founder or founders, a name / label, a size as measured by membership, etc)
• Personal communication with the divine and/or personal expression of spirituality (almost universally manifested in the acts of prayer and/or meditation)
• Stories (mythology, stories of the religion's origins / founding, parables, etc)
• Membership and initiation (i.e. a definition of "who is a member" of the religion, and defined methods of obtaining membership – e.g. by birth, by initiation ritual, by force)
• Death rites (handling of dead bodies – e.g. burial, cremation; mourning rituals; belief in / position regarding one's fate following death)
• Material expression, often (although not always) involving symbolism (e.g. characteristic clothing, music, architecture, and artwork)
• Ethical guidance (in the form of books, oral wisdom, fundamental precepts, laws, codes of conduct, etc – although it should also be noted that religion and ethics are two different concepts)
• Social guidance (marriage and family; celebration of festivities and special occasions; political views; behaviour towards various societal groups e.g. children, elders, community leaders, disadvantaged persons, members of other religions)
• Right and wrong, in terms of actions and/or thoughts (i.e. definition of "good deeds", and of "sins"; although the many connotations of sin – e.g. punishment, divine judgment, consequences in the afterlife – are not universal)
• Common purpose (although it's impossible to definitively state what religion's purpose is – e.g. religion provides hope; "religion's purpose is to provide a sense of purpose"; religion provides access to the spiritual and the divine; religion exists to facilitate love and compassion – also plenty of sceptical opinions, e.g. religion is the "opium of the masses"; religion is superstition and dogma for fools)
• Explanation of the unknown (religion provides answers where reason and science cannot – e.g. creation, afterlife)

Incompatible:

• The nature of divinity (one G-d vs many G-ds; G-d-like personification of divinity vs more abstract concept of a divine force / divine plane of existence; infinite vs constrained extent of divine power)
• Acknowledgement of other religions (not all religions even acknowledge the existence of others; of those that do, many refuse to acknowledge their validity; and of those that acknowledge validity, most consider other religions as "inferior")
• Tolerance of other religions (while some religions encourage harmony with the rest of the world, other religions promote various degrees of intolerance – e.g. holy war, forced conversion, socio-economic discrimination)
• Community structure (religious communities range from strict bureaucratic hierarchies, to unstructured liberal movements, with every possible shade of grey in between)
• What has a "soul" (all objects in the universe, from rocks upward, have a soul; vs only living organisms have a soul; vs only humans have a soul; vs there is no such thing as a soul)
• Afterlife (re-incarnation vs eternal afterlife vs soul dies with body; consequences, if any, of behaviour in life on what happens after death)
• Acceptable social norms (monogamous vs polygamous marriage; fidelity vs open relationships; punishment vs leniency towards children; types of prohibited relationships)
• Form of rules (strict laws with strict punishments; vs only general guidelines / principles)
• Ethical stances (on a broad range of issues, e.g. abortion, drug use, homosexuality, tattoos / piercings, blood transfusions, organ donation)
• Leader figure(s) (Christ vs Moses vs Mohammed vs Buddha vs saints vs pagan deities vs Confucius)
• Holy texts (Qu'ran vs Bible vs Torah vs Bhagavad Gita vs Tripitaka)
• Ritual manifestations (differences in festivals; feasting vs fasting vs dietary laws; song, dance, clothing, architecture)

Why can't we be friends?

This quick article is my take on the age-old question: if all religions are supposedly based on universal peace and love, then why have they caused more war and bloodshed than any other force in history?

My logic behind comparing religions specifically in terms of "compatibility", rather than simply in terms of "similarities and differences", is that a compatibility analysis should yield conclusions that are directly relevant to the question that we're all asking (i.e. Why can't we be friends?). Logically, if religions were all 100% compatible with each other, then they'd never have caused any conflict in all of human history. So where, then, are all those pesky incompatibilities, that have caused peace-avowing religions to time and again be at each others' throats?

