Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00059)

Rodolfo 'Rudy' Don:

I said that world is not perfect, and asked why.

You say that (my, our) concept, beliefs are product of
'conditioned' mind, so with that mind, I can not understand what
perfection is and is it word perfect or not.

I may answer on two, more-less classical ways:

(1) Although our experience, mind, reason, sense, etc.  are not
'perfect', 'unconditioned' (or even completely reliable) I am not
absolute sceptic and I accept that some answer on some questions
may be found.  Not necessary all or even majority.  Some.

'The perfection', 'the world' are in some sense 'big',
'important', 'relevant' things, but there is no reason to a
priori believe that 'big' things are harder (or impossible) to
understand that 'small' and 'unimportant'.  Everybody can find
many counterexamples.

(2) You think that we are not able to understand what is
'perfect' and this claim is based on your (at least successeful
if not perfect) understanding of 'unconditioned' (which is not
very far from 'perfect').  It seems like circular conclusion.
Few extreme thoughs as old Greek absolute scepticism or
Nagarjunas nihilistic buddhism are imune on logical paradoxes, at
least from their own point of view.  But, I'm not sure you want
to go so far.

Also, you asked

> Why should I expect the world to be "perfect" according to what
> Rudy regards as perfect?

You should not but you may expect.  I expect, at least for
speculation or for purposes of discussion.  Why? I do not know.