I think I hate Mother Teresa now... (page 7)

JamesThomas

Six,

It's not "bold" at all when you see it clearly within yourself.

Don't take my word for it.

j

Fleur

It's so easy to criticize. And all who are critical, exactly what are you doing to alleviate suffering?

Kenneson, you will never know how much people do individually that is never known publicly or spoken of and they prefer it that way. I've seen them do it. I've seen many here give and give, they just prefer to keep it quiet as possible.

SixofNine

I guess I don't understand JT. What is the "it" that, if I saw "it" whithin myself would make this statement "All suffering, all "evil", is due to misidentification with a tiny broken self which was born and will die. " understood?

Kenneson

Fleur,

The givers I know are not into criticizing their fellow givers. But I guess there are exceptions.

JamesThomas

Six,

It is That which of everything in the universe, is not a thing, and can not be objectified.

It is That which is closer than close.

Play before you your entire life story. Now, what is looking? No matter how tragic the story, is It touched or tainted?

Start placing more attention on the awareness of awareness rather than the day to day story; and you will see.

j

jgnat

Just saw the request for more information.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/134/story_13413_1.html

http://www.sicherheitsmeister.com/mv/index.php/Mother_Teresa

You should know by now that debunkers are to be taken with a grain of salt. The WBTS does this habitually, breeding fear and cynicism with their selected quotes. Read both sides before you form an opinion.

under74

Well, thanks for that FBF...someone appreciates me around here.

No, not "high" ...that stuff makes me sick....I'm drinker. Anyway, many people have some good points to make...I've been drinking so I love everybody right now...just like Mother Theresa.

PinTail

Me and Mother Teresa shared a pitcher of Rolling Rock once, she bored me to know end; but she shot pool like a champ.

Shane

Abaddon

Ross

As I said, I happen to feel that advising people not to use condoms is, if it can result in death, as contrived and life-harming a doctrine as the JW's blood transfusion one. No response from you.

I also see nothing wrong with due criticism; Teresa got millions; if a publically-accountable charity had the same policies and level of delivery of care as her order, it would end up in court and no one would criticise the investigation. What do you think?

I don't believe in 'get out of jail free' cards; you know the 'world-famous humanitarian so we won't actually question how humane she actually was as it is disrespectful' routine going on in this thread.

I think the idea that, essentially because she was a nun, she gets to not exercise due dilligence in financial matters or can provide doctrinally influenced medical advice without criticism is a joke.

A secular person wouldn't get away with it, no matter how much of their life they devoted to it, if they did the same things. Why does doing it 'cause you think it is god's work get you off criticism?

I don't see any connection between god, heaven, and Teresa, or how fair criticism in any way influences how easy it is to 'get to heaven'.

What it does is underline how silly thoughts related to people EARNING salvation are. If there is such a thing as salvation, we better be given it, as essentially even if we are 'saints' we are still flawed humans.

I get the idea that you are reaching a new stage in your de-Dubbing. I don't think you'll like it as it involves accepting the world as it is (money-hoarding nuns who sanctify suffering and all), rather than the idealistic one you might want. It sucks, I know. I fully expected to have thrown my glasses away by now and have a pet lion.

James

A lot of what you say sounds awfully like the base concept of the Vedic traditons, you know, Atman and -atman, etc.

Well, if not, it's similar to the extent my knowledge of them allows to comment. Personally I find the base concept very attractive.

It doesn't automatically falsify itself or ask for belief in super-men in the sky ticking boxes when we are good. It also butt-joins with Teilhard's philosphies (sort of), again, as far as I'm able to deduce without actually studying both 'properly'. Also makes me think of the 'thou art god' greeting from Heinlein's SiaSL.

Very interesting, and yes, as you point out it does allow explanation of 'nasty' people without undermining the base concepts.

Whether such philosophies are 'reality', or just a good guide for life/way of understanding existence/method of distracting oneself from the inevitability of death is a different question.

