David's compassion

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Mother Teresa was a very caring individual who wasn't at any supreme level of wisdom. If she were wiser, she may have professed through her beliefs a little differently. She was doing what she felt to be the right thing, even though she had an ego like everyone else.

But what did Teresa feel? According to herself mostly "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture". Hopefully there was room inside the gloom for some genuine care. Now what would that have for consequences for ones actions? Suddenly the links Dan posted become more likely to be closer to the reality under the image that was created.

It will happen eventually, and gradually. The earth didn't blow up during the Cold War, so the need for drastic growth is behind us. (Even then, the need may only have been for the leaders to grow fast enough to avert imminent doom.)

I admire your confidence in the face of absolutely no evidence. Humanity could probably have survived a nuclear winter - and learned from it - but probably won't survive what's available now, or soon. Actually the cold war deterrence worked because the weapons weren't powerful and precise enough to ensure a big enough destruction as to prevent a strike back. The level of necessary control to improve upon that is quickly growing.

[brokenhead]

DQ writes:

To debilitate people by getting them addicted to heroin and then mopping up the damage by comforting them in their addiction is obviously a very flawed policy. That is what I object to with Mother Teresa and her kind - namely, that she debilitates people by getting them addicted to irrational fantasies and then mops up the damaging consequences of this - all done, mind you, in the name of God. This is not compassion. It is seriously deluded behaviour.

You are changing your little parable about the drug dealer, David! You didn't say he was helping out the same people he supplied. I assumed he was just helping somebody else out. And yes, that makes a difference. Who said anything about a "policy"? I was seeing it quite differently. I was picturing a person who makes a living damaging some people. Should he then not help anyone else out? Why - because it is inconsistent? That is silly! I was picturing an otherwise reprehensible person showing a little compassion. You seem to find fault with the little bit of humanity the drug dealer manages to display. I view that as nonsense, pure and simple. It reminds me of a time when I smoked cigarettes and worked out regularly. Someone remarked to me that it made no sense for me to work out if I was going to keep smoking. How stupid! It was because I smoked that I was careful with my diet and exercise!

I'll admit I know nothing about Mother Teresa other than what I heard in the news and read in the papers. For all I know, she was a necrophiliac. It hardly matters to this discussion, because I am not defending her per se, but rather objecting to your vehement denunciation of her - and "people like her" who do things in the name of God. Maybe she never saw a dollar she didn't like. Could that be because she knew how far it would go to alleviate the suffering she encountered? She certainly didn't use the money she obtained on wardrobe or cosmetic surgery.

David, your belief that unselfish behavior in the name of God is somehow faulty and responsible for the suffering the behavior seeks to remedy is just fallacious. I admit to being a cynic myself, but this has me beat by a mile.

And per what Elizabeth Isabelle had to say about your taking care of your mother, I find that extremely admirable. Frankly, the title of this thread makes me uncomfortable, because it seems too personal. Few of us on this forum know each other very well. Having said that, no one is twisting your arm to get you to make proclamations like the quote above.

I take a dim view of missionary activity in general, and people that drag God's name into their own activities in particular. I was raised Catholic, but have not allied myself with the Church since learning of its history and its present reprehensible tolerance for pedophilia among its clergy. It is a topic for another thread.

Mother Teresa notwithstanding, it seems you would have the same objections to anyone who tried to do unselfish work, especially if they did it in the name of God. I cannot let my own cynicism take me that far. I just can't. I have to believe it is possible to commit random acts of kindness, not for approbation, but just because.

And is the concept so foreign or despicable? Random acts of kindness. I try to do it all the time. I see an elderly person slip and fall, I pick him up. I see someone stuck in the snow, I help push him out. I see someone who has run out of gas, I drive him to the nearest station. I see someone who needs a jump, I pull over and get out my cables. I don't cause these situations. I am not making these people I am helping weaker or more dependent. I am not doing these things in God's name, but I could - what's in my own heart is my business, I figure. I am not out to preach to anyone or convert anyone. Or help anyone, either, for that matter. I certainly don't go out of my way to find these situations. But finding them, I don't turn my back on people.

