The false belief in Perfection

Don't mistake a General Overall Truth with specific truths

Let us consider a view that, Overall, life and creation is perfect, that if you look at the bigger picture, or the larger process, there is perfection. This view can acceptable because it is a very general statement and also it is somewhat of an aesthetic view. The Whole of Life or Existence could be viewed as perfect. There does not contradict anything; while the statement that each particular part of life is perfect, or each particular event of life is perfect, is contradictory in relation to other accepted ideas.

We could say that the overall creation throughout eternity must be perfect or at least good. So now let us agree with this. So now we might say that....

everything (meaning the overall structure or process or picture) is perfectly good. Yet here we need to make a stop, because this is a critical point.

At this point, it is a logical mistake to conclude that just because the Overall is perfect, it must be logical to infer that every single detail or thing or event in that Overall Structure/Process is perfect. For that is Not necessarily true. Take for example, a business: a large business may run perfectly well, overall, in spite of a few workers messing up. These workers are not working perfectly (in fact, they might be messing up a lot), but other factors and people in the business can balance such imperfections or screw ups, or help to fix them. Consider ecology: Not everything in the ecosystem works perfectly-harmoniously with everything else; yet Overall the ecosystem can achieve a harmony. Philosophically speaking, Bertrand Russell pointed out and showed with many concrete examples how many confusions in language arise because of different levels (levels of generality) of logical meaning.

So at one level of logical meaning we can truly speak of perfection – that ‘it’ is ‘all’ perfect -- because

we are referring to a very general level or Overall level. Yet at a more specific level of meaning, the proposition that everything is perfect would not be true – since at this level we are speaking about particulars.

Here is an example proposition: This world is a learning environment, and the Process itself of this learning is perfect, as Overall there will be continual learning. Yet specifically, not everything is perfect; in fact, much is imperfect and many events are mistakes – but this is part of the Overall Learning Process. Another way to put this would be: my overall life is perfect: I made many mistakes (events that were Not perfect but rather quite stupid), yet I learned and made myself a better person. The logical meaning here is that the Overall is perfect, even though the particulars or details are not perfect. In fact, the very meaning of learning by mistakes and stupidities and imperfections (which might be thought of as a perfect learning process) is already presupposing that there has to be imperfections and mistakes – in order for the perfect learning to take place.

The point here is that things and events can be imperfect (and even accidental or mistakes) at particular levels; while at overall-larger levels there can be a perfection. So one does not have to infer that everything or ‘all-things’ (at all particular levels) are prefect (that this and that and that and every event are perfect); just because of an Intuition that the Overall Whole is perfect.

A related mis-logic comes to mind – when someone intuits that there is Unity, but then goes on further to mis-logic that because of this Overall Unity -- it Must then be also true that every-thing is good (since Unity exists or God is good). This mis-logic (often misconstrued as higher intuition, ironically) often concludes that all is God’s Will – just because God is the Unity. That would be like saying that - necessarily – since there is One Unity God, this God must be micro-managing all affairs – as if a Unity of some business demands that the CEO micromanage all things, or that since there is Unity there could not be any mistakes in the business nor any imperfections.

The point is that everyone is using logic, even those who think they are beyond it; but some are using it rather poorly.

Anyways, maybe one does really want to say that every-thing, all events, all particulars, are perfect. Or that every of these serves the divine Purpose. But this would be implying that it’s all equally good – all equally perfect. Such that everything is good, and then there is no bad. For how could there be any bad, if every-thing is really good or really necessary to the divine purpose?


For example, someone takes a math test and makes enough mistakes to fail the test. Is there a higher purpose for this? Is there is perfection in this? People fail at tests and fail to achieve their plans. Or one plays a wrong note. This isn’t meant to be; it is simply a mistake.

Just accept that people make mistakes along the path of learning. These are unintentional mistakes made by the person, and they are not intentionally brought about by God or higher powers.

The argument posed here is that…. –

--- a belief or statement that “everything is perfect” is incorrect and also incoherent with many other beliefs which we hold as true. I will be using basic common sense logic, not any fancy-intellectual logic. I will also use easy to understand examples. The “everything is perfect” belief can only be maintained by someone who does not really look at specific examples. False generalizations often fall from their pedestal when specific examples are brought to light.

– because maybe this is merely a confusion of meaning.

-- that every .. thing in manifestation, or every person or every event or every action, or every instance of manifestation is perfect.

So the question I first pose is: is this what you believe?

Let us now consider a kind of example, which I think ends the whole debate rather quickly, showing the ‘it’s all perfect’ belief to be simply incoherent alongside important spiritual beliefs.