The answer, I believe, is the same one that explains why Java and FORTRAN don't get along well (excuse the geek reference). They both let you write computer programs – but on very different hardware, and in very different coding styles. Or why Chopin fans and Rage Against the Machine fans aren't best friends. They both like to listen to music, but at very different decibels, and with very different amounts of tattoos and piercings applied. Or why a Gemini and a Cancer weren't meant for each other (if you happen to believe in astrology, which I don't). They're both looking for companionship in this big and lonely world, but they laugh and cry in different ways, and the fact is they'll just never agree on whether sushi should be eaten with a fork or with chopsticks.

Religions are just one more parallel. They all aim to bring purpose and hope to one's life; but they don't always quite get there, because along the way they somehow manage to get bogged down discussing on which day of the week only raspberry yoghurt should be eaten, or whether the gates of heaven are opened by a lifetime of charitable deeds or by just ringing the buzzer.

Religion is just one more example of a field where the various competing groups all essentially agree on, and work towards, the same basic purpose; but where numerous incompatibilities arise due to differences in their implementation details.

Perhaps religions could do with a few IEEE standards? Although, then again, perhaps if the world can't even agree on a globally compatible standard for something as simple as what type of electrical plug to use, I doubt there's any hope for religion.

Australia and New Zealand are two countries located very far from the Middle East, the home of Judaism and Islam. Their native wildlife is completely different to that found anywhere else in the world. Of course, since European settlement began, they've been thoroughly introduced to the fauna of the wider world. Indeed, these two countries are today famous for being home to some of the world's largest sheep and cattle populations.

However, let's put aside the present-day situation for now, and take ourselves back in time a thousand or so years. Artificial transcontinental animal transportation has not yet begun. The world's animals still live in the regions that G-d ordained for them to live in. G-d has peppered almost every corner of the globe with at least some variety of kosher birds and mammals. Every major world region, bar one.

My fellow Aussies and Kiwis, I'm afraid the verdict is clear: we are living in the Land that G-d forgot.

Legal recap

Can it really be true? is there not a single native Aussie or Kiwi bird or mammal, that's fit for a chassid's shabbos lunch? Is our Great Southern Land really the world's Traif Buffet Grande?

Before we jump to such shocking conclusions, let's review some basic definitions. According to Jewish law, a mammal is kosher if it has split hooves and chews its cud (plus, it should be herbivorous). For birds, there is no clear and simple rule in determining kosher status, and so the most important rule is that there is a lond-standing tradition (a mesorah) of its being kosher (although there are some guidelines for birds, e.g. only non-predatory birds, peelable gizzard / stomach lining).

The kosher map

After doing some pretty thorough research, I've discovered that there are only eight groups of fauna in the world whose meat is kosher. These groups, and their kosher species, are:

1. Cattle / cow: Banteng; Gayal; Muskox; Taurine cattle / Ox / Domestic cow; Yak; Zebu.
2. Sheep: Argali; Bighorn; Dall; Domestic sheep; Mouflon; Snow sheep; Urial.
3. Bison / buffalo: American buffalo; Cape buffalo; Water buffalo; Wisent.
4. Goat / ibex: Alpine ibex; Caucasian tur; Domestic goat / Wild goat; Goral; Markhor; Nubian ibex; Siberian ibex; Spanish ibex; Takin; Walia ibex.
5. Deer: Brocket deer*; Elk; Eurasian Elk; Huemul*; Moose; Mule deer; Muntjac / Barking deer; Pampas deer*; Pudú*; Reindeer / Caribou; Roe deer; Taruca*; Wapiti; White-tailed deer.
6. Birds: Chicken / Capon; Dove; Duck; Goose; Guineafowl; Muscovy duck; Partridge; Pheasant; Pigeon; Quail; Sparrow; Swallow; Turkey.
7. Giraffidae: Giraffe; Okapi.
8. Antelope: Blackbuck; Blesbok; Bongo; Bushbuk; Dik-dik; Eland; Gazelle; Gerenuk; Hartebeest; Impala; Klipspringer; Kudu; Lechwe; Nilgal; Nyala; Oribi; Oryx / Gemsbok; Pronghorn; Reedbuck; Sitatunga; Springbok; Steenbok; Topi; Tsessebe; Waterbuck; Wildebeest.

* For these South American deer species, I found no kosher list that could verify their kashrut status; however, many other sources explicitly state that all deer is kosher, and these species are definitely all deer.

