Turq, Here we go again with another "God" discussion.
To me a saint is not a do gooder, but is instead a "do-whateverer-for-God. (Oh, take those fingers out of your ears and stop saying la la la la la non-stop, I think I can win you over on this. And if not, probably your withering return fusillade will be ecstatically painful, and hey, I'm up for a purifying lashing. Sudden thought: I bet we could form a religion for S&M-ers by showing them that their fetishistic attachments are, spiritually speaking, merely a tad shy of being acts of eschewing materiality. We could have windfall profits on yagya blessed whips, for instance.) Krishna told Arjuna to kill. And killing is always a sin, but upholding dharmic morals is a higher goal -- that's the loop hole of all religions when they must authorize social slaughter: "God wants it this way instead." So, Arjuna is told, "Whence this fainthearted blemish? Pick up that broken chariot wheel, an unsanctified weapon, and while your twin brother, Karna, is not looking, with a dastardly ungentlemanly show of poor sportsmanship, smite this cancer of your caste on the back of his head before he remembers that mantra Brahma gave him and he nukes the entire battlefield with a Sanskrit poem." God cheats Himself, cuz that's the only way to pull a fast one on One's self when One is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnivorous, omniomanipadme, you know, all the OM's. The essence of drama is knowing one's lines but saying them like they had never been thought of until just when spoken, but when the drama grinds to a halt, God has to break the rules -- i.e. write new lines on the spot -- so that evolution can take place. This is the three-body problem restated in that EVEN GOD doesn't have the math to get from A to B in the gravitational presence of C, but must do course corrections along the way. God gets the drama's characters into "absolute corners" with no wiggle room left -- here's Arjuna facing his equally endowed brother who additionally has that end-everything mantra, and there is just no way for Arjuna to best Karna, and yet that is what must happen if the story's plot is to move forward. So like all authors, arbitrary willy nilly capricious serendipity and SINNING is a tool for God. Otherwise, everything goes poof in a Shiva heartbeat. But wait, I was supposed to be talking about saints. A saint is someone who is, since sainthood, in the audience -- not on the stage. The saint is viewing all the characters on the stage knowing that once she-he thought her-himself to be merely ONE of the role players -- not the NON-UN-GRASPABLE behind them all. A saint sees the drama's characters with the same clarity that Valentine Michael Smith (Stranger in a Strange Land) had when he watched the monkeys in the zoo beating up each other and moving the shit downhill. He started laughing. He was suddenly free of any desire for the monkeys to act otherwise. Why? He suddenly understood Krishna's words: "Unfathomable are the ways of Karma, oh Arjun." A saint cannot be found on the stage. Point at Ramana Maharshi and yell SAINT SAINT SAINT as loudly as you might, and the Ramana body will say, "Ain't no one here that answers to that name, try asking at then next ashram." There's that joke about the jungle explorer who is told by a local priest not to wipe off the Foo Bird's droppings that had just landed on his head. The explorer scoffs, wipes, and then is struck dead by lightning. The priest says, "If the Foo shits, wear it." Well, saints understand that. The character on stage will do whatever the author's written no matter the consequences. Funny thing is that the other characters cannot do otherwise, but they're written AS IF they have free will. The saint character merely has the knowledge that the author is speaking extemporaneously through her-him, doing course corrections on the plot donchaknow, cuz the other characters, being like algorithms, have no karmic flexibility. A saintly act is grease for the cogs, white out for God's typing, a cattle prod used by Jack Baur on his BEST friend when Jack has the slightest thought that that BEST friend knows something that could allow Jack to thwart a terrorist. Like that, God's saints are doing improv. They're in on THE JOKE OF GOD. (Yoke of God?) And like all comedy, it hurts when the laughter is deepest. I say, "Let's all give up being good -- for Lent." For forty days, let's all wear the Foo Shit." Stop the buck, wear the guck, fuck the luck, love that muck, and have a yuck being a puck. Let God whack you across the ice through Satan's legs and into the net. Something like that. A Sunday morning thingy. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> 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... >