How does this belief that everything’s perfect fit into higher guidance? If one believes in the possibility of higher guidance (guidance from God), then does one also believe in the possibility of NOT being guided? Is there a possibility of not being guided by God (or by a higher wisdom)?? Or a possibility of not listening to God’s guidance, or of not following God’s guidance? One would intelligently think this is possible, and all spiritual traditions and prophets have also said this is possible. Well, if this is possible, then how could every moment in life be perfect? If I’m not listening to the higher guidance, or not following it, then how could my mind and action be called perfect?? How could one say that NOT hearing and following God’s guidance is Just As Perfect as hearing and following God’s guidance ?

Some may believe that all happenings are perfect, because all events are decided by God or determined by God or destined by God (or this is same as saying .. Guided by God). So these folks wanna believe that everything and all that happens is determined by the Great Intelligence of God. Well then, what value is there of divine guidance? What meaning is there of this? For it is all determined and guided by God already. If I believe that God is always determining or organizing what I do, (like God deciding this or that happens), then there is no possibility for non-Guidance or going off on a low-ego tangent.

The INCOHERENCE (of those making the perfection claim) is that, in one moment, events or decisions are spoken of as being imperfect, while in another moment the very same events are spoken of as being perfect or messed up. One moment they are talking about the bad things going on or how the government is screwed up, or about the imperfect qualities of ego; and then just a few minutes later they are pontificating about the perfection of all things and all happenings!! Did existence change that fast? The trick is to avoid putting contradictory statements side by side. It’s all well and veiled as long as the contradictions are at least a few minutes apart.

I suppose though, that such contradictions could be justified by the excuse of divine paradox. It goes like this: It’s a paradox, you know, it’s like wave and particle theory. Or, it’s something you cannot understand with the normal intellect. You need special intuitive abilities to see this as not really being a contradiction. Or here is one: You just cannot see the real high truth – its beyond normal comprehension. So is this higher perception unexplainable as well? Or are we really talking about faith here? I think it’s really about faith. Faith that something written or said must be true -- even if it cannot be explained or verified.

Or is every event, every decision, every action part of a perfect Divine Plan?

The question about perfection in the world boils down to what we believe about the human ego. Is every single manifestation of the ego perfect? Or necessary? Or part of the divine plan? Or “really” God’s Mercy?

Venturing into more philosophical thought, I will suggest that

a) Unity-of-Being does not necessitate that all its parts and processes are perfect – (or the way they ‘have to be’) – or the best of all possibilities – or even having much intelligence at all. The parts and processes within the Unity-of-Being could be quite imperfect – sometimes very off, corrupt, delusionary or dysfunctional. And yet still, there is Unity-of-Being, and still a Wholeness in the Overall Process. The larger Picture of creation can be regarded as Beautiful and Intelligent; while some of its specific parts and processes are NOT beautiful and intelligent – nor guided by higher intelligence.

b) Unity is made of parts. Parts of the Unity can be dysfunctional or problematic – and thus NOT contribute to Overall Harmony and Beauty - but nonetheless these are parts of the Unity. Thus, we can say that a false-idea of self is nonetheless part of God; yet this part of God lacks the God-intelligence. In other words, just because I say that God is Intelligent and that an ego is part of God – does not conclude that ego is necessarily intelligent. Intelligence can be available within the Unity (pervading all around like Spirit); but this does not have to mean that every-thing, every part in that Unity, has this intelligence. The Unity is, the Intelligence is, but we don’t have to conclude that every-thing or every-event in that unity is necessarily intelligent or even guided by Intelligence. You see? And so the same with a perfection. God’s Perfection is available (through all time/space), but its not everywhere present (as yet) as manifest.

So, these are the truths. Many parts/people/ and events in creation are dysfunctional, unnecessary, or poor in quality (not even near to perfect). Yet these are still parts in the greater Unity (or parts in God). Unity does not require that all parts in it are perfect. Similarly, [God’s] Love does not require everyone to be perfect; in fact, this is what makes Love and God so perfect – because this love remains in spite of the imperfections, deceits, and obnoxious egos at work. Love and God are thus perfect, but most of mankind is not, … so most of the events produced by man are also imperfect – and sometimes obnoxiously so.

What we might call evils, actions that harm others with intent to do so, should not be attributed with perfection, nor attributed as being of divine necessity, but rather [in truth] as being unfortunate mishaps [of free will] or temporary illnesses along a process of Overall spiritual evolution. Yet still, these are parts of the Great Unity-of-Being. The existence of ‘bad parts’ (or mistakes) are inevitable in what could be called an ‘experimental divine unfoldment’. The existence of such has a ‘perfect necessity’, or ‘significant function’, in the Overall Purpose of Life, in the sense that human experience needs contrast in the learning process of discovering True Self. That is, in the bigger overall process of life we need to both experiment with and perceive the possible contrasts/opposites. Thus the bad and good are both necessary to spiritual awakening and unfoldment. That is, both good and bad are Generally necessary; they both have General spiritual functions. This does not mean that each particular instance of bad is necessary nor functional.

