Ah, did you aim for the “standard discussion format”? I was never good at following the formal rules :D My opening statement was sort of a reply to your opening statement (read was inspired by). Anyway, I’ll try to properly address the points you’ve raised ;) For now, I’ll reply to you latest reply.

First, I’d like to clarify that when I use examples from Eastern spiritual traditions, they are only examples. Enlightenment is enlightenment whether it’s Eastern or Western. The resulting realizations must match since the underlying reality to realize is the same and has nothing to do with culture. Similarly, I used Hinduism only as an example of a system that, although mindbogglingly twisted and misinterpreted, which already Buddha realized, still has the key components needed for said realization intact (together with core premises, which Abrahamic tradition contains but also “explains away”).

Second, when I say that one has to embrace all four cardinal directions of a path to knowledge, I don’t mean mastery in the sense you seem to imply. I simply mean that a philosopher who never seriously meditates, who’s life is a mess and in shambles, and who cannot accept the only absolute in the relative world of phenomena (aka death), cannot hope to know the truth. And the same is equally true for a consigned believer who never questions his beliefs, mindlessly goes through the ritual motions, and his life is in no way in a better shape than the life of the philosopher from the first example. The same dynamic also explains why there are more psychonauts who rely solely on psychoactive substances that end up as crazy wrecks instead enlightened sages.

I’d also like to set the record straight in regard to “zombie sage”. As you said, the common expectation is an always blissed-out individual lacking any motivation whatsoever. This romanticized image is also at the root of the most common argument I’ve ever heard coming from people who outright reject the pursuit of absolute truth (“What’s the purpose of it, if it just turns me into an indifferent zombie?”). Of course, the doubt about genuineness of the bliss is then more than just. You seem to contrast this image with what I would call the image of “spiritual warrior”.

Now, while the image of “spiritual warrior” is more or less based in reality, it’s also firmly established in dualism. And dualism is the home turf of conflict. The same conflict that induces desire for equilibrium, return to homeostasis. And the image of “zombie sage” is obviously living within the confines of the same dualism. Thus, it seems as if you are trying to pit yin and yang against each other and choose one from the two.

Of course, you can argue that reality is, indeed, dual in its true nature and that’s that, to which I can only reply that to make up one’s mind one really has to see the “matrix” for oneself. By which I mean, that one has to see yin and yang as Tao, or that one has to realize that children of men are the children of God. There is really not much more one can say about it. But rest assured, the perceived duality does not disappear. The universe will continue the same as before, only the focus shifts. Then again, that shift makes the whole world of difference.

So, to answer your question, your dilemma is kind of false dichotomy. Then again, all dichotomies are false even though they are all real.