One can walk on burning coal due to the way the laws of physics work; it doesn't mean your feet are resistant to heat. Our imagination is a powerful tool. Just because we can conceive and experience as real certain concepts because of the way our mind works doesn't mean they are in themselves 'real'.

But as perception is reality... then again, maybe. "What is awareness?" could keep us going for a while as a conversational topic, I am sure.

Personally I find the idea that our lives are meaningless unless we do something with them that gives them meaning (to us) quite an attractive and powerful concept.

Kenneson

I don't see what connection a person's own charitable works has to do with their factual criticism of someone's work. The argument you seem to be pushing is;

"If you haven't done charitable work you cannot criticise someone who has done charitable work even if there is room for criticism."

But maybe you don't mean that, as that's silly.

jgnat

Please hold the salt.

The Wikipedia material in the second of the two links makes full reference to the criticisms of her work. It also links to the Wikipedia article on her order, the Missionaries of Charity. It seems the term 'Charity' in the order's name is a misnomer. Under strict UK charity laws we get a 'glance under the hood' that they avoid in many countries;

In the United Kingdom, where the law requires charitable organisations to disclose their expenditures, an audit in 1991 concluded that only 7% of the total income of about US$2.6 million went into charitable spending, with the rest being remitted to the Vatican Bank.

The first of the two links you provided is commendably honest;

But the work that made her famous, while admirable, wasn?t all that exceptional, especially for a nun. You can find plenty of people doing what she did?taking care of the sick and the dying, finding homes for abandoned children, defending the poor, the unwanted, and the unborn.

Sorry, but my request for details of what she did (in terms of charitable work) seems to have underlined the criticisms being made about the lack of charitable work given the quantity of the income.

Live Aid raised $245m worldwide, with the hugest majority of it actually ending up in the bellies of the hungry.

Mother Teresa inc. raises 1% of that in ONE year in ONE country and the poor get 7% of it - less than $190,000. If that strikes you as unimpressive;

In Haiti "she said that the Duvaliers "loved their poor," and that "their love was reciprocated.""
She wrote to the court asking for leniency for someone who had stolen $252m in the Savings and Loans scandle. This someone had given her Order $1.25m; when the district attorney asked for the money back, she declined.

Are people going to still carry on about how unjust criticism of 'the blessed Teresa' is, or will they take saintly reputations with a kilo of salt in the future?

Derek

That quote is from a press conference in 1981; check the Wikipedia reference.

JamesThomas

Abaddon,

You're right, probably the most clear and precise conceptual explanations of this is found in "Vedic" teachings, especial Advaita Vedanta. However, the tighter one embraces conceptual, intellectual, beliefs and understandings, the more blind to what we seek we become; simply because the mind uses religious or spiritual beliefs as significant foundation pieces of it's made-up identity. It is the false identity which hides what is True. So, this is not about believing anything, or building conceptual models within the mind. In a sense the more we discuss and study it, the more ignorant we become. That said, some degree of intellectual understanding can be beneficial preparation, however, always, in the end, everything thought to be true or believed to be true must be abandoned within a total surrender; that the actuality of Truth reveal Itself.

As far as I know Teilhard was keen on a "spiritual evolution", which reinforces the idea that we are not yet where and what we need to be; and reduces Truth to some thing subject to space and time. Truth is Truth, now and forever. It just need be seen. Forget evolution. Forget time. Trust totally that what you seek is right now waiting within to be rediscovered or realized.

"Nasty people" are lost in the beauty of Truth, our true-Being. It excludes no one and no thing. It is beyond and untouched by opposites of good and bad (this sounds crazy. It has to be seen first hand).

"Philosophies", are never the Reality which we seek. They are just mental ideas. What is not an idea? What sees all ideas? What do theologies and philosophies exist in? Our true-Being is always bigger and grander than any and all objects which move through It. When we focus on the ideas, concepts, beliefs and objects as if they are the final reality, we become blind and numb to what holds them.

As far as a meaning-full or meaning-less life, would not being true to our true Being mean infinitely more than anything we do buried within the tiny fragmented illusion of who we believe ourselves to be?

j

I think I hate Mother Teresa now...

Share this