Is This Reality Perfect?

[froebellian]

Originally Posted by Gem

Sorry DS, I simply can't read with all underlines jumping out at me.

Glad I'm not alone. I think Gem is being polite as in we don't need anything underlined and it's like someone using BLOCK CAPITALS unnecessarily. We can figure out what we need to read if we so wish without anything underlined.

TL;DR...I don't read posts with underlining, no paragraphs, too many emojis

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by WabiSabi

If a person wears an emotional mask in public, so that they don't appear to others as they actually feel internally, many would call them inauthentic. But I think that's silly. After all, what is making the decision to wear that mask? Their ego is. And so their ego is being authentic in that it is making an authentic decision to don that mask. The donning of that mask is part of that person's authentic ego, as their ego is of the type that would wear a mask in public for whatever reason. The whole notion that anyone can be anything other than authentic is a farce. But at the SAME time, if someone judges such a person as inauthentic for wearing a mask, that person's judgement is not a mistake, as such a judgement is an authentic decision of their own ego.

The murderer did nothing wrong, but neither did the men who imprisoned him. All is as it should be.

The 'issue' of 'authenticity' is not quite as straightforward as you put it, not in my eyes at least, WabiSabi.

As 'intelligence' evolves to higher and higher levels of 'adeptitude', it becomes more and more capable of 'deception' - whereby beings (egos?) put 'on' an 'act' so as to appear to be something they are not for 'devious' (meaning 'hidden') purposes.

Unlike 'simple' animals who are always 'authentic' no matter what, people are not only quite capable of, and so quite often do, deceive others, i.e. 'lie' to them, like proverbial 'salesman', for selfish gain, and so one might say they are being 'authentically' 'deceiving'. But the human capacity for 'rationalization' and exercise of logic based on selected truths/axioms is so great they can also deceive themselves, i.e. not just 'pretend' to be what they are not, but also believe their own 'lies' in this or that 'selfish' regard.

While often to one degree or another knowing (in 'conscience') that they are doing so, they are capable of repressing said knowledge - relegating it to 'unconsciousnness' - and so many do so for a variety of not all equally 'honorable' purposes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_repression

People may have different degrees of 'authenticity' or 'integrity' therefore, ranging from 'authentic' 'bad-guys' to 'inauthentic' (in the sense of not 'acknowledging' what the true nature of their motives and behaviors is) hypocrites, who often don't 'know' that that's what they really are - and will so far as to try to 'denigrate' or even 'kill' others who 'face' them with the 'truth' in order to maintain their pretenses and think 'well' of themselves no matter what.

In this sense, they lack (what I call) 'integrity' and so are 'imperfect' - again, in this quite significant (IMO) sense.

Rightly or wrongly (in terms of 'accuracy' of 'truth perception'), I think, feel and believe your notions of 'perception' may well be inauthentically papering over some of Life's real 'problems' - real in the sense of requiring that one 'solve' dilemmas, or fail to (it's not all about 'winning'!), which one inevitably encounters and experiences both in relation to one's 'self' and in relation to others, if one is to be authentically honest in terms of the real 'truth'.

Nothing is ever completely 'black' of 'white' in this regard, however. For what said perception may be worth to you, I 'see' you as 'dancing' around the 'issue' or perfection-vs-imperfection instead of confronting it in order to maintain your chosen, everything/everyone-is-just-hunky-dory-[b]as-is[/], positionality that Life ('Reality'?) is 'perfect'.

Please know that, despite my above 'tweaking' (of you), this is in the interest of deepening the conversation, which I certainly don't think I have the 'last word' on. I very much appreciate the level at which you are engaging with the 'issues' involved. You thoughts in said regard are deeply (in the best sense of the word) provocative. Thank you.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by froebellian

Glad I'm not alone. I think Gem is being polite as in we don't need anything underlined and it's like someone using BLOCK CAPITALS unnecessarily. We can figure out what we need to read if we so wish without anything underlined.

TL;DR...I don't read posts with underlining, no paragraphs, too many emojis

Please try to register the fact I 'write' my kind of word-art for my purposes - including what 'joyfuly' excites 'me' - not to 'suit' yours or anyone else's Froe-be.