All the species of cattle originate from Asia (particularly from the Indian Subcontinent), except for the Muskox which is from the Arctic regions of North America (and the inclusion of the Muskox is stretching the definition of cattle somewhat). Sheep and goats originate mainly from the Middle East and surrounds, except for the Bighorn and Dall sheep (which are North American). All three of cattle, sheep, and goats, are believed to trace their domesticated origins to the Fertile Crescent area of the Middle East.

Bison are closely related to cattle, but are ultimately a different group. Bison are one of the least clustered of the animal groups discussed here, being scattered all over the world: the American buffalo is North American; the Cape buffalo hails from South Africa; the Water buffalo is native to South-East Asia; and the Wisent is of Eastern European origin. The deer are also a widely dispersed group, being spread over all the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

The large number of antelope species are almost all from Eastern and Southern Africa. Exceptions include the Blackbuck, which is of Indian origin; and the Pronghorn, which is the North American antelope ambassador. The Giraffe and its only (surviving) close relative, the Okapi, both hail from Central Africa.

There are also the birds, most of which originate from an extensive number of regions and continents (including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas), due to their being migratory. The Chicken is of Indian Subcontinent origin; the Muscovy duck hails from Central / South America; the Pheasant is of Eastern European origin; and the Turkey is North American.

And so, here we can see all of these animals, indicated quite roughly on a world map (image is of this kosher animals Google map):

No kosher tucker

The map speaks for itself, really. For most of human history, Oz and NZ went unnoticed to the rest of the human-inhabited world. Clearly, the Man Up High also didn't notice those funny bits Down Under, when he was plonking kosher land animals down upon the rest of the Earth. Or maybe — Day 6 being a Friday and all — he knocked off early and went to the pub, and he just never got around to koshering Australasia.

No kosher marsupials — forget about Roo, Wallaby, Koala, and Wombat — they're all traif. Same deal for the monotremes: Platypus and Echidna are off the menu. Not to mention croccies… oy vey! Oh, and I know you were thinking about Emu — but you can stop thinking, I already checked. As for NZ, it hasn't even got a single native land-dwelling mammal, let alone a kosher one. I guess even the goyim have to make do around there — although at least they could roast up a Kea or a Kiwi if they started feeling peckish.

Seriously, it's pretty slack. I know that the Aborigines and the Maoris never even had the opportunity to hear about kosher (which is bad enough). But assuming they somehow had caught wind of it, and had decided to join the bandwagon; surely, they would have felt pretty jaded and ripped off, upon learning that the All-Merciful One had given them the cold shoulder in the meat department.

Possible explanations

We all know that Australia is the oldest continent on Earth. So, I can think of one explanation easily enough. G-d created the world 6,000 years ago. The whole world, that is, except Oz and NZ. He created those places 40,000 years ago; he plonked the Roos and the Aborigines down in Oz; and he just let 'em sit there for 34,000 years, and hang around idly until he popped back and finished off the rest of the world. If this theory is true, then I guess being left out to dry in the bush for that long would make the Aborigines feel pretty jaded anyway (apart from their already feeling jaded re: lack of kosher meat on their continent).

Another theory: maybe Oz and NZ were a bit of a hippie commune experiment, and G-d decided that if (by some bizarre turn of events) the Blackfellas did happen to hear about kashrut and (even more bizarrely) liked the sound of it, then they should stick to a veggie diet anyway. Or, if they got really desperate, there are — after all — native kosher fish on Oz and NZ's coasts; so they could grill up a salmon or two. But, as any carnivorous man knows, fish just ain't no substitute for a good chunk of medium-rare goodness (yes, I know, I'm a crap hippie).

We should also consider that, as everyone knows, Australasia was a bit of an experimental zone in general for the Man Up High. Some have even gone further, and argued that Australasia was His dumping ground for failed experiments. If this was the case, then it logically follows that He would never place any kosher animals — which we can only assume were what He considered his greatest success story — in that very same manure hole.

I believe I already mentioned the theory about knocking off early on Friday afternoon and going to the pub. (In fact, if that theory is true, it would seem that that act has been G-d's greatest legacy to Australasia.)