In a model of ecology and evolution, we can see how the Overall System or Process can be harmonious and progressively intelligent. And yet, some of its parts or smaller processes can be disharmonious, poorly intelligent, and fundamentally dysfunctional. Eventually these bad parts or processes either transform/evolve, die off, or are eliminated – within the Greater System/Process. By analogy then, the Greater Overall Manifestation (through time and space) can be “Perfect”, while many of the temporary phases or manifestations within this are unfortunately not perfect, nor necessary to the Greater.

Harmony overall through a time unfoldment

Delusions and mistakes and blatant selfishness, coming from lower unevolved egos, can be seen as part of God-Being, part of the Unity-of-Being; for such is part of growing up, part of human evolution, part of a Greater Process of Divine Unfoldment. But we should not make a logical error in concluding that all particular instances of such are always necessary or always divinely-perfect. By analogy, we do know that children often go through a selfish phase, and we also see children make simple mistakes before they get better at certain skills. So in the process to maturity it is inevitable that mistakes and selfish acts are part of this greater process. But it would not be true that every single instance of a mistake was necessary to learn or to acquire skills or to gain maturity. Is it necessary to hit a moving car on the bike, in order to learn how to ride it? Was it necessary for a child to eat lead and be poisoned, in order to be smarter about stuff? Did a child need to be punched and raped, in order to grow up? Real shit does happen. Sure, shit is part of an ordinary perfect body process, and so we could call that perfect shit; but it’s not perfect nor necessary that shit goes into people’s drinking water and so causes deceases. And it’s not so perfect to go around thinking that everything is just perfect; instead of helping to eradicate shit in the water, which causes un-necessary and non-perfect deaths throughout the poorer world (not the privileged life enjoyed by those who say its all perfect). – to people who are not so privileged; that’s just talking shit.

The Unity-of-Being premise (this Faith-Intuition-experience) does not make a necessarily conclusion that all events in time and space are perfect (or intelligently plotted out, or divinely willed, or ‘the best of all possible merciful worlds’). Unity does not necessarily demand that all within it is perfect, nor that all is perfectly determined by a micro-managing God. A unity of ecosystem does have to be this way, nor does a unity of business. In fact, a government can maintain unity; while still having many idiots making mistakes in it. Mistakes and imperfections can be possible within a Unity. So why not just accept a mistake as a mistake, and a stupid action as an imperfect stupid action?

The belief that all events are perfect is simply a false logic; it is not a direct spiritual perception as its proponents claim. It is a concept that they are holding to. No one could possibly directly experience or perceive all events; and even with those one does actually perceive, how could one know whether it is perfect or not? I mean, how much far-seeing would that take to know such? So the claim is merely a blind faith, often accompanied by a sense of spiritual superiority for having such faith.

Example of the fruit trees - some are in decay. why?

Be aware of a possible mistaken belief, that the manifest world is always and everywhere perfect as the archetypal spiritual world of divine qualities. For some teachings claim that the manifest world is always perfect and always good, since it reflects the divine qualities. Yet this is incorrect, because the divine qualities manifest in varying degrees in our world; so in some parts the divine qualities are strong but in other parts they are weak or almost non-actualized. Thus the divine qualities, as well as Divine Mercy in general, is only manifest in degrees, so that sometimes it is manifest very little. The incorrect belief is that everything manifest and all events are perfectly reflective of the Divine Love-Wisdom; or that the Divine Love-Mercy is orchestrating all events and manifestation. So that when terrifying pain manifests or people terribly hurt others, the mistaken belief proclaims that this must actually be part of divine mercy or divine intelligence, even though it apparently feels to be an injust or wrong deed. The mistaken belief has to make a jump in unsound reasoning in order to come to such a conclusion. One feels something is wrong, but a false reasoning convinces one to ignore the natural feeling and believe that everything must be all good in spite of all evidence. The mistaken belief suggests that spiritual perception will see all things as perfect, or see God’s Loving mercy in all events. But this belief is mere illusion and wishful thinking. There is bad in the world, and mistakes happen, as well as mere accidents. The greed and egotism of man often dominates our world, and this is not orchestrated by God, nor is this patterned from the spiritual world. So let us now ponder on the real truth, leaving behind the false.

