intro: satanic saints
|Message 4549 of 4558| Previous | Next [ Up Thread ]||
Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:24 am
i was invited to join this list by hans, for some unknown reason, after quitting another discussion group, hyperborean secrets. apparently you folks may already be somewhat aware of my activities, although i'm not sure how. but it does not matter, because i prefer things endowed with mystery, for no reason or purpose, that only such as the very opposite nature could conclude. because i need to be something beyond that.
nevertheless, i must confess that all saints, enlightened or not, have their devils. in fact i believe that the more saintly you are, the more honest you will be about them. hence enlightenment is never a perfect phenomenon. that is it's very perfection.
perfection does not exist, unless it is genuine suicide of the soul that one wishes to posses. that is one reason why i like osho so much, because he was honest about what he thought, however contradictory in actions. he was a little satanic, and a little saintly. no perfection. just osho. that is why i liked the intro to this list, because it showed up how fucked up everything is, and how fucked up all enlightening affairs can be. so i embrace it.
not this or that, and maybe that also. or maybe that is just is how perfect things are meant to me, and the least we can do is accept it with gratitude, that in being human, through suffering and feeling the joys of our gross labours, we are made aware of our godliness: both saintly and satanic. that we are all part of this universal expression of the demiurge, however divine we may see that to be or not.
in fact, if i'm sure i looked beyond the many veils of culture, i could find a little saint and satan in each and every great religious figure: buddha, chirst, etc, with no exceptions. the only difference is that today, perhaps, we are beginning to become mature enough to bring this to a realization. that we can be completely fanatical, abused, and/or the abuser, and still have tastes of enlightenment. kind of like christ dying for everyone's sins. it does not matter. it's there for everyone regardless because it is essentially all of our inner natures no matter what. it is that simple, perhaps?
the less perfect, on the other hand, we try to be about matters of enlightenment, the more i believe will can bring a coherency together about our experiences, being grounded, rooted, and fundamentally rational in their projections of who and what we are, based on such experiences. this is what i think is the most exciting prospect, that we no longer need to talk about religions, or great figures. we could just talk about us, tell the odd story, and not get too scholarly about it all. for me, this would be genuine. just being able to present mere opinions, arguments, stories, and not worry about fundamental or fanatical truths, based on a few so-called saints who lived very secluded and socially
undefinable lives. after all, what would be the point of being like them, if we are all in fact a little saint and a satan, combined? ..yes. and we must understand the anatomies of our saintly and satanic psyches if we are to achieve this enlightenment, no? and what then about the union of them both...? would union mean perfection, or something else entirely? these are important questions.
and so, even though i am still not too sure of the nature of this group,
having presumptiously not read one message yet, too lazy to read over one
item contained in the sheer volume i've glanced at, it looks to me like this
is a list of people who are posing such questions to themselves, no?