Forgotten Land

We already knew about quite a few fairly essential things that G-d forgot to put in Australia. For example, water. And rivers that have water. And mountains (real ones). Also non-poisonous snakes and spiders. And something (anything) in the middle (apart from a big rock).

This is just further proof that Australia really isn't the Chosen Land. No non-traif meat available. Anyway, at least you can thank Him for the next time you're stuck in the Outback, when a feast of witchety grubs could save you from starvation.

Additional references

• What did Australian Aborigines eat?
• What food and medicine did the aboriginals eat?
• Are kangaroos kosher?
• Are kangaroos kosher? (another source)
• Who eats what animals?
• The Long March of the Koalas
• Is emu kosher?
• Are peacocks and peacock eggs kosher?
• The Halachic Tale of Three American Birds: Turkey, Prairie Chicken, and Muscovy Duck
• Kosher animals (big list)
• Kosher list
• Wikipedia: kosher animals
• Kosher animal list
• Anyone for a Giraffe Burger?
• Kashrut of Exotic Animals: The Buffalo
• What's The Truth About Giraffe Meat
• Kashrut overview
• Living the Law: Reinforcing the Tradition with a Palpable Precedent
• Is quail kosher?

Most of the Torah is rock solid: sensible laws; moralistic stories; clear presentation of history; and other important information, such as geneaologies, rituals, and territorial boundaries. However, sometimes them five books throw some serious curve balls. I've selected here a few sections from the wonderful O.T, that in my opinion are so outrageously messed up, that they cannot possibly be the Divine Word. I believe in G-d, one hundred percent. But I see no reason to believe that these particular passages have a Divine source.

Ball-grabbing

Here's the situation. You're a married woman, and you and your husband are out with mates for the evening. Your husband gets into a heated debate with one of his male friends. The heated debate quickly escalates into a fistfight. You decide to resolve the conflict, quickly and simply. You grab your man by the nuts, and pull him away.

According to the torah, in this extremely specific situation, that's a crime that will cost you a hand (presumably, the hand responsible for said ball-grabbing). For, as it is written:

As a man, I think this is a great rule. I am all for explicitly prohibiting my future wife from resorting to sack-wrenching, as a means of intervening in my secret mens' business.

However, as a rational human being, I am forced to conclude, beyond any doubt, that this verse of the Torah simply cannot be the Word of G-d. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense that G-d didn't have time to mention anything about chemical warfare, or about protection of the endangered Yellow-browed Toucanet in Peru; yet he found the time to jot down: "By the way, ladies, don't end a brawl by yanking your man's nads."

Our Sages™ explain to us that this verse shouldn't be taken literally, and that what it's actually referring to is a more general prohibition on causing public shame and humiliation to others. They argue that, thanks to this verse, the Torah is actually ahead of most modern legal systems, in that it explicitly enshrines dignity as a legal concept, and that it provides measures for the legal protection of one's dignity.

Sorry, dear Sages, but I don't buy that. You can generalise and not take literally all you want. But for me, there's no shying away from the fact that the Torah calls for cutting off a woman's hand if she goes in for the nut-grabber. That's an extreme punishment, and honestly, the whole verse is just plain silly. This was clearly written not by G-d, but by a middle-aged priest who'd been putting up with his wife's nad-yanking for 30-odd years, and who'd just decided that enough was enough.

Parental discipline

You're a 16-year-old male. You live in a well-to-do middle-class neighbourhood, your parents are doctor and lawyer (respectively), and you go to a respectable private school. So, naturally, you've been binge drinking since the age of 12, you sell ecstasy and cocaine at the bus stop, you run a successful pimping business in the school toilets, you're an anaemic quasi-albino goth, and you're pretty handy with a flick-knife at 2am at the local train station. Your parents can't remember the last time you said anything to them, other than: "I f$@%ing hate you."

Your parents have pretty well given up on you. Fortunately, the Torah provides one final remedy that they haven't yet tried. For, as it is written:

The Torah sanctions stoning to death as a form of parental discipline… w00t! Ummm… yeah, I'm sorry, guys; but once again, according to every fibre of my mind and soul, I conclude that this cannot be the Word of G-d. No G-d of mine would condone this crap.

