Better to be truly real than falsely perfect

Back in my super-devoted Radha Soami Satsang Beas days, I used to love the Hindi word "sat." It means truth, with an additional connotation of perfection.

In Sant Mat "sat" gets used a lot. Sant itself means "one who knows the truth," such as a saint. Then there's satguru (true and perfect guide), satsang (true company or association), sat nam (true name), and other sat-based terms.

Sat, sat, sat. The sound of the word has a pleasing emphatic ring to it. It reminds me of the movie "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring." My bloggish review of it included:

When the world would become too much with him, the young monk would sit before a stone Buddha and rapidly strike a piece of wood with a stick. Clap, clap, clap, clap. A percussive mantra. Listen to the sound of one stick clapping and all else fades away.

But this assumes that when the world is too much with us – for the monk, that included having a lustful thought when an attractive girl visited his island retreat – something is wrong. There's been a departure from some ideal perfect truthful state: sat.

I'm now becoming a lot more comfortable with reality as it is.

When I was in my sat-obsessed phase, that longing for a transcendent unchanging Truth, unmixed with any hint of earthly imperfection, would carry over into my everyday life. It'd bother me when I failed to be as perfect as I felt I should be.

Religions are big on "should be's." Radha Soami Satsang Beas was no exception. There was a right way to give satsang (basically, a sermon or talk). There was a right way to show devotion to the satguru. There was a right way to behave as a satsangi (initiate).

All this emphasis on right ways and wrong ways tended to make devotees rigid, uptight, and overly self-critical. I didn't go as far in this direction as some, but I still had some excessively perfectionist tendencies.

It's a relief now to get real. "Perfect" is a concept, as is "Truth" with a capital "T." You never see either thought creature in the wild. They don't appear in this world, where everything and everyone changes daily, hourly, minutely, moment to moment'ly.

The satguru would make a mistake. True believers would rationalize, "The guru doesn't manifest his perfection on the worldly plane, only in his spiritual radiant form." OK. But I'm here in my physical form, observing the guru's physical form.

The notion of a transcendent realm of immutable perfection has a long history and is still very much with us in the guise of the world's religions.

However, many ideas don't reflect reality. Just because we can think "perfect" doesn't mean it exists outside of our own mind (I can think "cake" without having a real one in front of me).

Yesterday I engaged in my normal habit of fumbling my way through the day.

After chatting with an acquaintance in my athletic club's locker room, I realized that I'd probably told him the same witty observation the last time we talked. Trying to phone in a prescription refill, I reached a woman who responded to my "Is this the pharmacy?" with a "Good god, no!" While taking the dog for a walk, I talked for 10 minutes with a neighbor and his sister, then got home, glanced down, and saw that my fly was open.

In short, a typical day in the life of Brian Hines. Perfectly imperfect. The older I get, the less it bothers me when I screw up.

I'm sure there are psychological reasons for this. But philosophically, I don't compare myself with an ideal of perfection, "sat," nearly as much as I used to. By and large, the goals I set for myself come from me – not an outside institution or authority figure.

And one of those goals is to accept reality as it is, however it is. Witty observations get repeated. Wrong numbers get dialed. Zippers get left down in public.

Have you ever seen a perfect anything, or anyone? I haven't. Not in the sense of a perfection that is flawless, unchanging, and completely consonant with a transcendent ideal.

What makes life "perfect" is its imperfections. So I guess I have seen perfection – when I've looked at reality as it is, and not as how I'd like it to be.

Comments

[Tucson]

Brian said: "And one of those goals is to accept reality as it is, however it is."

Don't even make it a goal. Just acquiesce.

It seems to me reality is always right here no matter what is going on, whatever form we find ourselves in, or find ourselves doing. Even if we are pissed off and behaving poorly, even if we are calm and behaving sublimely. Even if we are an angel in heaven or a diseased beggar in Calcutta.

Suppose there is this Void that buddhists and others talk about in different ways. It is a presence that isn't, which of course is incomprehensible intellectually. It can't comprehend itself because this primordial stateless state lacks any kind of objectivity for there is no one to objectify it, but 'it' which isn't even an 'it' somehow goes "I am". You could say it lights up as a result, like an idea, which might be what physicists call the big bang, and a universe, your life, manifests including your birth, death and everything you know and experience, apparent past, present and future. Everything known is known by you. Who else knows it?.. for this is your dream your idea. Whatever is, is what you are. You are reflected endlessly through the myriad beings of this dream as you, yourself informing yourself of all that is known or can be.

