Uhh... I think you made a mistake.

:-)

Always do, just don't label them as so.

 It is definitely not wise to accept every situation, really bad idea, you need a certain level of discrimination because there are way too many conflicts and contradictions.

And I am suggesting that all contradictions all conflicts arise from a staked position.

No stake, no conflict.

hence......... the only chaos is the chaos in your mind, .....nothing "out there".

 Look at the kinds of issues that are out there. We have issues with genetically engineered foods, nuclear weopons, the enivronment. Look at America's war. The Saddam theat is gone but there are issues still. Is Bush imposing a lifestyle on the Iraqi people? Have you seen the footage of an American soldier humuring a guy from Iraq? The guy produced half a million barrels of oil and was rewarded with cookies.

I don't deny the events that you mention.

But where's the issue?

The issue only arises when you stake a position, that Dubya Bush/America must not act as any of the past icons of intolerances/empires.

Shorn of all the frills, the essence of any fundamentalism, fanaticism, dictatorship is   .....my way or no way, ...isn't it? 

Whether the aroma emanates from the bowels of

..Taliban/Al Queda,

...Saddaam's erstwhile Palaces,

...Christian Churches-Jesus the ONLY WAY,

..Hindutva,

..Buddha the ONLY WAY,

..Advaita the ONLY WAY..........

..Or the White House.

As did, 60 years ago, when the 1,000 year Reich was proclaimed,

As did 200 years back when the sun was not allowed to set on the British empire,

And as did, in the times of the Romans and the Sumerians.

Civilizations/empire building based on the ethos of intolerance, arise in time and vanish in time.

So will the current participants, hoping to defy history.

Natural hooplas.

Without a stake in any part of the hoopla, ............the hoopla is seen not as a conflict but a mere amusing spectacle.

 And the economy is almost always an issues. Free trade might improve things but does send money away from the country? (old issue, I know) And look at banks. With them, we can develope quickly, soldiers can be supplied with weopons even without the money but it automatically puts everyone into debt. The money after all, has to be repaid plus the interest but it is paid with taxes so the banks are essentially generating money.

Sure.

War is an extremely profitable business.As will be the current occupation.

 That itself may be depreciating the dollar since technically the only real money is the gold reserves. The alternatives are not so great either. Russian socialism tried to fix a number of problems and failed miserably, or as it really was, communism. Anyway the particulars are not important. My point is wisdom is anything but accepting every situation. And accepting every situation "as is" certainly is a flawed concept because you would have to know exactly what it is,

Ahaaa.

That's a good point.

Acceptance of the moment is to see the moment as it is.

Not as the viewing from behind the cocoon of your stake.

And when you see the moment as truly as it is, the spontaneous and totally appropriate response arises though you.

 and that would require that you haven't accepted it yet. Real wisdom may be to reject things sensibly.

A rejection, is just that the moment is not aligned with your "should/should-not" for the moment.

The 'should/should-not" is the personal stake.

Interesting theory but it seems to be the exact opposite of how I personally behave. If I have anything short of real wisdom I will go to MUCH greater lengths to correct that if I see necessary. But if I do have real wisom then my actions may be maticulously contrived, simply because I know it and there is little room for spontaneity.

Give an example of an event, incident, where you have acted from your independent volition.

Preferably the one which has deeply impacted your life.

And let's unravel that event, and your role in that.

By the way, what exactly is the difference between a pure and impure action. That seemed a little confusing.

There is really no difference.

Notionally, the action which has no stench of the personal stake, is conceptually being refered to as "pure".