Can you point out somewhere where he says that? Or demonstrate how one could directly interpret something he says as such?

Nobody told you art was easy

No, but they should have, because it is, when you're doing it. When you're in the 'flow', being creative, making art or making music, it's the easiest thing in the world. When you're not in the 'flow', it's bloody hard, if not impossible. I'm currently procrastinating on about five projects, including a couple for school, because I think it's too hard, even though I know that once I actually get into the groove, per se, it's easy. Simple, and easy, and 'natural', and at the same time, really hard. It's not a disanalogy at all.

M says knowledge is the only thing that isn't changing, right?

We're talking interpretations here, but, as I see it, the experience of knowledge doesn't change, but you as a human being change; you thus have to constantly revise your approach to knowledge.

Oh, it is a belief system. It's just that it's contradictory in a very specific kind of way, and thus shortcircuits rationality. Interestingly, there's a growing anti-rationality-as-a-good-in-and-of-itself literature. I'm not sure if you're familiar with John Ralston Saul and his ilk but the idea is Western culture socialises us to believe that science will solve all our problems, and rationality and efficiency are goods in and of themselves.

I'm halfway through reading a book called The Demoralization of Western Culture by R.W. Fevre, where he talks about western culture caught up in this idea of 'common sense', ie, the things we can see smell taste touch and hear, as being the only things that actually matter. If you can't prove that it exists using one of your senses then it doesn't exist. Unfortunately emotions, especially emotions like love, require acts of faith. In order to love someone you have to believe that they may be capable of returning that love. In order to feel empathy for a stranger on the street you have to believe that they are a human being too. Fevre proposes that the rise of common sense is the main reason why people aren't nice to each other any more, in general; why marriages last shorter and shorter times, etc. Common sense would have us believe that emotions don't exist. But that's foolish, because emotions quite clearly /do/ exist. But .. common sense is just so... sensible.

Zen is similar to Rawatism in that it could be interpreted as an attempt to shortcircuit rationality in a vaguely similar kind of way. I believe that most religions do necessarily involve a shortcircuit of rationality. The question is, is 'common sense' a religion? Is 'free-market capitalism' a religion?

If, as an ex-premie, your religion, or belief system, or whatever, is /not/ Rawatism, what is it? Are you totally free from belief systems? (I'd argue that being free of all belief systems is impossible). Is your new religion Rationalism? Objectivism? or possibly worse, Positivism? (the Positivist Church is a fascinating entity, 16th-18th century Europe IIRC, basically the Catholic Church but having replaced God with some idea of Humanity coupled with Science). Secular Humanism?