Perfection

The New Oxford Dictionary defines ‘perfect’ as: the condition, state or quality of being free (i.e. liberated, as the Buddha)….. from all flaws or defects (Pali: asavas). The word is derived from late Middle English (in the sense of completeness) via Old French from the Latin: perfectus, meaning complete, i.e. ‘as or for a fact’.

In short, ‘perfect’ means: complete, done, i.e. a fact (hence whole, from which holy is derived).

Perfection, i.e. the state of being perfect, happens if and when an observer’s processing is completely de-relativised, meaning defragmented. When an observer’s data processing becomes wholly (i.e. @100%) directed towards (or focused upon or absorbed in) a single outcome (or goal, i.e. the observed, and that can be any outcome observed from any circumstance set) the outcome is processed (and so experienced) as perfect. When that happens the observer and the outcome (i.e. the observed) as it were become or are @one, meaning complete, i.e. whole, and the sense of perfection ensues. Thus can perfection be experienced by any observer with regard to any outcome (or goal, accessed externally or invented internally) provided focussing is perfect, meaning @100%. Which means that any one of the 7,500,000,000 (i.e. seven and a half billion) humans alive today can experience perfection (and release) if and when he or she focuses (i.e. self-completes) perfectly (i.e. @100%), irrespective of his or her circumstances or the form (as content) of the focus/goal.

Or, (the sense of perfection) is a (i.e. an apolitical!!) function of concentration (or absorption).

In short, I achieve perfection (i.e. I experience myself as a stable fact, i.e. as an enstasy) when I become focused at 100% (i.e. when all my processing capacity is applied) and when no spare processing capacity exists to process anything other than the focus, i.e. when processing capacity fragmentation has ended. Then time and space, both of which operate as functions (also measurements) of imperfection (or incompleteness, i.e. of difference), cease. Indeed, at the moment of perfection, and when nothing but the outcome (i.e. the observed) exists for me (like when I’m madly/completely in love and my whole world is reduced to love, as during honeymoon), I experience myself free from all imperfections (i.e. flaw or defects) and from time and space. The signal that perfection has been achieved is generally experienced as the honeymoon affect.

Perfection is attained if and when an observer is done (i.e. has completed) processing ‘flaws and defects’ (i.e. incompleteness) and processes wholly only one (i.e. any) outcome (i.e. the observed, the different). At that moment his/her brain as it were fibrillates (i.e. accesses on-end) the observed.

In yogic terms, Kaivalya (i.e. aloneness, isolation, at-one-ness, i.e. brahman/atman status) is achieved by (Yoga Sutra No 2) eliminating the fluctuations (meaning: flawed because misdirected processing attempts) of consciousness, (thereby aligning data processing to one focus, such as when practicing Japa-Yoga).

In short, whatever is wholly de-relativised (thus presenting as ‘The One without an Other’ = Brahman*) is perfect. Which is why when he dumped his wife and kid the Sakyamuni (later called the Buddha) is reported to have mumbled: “Relationship sucks! I’m off to seek the unrelated.”**

*… Ancient Indians speculated (i.e. in the Upanishads) that merging with the (nirguna) brahman/atman, and entailing demerging from the (saguna) brahman/atman, is akin to ‘returning to factory settings.’ That ancient Indian speculation was a priestly devised cul-de-sac. Indian pantheism does not require reverting to factory settings since the latter ever function as creation template within/as every niche, to wit, ‘As below, so above.’ …. more

**… Had the Sakyamuni (i.e. the Scythian recluse) been to Specsavers he would have seen/known the unrelated in the related.