Wednesday January 18, 2006
A few weeks ago, I attended a film on the life and teaching of the 11 th and 12 th Century Islamic philosopher Al-Ghazzali at Birmingham’s ever-wonderful Electric Cinema. As well as the film, there was a talk and chance for questions with the film director and an Islamic scholar from the British Library.
It was an altogether fascinating event, and I appreciated getting to know this extraordinary thinker a little better. I was impressed also by the way that Al-Ghazzali’s biography was explored in the film. Although the film was a testimony to an incredible admiration, nowhere was there any indication that Al-Ghazzali was in any way perfect or immune from human shortcomings. Yes, he was an impressive individual. But he, like all of us, had his weaknesses: the speakers spoke freely not only of his brilliance, but also of his arrogance, his pride and his occasionally harsh treatment of others. Of course, in Islam human beings simply cannot be perfect. Perfection belongs to God. We are imperfect. But that does not make us lost causes: we do not need to be perfect for our lives to be worthwhile.
I was stuck by the difference between this human evaluation of this clearly very great man, and the kind of hagiographies that tend to occur in Buddhism. I must confess here that I am uneasy with many Buddhist hagiographies, and I am uncertain of the value of thinking in terms of perfection, because I think that it can tend to obscure or even denigrate our humanity. Do we really understand the Dalai Lama (or any other Buddhist figure – take your pick!) better, for example, by assuming that he is perfect? Hagiography may uplift the faithful, but it often obscures the real social, political, historical and, above all human contexts in which we all live and move.
What, after all, does perfection mean? And on what basis might we make such a claim that this or that person was perfect? It is not only that I haven’t met any perfect human beings (although I don’t think I have) but also that I simply wouldn’t know what it would be for a human being to be perfect. I wonder if the dream of some kind of perfection is a potentially dangerous delusion, obscuring a truly attentive appreciation of what it is to be human, independent of the judgements of “perfect” and “imperfect”, and leading to harsh judgements upon those who we deem to be less than perfect. The pursuit of perfection can lead to a disdain for what we, most deeply, are, a frustration with ourselves, with others and with the world. Perhaps it is more frutiful to see that it is possible to lead lives of many excellences, without these being perfect lives; to see that all of us are prone to error, to the many limitations and shortcomings that simply come from being human, without seeing these errors as defeats: and on this basis to work continually not towards perfection, but towards something that is both quieter and more meaningful…
Why practise, it might be asked, if practice is not about perfection? Because, I would suggest, it is not necessary to be perfect to act with kindness. It is not necessary to be omniscient to have a degree of wisdom. Because we can open up spaces of kindness, grace and dignity within this world without having to wait for perfection before we do so. Because apart from anything else, time, it seems to me, is limited: far too short to be chasing after perfection.
The following poem, I think, says it all. I discovered it on retreat recently, and it has continued to play on my mind. It is called Wild Geese, and was written by the wonderful Mary Oliver.
You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of your body
love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting – over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.
Comments are turned off for this article.
Today's Most Popular
Tintin: Wednesday May 24, 2006
The boy reporter and the Dalai Lama.
Clarity and Confusion: Wednesday December 12, 2007
Analytic philosophy, continental philosophy and mollusc-based diets.
Not: Thursday February 5, 2009
Thoughts on the Heart Sutra.
Meditation as Natural History: Monday January 7, 2008
Meditation, natural history, and medieval books of beasts.
Rebirth? No. Rebecoming? Yes.: Wednesday December 3, 2008
The incoherence of rebirth
The Transitive Theory of Weirdness: Monday October 6, 2008
Johnny Wilkinson and quantum physics
Peace: Monday November 7, 2005
Is it true that non-violence cannot deal with the crises in the present-day world?
Virtuosi: Monday November 24, 2008
Thoughts on meditation and virtuosity.
Are You Buddhish?: Saturday March 10, 2007
Buddhish. Adjective: Not quite Buddhist; Spuriously or falsely claiming to be Buddhist;
The Trouble With Ethics: Thursday October 6, 2005
Is the trouble with ethics that there is simply too much of it?
Zen, Brains and Making Friends With Your Own Head: 10 Nov, 2008
It’s a complicated business having a brain.
Lies in Which not Everything is False: 10 Sep, 2008
Stories – they are nothing but a pack of lies.
The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: 30 Oct, 2007
Aidan Delgado on Buddhism, ethics and the war in Iraq.
Baboon: 06 Jun, 2006
Feeling like a grumpy old baboon?
Meditation as Unphenomenology: 07 Feb, 2008
Meditation, cartography and the territory of the mind.