The divine qualities and powers exist firstly as potentials, and these divine potentials work their way into manifestation over time, as an evolution of the spiritual world into the manifest world. The divine potentials are working into actualization. So at any one time, the manifest world is not completely spiritualized, not completely actualized. Though there is always some degree of divine quality in the manifest world. So with spiritual perception we can see spiritual quality and the power of love-wisdom in our world, but this will only be in degrees. The fullness of divine potential will seldom be perceived, because in life the spiritual qualities are still in process of unfoldment. Thus, spiritual perception is firstly the seeing of divine potentials (the divine qualities and archetypes) in the invisible world of spirit, and secondly it is the seeing of these divine qualities in the manifest world in varying degrees.


* The idea that everything is perfect is a misunderstanding that some people hold. If we look realistically at the world, its events, its history, and if we look realistically at ourselves, then the only way that one can call it all perfect is to change the very meaning of the word, for it is all too easy to find things that are not perfect. What people often mean by saying it is all perfect is that things are just the way they have to be, that things could not be different, and this view is called naturalistic determinism. But this is obviously false if we reflect a little. What others mean is that things are just the way God intended them to be, which could be called theistic determinism. Others say it is all perfect because we have each created life in a way that is perfect for our own spiritual growth, which could be called egotist illusion. Nobody is so powerful that they can create all the circumstances of their life, though the very wealthy people may come close.

Yet in spite of these illusions and false beliefs, there is a kernel of pragmatic truth in the belief and attitude that everything is perfect. First of all, this attitude tends to produce a psychological peace and contentment; and this state of being is beneficial, as long as it does not deny injustices in the world and produce apathy in trying to make things better. A pragmatic spiritual view would be to regard the manifest world as being often imperfect, yet in an evolutionary process towards higher perfection. Then, one might regard the general process as perfect, without making an absurd conclusion that every specific action or event is perfect.

The spiritual ideal is to be in a psychological state of peace and contentment, without being apathetically complacent in regards to circumstances in need of fixing or change. The next question is how can one arrive at this state.

The manifest world, which includes nature, people and events, can be regarded as ever-changing and always in process. So although we can take snapshots of the world, any snapshot or single event can only be rightly understood in regards to its larger context, to the causes surrounding it and to the larger process in which it is part. Thus, our usual way of perceiving and making judgments about the world, in snapshots, is not comprehensible enough. We need to see people and events within a larger context of process and evolution; for only then is our perception fair.

Next, it is possible to ‘bracket out’ the part of the world that is human caused and problematic. What is meant by this phrase is that the problematic circumstances of the world, most often caused by humans, is set aside or ignored. In a sense, the mind and attention leaves behind the world of troubles, as though taking a vacation from these concerns. This ability to be free of such concerns is an important spiritual state, though it should be regarded as a temporary needed vacation from all troubles and material concerns, rather than a permanent state of world abandonment. We do have to come back to the world of problems and concerns, to work in that world and serve in that world; yet as much as possible we also need to be psychologically free of troubles and irritations, which is to live consciously and inwardly in a state that is beyond the troubled world.

This spiritual state is also beyond ordinary desire and reaction. Ordinary desire and negative reactions take us away from this spiritual state of perfect contentment. For when in this pure state, there is no desire, no wanting, but only peace and contentment. This is the state of pure being, uncorrupted by world concerns and ego desires. In this pure spiritual state, there is only perfection, only good, only love, beauty, peace and contentment. This state of being is before the world, it is underneath the world, it is behind the veil of the world. The ideal is to live consciously in this pure and perfect state of being, while walking about and dealing with the regular manifest world with its everchanging circumstances and problems. Then, in this state, there is an experience of perfection, but this is only because one is conscious in the pure state of being.

Now from this spiritual state of being, one begins to perceive a kind of perfection that is within or underneath the ordinary world – which is the spiritual sub-structure of the world. This is the structural matrix or fabric or geometry underneath/within the manifest world. Some teachers have called this the formative dimension, behind the manifest dimension. Now, unlike the everchanging manifest world, this formative world can rightly be called perfect. It is a perfect spiritual structure, a perfect matrix or geometry. It is like a perfect creative womb, from which comes the manifest world. It is easiest to perceive this perfect sub-structure in natural environments. And one could even understand this formative structure as the perfect matrix of nature. Unfortunately, human societies and cultures have often developed distorted views of reality and opposing actions to nature. So we need to get back in harmony with the natural matrix, the perfect divine matrix of life.

