‘For know, rash world, that in this star crost world Reality drives us all to find our chiefest good in what we can, and not in what we would.’ *
‘What we would’ is cosmically wrong because it ignores what Reality has in mind for all existence, including us.
Ideologies, religions, fashionable fads and thoughts, human logic and reasoning are ‘What we would’ rather than Reality. They are mental constructs, myths and imagination, not the real thing. They are what produces and maintains human chaos – including the painful warlike kind – as well as anarchy, anger, attachment and ego.
‘What we can’ is, for instance, the secret heart of Zen, ‘going with the flow (of Reality)’.
Mystics will also present you with the possibility of ‘going into the Silence’ for all the answers you’ll ever need.
The idea we can do anything otherwise is a cosmic joke and never very funny throughout human history …
Some identify our wilfulness as an evil that bedevils humans and humanity.
The good news is, Reality is apparently unperturbed by human chaos. It always prevails eventually.
(From when I was assured ‘All Is Well’ in one of my Mystical Experiences of Reality – MERs – I can only pass on that Reality’s time to get things done is not our time, and our time is not Reality’s …).
*With apologies to George Bernard Shaw, Irish born British author, playwright and political activist, 26 July 1856 – 2 November 1950, who used the words ‘Fate’, not Reality and ‘rash youth’ not rash world …
Mystical Experiences of Reality 
“Going with the flow”. What an important, little understood and under practiced concept. It has mental as well as physical applications. On the physical side: going with the flow of nature and not desecrating the planet. On the mental side: learning to let go of the temptations evolution has saddled us with. Letting go of self interest, flowing with the rest of our species and all the flora and fauna which surrounds us. Not building castles and walls to divide us, mentally and physically.
If, as seems not unlikely, we live within an infinity of infinities, our foolish actions on this rocky little outcrop do indeed seem unlikely to perturb reality. It is a pity though that we can not seem to do a better job of living while we are still alive. Whatever reality does or does not have in store for us after that.
“What WE would”. Yes, an important phrase. We is “I”, we is the ego. We is what has driven us as a species to violence, war, greed and destruction.
Even if, in the long term, reality has better plans for us, we may as well try to make a better job of it while we are here in this often grim physical instantiation.
I can not help wondering whether the scales might then drop from our eyes and reality would embrace us in the here and now.
LikeLike
If I’ve read my hastily Googled search for the meaning of the word ‘instantiation’ aright, Anthony, the only instantiation we have is the mystic experience that reveals Itself only to those it calls or reveals Itself – seekers and mystics.
At sometime in the future we might have to add ‘metaphysical scientists’ to seekers and mystics. I see a change from the sovereignity of matter being the holy grail of science to an uneasy scientific awareness of non human Consciousness as the final source of assuaging mere human/scientific curiosity.
Kindest regards, Keith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Instantiate” is one of the few interesting pieces of vocabulary I have learnt from the otherwise dismal world of Object Oriented Programming. And its fits what I was trying to say rather well.
You have a human model or blueprint which sets out the various things a human is supposed to consists of. Brain, arms, legs, organs. In general terms the model describes how to make a human.
An individual human is then an “instantiation” of that class or model.
Perhaps the true “model” of a human is that of a mind, or consciousness without arms or legs or any physical form at all. I hope so!
Hence “this often grim physical instantiation” we find ourselves in would be the otherwise free and formless energy of mind encapsulated in a nasty and faulty body of leaky water and carbon.
Anyway, as you know, I often get carried away with words!
LikeLike
Your definition of instantiation gives much greater clarity, Anthony..
So just keep ’em coming! You’re keeping the language alive ….
Keith.
LikeLike