All the trillions upon trillions of beings and planets, glaxies, quarks and black holes, radiant nebulae pusating with infinite variety of manifestation, universes of universes forming, exploding, dying, ebbing and flowing without and within each other, possibilities and potentialities inimagined are also what you are if that is what your dream idea contains.

Perhaps your manifestation this time is something less spectacularly aware. Maybe a bee flying from flower to flower seeking pollen, a salamander in a swamp, or an accountant balancing the books. This is it and it is complete. There is no where to go. Nothing to attain but the living of it.

The initial burst of "I Am" set forth a wave of energy consciousness in which you are along for the ride. It appears you have choice, but change is so fast, how could choice be? Where is there anything that could control the uncountable billions of atoms fizzing with awareness, changing instant by instant in a phantasmagoria of effevescent manifestation. It seems there is order, but nothing is the same from instant to instant. It is unpredictable and unknown, yet with a perfect patternless pattern.

That initial "I Am" set forth a wave of energy with such force that even 'It' doesn't know where it is going. It just goes until the dream runs out of steam, entropy sets in and the manifestation of this life ends. It becomes its primordial undifferentiated state once again until its next manifestation as bee, salamander, accountant, angel or cosmic being.

Only a reference point dies, but as what you really are you are eternaly unborn and undying. Nothing really happens except the end of a dream. Isn't your life already a dream? Whatever has happened is just a memory. Perhaps your dream will morph into a life in some other dimension or plane with a set of rules and physics we can't conceive, but the ultimate reality is that no one ever truly dies as awareness, only form and content dies or changes. But don't we die every second? Nothing is ever the same again from one moment to the next, from one lifetime to the next. And so it goes.

Perhaps some of us wake up in the dream and in life or at death we recognize the primordial stateless state. We can remain as that or perhaps the "I Am" idea sets forth a whole new universe of another lifetime and another fantastic ride.

[william]

Brain wrote: “Perfectly imperfect” these are the sweetest words to my ears. What would life be like if everyone and everything was perfect?

Of course there would be no conscious life, just pure awareness. It is the absence of perfect awareness that is the very flow of thoughts we call consciousness. I call that absence ignorance but a better expression and less intimidating to the human ego is unawareness.

Awareness is reality whereas consciousness is what many call a dream or illusion. Think back over the events that have happened in your life and do they not feel as a dream.

The only reality awareness “knows” is now, whereas consciousness “knows” past present and sometimes future.

[the elephant]

Tucson: "Don't even make it a goal. Just acquiesce."

Is it not telling him what he should do, thus a goal? :)
What it should be as opposed to what it is? :)

(Just joking overall)

[Tucson]

Elephant,

OK. Maybe I should have said simply, "just acquiesce". No, that would have been an order also and thus acquiescing would still be a goal.

Or I could have said, "Dear sir, may I humbly suggest that you just acquiesce?"
But that would simply be a polite instruction as if I had a superior perspective that I felt the need to express and that I had the audacity to even think that it was worthwhile mentioning.

Maybe I could have spoken in impersonal terms, "One might consider an attitude of acquiescence if they feel so inclined." But again it is an instruction, politely veiled, and an implication that someone is not doing what they should be doing if they aren't doing it, that they should aspire to acquiescence.

Or, I could have put it in personal terms, "I have found it is just acquiescence, not aspiring to a state of acquiescence." But even that is a subtle correction and instruction issuing from my perspective, thus making a goal of being just acquiescing to the reader who accepts what I say.

Or, in even more general terms, "It is a state of acquiescence." But then the reader may think, if he is not already acquiescing, that he should begin acquiescing..thus a goal.

I know, I could have said simply, "acquiescing", implying the presence of the state of acquiescence which the reader could respond to or not. But again, if the reader was not already acquiescing, then he might feel the need to begin acquiescing and thus making a goal out of it again.

The truth is, to be entirely correct, I should abide in acquiescence and not say anything at all which might be saying quite a bit if someone were in my physical presence, but on this blog the comment box would be empty and the non-reader would go, "WTF?", possibly leaving them in a state of non-acquiescence which was not my intention.

Of course having any intention would not be acquiescing and I would be a hypocrite, so I would really be in a bind unless I thought "WTF" and returned to acquiescence and wrote nothing.

However, it is possible to acquiesce while appearing to not be acquiescing. This has been called non-volitional living, letting 'yourself' be lived rather than attempting to control the living by an illusory ego. How do you do this? By acquiescing, but don't make a goal of it!