Once again, at this point we should turn to Our Sages™, who explain that this law is designed purely to be a deterrent for rebellious children, and that the prescribed punishment could never actually be imposed. They note that this passage lists so many conditions, in order for a son to meet the definition of "rebellious", that it's virtually impossible for anyone to actually be eligible for this punishment. They conclude that the scenario described here is purely hypothetical, and that it's intended that no son ever actually be stoned to death per this law.

Again, dear Sages, I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it for me. First of all, the conditions laid out in this passage aren't impossible; in my opinion, it wouldn't be very hard at all for them to be met. And secondly, on account of its conditions being possible in a real situation, this passage constitutes an incredibly reckless and dangerous addition to the Torah. Never intended to be enforced? Bull $@%t. I'd bet my left testicle that this law — just like many other sanctioned-stoning-to-death laws, e.g. adultery, idolatry — was invoked and was enforced numerous times, back in the biblical era.

Stoning to death as a form of parental punishment. Not written by G-d. If you ask me, 'twas written by a priestly couple, back in the day, who were simply tearing their hair out trying to get their adolescent son to stop dealing frankincense and myhhr to Welsh tart junkies behind the juniper bush.

The anti-castrato anti-modern-family regime

The Torah generally follows the well-accepted universal rules of who you're allowed to discriminate against. Everyone knows that you're allowed to pick on women, slaves (i.e. black people), proselytes (biblical equivalent of illegal aliens, i.e. Mexicans), homosexuals, Amalek (biblical equivalent of rogue states, i.e. North Korea), and of course Jews (who, despite all that "chosen people" crap, did have a pretty rough time in the O.T — so if you're wondering who started that "pick on the Jews" trend, it was G-d).

But the Torah had to take it just one step further, and break the Golden Rule: don't pick on the handicapped! According to the Torah, those who are handicapped in the downstairs department (plus bastard children are thrown in for good measure), are to be rejected from all paintball games, Iron Maiden concerts, trips to Nimbin, and other cool events. For all eternity. For, as it is written:

I guess the whole "even to the tenth generation" postscript was only added to the bastard law, and not to the crushed-nuts law, because adding it to the former would have been kinda superfluous. If you're chanting in the Pope's soprano choir, it's a pretty safe bet there won't be even one more generation in your grand lineage, let alone ten.

Turning once again to Our Sages™, it seems they don't see much problem with this law (a cause for concern in itself, if you ask me), because they don't particularly bother to justify it as a metaphor or a hypothetical. They merely clarify that this law applies to voluntary or accidental mutilation, and not to birth defects or diseases. Well, isn't that a relief! They also clarify that the punishment of not being able to "enter into the assembly of the Lord" refers to being prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman.

I'm sorry, but specific discrimination against victims of ball-crushing (possibly on account of women violating the ball-grabbing law, as discussed above) is, in my opinion, not the Word of G-d. This law was clearly an addition penned by a member of the Temple elite, who had already exhausted the approved list of groups suitable to pick on (see above), and who just couldn't resist breaking the universal rule and picking on the handicapped. The very same guy probably then interpreted his own law, to mean that he could park his donkey right outside the door of the blacksmith's, which was quite clearly marked as a disabled-only spot.

Slow poisoning of suspected adulteresses

Everyone knows that the Bible proscribes stoning to death for proven offenders of adultery. While we may not all agree with the severity of the punishment, I personally can sort-of accept it as the Word of G-d. However, the Torah also describes, in intricate detail, a bizarre and disturbing procedure for women who are suspected of being adulteresses, but against whom there is no damning evidence. For, as it is written:

In case the language above eludes and confounds you, let me recap. You're a married woman. Your husband suspects you've been engaged in wild orgies with the gardeners, every time he goes to London on a business trip (of course, he never gets up to any mischief on his trips either); but as nobody else is ever home during these trips, he has no proof of his suspicion. In order to alleviate his suspicions, he brings you before a Temple Priest, who forces you to drink something called the "water of bitterness" (generally understood to be more-or-less poison).

