In response to your Goodness of Reality discussion I'd like to quote this from Leibneiz's "Monadology". Here, his reference to "God" could be substituted with what you call "Reality".
40. We may also hold that this supreme substance, which is unique, universal and necessary, nothing outside of it being independent of it,- this substance, which is a pure sequence of possible being, must be illimitable and must contain as much reality as is possible.
41. Whence it follows that God is absolutely perfect; for perfection is nothing but amount of positive reality, in the strict sense, leaving out of account the limits or bounds in things which are limited. And where there are no bounds, that is to say in God, perfection is absolutely infinite.
42. It follows also that created beings derive their perfections from the influence of God, but that their imperfections come from their own nature, which is incapable of being without limits. For it is in this that they differ from God.
I read this a while ago and it seemed self-evidently true. Since then I've only gained more and more experiential realisations around why this is true. From a more neutral perspective, rather than my own personal perspective, this really does seem like the truth, even beyond any kind of axiomatic argument.
___________________________________________________________________________
Also, regarding your discussion of what you call tanha, I think you're misusing this term and conflating too many different concepts together.
It seems like you're generally discussing the barriers in the way of Goodness of Reality and you highlight how what you call tanha, contributes to a separation between us and the Goodness of Reality.
If we look at the first example you gave:
1. it’s possible to want to defend ourselves or to improve our situations without feeling tanha.
Seems like here, you're talking about the desire to change the current situation. I don't believe this is tanha. I think these discussion of semantics are important beyond just pedantry so please bear with me. Tanha more refers to desire and greed beyond what is necessary, and obviously that causes suffering in real life. However, by the way in which you use the term, it's clear you don't mean this. You're more talking about the dynamic whereby people need to stand up for themselves and confront reality without suffering. I believe the word you're looking for is actually dukkha, which roughly translates to suffering but has a more nuanced meaning which is "poor understanding resulting in instability, unsatisfactoriness and suffering."
There are many causes of dukkha, one of which is a dynamic of people's fundamental desire to seek self-interest and avoid harm. In a situation where one is being treated unjustly, it would be foolish to not do everything in one's power to resolve that situation. Totally natural and not something which is necessarily negative.
If one was in a situation where they could do something, or say something to resolve the situation, and they don't, that's just foolishness. That's basically what your 2nd point is talking about.
But in a situation like you described, where there is nothing the victim can do to stop the perpetrator, then the victim must stop generating suffering internally, through their own fundamental desire to seek self-interest and avoid harm. Let me explain. If one is perceptive, one will notice that this natural desire to avoid harm actually causes suffering itself, because it causes physiological changes in the body that cause certain hormonal responses. These physiological changes could be described as cortisol and adrenaline being released in the body but I think this view is overly reductionist, nonetheless, it's a good way to view it. This dynamic actually causes the person to subtly shift around in their own body, which is a contributor to the instability and poor understanding (in the literal sense of the word) that is described by the word dukkha. Similarly, if we look at the dynamic of self-interest, there are different physiological responses that are different. If I were to oversimplify, I would point to the transformation of glycogen into glucose, and what is called in pop psychology, the "fight response". This also causes the body to shift around, creating suffering when the energy generated is impotent. When we want to do something (self-interest), there is an immediate physiological response, and the degree of this want varies from very subtle to very extreme, in the form of rage or hatred.
So in the situation of the monk being tortured, it would be unwise to continue to be in this dynamic and generate one's own suffering. This also applies in real life too. Most of us, thankfully won't ever be in a situation which is even remotely close to what Jesus, this monk, or countless other martyrs have been subject to throughout history. However, most people react in ways that unnecessarily cause themselves suffering, over things which would be considered trivial in comparison. For example, people were melting down over Trump being elected in 2016 and causing themselves suffering over a nothing burger. Additionally, when conservatives eat meat or drive fuel guzzling cars to "own the libs" and these "libs" start melting down, that's a classic example of suffering which could be avoided with some meditative training and introspection - not easy btw. I'm not advocating for or against conservatives or liberals, this is just an example.
There are other causes of dukkha too, one of which you call unresolved priors. Yet again, it seems like the term samskara would be more apt here, because it describes the concept of unresolved emotional, mental and physical patterns which just replay based off similar (but obviously not the same), sense inputs. Samskaras contributing to dukkha is distinct from seeking self-interest and avoiding harm contributing to dukkha.
Basically, I totally agree with you in the sense that it does seem like reality is perfect, and the only thing that is imperfect are our internal incomplete models of reality. But there are so many things that contribute to dukkha, one simply needs to continue to investigate and be curious in order to tease out the others.
Interesting how all the toppings you mentioned are sweet. I had a revelation the other day. It's possible to have savoury oats, it's just a cultural norm that we eat oats as sweet. This way you can substitute rice completely 1:1. Just cook the oats, rolled or steel cut, and then add salt. Super easy.