So we are in perfection because we live in this perfect matrix. We live in it, and it is in us. But until we realize this natural perfection and live in harmony with it, our actions will be distorted and inharmonious. And since these human actions create many of the events and circumstances of the world, the world has imperfections in it. Thus, the manifest world is not all perfect. Only the formative matrix and pure being is perfect. So when we consciously live in this perfect matrix, our actions and responses become perfect, and the manifest world moves back towards perfection. If we mechanically react to the imperfect world, then we lose touch with the perfect world. So the way is to stay conscious of the perfect world, stay in tune with it, while also working to make the imperfect world more in accord with the perfect matrix within it. In this way, the manifest world moves back towards perfection.



It is quite tempting to accept and believe that all things are perfect, that all events are perfect or the way they are meant to be. There is a feeling of freedom in this view, as the body and mind relaxes in this view and stress seems to disappear. So this view seems quite attractive. Its only big problem is that it is not true. And its final implication is fatalism. But there is a nice relaxed feeling in this belief. Try it. I am saying it is false, but go ahead and try it out. Its quite nice, if you really get into it. A metaphysical backing for this view is that there is Just One Self, and so what we find in the world must be perfect (from that One Self View), or that it must be how the One Self wants to (or spontaneously) express Itself. In other words, this world, and every expression or event in it, must be the Wisdom Way of the One Self. This is how the view goes. It is liberating and tension reducing, just as is the eastern view that this world is only an illusion and nothing in it really matters. These views are liberating, in a way, but they are not full truths. They can be regarded as partial truths, but they are not complete truths. For example, there is a Wisdom Way and a possibility for Harmony, but it doesn't always happen. It sometimes comes through, but often does not. And we have to accept that negative fact, rather than hide our heads in the warm sands of fanciful beliefs, or rather than glue on rose-tinted glasses.

The truth is that there is a Wisdom Way; a way to be in harmony with Divine Purpose, and a way to bring greater wisdom and harmony to the world. But it is not something that just automatically happens, or necessarily happens. For it requires an element of human compliance and consent. Also, the manifestation of the Wisdom Way (the Loving Way or the Harmonious Way) is not a simple matter of 'it is' or 'it is not'. Rather, the Wisdom Way is manifested in degrees, as more or less. The Wisdom Way is, in essence, a potential for any moment in time, which may or may not get manifested, and even if manifested this manifestation is a matter of degree. Thus, the events of our lives and the actions of our being are not always perfect, not always wise, not always of the Wisdom Way. And whatever happens in life is somewhere along a continuum between no wisdom and great wisdom.

So instead of believing that everything is perfect, or that there is always a perfect unfoldment of Wisdom-Self; the realistic view is that the Wisdom Way of Divine Being is a potential Way, subsisting in each moment, but only actualized or manifested to varying degrees. This may not be as attractive as the 'its all perfect' view, but it is the truth, and this true view of life presents a continual challenge and responsibility. Yet, most positively, we can say that there is a Wisdom Way and it is possible to be in it. There is a Wisdom Wave and it is possible to be on it. The Wisdom Wave is ready for us at every moment. At every moment this Wisdom Wave is ready to carry us, and all we have to do is get on it. We cannot get on it by just thinking about it. We need to be fully awake and aware in the present moment, for it is in this present moment that the Wave is now ready to carry us along.

So, when one is on that Wave, or in that Flow, there is an unfolding wisdom and perfection. And a significant aspect of spiritual practice is to develop our ability to see that Wave in the present moment, and to have the spontaneous courage and trust to get on it, and stay on it.


The notion that all things are perfect is not only counter-intuitive to our common-sense experience, but it is also illogical. Perfect is a concept that only has significant meaning when in contrast to not-perfect. So if all things are perfect, then nothing is imperfect, and then the concept of perfection loses its regular meaning. … If something is done with perfection, this should logically imply that it not have been done better. Once we can envision a better action than the present one, better in goodness or better in effectiveness, or once we can see that a better action could have taken place, then this present action should not logically be called perfect. If something is appropriately called perfect, or an action perfect, then this should logically imply that its emergent qualities as well as its intention are very fine or the best that is possible. Yet if we insisted that the concept of perfection is only reserved for the best that is possible, then not much at all would be perfect. The concept is best understood and used in language as an ideal, which is approachable to degrees, and then we can say that some actions are ‘more perfect’ or ‘better’ than others.

We can use the concept of beauty in a similar manner, whereby it is regarded as an ideal Value, which is relatively approachable, and used for the purpose of comparison. Again, if we adhere to the idea that all things and events are equally beautiful, or ‘its all beautiful’, then we lose all depth to the meaning of beauty because everything is simply beautiful. Depth of the meaning of beauty remains only when there are varying degrees of beauty, only when one can say that one thing is more beautiful than another. Of course there are many people who want to dissolve such distinctions and collapse the meaning of beauty into a flatland of equality and sameness of value. They want an equal democracy of beauty, whereby its all beautiful and its all good. This is alright if it makes people feel better about how they look in comparison with others, but it seems contrary to our natural feelings if we believed that all landscapes have equal beauty, including the trashed out places, or if we believed that all athletic or artistic performances are equally beautiful. If this were so, then we might as well be recording the kid next door banging on the piano.

