Does it matter or not?

[Laird]

For some people, everything should be in its right place, words are precious instruments to be used very carefully, and perfect concentration should be applied to every task that one embarks upon. These are the sort of people who have immaculate homes, who work diligently at their jobs and whose relationships are typically intimate.

For other people, it doesn't really matter what you do because in the end one thing is as good as another. These are the sort of people who throw rubbish out of their car windows, who laugh at social conventions, who experiment with drugs and who couldn't care less whether or not you like what they have to say.

So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and to place the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a perfect one, or is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

I have my own opinion on this but I'd like to read other people's opinions.

[rpl]

How does the belief that everything is the way it was meant to be, help me?

It doesn't. I believe I have control over my life and therefore I can accomplish almost anything I set my mind on!

In the ultimate sense, whether I believe this or not, is for the most part irrelevant and doesn't help me in my life, and that's the way it was meant to be (...because it is...)!

[Steven Coyle]

Perfection, as an ideal, is only attainable in contrast to something else. Though paradoxically, since Reality is everything, it is fair to say that Reality is ultimately already perfect. Though, in order to really perceive this, one must first be able to perceive Reality, in order to separate the ideal from its truer spiritual form, in order to separate the non-dual from duality.

It's illogical to believe that one has the ability to freely perfect actions which span infinitely in all directions ("What is ultimately perfect?"). Though, being uncaused, a wise person is unbound in their actions. Being uncaused, a wise person's mind is at one with their environment. Only in this sense, can a person's actions be perfect - as Reality itself is ultimately already perfect.

[brokenhead]

So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and to place the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a perfect one

That is being anal-retentive.

[Or] is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

Yes, God's plan will unfold. No, active attempts are not futile. We are a part of that unfolding. Our cares, our worries, our actions, do not affect Alpha Centaurians; they barely affect those around us many times, and the effects they do have are often not what we would want.

words are precious instruments to be used very carefully

You should be aware that your words do have consequences, frequently unintended ones, so it is wise to choose them as carefully as possible.

These are the sort of people who throw rubbish out of their car windows, who laugh at social conventions, who experiment with drugs and who couldn't care less whether or not you like what they have to say.

People who throw rubbish out their car windows are pigs, plain and simple. As for social conventions, I tend to adhere to them as far as I am able to laugh at them. The more seriously people take them, or the more affronted they become when the conventions are circumvented, the less likely I am to let them guide my behavior. They are there for us, not we for them. I have experimented with drugs, but I don't see how this falls into the continuum you are trying to draw here, Laird. But as for your last point, whether I care that people like what I have to say, I would have to say it is a secondary consideration. You have to be able to say the right thing, and there is no guarantee that it will be comforting for other to hear. I deplore people who lack tact, however, and think that by being "blunt" they are somehow being truthful where others would not be. Such people are, in fact, blunt, i.e., not sharp, dull like hammers.

[Carl G]

Delusion causes suffering. Logic has the ability to reduce delusion. Logic requires precision of thought and perception. Therefore the effort to be precise (to work towards perfection) is, for those able and willing, worth it.

[rpl]

Has anyone noticed how repetitive this place gets...

I'm gonna take up a few hobbies, maybe it'll help. Heh.

[Jamesh]

Delusion causes suffering.

I would rephrase this to say that mental delusion is an circumstance that may cause significant suffering of the type that would otherwise be avoidable.

Having little delusion does not preclude suffering. In fact suffering is essential to change, and change is essential to being - enlightened or not.

[DHodges]

Has anyone noticed how repetitive this place gets...

You haven't even been here that long.
The important points discussed here were mostly covered by Nagarjuna around 200 CE, if not earlier.

[rpl]

Nagarjuna (c. 150-250): http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htm

You haven't even been here that long.

I found this place about 1yr. ago. It's disappointing... learning about one's shortcoming and so on.

[Carl G]

Delusion causes suffering.

I would rephrase this to say that mental delusion is an circumstance that may cause significant suffering of the type that would otherwise be avoidable.

Having little delusion does not preclude suffering. In fact suffering is essential to change, and change is essential to being - enlightened or not.

"Only conscious suffering has any sense." G.I. Gurdjieff

[rpl]

Yes, sometimes the line between conscious and unconscious can seem very fine...

