Your original definition very much resembles Buddhism in that Buddhists seek to reach enlightenment ("grace"?), in the end, through the elimination of conflict. However, your original treatise suggest that grace, as you've defined it, cannot be "attained". If this is the case, do we engage in a futile pursuit of the unattainable or do we merely strive to recognize the virtues of true grace and accept that we will allways fall short? As stated, there can be no grace as there is no way to attain it.
The Buddhist tradition allows that one can reach enlightenment by the expressed and dedicated application of will to overcome worldly distractions. One would think that the first step toward "attaining" grace would be the recognition that there is a higher order and a personal commitment to values and deeds that lend themselves to attaining this perfectly integrated state. I believe that grace, as you've defined, can be attained through the correct application of priciples bound by the theory that there is a higher order and it can be achieved.
Your theory of Grace is convincing but I believe it is flawed on this one point. It would, of course, be helpful to know which definition of grace was desired as there are others beyond what has been discussed here.
I like how you are thinking. I was trying to keep this out of the religious context as much as possible. I think some may confuse my original definition of grace with that of divine grace later in the thread. They are actually quite distinct in that grace is conditional and temporary, divine grace is a permanent unconditional bestowment from God. Also, divine grace deals specifically with the Christian view of spirituality although other religions have similar concepts. Grace can exist with no overtly spiritual connotation whatsoever.
There is a difference between the concept of enlightenment and perfect enlightenment which is also known as Nirvana. A sentient being can be temporarily enlightened but perfect enlightenment is forever and inheritantly, permanently transformative. Attaining perfect enlightenment is technically impossible for a human being because the precise instant it happens your mind ceases to be human. Your mind instantly evolves and in doing so is liberated from the cycle of cause and effect.
An enlightenment experience on the other hand is a state of mind attainable by human beings. It is a point at which your mind is in harmony with the universe, at that point there is no "gap" or interface between the two. It can last for a second a week or more. But, eventually the mind reverts to the unenlightened state. It's like trying to ride a bolt of white lightning, at some point you become "self-conscious" and in doing so develop a relativistic view, "I am riding the white lightning! I am enlightened!", once you do that you've created the symbolic self-perception in your mind of separation between your experience and your conscious awareness and are by definition no longer in an enlightened state.
So, if you want to take my definition of grace and conceive of it as enlightenment that is ok, but not necessary or entirely accurate. Just like enlightenment, as it is conditional, grace is potentially temporary. Grace can apply to any action of anything, not even necessarily a living thing. In contrast, non-sentient and non-living things cannot be enlightened. Grace is an active principle, elightenment can be active or passive. You can do something in an enlightened fashion, but you can also just "be" enlightened as it is simply a state of mind. You can do something gracefully, but you can't just be graceful without being in action. A state of mind akin to enlightenment is possible, but without an active interaction of the mind or body with the physical universe it is not actually the act of "being" graceful.... The natural world abounds with grace as there is no mind to interfere and cause to be seperate the harmonious will of the universe and the action of the object. For example...
A star moves around the center of its galaxy with luminously majestic grace.
Or
The mountain peaks of the Himalayas rise with graceful authority over the clouded sky below. Individuals and even animals can demonstrate grace conditionally and temporarily. For example...
The cheetah raced across the grassy plain with gracefully fluid strides.
Or
Even though he lost the race the 3rd place finisher of the 100 meters demonstrated the grace of a champion even in defeat.As you can see by these examples, grace can come and go, it is an often temporary synchronization of the entity with the universe. It is always by accident, you can't be graceful on purpose. It's like looking at yourself in 3rd person riding the white lightning, the moment you do it you are no longer "being" graceful. You've now created a sense of separation in your mind between the experience itself and your conscious awareness, thereby creating subjectivity. For example, I am a graceful pool player, I play fluidly, my mind is one with the experience, there's no I or opponent or insinuation of me doing anything to something in my mind, I just play. But, although I've never actually tried, I highly doubt I could be an equally graceful ballet dancer.
The state of mind of grace is a conditional and active principle, not passive or necessarily all pervasive and eternal.