The ignorance of the masses, the way the press covers tragedy and "heroic" acts like sheep, the rampant sentimentality of people, all these things annoy me daily. But for Christ's sake, David, why zero in on Mother fucking Teresa? It seems small minded, banal, and humorless. And beneath anyone who purports to be wise. Leave such things to people like me, who merrily have no designs on wisdom.

[Shahrazad]

brokenhead,

And is the concept so foreign or despicable? Random acts of kindness. I try to do it all the time. I see an elderly person slip and fall, I pick him up. I see someone stuck in the snow, I help push him out. I see someone who has run out of gas, I drive him to the nearest station. I see someone who needs a jump, I pull over and get out my cables. I don't cause these situations. I am not making these people I am helping weaker or more dependent. I am not doing these things in God's name, but I could - what's in my own heart is my business, I figure. I am not out to preach to anyone or convert anyone. Or help anyone, either, for that matter. I certainly don't go out of my way to find these situations. But finding them, I don't turn my back on people.

The world would be a better place with more people like you.

-

[David Quinn]

It sounds like standard human behaviour to me. And yet the world is as insane and as ignorant as ever.

It's not enough simply to do small acts of kindness. We also need to think long-term and do everything we can to eliminate the root causes of ignorance and misery. Otherwise, we remain little more than sheep.

-

[brokenhead]

brokenhead,

And is the concept so foreign or despicable? Random acts of kindness. I try to do it all the time. I see an elderly person slip and fall, I pick him up. I see someone stuck in the snow, I help push him out. I see someone who has run out of gas, I drive him to the nearest station. I see someone who needs a jump, I pull over and get out my cables. I don't cause these situations. I am not making these people I am helping weaker or more dependent. I am not doing these things in God's name, but I could - what's in my own heart is my business, I figure. I am not out to preach to anyone or convert anyone. Or help anyone, either, for that matter. I certainly don't go out of my way to find these situations. But finding them, I don't turn my back on people.

The world would be a better place with more people like you.

-

That's a nice thing to hear, Shahrazad. I respectfully disagree, at least in the sense that I'm not sure I would like to see more people like me around. But I do agree that the world would be better if the random act of kindness thing were more common. And make no mistake, I have been the recipient of the same thing many a time. I remember one New Year's Eve I was out on the road and tried to make a turn from the shoulder and got stuck on some ice. I was not going anywhere. A few minutes later, a car pulled up behind me, and a young man and a young woman got out and they both pushed me back onto the road. They were all dressed up and obviously going to a New Year's Eve affair, and here they stopped and got mud on their nice clothes just to help out a stranger. And I remember the guy I drove to the service station because his car ran out of gas - he offered me money for my trouble. I declined and told him just do the same for somebody sometime. If violence begets violence, kindness begets kindness.

[David Quinn]

Yes, but knowledge doesn't happen all at once. There is a process to wisdom. Mother Teresa was a very caring individual who wasn't at any supreme level of wisdom. If she were wiser, she may have professed through her beliefs a little differently. She was doing what she felt to be the right thing, even though she had an ego like everyone else. There's nothing wrong with that. If you're getting mad at or berating a lot of spiritual talk for having certain misconceptions surrounding it, you're really condemning everyone for not having **Supreme Wisdom**.

I don't really condemn people for their ignorance and not having supreme wisdom, for I know how difficult it is to acquire it. But I do condemn the idea that certain forms of ignorance - in this case, Mother Teresa's motherly values, fantasizing and short-sightedness -are virtuous and God-related. They aren't.

We cannot even begin to head in the right direction towards acquiring the supreme wisdom until we detach ourselves from these kinds of deluded views.

The more perceptive readers on this forum will know that in attacking Mother Teresa I am really attacking womanly values and feminine unconsciousness. For that essentially is what she embodies, at least as an ideal in most people's minds. In effect, she is like a super-mum.