Sorry, I just made a command and a goal out of it. ;)

[Awareness Development]

It's nice to see Awareness and Consciousness differentiated!

Tucson, surely it's possible to expand / develop our awareness until it is more "in-tune" with our consciousness? So that the our experience of it becomes more "direct" so to speak? Isn't that the goal of spirituality?

Marcus

[Tucson]

Marcus,

You view awareness and consciousness as different things, but I'm not clear on what that difference is to you, nor am I sure where I differentiated the two. Usually, my concept of the two words is that they mean the same thing and I use them interchangeably.

If you conceive of awareness as an aspect of our thinking process and consciousness as our true nature, then I don't think we can be more aware of consciousness. In other words, we can't improve our thinking in such a way that we can comprehend via thinking our true nature. Our true nature is unthinkable, unobjectifiable yet it infuses and is part and parcel of whatever we perceive. It doesn't see, hear, taste. It is the seeing, hearing, tasting. When an eye is seeing can it see itself? Can knowing know knowing? If our true nature were to see itself and say, "Oh, so that's what I am.", it would thereby be perceiving another object and this would go on for infinity as the myriad objects of manifestation, maya or illusion.

So, we don't become more aware OF consciousness, we just recognize consciousness (our true nature) AS what is, this functioning that is life.

That is the best I can do to describe it right now, but I'm not really satisfied with what the words might convey or how they could be construed.

[william]

for Marcus

http://kjmaclean.com/Consciousness.html

http://www.prahlad.org/disciples/premananda/essays/NISARGADATTA%20CONSCIOUSNESS%20AND%20AWARENESS.htm

Marcus here are a couple of links that I find interesting on the aspects of consciousness and awareness. The best explanation on the difference between consciousness and awareness was a link that I think Tao posted several weeks ago. An Indian sage was talking on a youtube video about consciousness and awareness.

I think one can talk about awareness without talking about consciousness but if one talks of consciousness one must include awareness. All consciousness has some level or degree of awareness within it whereas awareness can be pure awareness. Ie God.

I suspect that anyone that does not believe in an evolution of consciousness will be unable to see this subtle difference between awareness and consciousness. Maybe one could say God hides from its pure awareness (itself) by manifesting beings with consciousness.

How else could infinite pure awareness express itself without manifesting consciousness beings with limited awareness? Now these beings can be no other than God, as isness is all and all.

We see these phenomena in the difference in the awareness levels of a blade of grass, a plant, within the animal kingdom, and certainty within humans. Within humans some refer to this as old souls and new souls.

I think at this level of our consciousness with the little awareness of reality that we have as humans we can only speculate about any differences between consciousness and awareness. Of course it could all come down to agreeing on the operational definition of words.

If anyone has that link that was posted a few weeks ago would love to have it posted again to copy. This sage’s teachings on consciousness and awareness were in my humble opinion quite outstanding.

[the elephant]

Dear william,

If I understand you well you may want to take a look a the following dialogues
http://www.shankaracharya.org/i_am_that.php

They are transcripts and translation of some dialogues (published in the book "I AM THAT") in which Niz (or the Sage from the video) engaged some seekers who visited his home.

Also, this book that comes out next year may interest you

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Human-Nature-Buddhist-Evolution/dp/1845192605/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4372913-7527860?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191839574&sr=8-1

In the mean time you may read this one by the same author
http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Consciousness-Study-Creativity-Violence/dp/1883991390/ref=sr_1_9/103-4372913-7527860?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191839574&sr=8-9
which presents an understanding of 'evolution' in a non-dual context - Life might not have a purpose or final cause; yet, it does not unfold arbitrarily.

[Chris]

Brian,

Nice post!

[Marcus]

Tucson, I find it quite difficult to express the distinction I see between awareness and consciousness...that said, I am slowly grasping the ability to discuss the two. And yes they are very similar - in fact I would say they are almost the same thing.

The best way I can describe how I view it is with an analogy.

If consciousness was a vast infinite space (visualize the blackness behind your eyes, which could extend forever in every direction). Then Awareness would be the point from which you are experiencing that infinite space (in this analogy, through your closed eyes).

As we increase / balance our awareness we start experiencing a greater degree of our consciousness.

So yes, awareness and consciousness are effectively the same thing, but at the same time very different. Consciousness is the whole, where as awareness is the point of experience. At least that is how I see it at the moment.

William, thanks for those links. I have just browsed them, and they look very interesting - so I will certainly be reading them in full.