So, while admitting that there are degrees of beauty, and a usefulness in aesthetic comparisons, we should not go to the other philosophical extreme and assume that comparisons of beauty is some kind of science with exact measurements. In some cases it will be obvious that one action is more beautiful than another, such as the wide gap between torture and nursing. The act of torture could not be as beautiful (nor as good) as the act of nursing; so it doesn’t make much sense to say that everything is beautiful, or equally beautiful. But neither would we want to adhere to a rigid system of measuring beauty or falsely assume that one could possibly measure exactly the degree of beauty in any action, or rank all possible actions on a huge graph paper.

We need a middle path to the understanding of beauty, which can be called the rational-compassionate view of beauty. This middle view will integrate both compassion and rational analysis in the understanding of beauty. It will moderate the extreme views as discussed above. It will be generally compassionate, by being generally accepting of a wide range of diversity in any judgment of beauty, but without going to the illogical extreme of believing that ‘it’s all beautiful’. In other words, one can accept and appreciate a wide range of creative expression (or creative styles) as being beautiful, without distinguishing gradations of beauty within this range, that is, without making comparisons about what is more beautiful than another. This is the compassionate and accepting view of beauty, but it still is within a range and has some boundaries – in other words, some forms of creative expression will be too extremely poor to be accepted within this range of compassion, and thus will be noted as unbeautiful.

So in compliment to this moderate use of aesthetic compassion, the middle path moderately uses rational discrimination, comparison and analysis of beauty. But this use of rational discrimination, in views of beauty, is only applied in balance with the overall compassionate view. In practice, the rational-compassionate view of beauty is accepting and appreciating of a wide range (or diversity) of creative expression, of artistic wildness and innovation. This is viewing a large span of creative expression as being generally beautiful and appreciated, without making any value comparisons or judgments within this span. So here, within this accepted span, one can compassionately exclaim that it is all equally beautiful, or that each creative expression is beautiful in its own unique way. Yet this compassionate acceptance has a boundary, even if weak or blurry, in that certain forms of expression will not be tolerated in this compassionate view, because they fall short of being an appreciable expression – they breach the line, as it were. In effect, such unaccepted-unappreciated expression cannot be included equally in the same compassionate span/field as other creative expressions. They fall short, and thus they rationally fall into a lower level of value.

Yet just to note, it is also possible for a creative expression to be elevated to a level above the usual level of appreciation and beauty; in other words, if we rationally-compassionately view a given field of diverse creative expressions (imagine a July 4th spectacle of diverse expressions), most of the expressions can be equally lumped one compassionate view, but a few of the expressions will stand out as being of a higher level of beauty – they don’t rationally belong in the ordinary category of beauty but rather stand out as extra-ordinary, or a step above the usual range of beauty. So in this rational-compassionate view, much is regarded as compassionately equal in beauty, but some expressions will be rationally regarded as inferior and unworthy of aesthetic or moral appreciation, while some other expressions may be regarded as superior and of a higher level of aesthetic or moral value than the usual or the norm.

Thus, one can appreciate and celebrate the wide diversity of beauty in human expression, both aesthetically and morally, seeing a plural diversity of beauty - rather than insisting that only one way is the beautiful way. Again, this is the compassionate view of beauty and moral action. There is not just one best way, but many equally good ways. Yet, this must be balanced with some degree of rational discrimination, which is to have some boundaries as to what is compassionately included as being beautiful or appreciable. This is where the concepts of right justice and good judgment come in.

To add::

The compassionate view of beauty is accepting and appreciative of a wide range of possible creative expressions, seeing things as being beautiful for just the way they are. And in this range of the equally beautiful, or ‘just wonderful and fine the way it is’, there is no judgment and making value distinctions. There is simply a compassionate equality in the appreciating of everyday beauty. So within this range, one can say ‘its all good’ or ‘its all beautiful’, without discriminating judgments with that range; but there will be flexible boundaries surrounding this middle range of compassionate equality. Some actions or events will fall short of our minimal sense of beauty and thus be rationally discriminated out of the middle range and delegated to a lower aesthetic or moral value. Some other actions or events may stand above the middle range, because of their exceptional extraordinariness and thus be correctly regarded as having higher aesthetic or moral value than that within the middle range of equality.