Apparently, if you're innocent, then the water of bitterness will have no effect, and the final proof of your acquittal will be your ability to fall pregnant in a few months' time; or, if you're guilty, then the water of bitterness will cause you severe internal damage, and it will possibly kill you — in particular, it will definitely f$@% up your reproductive organs. Amen.

Woaaaahhhhh! I'm sorry. That is NOT the Word of G-d. That is F$@%ED UP.

I don't know about you, but this reminds me of the good old-fashioned, tried-and-tested method of determining if a woman is a witch: if she floats, she's a witch; if not, she's innocent (too bad about her drowning, eh?). This ceremony — called the sotah — is a sort of perverse backwards version of a witch-trial: if she's been playing around, the poison f$@%s her up; if not, she will (theoretically) be well and healthy.

And now, a word from Our Sages™. Once again (as with the parental discipline law, see above), the Learned Ones brush this one off as being purely a deterrent law, never meant to be actually enforced. Once again, I say: bull$@%t. If this truly was the intention of this law, it was pretty damn recklessly implemented.

At least the "rebellious son" law has a reasonable set of conditions to be met before the prescribed punishment can be effected; for this law, the only relevant condition is that "the spirit of jealousy cometh upon a man". Jeez, a jealous and suspicious partner — that hardly ever happens.

I really, truly, shudder to think how many times this ritual was carried out in the biblical era. If this were a real, secular law in any country today, I can guarantee there'd be a queue of seeming husbands five miles long, at the door of every local court in the land.

Final thoughts

I'm proudly Jewish, always have been, always will be. I also firmly believe in G-d's existence. But that doesn't mean I have to accept every word of my religion's holy book as infallible. Call me a heretic if you will. But G-d gave us intellect, critical judgement and, above all, common sense. Failing to exercise it, on everything including G-d's Holy Scriptures — now, that would be a gross sacrilege and an act of heresy (and one of which billions of blind followers throughout history are, in my opinion, guilty).

If a law's literal interpretation seems absurd, then there's a problem with the law. If a law has to be justified as a metaphor, as a hypothetical, or as an allegory before it seems rational, then there's a problem with the law. We would never accept laws in our modern legal systems, if they required a metaphysical interpretation before they seemed reasonable. Why then do we accept such laws in religious canon? Baffles me.

One of my aims in this article, was to present some of the most repulsive literally-read verses in the Torah, and to also present the explanations that scholars have provided, over the ages, to justify them. Commentary on the Bible is all well and good: but commentary should be a more detailed discussion of canon text that already has a solid foundation; it should not be a futile defence of canon text whose foundation is rotten. The literal meaning of the Bible is its foundation; and if the foundation is warped, so too is everything built upon it.

Additional references

• 10 of the most bizarre bible verses ever
• 9 most badass bible verses
• The 6 raunchiest most depraved sex acts from the bible *
• 5 superpowers from the bible that put Marvel DC to shame *
• Some great lines from the bible
• Dear Dr. Laura (letters from an atheist)
• The Hebrew Bible in English (all quoted Torah verses copied from this site)

* — references marked with an asterisk not actually used in this article, included in this list just for fun.

In essence (as I was taught, anyway), Buddhists believe that all suffering is caused by desire. It's really quite a logical concept:

• we desire what we do not have;
• we suffer because we desire things and we do not have them;
• therefore, if we free ourselves from desire (i.e. if we do not desire anything), then we become free of suffering (i.e. we achieve the ultimate level of happiness in life).

I haven't read the book The Art of Happiness, by His Holiness the Dalai Lama (I'm waiting for the movie to come out), but I'm guessing that this is the basic message that it gives. Although I could be wrong - if you really want to know, you really should just buy the book!

The concept is so simple, and when you think about it, it's kind of cool how it just makes sense™. Put it in the perspective of modern Western culture, which is (in stark contrast to this philosophy) totally centred around the consumer and the individual's wants. In Western society, our whole way of thinking is geared towards fulfilling our desires, so that we can then be happy (because we have what we want). But as everyone knows, the whole Western individual-consumer-selfish-driven philosophy is totally flawed in practice, because:

• as soon as we fulfil one desire, it simply leads to more desires (the old OK, I've bought a Mercedes, now I want a Porsche example comes to mind here);
• there are heaps of desires that everyone has, that will never be fulfilled (hence you will never truly be happy).

