To repeat Eliot:

For most of us, this is the aim
Never here to be realised;
Who are only undefeated
Because we have gone on trying;
We, content at the last
If our temporal reversion nourish
(Not too far from the yew-tree)
The life of significant soil.


On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> As I just noted, that is not the position of the mystics, and some claimed
> to have reached that stage.
> N
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>> Well, God or no God, perfection is relative. We can acquire only a degree
>> of it.
>> And so at no stage can we be "perfect."
>> Regards,
>> CR
>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>>> The proposition, "God is perfect," is probably heretical. In all of its
>>> usages "perfect" retains some of its literal meaning, "brought to an end,
>>> completed."  And hence the word _could_ (I've never explored the matter)
>>> carry the implication that at _some point in time_ God was incomplete, but
>>> now has become what He Is.
>>> That way madness lurks.
>>> :-)
>>> Carrol
>>> P.S. I've just discovered by accident that the complete text of Canto
>>> XVI is available for download at the Poetry site. That Canto is a marvel
>>> even when pronounced by the synthetic voice of ZoomText. Il miglior fabbro
>>> indeed.