[william]

“Life might not have a purpose or final cause; yet, it does not unfold arbitrarily.”

Unfoldment is for me at least another way of stating evolution of consciousness. I suspect unfoldment is a more precise term. A lot of this that we discuss on here is that we are just dancing around words.

Consciousness is matter or phenomena whereas awareness is that “It” that we cannot describe. To describe “infinite it” is to limit it so all words fall short as they must. Nothingness is everything. Nothingness scares people as it suggests nonexistence of our perceived separate self.

It appears to me that the Hindus may be on to something with their idea of once I was a rock asleep then a blade of grass, then a plant, then a human with a self identity and with that self identity comes much suffering from attachment, craving, and grasping, then a saint, then a god with a small g then hummm who knows.

At each stage of this “journey/unfoldment” consciousness expands in its ability to create and express itself but also what awakens in greater degrees is our awareness of reality until we reach pure awareness, which most call God. The paradox is we were always God as God is infinite absolute oneness i.e. the vitality and structure of the phenomenal universe. Ain’t nothin but God but oh what a dynamic universe; constant manifestation of pulsating life.

So much more to discover when we figure out the phenomena of dark matter which needs to be called unknown matter but that would be admitting ignorance and most scientists despise the word ignorance.

Awareness is always in the now whereas consciousness lives in past present and future hence the feeling of time. So when someone states there is no such thing as time they are speaking from a viewpoint of awareness and usually quoting some guru, but when someone speaks about an evolution of consciousness they are speaking in terms of consciousness.

[tao]

Marcus wrote:

"the distinction I see between awareness and consciousness... If consciousness was a vast infinite space... Then Awareness would be the point from which you are experiencing that infinite space"

-- What/where is this "point" that you speak of? Who/where is this "you"? Who/what is "experiencing"?

"As we increase / balance our awareness we start experiencing a greater degree of our consciousness."

-- Who is "we"? Who is "experiencing"?

"awareness and consciousness are effectively the same thing, but at the same time very different."

-- This statement is clearly contradictory, and therefore meaningless. It is splitting hairs. You can't have it both ways. The only difference between the terms "awareness" and "consciousness", is that these are only just different words (but nevertheless mean virtually the same thing).

"Consciousness is the whole, where as awareness is the point of experience."

-- Or... Awareness is the absolute - simple awareness - or the "whole" as you say (and vice-versa), whereas "consciousness" is simply being conscious.

[william]

Marcus please go back to a former post where I stated that someone that does not see an unfoldment or evolution of consciousness occurring in the universe will not be able to see the difference between awareness and consciousness.

Tao’s comments are living proof of my statement. Does not mean I am right and he is wrong; just two different views. The difference is Tao believes that his statements are absolute truths.

I see a difference he does not. He has figured out at least intellectually that god is oneness so he states correctly that all is god. Then he stops there. Been there, done that.

Once we think we know thee truth our minds pretty much shut down. The evangels are living proof of this phenomenon as is the advaita types and even the atheists have turned their beliefs into a religion.

We turn our beliefs into a religion to hide our doubts that others perceive as certainties. We deceive others and ourselves with our ignorance but that ignorance has its home in innocence.

This is what Tao has done without realizing it. He will defend his religious beliefs as truths to the bitter end. Fascinating to watch.

[Tucson]

William,

You said regarding Tao: "I see a difference he does not. He has figured out at least intellectually that god is oneness so he states correctly that all is god."--

You have stated in earlier comments you believe that, as humans, we lack the capacity to fathom reality and have a long evolutionary process to go through, yet you feel qualified to judge Tao's position that "all is god" is correct. How do YOU know he is correct or not if you, as a human, lack the capacity to know it?

You said: "Once we think we know the truth our minds pretty much shut down."

Isn't this exactly where you are at? You smugly keep spouting the same crap about ignorance, innocence, advaita types, etc. ad nauseum in regard to Tao's views without responding directly to his observations about yours. You dodged the following comment by Tao. I challenge you to address it:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/10/some-darn-good-.html#comment-85320924

You said, "We turn our beliefs into a religion to hide our doubts" and "This is what Tao has done without realizing it. He will defend his religious beliefs as truths to the bitter end. Fascinating to watch."--

Yes, it is facinating to see YOU doing this very thing.

[Tucson]

William,

And in your intellectual dishonesty and cowardice you also dodged this one:

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/10/some-darn-good-.html#comment-85177910

[tao]

William wrote:

"I stated that someone that does not see an unfoldment or evolution of consciousness occurring in the universe will not be able to see the difference between awareness and consciousness."

