The Necessity of Being a Sinner

In a world over-run by the polarities of religion, secularism, and esoteric philosophies, there is a need of understanding of ourselves that seems to have been lost. Its as if we have lost our sanity and are alienated from ourselves and others.

I would suggest that this alienation begins with “I”, “ME”, and “EGO”. Each of us must live with I and ME, we can’t escape ourselves. The conventional wisdom says that we mustn’t allow ourselves ego, and we should minimize it if possible. No one wants to be seen as “egotistical”, and to prove that we are not, we engage in the game of being, moral, righteous, and saintly. We want to be better than we are, or better than something. As we define ourselves as this principle and that moral we become dimly aware that there is no definition that doesn’t have its opposite. I cannot be up unless someone is down. I can’t be a member of a religion or any organization unless there are those who aren’t members of that religion or organization. For everything I say I am, there must be an opposite. There is no escaping this fact. If I am to succeed, someone must fail. If I am to be wise, there must be a fool. My saintliness requires a sinner. This is the requirement of ego.

If this is true for each of us, then it is also true of our religions, our secular institutions, and any movement that claims a point of view.

It appears that to be requires us to be in opposition or at least contrasted to someone or something else. Even in our reaching for greater perfection in our behavior or spirituality, our success depends on someones failure. We are caught in a trap. No matter our direction, any action, any thought carries its opposite. Our ego binds us to the game of I- them.

But what if we see that “I” is an illusion, that this thing we call ego is a fiction? Perhaps “I” isn’t the independent ego observing reality, but the on-going process of reality. Is it possible that I can be the experience and the experiencer as experiencing? Could it be that “I” and “other” are simply the interdependent flip sides of one? If we can grasp this notion, then “I” and ego disappear. That leaves me. And who is me? Me sees that the polarities of ego are illusion, and understands that ego is that which contains both devil and angel. Not one or the other, but both at all times, and that striving to rid ourselves of either is just an attempt of “I” trying to assert it’s independence. All would be angels and saints need to understand that to succeed is to create devils. An us -them game. As long as good and evil are accepted as interdependent integral parts of oneness, then the independent ego is defeated.

And so, to be a saint, one must be a sinner. To be sure, we can shade our experiencing so that saintliness is succeeding but never succeeds, and that sinning is losing but never loses. The interdependence is never lost to the illusion of the independent ego. There is no “I”.

Until we grasp this elemental understanding, we remain trapped in us - them, and will never see others as ourselves. They will be the downs to our ups, the bad people, the enemy, and all the other labels necessary to maintain our precious ego. Peace and tolerance will only come when we understand and accept that I am you, you are me, and we are we.

I’ve tried to cover a lot of ground with as few words as possible, so I’ve left as much unsaid as said. I invite those readers who are still awake to fill in whatever blanks they see. I’ve left plenty of them.

JT

Can you expand on this?

Iron Dog… Your entire quote… was completely wrong… Those quotes are taken randomly from his letter. If your going to quote him… quote him… Don’t take random quotes from his thread and place them into a quote as if that was what he said…

Lasko. Let it go. I’m aware of what he did, and I have no intention of replying to that sort of thing. Ignore it. I am.

JT

?

… Childish. Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

Your bringing up some very good notions but perhaps we should be looking into where the notion of duality doesn’t play a key part of the game of I, You, Them, Us, We. For instance, with God he is a key player in the game of Religion, actually he is a majority of the players. He is so many amongst so very few I guess you could say. Where does his Duality reside in the I, You, Them, and Us. Or perhaps I didn’t quite understand your letter completely.

This is key to understanding that we are “gossipers”. Great minds talk of Ideas… Small minds talk about people. We are small minds for a majority of our life… We will speak of people who have done this or that. We must remain sinners and speak against others so that we can be relieved of our own responsibilities…

Just my 0.02 cents of random thoughts.

But at the end of the day, we are still stucking asking what to do when we find a 50 dollar bill on the ground, or if there is such a thing as a just war. Even if we acknowledge the futility of these distinctions [i]on some level, [/i] they are an inevitiable part of actual humans living life, and so, religions need to address those situations if they want to be relevant as a moral authority.

I don’t understand how you came to this. It seems like the general thrust of what you wrote is that in order to be a saint, there must BE sinners. to an extent that’s true, but I don’t see why both things must be exhibited in the same person. Of course, to some extent, it happens that they are.

But what if it isn't true? Couldn't one argue from the top down instead of the bottom up, and say that the fact that there always have been wars, intolerance, and so on, is as good a reason as any to suspect that "I am you, you are me" is flawed in the first place? Couldn't one conclude from the world that duality has it's place?

Yes. Deep breaths, you will be alright

Speak for yourself.

I’m locking this thread. I had hoped that it might generate some discussion, but other than Uccisore’s post, all it produced was stupidity and a pissing contest.

Uccisore, I’ll respond by PM.

JT