Don't read my stuff by all means. I am only interested in engaging with peeps who, for whatever reason, are 'attracted' to doing so and, therefore actually choose/decide to.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by froebellian

Glad I'm not alone. I think Gem is being polite as in we don't need anything underlined and it's like someone using BLOCK CAPITALS unnecessarily. We can figure out what we need to read if we so wish without anything underlined.

TL;DR...I don't read posts with underlining, no paragraphs, too many emojis

P.S. Frobellian - I accept that you think and assert that you can 'figure out' what I mean without my use of underlines, etc. I which case my response is why don't you then just do so - by simply ignoring my underlines, etc.?

I hope (though I do not actually believe) that you can and so will 'see' the implication of your "communicate in the manner that I wish you to, or else I won't 'listen' to you" message.

You have a long way (yet!) to go in this regard. in my underlined opinion, smug-bro!

Gem ... if you can 'hear' what I am saying, take note.

[davidsun]

Frobellian and Gem - come out and play , that is if you really want to!

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by WabiSabi

You didn't come across as such, I was just using your words as an example. I didn't mean to imply that you were making any sort of mistake either. What I was trying to get across was that people who stop their quest at knowledge, who don't seek to experience for themselves, no matter how many they are, are not making a mistake but are being true to themselves. If I then judge them as complacent because they refuse to go beyond mere knowledge, I am making the mistake of not realizing that they are doing just as they should. My judgement is misplaced and born out of ignorance. And yet, my judgement is not actually a mistake, because in judging them I am then being true to my personality that is making the judgement. Do you see what I mean?

If I, as an individual, came to the intellectual conclusion that I am one with everything but decided to leave it there and not try and experience such a reality for myself, I am not making a mistake. All that means is that my personality/ego wasn't going to go down that path. On the flip side, if I came to such an intellectual conclusion, and such a conclusion spurred me on to experience that conclusion personally, then that simply means that my personality/ego was of the type to do such a thing.

If a person wears an emotional mask in public, so that they don't appear to others as they actually feel internally, many would call them inauthentic. But I think that's silly. After all, what is making the decision to wear that mask? Their ego is. And so their ego is being authentic in that it is making an authentic decision to don that mask. The donning of that mask is part of that person's authentic ego, as their ego is of the type that would wear a mask in public for whatever reason. The whole notion that anyone can be anything other than authentic is a farce. But at the SAME time, if someone judges such a person as inauthentic for wearing a mask, that person's judgement is not a mistake, as such a judgement is an authentic decision of their own ego.

The murderer did nothing wrong, but neither did the men who imprisoned him. All is as it should be.

Hi WabiSabi

Are you by any chance depressed? FWIW many people have experiences of perfection, but I think it's wrong to think you can do away with notions of right and wrong, or urge fatalism. I urge you not to become so obsessed or intellectualize a couple of experiences into what you have done - FWIW.

BT

[WabiSabi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

The 'issue' of 'authenticity' is not quite as straightforward as you put it, not in my eyes at least, WabiSabi.

As 'intelligence' evolves to higher and higher levels of 'adeptitude', it becomes more and more capable of 'deception' - whereby beings (egos?) put 'on' an 'act' so as to appear to be something they are not for 'devious' (meaning 'hidden') purposes.

Unlike 'simple' animals who are always 'authentic' no matter what, people are not only quite capable of, and so quite often do, deceive others, i.e. 'lie' to them, like proverbial 'salesman', for selfish gain, and so one might say they are being 'authentically' 'deceiving'. But the human capacity for 'rationalization' and exercise of logic based on selected truths/axioms is so great they can also deceive themselves, i.e. not just 'pretend' to be what they are not, but also believe their own 'lies' in this or that 'selfish' regard.

While often to one degree or another knowing (in 'conscience') that they are doing so, they are capable of repressing said knowledge - relegating it to 'unconsciousnness' - and so many do so for a variety of not all equally 'honorable' purposes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_repression

People may have different degrees of 'authenticity' or 'integrity' therefore, ranging from 'authentic' 'bad-guys' to 'inauthentic' (in the sense of not 'acknowledging' what the true nature of their motives and behaviors is) hypocrites, who often don't 'know' that that's what they really are - and will so far as to try to 'denigrate' or even 'kill' others who 'face' them with the 'truth' in order to maintain their pretenses and think 'well' of themselves no matter what.

In this sense, they lack (what I call) 'integrity' and so are 'imperfect' - again, in this quite significant (IMO) sense.