[brokenhead]

I found this place about 1yr. ago. It's disappointing... learning about one's shortcoming and so on

Shortcoming? Singular, not plural?

[Jehu]

So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and to place the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a perfect one, or is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

I have my own opinion on this but I'd like to read other people's opinions.

Neither of these two approaches accurately represents the enlightened view, but I think that you are well aware of that. The actions of an enlightened being cannot be so easily described, for an enlightened one must be free to do whatever is appropriate in a given situation; that is to say, they must be free to function in accordance with their true nature, as authentic human beings. Unfortunately, there can be no guidelines for such a being, and only those who’s actions are completely without motive, can function appropriately.

[Laird]

How does the belief that everything is the way it was meant to be, help me?

It might liberate you from the qualms that you might otherwise suffer over engaging in acts that you would otherwise view as morally reprehensible. And liberation is one of the qualities of enlightenment.

Steven Coyle, you asked "What is ultimately perfect?" in parentheses and yet earlier you had already answered that question: "Reality is ultimately already perfect". I don't understand why you asked that question. You also wrote (emphasis mine): "Though, being uncaused, a wise person is unbound in their actions." In what sense is a wise person uncaused as opposed to an unwise person?

I have experimented with drugs, but I don't see how this falls into the continuum you are trying to draw here, Laird.

I'm trying to draw a continuum between people who care about consequences and those who do not. Drugs can be and often are dangerous, so it takes a certain degree of lack of concern for consequences to experiment with them.

Therefore the effort to be precise (to work towards perfection) is, for those able and willing, worth it.

Isn't, as Steven Coyle argued, reality already perfect, and you being a part of reality, aren't you already perfect too?

Has anyone noticed how repetitive this place gets...

Sure. There's enough variety to keep a chap interested though, especially if he makes a contribution - that way he gets to direct the conversation into areas that he finds interesting.

Having little delusion does not preclude suffering.

100% in agreement with you on that one James. It needed to be said.

[O]nly those who’s actions are completely without motive, can function appropriately [as enlightened beings].

I can't conceive of an action "completely without a motive". Isn't there always an answer to the question "Why did you do that?" regardless of whether you are enlightened or not? In any case though, you seem to being saying something similar to Steven Coyle, who wrote that the wise person is "uncaused".

[Carl G]

Carl G:Therefore the effort to be precise (to work towards perfection) is, for those able and willing, worth it.

Laird: Isn't, as Steven Coyle argued, reality already perfect, and you being a part of reality, aren't you already perfect too?

A perfect idiot, maybe. But perhaps the idiot wishes to become more.

Maybe the perfect seed can exercise its potential to sprout. In the case of humans, this awakening requires effort.

[Jamesh]

or is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

"Attempting to direct progress" is akin to attempting to enhance and maintain levels of happiness.

I tend to agree with what this dude says.

In Praise of Melancholy

[Carl G]

Wanton acceptance is a defeatist attitude that smacks of laxness of spirit.

[Steven Coyle]

Steven Coyle, you asked "What is ultimately perfect?" in parentheses and yet earlier you had already answered that question: "Reality is ultimately already perfect". I don't understand why you asked that question. You also wrote (emphasis mine): "Though, being uncaused, a wise person is unbound in their actions." In what sense is a wise person uncaused as opposed to an unwise person?

Laird,

A wise person is simply aware of their true nature, whereas another is ignorant. I drew attention to "What is ultimately perfect?", as many still believe in an illusory free will which would enable them to perfect their own actions. When the truer case is that in order to perfect themselves spiritually, they would really need to understand their uncaused nature.

[Laird]

"Attempting to direct progress" is akin to attempting to enhance and maintain levels of happiness.

Spoken like an anarchist. Do you then think that we should abolish all forms of governance? One of the functions of government is directing progress. What you say is ironic considering that - as far as I know - you work for a government organisation.

I tend to agree with what this dude says.

