Obviously. We are only talking about the stages where it begins to be possible to pursue contrasted by those states where it begins to be impossible. I did offer a clue when I explained how even in the impossible state, it's not seamless. How do you propose to falsify a self evident claim (such as "I'm not hungry because I just ate")? I recall browsing one thread here from someone who claimed to be able to see tiny molecules with their naked eye. The point is, any statement in and of its self (such as its possible to see molecules) may be correct, but it may not have the proper understanding behind it. In otherwords its not sufficient to merely parrot true statements. Its a matter of understanding. That is the difference between propaganda or fanaticism and philosophy. Of course not. But if all one sees is the body, that spells the limit of their observation. If something exists in a state of contigency with its cause, it is expected to bear some necessary effect. Given that the body is subject to complete and utter change from birth to death, how does one draw the conclusion that the constant self is but a mere contingent factor? Given that the body, a radical system of change in itself, undergoes an even more radical, irreversible change at the point of death (ie, when the self is no longer present), there appears to be a stronger argument of contingency from the opposite perspective. Its probably easier to describe it as degrees of forgetfulness rather than degrees of memory. To go back to the movie theatre illusion, to successfully suspend belief and engage in the narrative, it is required that forget one's self so that one can enter into a universe from long, long, ago in a galaxy far, far, far away. The forgetfulness of self is not so complete and utter that one cannot work out who the good guys and the bad guys in the film are (we bring some baggage with us), but in order to enjoy the exhilaration we are putting on hold some core aspects of our identity. Everyone defaults to the pursuit of happiness to the best they can. The question then becomes, what works and what doesn't. Obviously we don't want to try curing a disease by sustaining the symptoms. Yes, just a tad. Cyrogenics is not as popular as it once used to be. The point is if one thinks the solution lies in further immersing themselves in bodily demands, they haven't really understood the nature of suffering in this world. Its not a question of choosing "requirements", but rather a matter of what are the best tools we have available in the toolbox. We default to the pursuit of happiness through the agency of self. If the self is conceived of in terms of the body, one automatically opens one's self up to a ton of unnecessary suffering. Its forgivable to cry while watching a movie, but if one is still crying 40 years after the screening, with a still present seething hatred of the actor who portrayed the part, we are probably struggling with unnecessary attachments. If one doesn't accept the argument, one will default to not only activities of trying to make one's body great, but trying to make the body's of everyone else appreciate our greatness, and get ultimately disheartened or offended by the results.