Rightly or wrongly (in terms of 'accuracy' of 'truth perception'), I think, feel and believe your notions of 'perception' may well be inauthentically papering over some of Life's real 'problems' - real in the sense of requiring that one 'solve' dilemmas, or fail to (it's not all about 'winning'!), which one inevitably encounters and experiences both in relation to one's 'self' and in relation to others, if one is to be authentically honest in terms of the real 'truth'.

Nothing is ever completely 'black' of 'white' in this regard, however. For what said perception may be worth to you, I 'see' you as 'dancing' around the 'issue' or perfection-vs-imperfection instead of confronting it in order to maintain your chosen, everything/everyone-is-just-hunky-dory-[b]as-is[/], positionality that Life ('Reality'?) is 'perfect'.

Please know that, despite my above 'tweaking' (of you), this is in the interest of deepening the conversation, which I certainly don't think I have the 'last word' on. I very much appreciate the level at which you are engaging with the 'issues' involved. You thoughts in said regard are deeply (in the best sense of the word) provocative. Thank you.

Thanks for the reply! I completely understand what you are saying, but as is so often the case, I think that we are simply not on the same page.

Let us say that a person (or should we say their ego?) deceives another person. Many people would call this person inauthentic because they were not being truthful. I would argue that they are being authentic in that they are being true to what their ego desires. Now I am NOT saying that this sort of authenticity is a morally 'good' thing, simply that it is a thing. As you said, animals are authentic and can't be anything but authentic. It is common for animals of many different species to kill the young of either their own species or other species whether for food or because of competition. Now this sort of behavior is something that most humans would find morally reprehensible, and yet the animal is just being true to its nature. So we can then determine that authenticity and, say, righteousness are not the same thing.

So then let us say that a person's ego deceives itself into thinking that it is doing a righteous thing when it clearly is not. The ego probably knows that it is not being righteous, but has repressed that knowledge. You are saying that said ego is not being authentic. I don't believe that is true. First, the ego has to be as it is at the time of decision, and it got there by being born and raised as it was, and living as it did. These experiences shaped the ego. And then, at the time of the decision, there were probably many environmental factors that affected decision making. In any case, I believe that if you could simulate this ego throughout its life up until the decision to delude itself, and you made sure that all of the variables were exactly the same, the ego would make the same decision every single time. In essence, I see the ego as a sort of automated process that acts and reacts based on internal and external variables.

I personally believe that the ego is a natural occurrence, and the ego's thoughts and emotions and decisions and actions all flow naturally, in the same way that a river flows according to the laws of physics. Can a river be inauthentic? I don't believe it can, and in the same vein I don't believe that an ego can ever be inauthentic.

I believe these things because I have experienced reality as such. I have had experiences of disassociation, where I cease associating with my ego, and instead associate with my awareness that observes and experiences the ego. When this happens, I become infinite and all-inclusive. I cease being a human being, and instead the human being that I was exists within 'me'. But the funny thing is that when this happens, my ego does not stop. It continues to think, to emote, to make decisions and causes the body to perform actions. The first time this happened to me, I was driving a car; and during the experience I was no longer driving the car but experiencing myself as all that is. And yet my body and ego continued to perform just as I would have had I never left. These experiences have led me (and by me, I definitely mean my ego) to believe that the ego itself is automated in a sense. That all of the ego's thoughts and emotions and decisions are not a matter of free will but of cause and effect.

This is not to discount the opposite view. I believe in both free will AND the notion that free will does not exist. I think it's a matter of perspective and association. So long as I am associated with my ego, I have free will. I make decisions and stuff. Of course that is the case, because the ego is what is making decisions, and so long as I am associated with it (i.e. I think I am my ego) then it will be me making those decisions. But if instead I associate myself with my awareness, the ego continues doing its thing as though I have never left.

Onto the notion of imperfection. I am fine with the term imperfection, but I think that it needs to be realized that such imperfection is still a part of the completeness that is Absolute Reality. The infinite completeness of Absolute Reality that I spoke of before is, to me, perfection. It is perfection because it is the Ultimate, and you cannot go beyond it. Anything beyond it is still within it. It is complete. I don't think that a perfect whole can be comprised of imperfect parts, so therefor I cannot see imperfection as imperfection, but as varieties of perfection that fit perfectly right where they are. That is not to say that change cannot or should not happen. If change happens, it is perfect change. If change does not happen, then it is still perfect. This is because no matter what it is always a part of the whole.