Also, in relation to this middle range of equal beauty is the important notion of creative freedom of expression. If we look at the bigger picture of Divine Purpose (or even God’s Will), we might see that life (creation) is allowed quite a wide range of freedom in its diversity of expression, much of which is equal in beauty however different or diverse. But even in the general creation, there are expressions which fall short of being truly beautiful or acceptively good. These are caused by the element of chance in creation, and might be seen as part of the overall experiment of creation, but they will eventually disappear in the larger process of evolution, while the extraordinary expressions of beauty are fore-runners in the evolutionary process.




In Process Spirituality, or in what we call spiritual unfoldment, perfect justice is an ideal that is approached but not necessarily reached at this time in the world. We are in a process of moving towards a more perfect justice in the world, as we also move towards finer goodness and harmony in the world. This is different from assuming that perfect justice is already present in the world (though we may not understand it). A religious or philosophical belief that divine justice is always prevailing is a false belief. The world we live in does not always manifest justice. Neither is it true that God is always producing justice, or that all events of the world are ‘just’ since all events come from God’s Will. These are simply false beliefs. I am not denying people the right to believe in this way; for everyone has the right to believe as they wish. I am merely saying that these beliefs are incorrect. I am not saying the beliefs are “bad”, nor that the believers are bad people. I am merely saying that the beliefs are not true and that the believers are incorrect.

Process Spirituality correctly acknowledges injustices in the world, while also affirming that Divine Justice is meant to unfold in the world. Divine Justice is an essential Ideal (or Goal) that is *in process* of being worked out and manifested. It is of the Divine Intention and Purpose for the manifesting world. Justice is ‘meant’ to be here, in the sense of being Intended or in the sense of being an Ideal; but it is not completely here as yet, it has not yet completely unfolded. Present injustices are mostly because: a)there are still corrupt leaders around; and b)the inner divine sense of justice in people has not yet fully awakened, which results in a lack of appropriate response to injustices.

Perfect justice is not always present in the world. Its not even a close call, because there is incredible injustice in the world. It is not all good, and it is not all just. One has to take a stand on this issue. Because if you believe that everything is all good, or that everything occurring is a manifestation of divine justice, then you certainly will not be responding to the world in the same way as one who acknowledges injustice and bad stuff going on. The one group will sit back believing that everything is really alright, or even “perfect”, or that every situation people are in is really their own karma or is part of a hidden divine plan or is the way God Wills it to be (for some good or just reason). Yet the other group will be responding to injustices with care and thoughtfulness. How can the former group respond appropriately to injustices and unethical actions, if they believe there are no real injustices? How can they appropriately respond to unjust or dismal situations in the world, if they believe that everything is already just, or perfectly alright the way it is?

We each have an inherent inner sense of goodness and justice. This is God’s sense of justice within us, our inner divine sense of justice. It is within us, but it may not yet be realized, or it may as yet be obscured by distorted moral conditioning or by a pathological compulsiveness of egocentricism. Gradually, this inner sense is being awakened in humanity, such that the long view of social history will show a gradual march to greater goodness and justice in the world. But we should not be waiting to be carried along by the mass tide of evolutionary consciousness. Rather, it is our personal responsibility to march ahead towards greater justice, rather than wait around for everyone else to march with us. We need to stand up and shout for justice, rather than just be one of the sheep.

Also remember that justice and fairness in the world is not ‘a given’. It is a potential, and it is a struggle.


* Theme of justice:

Justice is one of the important spiritual Ideals. This ideal of Justice is not manifested from the beginning of creation. It is not completely here. Rather, Justice is unfolding and evolving in the world. It is in process of realization and unfoldment. It is coming into being; it is becoming. This is a different understanding from the naïve belief that Justice is already continually present in the world – that everything is just the way it ought to be, or that every event and circumstance is determined by God’s Justice and Good Will. The naïve belief, or the confused belief, is that everything, every event and every circumstance is already a perfect manifestation of Spiritual Justice, or a perfect manifestation of God’s Will (which one assumes is ultimately loving and for the greater Good). The naïve-confused religious belief is that God is determining everything, and since God’s Will is assumed to be Good and Just, it follows logically that everything must be Good and Just. Once again we encounter the confusions and problems of rigid spiritual determinism. There are causes and effects in the world, whereby an action taken will have rippling effects (not only upon oneself, but also upon others); yet it is semantically confusing to associate this natural law with ideals of Justice. It is a semantic mistake to confuse the idea of natural karma with the ideal of Justice. The fact is, justice and fairness is not already completely present in the world. Rather, justice and fairness are gradually coming into manifestation, or gradually becoming realized and actualized. In other words, Justice is in Process of Unfoldment. It is not perfectly here already. Our part in the Process is that we can either help actualize true justice, or else hinder it or go against it.

