What is a perfect being like?

[joea]

In what way was the Buddha perfect? What is it that makes him perfect?

Penumbra,
Kindly share your thoughts. What is a perfect being in your view then?

 

[dust1n]

So you believe all people are perfect? Can you elaborate?

Sure.. a perfect being is someone who most fulfills their being, thus everyone is perfect. We could not become imperfect, we are perfect expression of our beings.

 

[Penumbra]

Penumbra,
Kindly share your thoughts. What is a perfect being in your view then?

From an earlier reply:

I don't subscribe to the concept of perfection either, but as I have stated, I have seen a lot of people say that the point of life is to perfect the soul, so I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

 

[Penumbra]

Sure.. a perfect being is someone who most fulfills their being, thus everyone is perfect. We could not become imperfect, we are perfect expression of our beings.

How does one know whether they've fulfilled their being or not?

 

[Reptillian]

I suppose we could make assumptions about what the goal of being is and then proceed to see what kind of being necessarily follows... Suppose the purpose of being is to gather information/knowledge. In that case a perfect being should be omniscient or at least have the potential for being omniscient.

 

[BruceDLimber]

You're talking about Baha'u'llah, right?

No, I'm not!

Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and therefore not able to exhibit much of anything!

I'm speaking of 'Abdu'l-Baha, His son, who travelled the world teaching the Faith.

And the "one standard" you speak of would include the major virtues like humility, honesty, etc., which he exhibited in spades!

(Of course, you're fully free to demonstrate that he didn't in fact fulfill this standard if you can, which I seriously doubt!)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Penumbra]

No, I'm not!

Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and therefore not able to exhibit much of anything!

I'm speaking of 'Abdu'l-Baha, His son, who travelled the world teaching the Faith.

And the "one standard" you speak of would include the major virtues like humility, honesty, etc., which he exhibited in spades!

(Of course, you're fully free to demonstrate that he didn't in fact fulfill this standard if you can, which I seriously doubt!)

Peace,

Bruce

On what basis do you propose that virtues like humility, honesty, etc. are the basis of perfection. Is it based on opinion?

Also, what were Abdul's beliefs?

 

[BruceDLimber]

On what basis do you propose that virtues like humility, honesty, etc. are the basis of perfection/

On the statements in the scriptures of many different religions!

Also, what were Abdul's beliefs?

The correct name is 'Abdu'l-Baha. "Abdu'l" merely means "Servant of" and is therefore incomplete.

He served as head of the Baha'i Faith and as the authorized interpreter of its scriptures, as appointed in Baha'u'llah's Will and Testament (Baha'u'llah is the Founder of the Faith). As such, he proclaimed and promoted many virtues during his life, including those mentioned above.

He Himself wrote a number of volumes of what are now part of the Baha'i scriptures.

If you'd like a better understanding of his beliefs and teachings, an excellent place to start is his Some Answered Questions, which you can find at:

www.bahai-library.org

under the "Baha'i Writings" heading.

Regards,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I'm not!

Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and therefore not able to exhibit much of anything!

If you say so, though he didn't spend his whole life in prison.

I'm speaking of 'Abdu'l-Baha, His son, who travelled the world teaching the Faith.

And the "one standard" you speak of would include the major virtues like humility, honesty, etc., which he exhibited in spades!

(Of course, you're fully free to demonstrate that he didn't in fact fulfill this standard if you can, which I seriously doubt!)

Well, to begin with, I think we need to establish why particular characteristics would be a necessary part of an objective standard of perfection. For instance, you mentioned honesty; I can think of plenty of situations where honesty is not morally good - for instance, the old example of the German citizen during WWII hiding a Jewish family in his attic. Would you really consider it perfect for him to be completely honest when the Nazis come knocking and ask if he's seen any Jews around?

And even setting aside the rather large question of how we decide which criteria are valid, if we just go with the criteria you mentioned, we still have problems. They generate a logical contradiction, which indicates that they can't both be simultaneously true for the same person: if the person was perfectly honest about his perfect humility, then he would be being less than perfectly humble.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He served as head of the Baha'i Faith and as the authorized interpreter of its scriptures, as appointed in Baha'u'llah's Will and Testament (Baha'u'llah is the Founder of the Faith). As such, he proclaimed and promoted many virtues during his life, including those mentioned above.

Speaking for myself, I know very little about the Baha'ì faith and nothing at all about the virtues you say he proclaimed. IMO, this implies that they were proclaimed less than perfectly - a perfect proclamation is heard by everyone.

Same with promoting virtues: I take this to mean the attempt to instill these virtues in onesself and/or others - if so, then the fact that these virtues are not now universally instilled implies that he was not entirely successful in his attempt... IOW, that he was less than perfect.

 

[Willamena]

Speaking for myself, I know very little about the Baha'ì faith and nothing at all about the virtues you say he proclaimed. IMO, this implies that they were proclaimed less than perfectly - a perfect proclamation is heard by everyone.

Wouldn't that make it universal, rather than necessarily perfect?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wouldn't that make it universal, rather than necessarily perfect?

I guess I read a bit too much into it. Maybe I should've said "proclamation to humanity" rather than just "proclamation. I assumed that the goal was to proclaim those virtues to everyone... i.e. a proclamation that's universal, just like you say. Measured against that goal, the attempt would be less than perfect.

I suppose that he might've had some lesser goal and acheived it completely, but I don't get the sense that this was the case... though like I said, I don't know that much about the Baha'i faith.