I do truly believe that this world is perfect, but such belief arises from my associations with my awareness. My ego on the other hand still embraces notions of imperfection. I mean, if my ego truly bought into what I am describing here, I'd probably just eat ice cream till I die. But I don't. I still try to eat healthy. I still try to not do bad things. I realize that I am not a paragon of virtue, that I have 'problems'. And I try and change those problems so that I can be a better human being. But is it really me doing those things, or my ego? See, when I associate with my awareness, my ego continues to do these things. When I associate with my ego, it is me doing these things. The notion of 'me' follows my association. Whatever I associate with, I am there.

So where to go from here? Let's look at more imperfection. War. War is a bad thing, so says my ego. War causes great suffering, it is a blight, it is an imperfection. So let's say that collectively, the human race on the planet Earth achieves world peace. Yay! No more war. We are that much closer to perfection, right? I don't believe that. In the infinite universe there is infinite war. You can travel the universe and bring peace as much as you want, but there will always be war. Why? Because this universe requires balance, and in order to have infinite wisdom there must also be infinite ignorance. In order to have infinite peace, there must also exist infinite suffering. Reality is polarized in this way. So we can label things as imperfect all we want, we can't actual make them go away for good.

So what is there to do when you realize that there is no end to suffering, that there is no end to imperfection? Well there are a few options. One of them is to combat infinite suffering with infinite compassion, the path of a Bodhisattva. Another option is to realize that peace and suffering exist side-by-side and then accept all things as they are and disassociate into reality, Nirvana.

Well anyways, that was a long-winded response. Hopefully I didn't miss anything.

Originally Posted by davidsun

Nothing is ever completely 'black' of 'white' in this regard, however. For what said perception may be worth to you, I 'see' you as 'dancing' around the 'issue' or perfection-vs-imperfection instead of confronting it in order to maintain your chosen, everything/everyone-is-just-hunky-dory-[b]as-is[/], positionality that Life ('Reality'?) is 'perfect'.

One last thing, in response to this part here. Everything is hunky-dory, yes, but that includes thinking that things aren't hunky-dory. So if a person sees themselves as imperfect and decides to change, that is both an authentic decision of their ego as well as perfection. If a person is a narcissist and hypocrite and doesn't realize they are a hypocrite, that too is authentic (in that their ego was not developed in a way that would be self-aware of hypocrisy) and perfection (it is a part of the whole). If then a person comes along who is God-fearing and believes they are righteous and tells the hypocrite that they are going to burn in Hell for their sins, they are still being authentic and perfect. Perhaps those words were the tipping point, and the hypocrite decides to become a Christian and turn his life around, and then preach about how it was the best decisions he's ever made and that he is happy as a result, and then helps orphaned kids in developing countries find homes. Or perhaps a person who is on the wrong path and turns to drugs and ends up overdosing and dying at home didn't end up killing a child because he was driving while intoxicated. Then said child ends up making huge changes in the world such as curing some disease or other.

I am not saying I know such things to be true. What I AM saying is that we should never forget that we are not and cannot be separate from this universe. We are fundamentally of this universe, everything from our pinkie toe to our pettiest desires. We may see so many things around us that we want to label as bad and imperfect, but never forget that an ant sees a pile of sand as a mountain. Never forget that we are of this universe, and that the universe operates through us and all other things.

[WabiSabi]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Hi WabiSabi

Are you by any chance depressed? FWIW many people have experiences of perfection, but I think it's wrong to think you can do away with notions of right and wrong, or urge fatalism. I urge you not to become so obsessed or intellectualize a couple of experiences into what you have done - FWIW.

BT

Haha, that's a good question. To be honest, I don't know. What is depression? What does it feel like? I only know how I feel, but I have nothing but my own feelings to compare it to. Right now I am not the happiest I have ever been, but I am also not the saddest I have ever been. Is that depression?

I am not doing away with right and wrong, because notions of right and wrong are part of the perfection of reality. If I were to discount notions of right and wrong as incorrect, then I would be discounting something that is fundamentally of this world. And that would be quite hypocritical, now wouldn't it? I am also not promoting fatalism as I believe in free will.

