--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > It all comes down to whether we see him as a Saint or not. If > > > > not, > > > > his motives are crass and selfish, or at best well intentioned > > > > fumbling, and everything he does clicks into place with that > > > > perspective. On the other hand, if we see him as a Saint it > > > > all > > > > clicks into place also. > > > > > > I see him as a man who is sometimes crass and selfish, and > > > sometimes a saint with compassionate and magnanimous motives. > > > Both ordinary and extraordinary. > > > > It is the limitation of some people that they > > cannot conceive of those they have put up on > > pedestals of being capable of being both crass > > *and* saints, at the same time. In their minds, > > a being can only be one or the other. Their > > limitations in this respect should not prevent > > those of us who have *no problem* conceiving > > of such a thing from doing so. > > > I think it really comes down to what we consider "a Saint". True, > humans are capable of the entire spectrum of behavior, from near > complete purity to abhorrent evil, and everything in between, as you > mention above for example, partly crass, partly pure.
Jim, you nailed the issue IMO by using the phrase "what *we* consider a saint." I've never met a "saint" who considered himself or herself one. But I've met quite a few humans whose followers consider them "saints." It's a projection process -- what the onlookers project *onto* the person and their actions -- that determines "sainthood," as that term is used on this planet. In my opinion humans have an inherent tendency to look for perfection and project it onto the people and things in which they hope it resides. But the people and things themselves are just people and things -- multifaceted, each of them containing as many "imperfect" sides as they do "perfect" ones. Have you ever read any of the words written *by* the so-called "saints?" They're often revealing, especially when compared to the words written *about* them by their followers. Saint Francis of Asissi was regarded as a saint by some people of his time (and today), but if you read *his* writings, he thought that he was essentially a slimeball. All that he could see about himself were the last few "imperfections" that he was working on trying to get rid of. You can find the same thing in many of the writings of Eastern "saints." In other words, *they* don't delude themselves into thinking that they're "perfect." Only their followers do that. For the "saints" themselves, they're just trying to get through the day, and do as much good as they can, while doing as little harm as they can. And enlightenment does not necessarily make that process of discernment any easier, as far as I can tell. These people whose followers call them saints are *human*, and make human mistakes, just as any other human does. That's one of the main reasons I don't like the word "saint," and rarely use it. It implies that the person you attach the label to is no longer going through the daily struggle to keep their thoughts and their actions "clean," and has somehow "risen above" the need to do so. Me, I don't think humans *ever* get to that place. And that's just FINE with me. I don't need "saints" or even the idea of them to make me feel good about someone when they do something selfless. If they do something selfish the next day, that doesn't detract from the selfless thing they did yesterday. > However there are those few precious individuals on the planet > who are completely sinless. Well, I'd have to agree with this one, but that's because I don't believe that there is any such thing as "sin." It's a human-invented concept, and a bad concept at that, one that has caused more suffering in the people who have come to believe in it than their supposed "sins" have ever caused. "Sin," as used in modern society, is synonymous with "doing something that you have been convinced there is a need to feel guilty about." That's a concept that is pretty much foreign and meaningless to a Tantric, one who views every action one could perform in the world as equally holy. It's not the action per se; it's the state of attention and intent and joy that one brings to the action that makes the difference. > It is a very very small group... Again, we agree. I think its membership is zero. And that's OK. Far better to be a human being who is trying to do the little things of his or her life in as positive a fashion as possible than to be some fictional character in someone's fantasy who does *everything* positively. In other words, although you are welcome to your ideas about "saints" and how "sinless" and "perfect" they are, I have to regard these ideas as your projected fantasies. That doesn't mean that I don't think you are perfectly entitled to believe what you believe, or that I think your beliefs are "lesser" than mine. I'm just making the point that (yet again), you are making some assumptions about the nature of the universe that you seem to assume that everyone else agrees with and "buys into" to the same degree that you do. In this case, it's the existence of "saints." You believe they exist, and that belief inspires you. I believe that they do not exist, and that belief inspires me. For me it's far nobler to be actively trying to lead a good life than to spontaneously do so because one has no choice, because one is a "saint" and that's just how saints are. Different strokes for different folks. That's all...
