Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00060)

Dear Visanu!

> > Perfection (as whole) can not have imperfect parts.
>
> There are three possible category of 'whole' in relation to its
> parts.
> 1 It is of the same type of its parts.
>     e.g.  A group of students or a family.
> 2 It is of the different type of its parts.
>     e.g.  Human body compose of tissue, cell.
> 3 The Infinite.
>
> I think your definition of perfection can apply only to category
> 1, not with category 2 unless you redefine the perfection of
> parts in relation to the whole.
>
> In category 1 when a member of students fails an exam then that
> group of students is not perfect.
>
> In category 2 an imperfect cell which has lost its nucleus such
> as red blood cell may be an essential part of our perfect body.
>
> In category 3 we can't define it perfection.

I do not see the difference which may be significant for our
question.  Although, obligation of proof is on your side, I will
try to comment it.

(1) Agree.

(2) Why fact that parts are different should be relevant? It
seems to me that generaly, things will be better if 'imperfect'
parts are exchanged with 'perfect' if it is possible.  If it is
not possible, we may reformulate our question to 'why
imperfection is necessary?'.  It is not far from original
question, because world where imperfection is necessary we may
easy identify as imperfect.

I'm really not able to say about red blood cells.  They may be
perfect with or without nucleus, I can not tell.  But there is
one thing which is usualy sign of the imperfection: pain.

(3) Infinity is 'great word' and I'm not sure that we think on
the same thing when we say it, but I do not see how it may be
relevant for our problem.  I think that world is imperfect (like
most people, you will agree) although I do not know for sure is
it infinite or not, are there any infinite beings or any such
thing in the world.

> > If you remember it, I defined the world as 'everything that
> > exists at all' so it contain all our subjective or objective
> > thoughts, 'underlying reality', God, etc.  It is very usual
>
> The world in your definition can be interpreted in two ways.
>
> 1.  It may be collection of all human beings, animals etc.  then
> it should be considered as category 1 and I agree with you that
> it is not perfect but I also add that it is phenomenal world and
> in a sense illusion, Maya.
>
> 2.  The underlying reality of phenomenal world, the Absolute, the
> One Life, the Parabrahm of the Vedantins, which is the only
> Reality and it is in category 3 and all speculation is impossible
> since it transcends the power of human conception.  So it is
> inappropriate to say that it is not perfect even though we may
> wonder why it manifests the phenomenal world as such.

According to definition, both of this two (if second exists, of
course) are parts of the world.  It is not excluded that there
are other parts which are not listed neither in 1.  or 2.
because with 'the power of human conception' we (I?) can not
guess or suppose their existence.  This is not some big thing -
it is the definition, or just the way I use this word.

Even the statement that 'world is pain' is maybe not far from
true.  However, when asking this question, I did not supose such
strong claim it.

> Your question has value and many of us have made insightful
> response.  It is not only an interesting logical question but its
> answer has also practical application in forming our strategy to
> deal with life which may be salvation or anihilation of
> ourselves.

Yap, it may be true.

> Many forms of this question with minor difference have been
> raised by inquiring mind throughout the age.

Yap!