We have been conditioned by society to believe that this kind of thing is the very embodiment of virtue, whereas in reality it has no connection to wisdom or virtue at all, in any shape or form.

It's not as if we could possibly do away with all preconceptions and enlighten everybody immediately. It doesn't work that way. Let it happen how it'll happen. It will happen eventually, and gradually.

There is no guarantee that it will happen. Indeed, there is every chance in the world that it will never happen, particularly if people continue to be besotted by false idols. This is where geniuses and wise people come into their own. If it wasn't for their diligent efforts to free people from their false idols, to open up their horizons, the human race wouldn't be making any spiritual progress at all.

-

[David Quinn]

If violence begets violence, kindness begets kindness.

Kindness also begets violence, and violence also begets kindness. The two are part of the same cycle, bringing each other into being. The human race allows this cycle to continue because it is loathe to address the root causes of things.

-

[Shahrazad]

David,

It sounds like standard human behaviour to me.

If that is standard behavior in your neck of the woods, I would love to move there.

Brokenhead,

As long as we're exchanging random kindness stories, here is something I have never forgotten. Many years ago I was driving my car in a state called Louisiana. I was nine months pregnant and I ran out of gasoline. I felt incapable of getting out of this one on my own. An unknown man saw me, stopped, drove me to a gas station for me to buy gas, drove me back to get my car, and did not leave until he was sure the emergency was over. The man never flirted with me, never asked for my phone number as a Latin man would do, and gave no indication that he did it for anything other than pure human kindness. The reason his behavior surprised me so much is that it is so uncommon. I always remember the incident when someone else is having car trouble, and feel compelled to help them if I can as a way to repay the kindness shown to me in the past.

And I remember the guy I drove to the service station because his car ran out of gas - he offered me money for my trouble. I declined and told him just do the same for somebody sometime.

Yes, that is the right spirit.

I could share more stories of kindness being passed on to strangers, but this post is already long enough.

-

[brokenhead]

Kindness also begets violence, and violence also begets kindness. The two are part of the same cycle, bringing each other into being. The human race allows this cycle to continue because it is loathe to address the root causes of things.

Dare I ask what that is, David?

[brokenhead]

I could share more stories of kindness being passed on to strangers, but this post is already long enough.

Please do.

[David Quinn]

DQ writes:

To debilitate people by getting them addicted to heroin and then mopping up the damage by comforting them in their addiction is obviously a very flawed policy. That is what I object to with Mother Teresa and her kind - namely, that she debilitates people by getting them addicted to irrational fantasies and then mops up the damaging consequences of this - all done, mind you, in the name of God. This is not compassion. It is seriously deluded behaviour.

You are changing your little parable about the drug dealer, David! You didn't say he was helping out the same people he supplied. I assumed he was just helping somebody else out. And yes, that makes a difference.

I don't see any real difference. By selling drugs in the first place the dealer is condoning the practice of ruining people with addiction. It makes little difference if the addict he helps on the street was supplied by him or another dealer. By his actions, he approves of afflicting people with drug-addled misery, which means that his efforts to ease this misery are ineffectual and hollow. It would be far better if he ceased dealing altogether and stopped doing his bit to create the misery in the first place. Surely, that would be the "human" thing to do, no?


-

[David Quinn]

I could share more stories of kindness being passed on to strangers, but this post is already long enough.

Please don't.

-

[David Quinn]

David,

It sounds like standard human behaviour to me.

If that is standard behavior in your neck of the woods, I would love to move there.

It is standard Australian behaviour at least. I didn't take into account the immaturity of Latin men.

-

[David Quinn]

Kindness also begets violence, and violence also begets kindness. The two are part of the same cycle, bringing each other into being. The human race allows this cycle to continue because it is loathe to address the root causes of things.

Dare I ask what that is, David?