In Praise of Melancholy

Yeah, great article. I sometimes think that it's a sin to walk around with a smile on my face when there are people on the other side of the world with empty bellies; people in third world countries in extreme, intractable poverty; people being violently oppressed by brutal military regimes; irreplaceable rainforests being chopped down at the rate of football fields per minute or whatever the statistic is; need I go on? There are so many reasons to be melancholic. And then I think: but how does my being depressed help to change any of those things? And wouldn't the people in dire straits give anything to have the chance to be happy, and isn't it disrespectful of me to then throw away my own chance at happiness given that those people would damn well make the most of it? So I dunno, I mean, sure, it's very human to be deeply disturbed by a lot of the state of the world, but at the same time: I don't think that we who have the opportunity to experience well-being should simply throw it away on depression - it's hard to make a positive difference when you're in the depths of depression.

When the truer case is that in order to perfect themselves spiritually, they would really need to understand their uncaused nature.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "uncaused" nature. Do you or don't you subscribe to determinism? If you do, then surely nothing is uncaused? If you don't, well then I'm very interested to know what you do believe in.

[Jehu]

Laird wrote:

I can't conceive of an action "completely without a motive". Isn't there always an answer to the question "Why did you do that?" regardless of whether you are enlightened or not? In any case though, you seem to being saying something similar to Steven Coyle, who wrote that the wise person is "uncaused".

If a child runs by you and falls, do you not pick it up and console it? Does this action require a motive? Surely we do not need to think the matter over, in order to know what must be done. No, the enlightened ones do without ‘doing anything’, that is to say, they have no goal in mind, nor are they trying to accomplish anything - beyond the fulfilment of their function as a human beings.

[Laird]

If a child runs by you and falls, do you not pick it up and console it?

That or something similar, sure.

Does this action require a motive?

As I wrote previously, I can't conceive of an action without a motive. The motive for this action would be to ease the suffering of another (more vulnerable) human being.

Surely we do not need to think the matter over, in order to know what must be done. No, the enlightened ones do without ‘doing anything’, that is to say, they have no goal in mind, nor are they trying to accomplish anything - beyond the fulfilment of their function as a human beings.

Well sure, they act automatically and without thinking because there is nothing blocking their recognition of the right action for the right circumstances, but they nevertheless have a motive - it's just that their motive is always the correct/noble/righteous/appropriate/compassionate one.

[Steven Coyle]

Steven: When the truer case is that in order to perfect themselves spiritually, they would really need to understand their uncaused nature.

Laird: I'm still not sure what you mean by "uncaused" nature. Do you or don't you subscribe to determinism? If you do, then surely nothing is uncaused? If you don't, well then I'm very interested to know what you do believe in.

Spanning back to infinity, and back again, one finds a series of events. What to call these things? Since it is incomprehensible (to think it possible) to create something out of nothing (unless we include a good ham and cheese omelet), these events are "uncaused" -- without cause. Now, in the case of the tasty omelet, and virtually anything else in our Universe, our minds are still able to draw reference points... and it is here that we locate our good friend, "causality" - those illusory mental boundaries of time and space. The enlightened person's actions, along with everything else in the Universe, are at one with this deterministic principle. The difference being, some are aware of its unity, while some are ignorant of it.

[Laird]

Steven: thanks, I understand what you mean now. I just have one question. You wrote:

The enlightened person's actions, along with everything else in the Universe, are at one with this deterministic principle.

What does it mean to "be at one" with this deterministic principle? This sounds hand-wavingly vague to me. I'm querying you about both the attitude and the practical behavioural consequences of this being-at-oneness, and how an enlightened person's being-at-oneness is describably different to an unenlightened person's lack of being-at-oneness.

[Steven Coyle]

Steven: The enlightened person's actions, along with everything else in the Universe, are at one with this deterministic principle.

Laird: What does it mean to "be at one" with this deterministic principle? This sounds hand-wavingly vague to me. I'm querying you about both the attitude and the practical behavioural consequences of this being-at-oneness, and how an enlightened person's being-at-oneness is describably different to an unenlightened person's lack of being-at-oneness.

To paraphrase Hakuin, it is to "have died the Great Death"; to be "one with everything" in its Nirvanic nature. An unenlightened person is still under the spell of Maya, still viewing the world through their ego. Both are paradoxically still expressing their Buddha Nature, while one is consciously aware of it, and another is blinded to it by an egocentric vantage point.

[Laird]

Both are paradoxically still expressing their Buddha Nature, while one is consciously aware of it, and another is blinded to it by an egocentric vantage point.

If they both the enlightened and unenlightened are expressing their Buddha Nature, then what's the big deal about enlightenment?