Justice is related to equal opportunities for people and maximizing individual freedom of expression and choice. Justice can also be related to ethical fairness in general, including non-human species and ecological fairness. Closer to our everyday lives, Justice is connected to our attitudes and actions in relation to others. Firstly, it means seeing and acting from an ethical inter-relational perspective, rather than from an egocentric perspective. And the higher sense of Justice demands that we transcend ethnocentric perspectives as well, to enter the wider universal perspective. Lack of egocentric and ethnocentric bias is essential for realizing true Justice. Secondly, Justice demands tolerance for differing viewpoints, differences of preference, and different levels of moral maturity. We each have to accept the fact that we live in a pluralistic world, with a pluralism of spiritual and ethical beliefs and a pluralism of aesthetic preferences.

We also must accept that there are various stages/levels of spiritual and moral maturity, so we cannot expect everyone to be at the same stage. To some people this suggestion that there are moral levels may sound elitist, but both spirituality and morality are human capacities that have to be developed, just as any human capacity or potential talent has to be developed. So given this fact, it follows that there are people running around with varying levels of spiritual and/or moral maturity. Thus, we need to find ways to deal with this. One the one hand, we cannot simply allow lower-stage moral beings to shape our society and world. Though unfortunately history shows that the lower-matured people are the very ones who grab the weapons and make the wars, or who grab the wealth and enslave the others. We cannot simply allow these folks to run the world and run all over us. So we need to act assertively and even parentally, in relation to these people. Yet on the other hand, we will have to be tolerant of others at all different stages, and tolerant of those who hold different viewpoints; for otherwise, we ourselves will become oppressive manipulators, slaying others in the name of spiritual or moral righteousness. So we need to find balance and reconciliation between our spiritual-moral assertiveness and our spiritual-moral tolerance, within this pluralistic world. How we do this will be our statement of Justice. This is all in the consideration of the unfolding Principle of Justice.


add to above:

Also, justice is a fair reconciliation between differences of interest, or the reconciliation of differing interest groups.

Adding to idea of tolerance—

to be tolerant and patient enough to allow others freedom to grow and mature along their own learning process-path; including tolerance for diversity and pluralism of views and choices. Yet not merely allowing oppression or harming or psychopathic patterns. So dis-tolerance and intervention may be needed when basic ethical lines are crossed.

[the confusion is mistaking justice for karma.]


disasters caused naturally

In the world there are disasters, tragedies and hardships. Terrible things sometimes occur. Sometimes these are caused nature and sometimes by man. In the face of such occurrences, many people have theological explanations. One explanation, commonly heard, is that God has made this happen – for some good reason that we cannot yet understand. This view is based on the absolute power and love of God. That is, if God is both all-powerful and all-loving, then one concludes that the terrible occurrence must be for some good reason or for some future good outcome. An alternative view is that God allows such occurrences – for some good reason. A different view is that the occurrence is God’s punishment for something we have done wrong. These views are incorrect. The correct theological view is that God allows such occurrences for the purpose of human challenge. We are challenged to live within the impersonal, powerful processes of this earth. In other words, the earth is in its own process, and we have to live in and adapt to this process. This is the simplest and correct explanation for natural disasters; its not made by God planning a greater good, nor is it made by a punishing god. It’s just the earth in its natural process. The explanation for human/social caused disasters is just as simple. It is the result of individual humans or societies in process of learning and maturing, and in this process there will be mistakes and unfortunate occurrences. In cases of human caused harms or tragedies, people sometimes do stupid things. Sometimes these people are mentally ill, sometimes they are people lacking in moral sensitivity, or sometimes they are people possessed of wrong beliefs. It is not God creating the tragedies; it is misguided or ill people. So let us acknowledge the plain truth in these matters, rather than believe in untenable theological explanations. The best theological understanding is that God, the Creator, has set forth a universe/world with challenges for us to deal with. God is not all-manipulative of events, but rather God is allowing of natural processes to unfold and learning processes to unfold, and allowing us to be challenged by these natural and social struggles, which strengthens the overall growth of our wisdom and love. For the greater purpose of life is to be in a process of learning, love, and adaptation.



Many of the tragedies of life and very sad occurrences have no real spiritual reason. They are simply accidental or unintended events, as part of the natural processes of life, or in some cases, part of the evolutionary process of humanity. They are not divine intended, nor are they soul created or part of a soul plan. Instead, it’s kind of like being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The world is full of possible hazard. That’s just the way the world is. So all we can do is to be as awake and intuitive as possible. We can also pray for help and guidance to be on a good path, and also do whatever we can to make life more safe and avoid unnecessary suffering.