I am constantly addressing this matter throughout my dealings on this forum, so I refer you to all of my other posts.

-

[brokenhead]

DQ wrote:

I don't see any real difference. By selling drugs in the first place the dealer is condoning the practice of ruining people with addiction. It makes little difference if the addict he helps on the street was supplied by him or another dealer. By his actions, he approves of afflicting people with drug-addled misery, which means that his efforts to ease this misery are ineffectual and hollow. It would be far better if he ceased dealing altogether and stopped doing his bit to create the misery in the first place. Surely, that would be the "human" thing to do, no?

Every Thanksgiving, where I live (Philadelphia) you always saw the same thing on the news: the Merlino family handing out turkeys to the underprivileged. The Merlino family is involved with the Mafia, "Skinny" Joey Merlino now behind bars. I always imagined Skinny Joey, once the camera crew stopped filming him tossing turkeys from the back of a truck to a group of black kids, saying," C'mon, c'mon, gimme back those fuckin' turkeys, ya little nigger bastards!"

Of course it would be better if he stopped selling the drugs in the first place!!

[Shahrazad]

Brokenhead,

I composed a reply to you, and when I hit reply, I saw David's post that said "please don't", and luckily was still on time to not send it. Instead, I will send you a PM.

David,

It is standard Australian behaviour at least. I didn't take into account the immaturity of Latin men.

Maybe I should tell you that I lived 15 years in the USA, and over there, when this sort of thing happened I was very surprised due to its rareness. So it's not just Latin nature to be selfish -- it is pretty much human nature.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

David wrote:

…in attacking Mother Teresa I am really attacking womanly values and feminine unconsciousness. For that essentially is what she embodies, at least as an ideal in most people's minds. In effect, she is like a super-mum.

This explains why, when confronted by such views, most people become extremely upset. Their strong irrational attachment to the feminine causes them to ardently defend it. But the beliefs constructing their attachment are severely flawed; making any argument in defence of the feminine highlight its petty, irrational nature.

For example, most people feel they must defend “super-mum” Mother Teresa’s compassion because, though vaguely perceived, they strongly feel that her compassion is the highest goal of humankind. But because this feeling is based on ignorance of what it truly is to be human, all support for Mother Teresa becomes nonsense. And worse still; any potential positives that may have developed out from her actions are sucked into the mire of violence and hatred – that mire created by people’s desire for love and peace.

We have been conditioned by society to believe that this kind of thing is the very embodiment of virtue, whereas in reality it has no connection to wisdom or virtue at all, in any shape or form.

Ah, there’s the rub. People are at base, lazy. They prefer to praise themselves for their weaknesses instead of striving to become free of them – as divine focus joyfully demonstrates:

She was doing what she felt to be the right thing, even though she had an ego like everyone else. There's nothing wrong with that.

And, of course, there’s nothing wrong with living your life by scratching around, attaining a few fleeting pleasures here and there. Some may say it’s not much of a life, but animals seem to get by.

But if you have come to the above opinion, and desire a very different life for yourself, it doesn’t take much thought to unravel the ego, and other illusions. Once free from them, you’ll laugh at the comedy of having been caught in their spell.

.

[brokenhead]

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

But because this feeling is based on ignorance of what it truly is to be human, all support for Mother Teresa becomes nonsense

Pompous? Arrogant? Anal-retentive? What's the word I'm looking for?

But if you have come to the above opinion, and desire a very different life for yourself, it doesn’t take much thought to unravel the ego, and other illusions. Once free from them, you’ll laugh at the comedy of having been caught in their spell.

Unravelled. That's the word.

[Sapius]

Brokenhead;

I'm pointing out that David is implying that somehow Mother Teresa's compassion is less than - in fact, pitiable -an enlightened person's compassion would be.

In my opinion, he is actually emphasizing on the values on which compassion is essentially based on; values that may be reasonably less or more palatable to an individual, but are they logical. seems be his question.