 

[Willamena]

I guess I read a bit too much into it. Maybe I should've said "proclamation to humanity" rather than just "proclamation. I assumed that the goal was to proclaim those virtues to everyone... i.e. a proclamation that's universal, just like you say. Measured against that goal, the attempt would be less than perfect.

I suppose that he might've had some lesser goal and acheived it completely, but I don't get the sense that this was the case... though like I said, I don't know that much about the Baha'i faith.

Just so -- a universal proclamation would be perfect if universally proclaimed.

IMO, to address the OP, that's really all that's needed for perfection -- for a thing to be what it is (more importantly, for us, be allowed to be what it is).

 

[BruceDLimber]

If you say so, though he {Baha'u'llah] didn't spend his whole life in prison.

True, but once imprisoned in Akka, even though the close confinement ended once the warden realized both that Baha'u'llah had committed no crime and the nature of His character, He was technically still a prisoner for the rest of His life.

if the person was perfectly honest about his perfect humility, then he would be being less than perfectly humble.

I'm not speaking of artificlally-contructed "contraditions" like this given that in reality such a person would doubtless never speak of such a thing, anyway.

If you want to waste time on nonsense like that, kindly go converse with the "God creating a rock too big for Him to lift" crowd: I'm not the least interested!

Speaking for myself, I know very little about the Baha'ì faith and nothing at all about the virtues you say he proclaimed. IMO, this implies that they were proclaimed less than perfectly - a perfect proclamation is heard by everyone.

Same with promoting virtues: I take this to mean the attempt to instill these virtues in onesself and/or others - if so, then the fact that these virtues are not now universally instilled implies that he was not entirely successful in his attempt....

On the contrary, your're ignoring the fact that the Divine Messengers--also completely perfect--ALSO proclaimed these things and were ignored!

The problem isn't Their perfection or Their proclamation of them--both of which we take as givens--, but the fact that you're totally overlooking the fact that God gave everyone free will; and it's therefore each person's choice whether to accept what is offered or not!

So taking free will as God-given and therefore desireable, the fault remains with each of us if we don't live up to our potential, not with anyone else!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not speaking of artificlally-contructed "contraditions" like this given that in reality such a person would doubtless never speak of such a thing, anyway.

He might not go around shouting it, but what would he do if he were directly asked whether he was perfectly humble? If he refuses to answer, he's withholding information and is therefore less than perfectly honest. If he answers truthfully, then he would be less than perfectly humble.

Or are you saying that this sort of person would somehow be protected against ever being asked such a question? If so, how would that work?

If you want to waste time on nonsense like that, kindly go converse with the "God creating a rock too big for Him to lift" crowd: I'm not the least interested!

You're not interested in a response to your direct, explicit challenge? I suppose this is your prerogative, but I still find it odd.

On the contrary, your're ignoring the fact that the Divine Messengers--also completely perfect--ALSO proclaimed these things and were ignored!

I don't see how this helps your case. Imperfection doesn't somehow become perfection just because it was repeated. A proclamation that is ignored is ineffective. A proclamation that is ineffective is imperfect.

The problem isn't Their perfection or Their proclamation of them--both of which we take as givens--, but the fact that you're totally overlooking the fact that God gave everyone free will; and it's therefore each person's choice whether to accept what is offered or not!

So taking free will as God-given and therefore desireable, the fault remains with each of us if we don't live up to our potential, not with anyone else!

IOW, there's a limit in place that prevents any attempt at a universal proclamation to be carried out perfectly.

What you describe explains why perfection in this regard is impossible; it doesn't explain why we should consider imperfect actions to be perfect.

 

[dust1n]

How does one know whether they've fulfilled their being or not?

They could not be doing anything other than fulfilling their being or not. Their being would be, 100%, a collection of events for the being as they are. If my identity allows this one particular thing to happen, than it would be a perfect representation of my identity to allow that one particular thing to happen. I am constantly a one-hundred manifestation of myself, and to think myself is anything other than what I am is a little bit too meta-mystical for me.

 

[BruceDLimber]

IOW, there's a limit in place that prevents any attempt at a universal proclamation to be carried out perfectly.

On the contrary, it's clearly possible for such a proclamation to be carried out perfectly; the only question is whether or not individuals choose to respond to a proclamation so put forth. (Later) human defect has no effect on a perfect presentation.

He might not go around shouting it, but what would he do if he were directly asked whether he was perfectly humble?

He would probably state (quite correctly!) that it's not his place to make such a judgement.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the contrary, it's clearly possible for such a proclamation to be carried out perfectly; the only question is whether or not individuals choose to respond to a proclamation so put forth. (Later) human defect has no effect on a perfect presentation.

Any action that does not have its intended effect cannot rightly be considered perfect, IMO.

Your argument only works if the person making the proclamation is just talking to hear himself speak. It doesn't work if he actually intends to have his message heard or for it to change minds.

He would probably state (quite correctly!) that it's not his place to make such a judgement.

If he knows it to be true, then wouldn't such a statement be a lie?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Your argument only works if the person making the proclamation is just talking to hear himself speak.

Nonsense!!

A previous event isn't altered by what someone does or doesn't do later.

If he knows it to be true, then wouldn't such a statement be a lie?

Clearly not: It is a fairly obvious result of the aforementioned humility, the more so because in general NONE of us is to be relied upon to be proclaiming judgements of oneself!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Midnight Pete]

Jesus is a perfect being. Therefore, a perfect being would have Christ-like qualities.