If I have a sense of the goal, then everything else that I do – Sīla, Samādhi, and Pañña – should fit in. If I don’t have a sense of what I think the Buddha might have realized, and I do practices that don’t have that aim in mind, and aren’t informed by that aim, I can do things which are pleasing, but they can be hit and miss, and they aren’t understood fully, and then my practice can be very “hit and miss”: sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t work. So when people say to me “I don’t want to get enlightened, I just want to get a bit happier”, I don’t think that’s a good idea. I do think it’s a good idea to be happier. But to not try to pick up at least what the Buddha might have realized, to not have a sense of that, then I think one can’t understand why he taught what he taught. And he taught what he taught, because of his enlightenment, right? He didn’t teach an abstract philosophical theory.