Since David speaks so forthrightly about enlightenment, it's clear we are supposed to infer he is enlightened and any compassion he would show would not be deluded.

That’s another story; absolutely any display of “compassion” would necessarily be delusional in nature, since it can only be of the Samsaric kind, for there isn’t any other kind of existence possible. That should be so in accordance to 'wisdom', unless I got it all wrong. The only difference is, some uderstand it to be so, and others don’t, that’s all.

But hey! I love it, so no complains eihter way. I do what I think is best, "femininity" and all inclusive :)

Well, fucking duh. That is exactly the point of this thread - to point out how the QRS philosophy leads to such absurd statements like David is making about Mother Teresa.

That’s another story too; that how he chooses to "word" his disdain, which may be his style of shock treatment to awaken other people, but the bottom line is, what he actually opposes are the values she holds, as against his.

But, in fact, you are not entirely correct. There is no a priori reason why subjective values can't be discussed.

No one is, but does that mean I’m not entirely wrong? Because I AM talking about discussing the values first, and then talk about “compassion” later. Or am I missing something?

If you mean making claims like "This person's love is greater than that person's," I tend to agree.

No, I mean question and understand why one person’s love makes it any “greater” than another to begin with!?

But actions speak the loudest. Don't forget this quote :"No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for a friend."

Of course they do, but not unless I hold the same values as high as the other person displays.

For example, I say, ‘No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for Allah”. Do you agree? Disagree? And why and why not?

My point is Mother Teresa's actions speak way louder than David's words.

First try and understand what both their values are, without any bias, otherwise you will be simply arguing from your point of view, and David his, without really understanding what values each point of view really holds.

Your later responses do show some interest in understanding without bias, but David'd don’t seem to, really.

---------

So I ask David..

What would a sage actually tell or do for those multitudes of starving and deprived souls of Calcutta, if he were to be placed amongst them?

I know, it is much better to preach wisdom to those that run the country, good luck with that, but what would a sage’s response be to those people directly? For they starve NOW! Not for wisdom, but food.

You know what, I wish words could quench thirst and hunger. I am well aware that thirst and hunger for a sage are of a different kind, but I’m sure he does actually eat time to time.

I ask help from the non-feminine minded too; advise me as what should I do since I plan visiting Calcutta soon.
---------

Elizabeth, it was nice of you to share David’s story, I read a bit of it, but I’m sure those must have been the days of past delusions. He would never advise anyone to act in that way now, nor will he himself, since the days of delusions are over for him. That could be one of the reasons he has not made it public, and you may have actually hampered, harmed, his call to ‘pick up your cross and follow me’, or that ‘one cannot serve two masters’, or ‘he who does not leave his mother, father,’ and god knows who all, ‘cannot enter the kingdom of heaven’.

The question is, would David immediately run a mile to quench the thirst of a dying person? Or say, ‘wait a minute, mate, I’ll get going as soon as I post my next reply’.

Immediate reality is all we have, and has to be dealt with in an immediate fashion, as well as one can; Heaven can wait, IMHO.

---------

Nice thread however; it should become more interesting for you, brokenhead, now that the subject of ‘femininity’ has stepped in.

[brokenhead]

Nice thread however; it should become more interesting for you, brokenhead, now that the subject of ‘femininity’ has stepped in.

That subject is never very far away in these forums. I just read WOMAN - An Exposition for the Advanced Mind by David Quinn and posted on his site. I haven't read anything that funny in a long time. It's a riot to see so many of your own thoughts written down all in one place by somebody else. In a sense, it was written by Everyman. The difference between David and myself is that I don't take all my thoughts so seriously. I remember reading with horror Sisterhood is Powerful. I recall thinking, "How far up their asses can these broads possibly shove their heads?" To be fair, I get the same reaction to the view of Woman so prevalent in the QRS musings. When you take your reactions to individual women and mash them all together and make "WOMAN," it's like a four-year-old's clay rendition of his dog Spot. It bears little resemblance to the original and it'll never fetch a goddamn stick.