There was a story I heard, though I don't remember where I heard it. But it was about some Zen master I think. It goes like this:

"A young Christian man who had absolute faith in God as a personal creator asked the Zen master whether God exists. The Zen master replied that God did not exist. Another young man, this one an Atheist who had absolute faith that the universe was solely material, asked the Zen master whether God exists. The Zen master replied that God did exist."

It may seem that I am telling people that it is okay to be mean or destructive, but that is not the case. All I am trying to do is allude to the true nature of that which Absolute.

[davidsun]

What you say sounds (to me like it is) fully ex-peer-ienced. Whatever ... I think it is extremely well thought out and articulated, WabiSabi. This will have to do for a 'zen-bow' icon ('bow' as in bowing one's head-n-torso in a gesture of honoring).

Originally Posted by WabiSabi

I do truly believe that this world is perfect, but such belief arises from my associations with my awareness. My ego on the other hand still embraces notions of imperfection. I mean, if my ego truly bought into what I am describing here, I'd probably just eat ice cream till I die. But I don't. I still try to eat healthy. I still try to not do bad things. I realize that I am not a paragon of virtue, that I have 'problems'. And I try and change those problems so that I can be a better human being. But is it really me doing those things, or my ego? See, when I associate with my awareness, my ego continues to do these things. When I associate with my ego, it is me doing these things. The notion of 'me' follows my association. Whatever I associate with, I am there.

Your putting "I mean, if my ego truly bought into what I am describing here, I'd probably just eat ice cream till I die." in there was a 'cherry on top' ex-peer-ience for me.

Much to think about. All that comes to me to say at this point is that I think a person who is conscious of being 'hypocritical' in effect 'hears' 'the voice' of his or her 'conscience'. [Con = all; Science = knowledge]. His or her 'ego' is then aware of having a choice in said regard, a choice which, depending on what he or she chooses, will result in either a (consciously?) 'more' authentic or (consciously?) 'less' authentic integration of said person's 'ego' with THE FLOW of (all) BEING. The 'quality' (for want of a better word) of said person's experience and expression will therefore be 'better' (in the sense of 'more' 'truly' reflecting and channeling the essential nature (THE ESSENCE) of said BEING. Or something like that, methinks. The river [of LIFE] flows towards and eventually merges into the ocean [of LIFE] because their is a 'gradient' in said regard. The 'ground' is this regard is not 'flat' - or else the phenom we 'see' as 'evolution' would have no 'directional' pull (or push! - I have often thought of my 'self' as being 'kicked' bass-ackwards 'into' 'heaven' ) There would be no 'reason' to do anything other than repeat the pattern of one's 'ego' configuration forever otherwise.

Do you 'see' what I 'see' in this regard as 'explaining' your own and others' respective 'moralities', such as they are, I wonder?

[happy soul]

Originally Posted by WabiSabi

I was just curious to hear people's thoughts on the matter of whether or not this reality is inherently perfect.

It seems to me that a lot of religious or "spiritual" people that I have talked to firmly believe that this reality is imperfect, that it is not the way that it should be, and that things need to change in order for there to be some sort of harmony or resolution to "God's Plan". Most of these people believe that a majority of the population are "asleep" to Truth, and that by "waking up" the world will become a better place.

However, numerous teachings as well as my own experiences lead me to believe that this reality is perfectly patterned, and that all is as it should be. That nothing need be achieved, and that the world is already perfect. That there is already balance and harmony within that which is Absolute. That all action to make the world a better place is simply changes in a pattern that has always been and will always be complete.

Thanks for your time!

I agree. Everything is happening perfectly. All is as it should be. Every experience and choice is the highest good.

The divine plan is for ALL GOOD THINGS to be. God wants us to FULLY experience love, joy, and all good things.

But without all 'bad' things, there couldn't be all good things. Without anger, there couldn't be forgiveness; without sickness, there wouldn't be such a thing as healing; without ignorance, there couldn't be learning; without the illusion of separation, there'd be no journey back to God. Without ALL POSSIBILITIES, we couldn't fully experience all good things.

Does this mean it's okay to do wrong? No, because there's the RELATIVE. In the ABSOLUTE sense, every choice is perfect. But RELATIVELY speaking, there is such a thing as imperfection and badness.

The law of karma (what you give, you receive, multiplied), is simply what works, never punishment. It's best for everyone, even for those who do wrong. It's 'utilitarian' justice, not 'retributivist'.