--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > 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."
Yep. Once there is distance to an object, the object is revealed. Since we cannot by definition look at ourselves that way, it is appropriate that we will never see ourselves the same way someone else does. I agree it would be ludicrous for a saint to call themselves one. > 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. For some this is the case- possibly in most cases, it is the kind of thoughtless reflexive static judgment you are describing here. For me it is more like suddenly becoming aware that I have had a sensation on my skin for awhile, and therefore the wind is blowing. An accretive process, and very dynamic, evaluated moment by moment. Memory and feel good labels play no part in my discernment of sainthood (even that term is inappropriate but as close as I can get in English). > > 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. I don't understand this process you are speaking of, except in a general Krishna multiverse type of model...If you mean I may have a need or a reason for projecting something on someone, e.g. sainthood, no that is not what I am referring to here. > 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." Exactly as it should be. To me they appear sinless, and yet to them its like, "hey what's on TV? Damn I wish I didn't watch so much TV." A relative phenomenon to be sure. > > 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. Mistakes. That's an interesting concept. If you explain to me what one is, I may agree such things exist...or not. > > 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. Yes, I will only use the word when it is appropriate. Its all relative. Nonetheless, there is always growth- it just never, ever ends. However, some are as near perfect as we can be on this planet. As for quibbling over the last .000001% it turns kind of silly. > 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. Where did you get that idea? This doesn't apply to me. If they do something selfish the > next day, that doesn't detract from the selfless > thing they did yesterday. Who are we talking about here? This is no longer about saints. > > > 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. Yes, sin is holy. An instrument that the holy Mother and Father created so that we could deepen our recognition of Them. I should have clarified the meaning of "sin" which to me is action which results in coarseness in the nervous system, the effect being a lack of clarity of perception. Not a value judgment, more an absolute with regard to behavior- along the lines of you can run but you can't hide sort of thing. I don't use or understand the term as a bit and bridle as it is commonly used, but rather as an instantaneous result of action. > > > It is a very very small group... > > Again, we agree. I think its membership is zero. No, we don't agree. :-) > > 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. Again, where did that idea come from? Not from me I assure you. > > 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. Oh no, you plainly disagree, and I am 100% OK with that. I am sure of myself, but it doesn't follow that you then have to be sure of me. Does it? > > In this case, it's the existence of "saints." You > believe they exist, and that belief inspires you. Once again, where did that idea come from? I personally have many many, possibly innumerable things that inspire me. The existence of saints is not particularly inspiring. It would be like saying the redwood compared to the moss is an inspiration. Well, sure...but not because the redwood is any better. I am confused by this statement-- I just have no idea where you are going with this. > 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, Where did that idea come from? Life is always a choice for everyone and everything all the time and every place. because one is a > "saint" and that's just how saints are. > > Different strokes for different folks. That's all... > :-)