Having said that, the amount of effort that must have gone into the essay WOMAN is absolutely hilarious and truly appreciated. My reaction is, "There! Somebody had to say all this. David did, and now I don't have to."

But then brokenhead has been known to attend women's "Take Back the Night" rallies to pick up chicks. Can't live with them, ... Pass the beernuts.

[sue hindmarsh]

brokenhead wrote:

Sue: But because this feeling is based on ignorance of what it truly is to be human, all support for Mother Teresa becomes nonsense

Pompous? Arrogant? Anal-retentive? What's the word I'm looking for?

As I wrote in my post, most people become extremely upset when the feminine is being attacked. It’s natural that they do so, for by attacking the feminine, you are attacking their hopes and dreams of their imagined happy future.

Sue: But if you have come to the above opinion, and desire a very different life for yourself, it doesn’t take much thought to unravel the ego, and other illusions. Once free from them, you’ll laugh at the comedy of having been caught in their spell.

Unravelled. That's the word.

The ego builds layers upon layers of lies in order to protect itself. It takes a person with both a strong intellect and a strong stomach to confront those lies head on. For most people, the idea of investigating their own ego is much too scary – and the idea of attacking it is kept at a very safe distance by describing such an act as “impossible”. Lies, of course, but useful to keep the ego ravelled.
.

[sue hindmarsh]

brokenhead wrote:

I just read WOMAN - An Exposition for the Advanced Mind by David Quinn and posted on his site. I haven't read anything that funny in a long time. It's a riot to see so many of your own thoughts written down all in one place by somebody else. In a sense, it was written by Everyman.

I must have missed the section in Exposition where David mindlessly regaled his readers with stories of trawling women’s rallies to “pick up chicks”.

The difference between David and myself is that I don't take all my thoughts so seriously.

Your not taking your own mind seriously is an important difference between you and David. David obviously works hard to ensure that his thoughts accord with what he knows to be the truth. Your statement accords with the quality of work you have submitted to this forum - with posturing and gossiping taking no thinking whatsoever.

I remember reading with horror Sisterhood is Powerful. I recall thinking, "How far up their asses can these broads possibly shove their heads?" To be fair, I get the same reaction to the view of Woman so prevalent in the QRS musings. When you take your reactions to individual women and mash them all together and make "WOMAN," it's like a four-year-old's clay rendition of his dog Spot. It bears little resemblance to the original and it'll never fetch a goddamn stick.

Yes, you’ve made it clear that you haven’t the foggiest idea of what WOMAN refers to – but in doing so, you give a clear example of its effect.

Having said that, the amount of effort that must have gone into the essay WOMAN is absolutely hilarious and truly appreciated. My reaction is, "There! Somebody had to say all this. David did, and now I don't have to."

Without understanding what WOMAN is, or how it impacts on society, you couldn’t possibly write a book about it.

But then brokenhead has been known to attend women's "Take Back the Night" rallies to pick up chicks. Can't live with them, ... Pass the beernuts.

Unconsciousness, the nature of WOMAN, underpins much of society. A small, but common example above shared by brokenhead.
.

[Alex Jacob]

Brokenhead, you make me want to read David's book. But having read some poetry once, David's or someone's, and having needed a week to recover from it, I am a little scared to click on the link.

I too have felt a sort of delicious attraction for some of the voluptuous pronouncements against 'Woman!' that one comes across from time to time. These are the sentiments of Everyman and they can be gleaned all throughout history. A nice one I came across just the other day in A Thousand and One Nights:

"Friend! Don't ever place your trust in woman, laugh at all her promises!
Her good or bad humor depends exclusively on the caprices of her vulva!
She professes true love when perfidity is her form and the very fabric from which she is woven! Always remember the words of wise Yusef. Don't ever forget that Iblis [the devil] caused the expulsion of Adam from Eden all because of a woman's wiles! Don't trust her, friend! It's useless! Tomorrow, in she whom you most trust, the purest love will be superceded by the basest lust! And never say: If I love deeply, I'll avoid all the insanities that befall lovers! Don't say it! It would be a prodigious day when a man manages to escape safe and sound from women's seductive trap!" (My translation from Spanish).