-- Typically, this is just more dualistic mental speculation.

"The difference is Tao believes that his statements are absolute truths."

-- William has this bad habit of presuming to determine what othrs beliefs are. However, I hold no such beliefs, nor have I said that any my statments are "absolute truths". Unlike William, I have never said that anything is absolute truth. I have only stated my own direct experience and Self-knowledge. So it is now apparent that William is deliberately an d repeatedly misrepresenting me and what I say. That is dishonest. Therefore, after having made this clear, I will no longer continue any further dialog with William. Whatever William may think or say (or has already said) about my views is false and misrepresenting and dishonest, and it should be regarded as such by other readers.

"He (tao) has figured out at least intellectually that god is oneness..."

-- I have never said (or implied) that I have "figured out" anything. And contrary to William's misrepresentation of me, I have never said that "god is oneness" either. I have only spoke of the tacit realization of (and abidance in) Self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not intellectual in nature. It is direct awakened realization. It has virtually nothing to do with intellectual ideas, concepts, or beliefs about "god","oneness", or otherwise. It is William who is the one who has all these kinds of ideas and beliefs, not Self-knowledge.

"Been there, done that."

-- Sorry William, but you clearly have NOT "been there and done that". This is quite obvious in virtually everything you have written.

"Once we think we know thee truth our minds pretty much shut down."

-- That pretty much sums up William's mentality as he has expressed and revealed it on this blog forum.

"living proof of this phenomenon as is the advaita types and even the atheists have turned their beliefs into a religion."

-- Here again we see just how turned around backwards William's thinking really is. Why? Simply because athesists do not believe in God at all. Their non-belief is no a belief. Non-belief is definitely not a belief, regardless of how skewed William's views and interpretations are. And advaita is quite another matter. First of all, advaita is NOT athesism. Advaita simply means "non-duality". Advaita philosophy as a philosophy, can only be said to be a "belief" insofar as advaita philosophy regards the true nature of existence as being non-dual. However, beyond the philosophy of advaita, is the realization of Self-knowedge (atma-jnana), which is a direct realization of non-duality, and it has nothing to do with any intellectual ideas or beliefs or philosophy.

"We turn our beliefs into a religion to hide our doubts that others perceive as certainties."

-- It is clearly William who assumes rigid beliefs and certainties, about the nature of consciousness and ego, and also about what he presumes are the "beliefs" of others. William has shown this to be so in various comments of his. And he has yet to respond to any honest questions that have put to him. Therefore, I can only conclude that William is a nothing but a spiritually immature blog troll who is here only to play philosophically and intellectually immature and dishonest one-up games by fabricating false arguements and by distorting and misrepresenting the views and comments of both myself and others like Tucson Bob etc.

"We deceive others and ourselves with our ignorance"

-- You may indeed be deceiving yourself William, but try as you may, you are not succeeding in deceiving others.

"This is what Tao has done... He will defend his religious beliefs as truths to the bitter end."

William is again grossly misrepresenting and distorting others views and statements. Again, I have no such "beliefs", "religipous" or othertwise. Nor have I ever stated ot implied that I have any "religious beliefs". I am n ot religious at all, and I do not hold or need any beliefs about anything. This comment by William blatently proves that he is nothing but a spiritually immature and puffed-up troll, hanging out here just to play cheap shallow one-up games and to throw dishonest challenges and remarks at other commenters, and to deliberately misrespresent and distort what other commenters think and say.

Therefore, this will be my last comment to William (and maybe my last comment altogether). I have absolutely no interest in interacting further with someone who is as dishonest and cowardly and full of foolish game-playing and rubbish as William has proven himself to be and is. William has turned this comment section of Brian's blog into a circus of his absurd nonsense and BS. Any further dialog with William is a complete waste of time imo. That's because William has no intention of supporting or maintaining any real and meaningful discussion. He is also considerably, if not extremely, more closed-minded and dogmatic and downright spiritually immature than anyone else that he so presumptuously and dishonestly accuses of being. I am sick and tired of William's dishonest and cowardly bullshit.

William is here for only one reason... And I leave that to the sagacity of the reader to discern.

Adios mi amigos.

[tao]

Brother Brian,

"Better to be truly real, than falsely perfect"

That's a great title, and it real-ly says it all.

I shall definitely remember that quote.

Thanks for everything Brian.

Om Shanti