Then there is the great big fat lie of the consumer era: things that we desire aren't really desires, because most of them are actually things that we need, not things that we want. Justifying that we need something has become second nature. I need the new 40GB iPod, because otherwise I'll go crazy sitting on the train for 2 hours each way, each day, on the way to work. I need a top-of-the-range new computer, because my old one is too slow and is stopping me from getting my work done productively. I need a designer jacket, because it's nearly winter and my old ones are ready for the bin, and I'll be cold without it. I need the biggest thing on the menu at this restaurant, because I'm really hungry and I haven't eaten since lunch. We know, deep down, that we don't need any of these things, just as we know that having them won't make us "happy". But we kid ourselves anyway.

And this is where the whole Buddhism thing starts to make sense. Hang on, you think. If I just stop desiring that new iPod, and that fast PC, and that designer jacket, and that massive steak, then I won't have the problem of being unhappy that I haven't got them. I don't really need them anyway, and if I can just stop wanting them, I'll be better off anyway. I can spend my money on more important things. And so you see how, as I said, it really does just make sense™.

But all this got me thinking, what about other things? Sure, it's great to stop desiring material objects, but what of the more abstract desires? There are other things that we desire, and that we suffer from because of our desire, but that don't lead to simply more greed. Love is the obvious example. We all desire love, but once you've found one person that you love, then (assuming you've found someone you really love) you stop desiring more people to love (well... that's the theory, anyway - but let's not get into that :-)).

Another is knowledge. Now, this is a more complicated one. There are really no constants when it comes to knowledge. Sometimes you desire knowledge, and sometimes you don't. Sometimes fulfilling your desire (for knowledge) leads to more desire, but other times, it actually stops you desiring any more. Sometimes fulfilling a desire for knowledge makes you happy, and sometimes it makes you realise that it wasn't such a good idea to desire it in the first place.

Take for example history. You have a desire to learn more about World War II. You have a thirst for knowledge about this particular subject. But when you actually fulfil that desire, by acquiring a degree of knowledge, it leads to a desire not to know any more. Learning about the holocaust is horrible - you wish you'd never learnt it in the first place. You wish you could unlearn it.

Take another example, this time from the realm of science. In this example, assume that you have no desire whatsoever to learn about astronomy. You think it's the most boring topic on Earth (or beyond :-)). But then someone tells you about how they've just sent a space probe to Titan (one of Saturn's moons), and how it's uncovering new facts that could lead to the discovery of life beyond Earth. Suddenly, you want to learn more about this, and your initial lack of desire turns into an eventual desire for more knowledge.

Clearly, knowledge and the desire for it cannot be explained with the same logic that we were using earlier. It doesn't follow the rules. With knowldge, desire can lead to no desire, and vice versa. Fulfilment can lead to sadness, or to happiness. So the question that I'm pondering here is basically: is it bad to desire knowledge? Is this one type of desire that it's good to have? Is there any constant effect of attaining knowledge, or does it depend entirely on what the knowledge is and how you process it?

My answer would be that yes, it's always good to desire knowledge. Even if you cannot say with certainty whether the result of attaining knowledge is "good" or "bad" (if such things can even be measured), it's still good to always desire to know more, just for the sake of being a more informed and more knowledgeable human being. Of course, I can't even tell you what exactly knowledge is, and how you can tell knowledge apart from - well, from information that's total rubbish - that would be a whole new topic. But my assertion is that whatever the hell knowledge is, it's good to have, it's good to desire, and it's good to accumulate over the long years of your life.

Buddhist philosophy probably has its own answers to these questions. I don't know what they are, so because of my lack of knowledge (otherwise known as ignorance!), I'm trying to think of some answers of my own. And I guess that in itself is yet another topic: is it better to be told the answers to every big question about life and philosophy, or is it sometimes better to come up with your own? Anyway, this is one little complex question that I'm suggesting an answer to. But by no means is it the right answer. There is no right answer. There is just you and your opinion. Think about it, will you?