[sue hindmarsh]

Alex,

Over on the Worldly Matters thread, "Another great anti-feminist site" you admitted, as brokenhead has done, that you don't take your own mind seriously.

Alex: nothing is completely fixed in my mind, there is no thought or idea that I offer as an absolute, and I do not know what is the best and the most correct relationship for men to have with women, nor do I finally know if there is a sort of cosmic answer to this question, some established order to which women and men must conform to achieve harmony and balance.

Yet - like brokenhead, you posture that you have some insight into WOMAN. But it is obvious from the content of your posts that you do not.

Just like brokenhead, you are caught up completely in the sway of WOMAN. Like him, you continue to long for the company of women - using that longing to define who and what you are.

Alex: I am interested in exploring and defining my own power, and in asserting the ways that a woman---my gf [girlfriend] or companion---can assist me in my 'project', and not the other way around. If she can, we can grow together, if not, she goes down the road. (But she never 'goes down the road' poorer and abused, it is pathetic that a man would do that, but always richer and better off, as did my last GF…)

You're throughly attached to the comforts and status women can bring men. And stating what sort of woman you'll accept into your life is no testament of being free of her. Far from it - it actually means that you have invested all of your mind into her.

You are no different from Rich Zubaty (who you consider "a cry-baby"), as like him, you have no interest in the deeper matter of WOMAN - all that matters to you is your personal happiness - which is totally WOMANish.
.

[brokenhead]

Sue Hindmarsh writes:

The ego builds layers upon layers of lies in order to protect itself. It takes a person with both a strong intellect and a strong stomach to confront those lies head on. For most people, the idea of investigating their own ego is much too scary – and the idea of attacking it is kept at a very safe distance by describing such an act as “impossible”. Lies, of course, but useful to keep the ego ravelled.

And sometimes a banana is just a banana, Anna.

Let's get one thing straight - I don't know the first thing about Mother Teresa, nor do I care. You seem to be implying that you have the brains and the guts that so many others lack. You are clearly deluded. But that's okay with me. I am simply pointing out that there are far more reprehensible people in the public eye than MT. Like almost everybody. You are not only picking on a rather defenseless old eccentric, but a dead defenseless old eccentric. For you to throw up a pseudointellectual rationale like the quote above is beneath you - you are obviously educated, but you are not operating on all cylinders. Yes, people that fawn all over Politically Correct viewpoints make me want to puke. But blaming MT for the opression of the people she tried to help is beyond nonsensical.

You seem to pride yourself on what you have done with your "ego." But it's as if you have disassembled it, found an infection, then just put it all back and wound it up with gauze. If by "unravelling the ego" you mean examining yourself with a dispassionate, critical eye, don't think for a second you have a corner on that market. Don't imagine that whoever takes on the task of self-deconstruction with the sole aim of brutal honesty is going to come up with the same conclusions you and David have. It's the pinnacle of pomposity. The acme of arrogance. I get it that you see yourselves as beacons in the dark world of ignorance and self-gratification. But that is plainly preposterous.

And I am not putting down your work. Just your gargantuan sense of self-imporatance. David's essay on WOMAN is like a Monty Python routine, only funnier.

No, Sue. Walking up in the WTC on 9/11 when everyone else is going down is brave. Bashing withered old MT - and Christianity along with it - is perverse. Separate the Church (Roman, Anglican, every last one of them) from Christ's teachings. Separate them in your mind as they have been separated in the world for two thousand years. Then try to view the world with your heart instead of your formidable intellect (and I am not being facetious.) Then see if identifying human compassion as the root of helplessness and oppression makes sense.

Oh - I forgot. Of course it will make sense. You don't learn; you teach.