Thoughts on Perfection

A critical question in the context of Buddhist study and practice seems to me to be: what does it mean for a human being to be perfect? Even, is perfection possible? You might put it differently, asking, for instance, what does it mean to attain awakening or liberation? Even so, we are talking about the most exalted level of human possibility. How exalted is this?

Spiritual traditions, including Buddhism, appear to offer the possibility of a kind of human transformation at the end of which we will supposedly feel complete, fulfilled, free, and joyful. But is it really possible to reach some kind of condition where we no longer suffer, where we no longer have weaknesses, where we no longer feel burdened by problems, and in which we feel always content, free of worries, anxieties, and fears? If we accept traditional Buddhist models of awakening then it would seem, yes, this is possible. Maybe I am just a pessimist, but I don't think so.

In my view, Buddhist models of the goal should be understood more like myths rather than as describing a reality that we will one day fully inhabit. I'm not saying that we can't change -- of course we can -- however, it seems to me to be an inescapable dimension of the human being that we are prone to suffering, that we are limited, that we experience ups and downs, and that we are constantly adjusting to a changing reality. Clearly, some people are much better at managing human experience than others. But this does not mean that they are happy all the time. Human experience is complex and no matter how positive, how constructive we are in negotiating our world, we are all susceptible to unhappiness and suffering.

In some respects, this would appear to contradict the basic Buddhist message. But I wonder if this message can really be taken literally. Do we even want to transcend emotions like grief, boredom, even loneliness? I'm imagining that your response to this is yes, of course. But I wonder what we would be losing without these experiences; it seems to me that the happiness we experience is partly significant in relation to the unhappiness we endure at other times.

To be human seems to me to be limited: while we are human, we cannot be perfect. We cannot transcend all of our failings permanently. Perhaps this sounds like a rather gloomy message but for me it is actually liberating. To think I can - and perhaps even should - rise above all of my petty obsessions, my doubts, my fears, and my weaknesses feels like a crushing expectation. Ironically to accept that I am inevitably limited feels a huge relief. Why so? I guess that instead of constantly thinking that there is something wrong with me, that there is something not good enough about me, I can think instead that what I experience is an integral dimension of human being. I can learn to sit with this more comfortably but this does not mean that it will go away.

Comments

[gruff]

Nagapriya -

I found your site after reading your excellent piece on the Kalama Sutta.

As regards your question in this post: might I suggest that the apparent dilemma arises from an assumption of "me".

You imply that the basic Buddhist message is that one can or should transcend emotions such as grief. But who is this "one" that will or will not do the transcending? On my reading of the Nikayas the Buddha's message is not that "one" can transcend suffering but that when "one" is not there, there is no suffering.

"I" do not rise above "my" faults because the "I" is composed of precisely these faults. This is the meaning of paticca samuppada.

Where "I" am not, there is the cessation of suffering.

And this is to be directly experienced "with the body", not theorised about.

That's my current understanding at any rate.