Where is this wrong?

People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building,
someone could destroy overnight.
Build anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness,
they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.

The good you do today,
people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.


Give the world the best you have,
and it may never be enough;
Give the best you've got anyway.

You see, in the final analysis
it is between you and yourself.
it was never between you and them anyway.

-Mother Teresa.

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives;


-Mother Teresa.

-m.

people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives;

Well she spoke from her own experience but it seems the critics were well justified.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position

What is wrong with this poem is that it is an example of the most pure and refined hypocrisy. Maybe a comparable example would be the way Margaret Thatcher recited St Francis of Assisi outside Downing Street on her election in 1979 to form the most ideologically driven and divisive government in British history.

It is neither right nor wrong, it is a personal choice.

Originally posted by mikelom
People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank any ...[text shortened]... between you and yourself.
it was never between you and them anyway.

-Mother Teresa.

-m.

It isn't wrong, but is incomplete advice. A fourth line, "And avoid them if you can" or similar wording should be added to all but the last 2, I think.

Originally posted by mikelom
People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank any ...[text shortened]... between you and yourself.
it was never between you and them anyway.

-Mother Teresa.

-m.

A very moving piece. Many such ideas appear in sacred books and literature across the World. A quote from the Upanishads is about ' Giving '. It says that ' give either from a belief in earning Merit or give from a fear of earni ng Demerit, but give '. Incidentally pl.see an essay on mother Teresa by Sanal Edmaruku on indian rationalist society website reg.billions of dollars earned by her Mission.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
A very moving piece. Many such ideas appear in sacred books and literature across the World. A quote from the Upanishads is about ' Giving '. It says that ' give either from a belief in earning Merit or give from a fear of earni ng Demerit, but give '. Incidentally pl.see an essay on mother Teresa by Sanal Edmaruku on indian rationalist society website reg.billions of dollars earned by her Mission.

Another excellent link and from a source - rvsakhadeowho - who is clearly not just being malicious.

"Those in love with an illusion often refuse to see reality."

http://indianrationalists.blogspot.com/2010/05/sanal-edamaruku-on-mother-teresa.html

This so called saint of the gutter is a scandal and the way her image is protected is a stunning illustration of institutional religion as its most dishonest. The reality is that her diversion of charitable funds would, in most countries, be treated as a crime.

Originally posted by mikelom
People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank any ...[text shortened]... between you and yourself.
it was never between you and them anyway.

-Mother Teresa.

-m.

Lets have a shot at this...

Forgive, but do not forget.

Be kind to yourself first, make sure you are balanced when making decisions of "kindness" towards others.

Wordly success should not be sought by the spiritual adherent.

Be honest with descretion. Be frank with your real friends. (Unless you are cut out for the backlash)

Build anyway, destroy anyway- you seen "The Social Network"?


Happinness is fleeting , dont be attached to it. Your "soul" is the happiest when your ego is being "tortured"

Do good. But make your own terms. One persons good is anothers idle reflection.

The world deserves your best. Do nothing until you are sure your actions are the best.

"you and yourself"- does this not imply that we are all scizophrenic?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Lets have a shot at this...

Forgive, but do not forget.

Be kind to yourself first, make sure you are balanced when making decisions of "kindness" towards others.

Wordly success should not be sought by the spiritual adherent.

Be honest with descretion. Be frank with your real friends. (Unless you are cut out for the backlash)

Build anywa ...[text shortened]... re the best.

"you and yourself"- does this not imply that we are all scizophrenic?

Good shot.

It was wrong because "I changed" her final words of ' it is between you and God anyway' to between 'you and yourself'... which misled the whole, as nobody traced to see if the original words had been changed, same as the bible is never traceable, but a much easier thing to trace nowadays, with recent words that is... 😉

-m.

Now it seems I have opened a can of worms?

You mention hypocrisy in the ladie's words, and amassed wealth... such as the churches do, don't they?

Mother Teresa didn't laud in the poverty of India, and I believe if she hadn't been a parting will of such a place it wouldn't be developing financially as it is now. She did give hope and faith.... didn't she?

If you disagree with my above then please laud your views for how she was 'negative' for India and its current situation.

I neither agree or disagree with what she did, as each is unto their own. People buy into it, and people opt out - all have a true decision, and freedom of decision, to continue as they may.

Am I now being told she was a bad representative of Godliness?

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
Now it seems I have opened a can of worms?

You mention hypocrisy in the ladie's words, and amassed wealth... such as the churches do, don't they?

Mother Teresa didn't laud in the poverty of India, and I believe if she hadn't been a parting will of such a place it wouldn't be developing financially as it is now. She did give hope and faith.... didn't sh ...[text shortened]... ue as they may.

Am I now being told she was a bad representative of Godliness?

-m.

Are you addressing me or Finnegan ?
In any case,the foreigner do- gooders were there aplenty in India as India was a far poorer country than from where the do-gooders came.
Moreover the British came to loot and rule and thought as a part of "White Man's Burden", that they have to educate,clean-up,feed the "Natives" who were" appallingly" poor and dirty.
Then the missionaries came and started proselytizing and saying all sorts of things about our heathen Hindu religion which worshiped stone/clay/wooden images.
The Missionaries for Charity then came homing unerringly towards disease and death,seeing this a fertile ground for doing some good work by taking the nearly dead under shelter and making money out of the stricken conscience of the rich.
All sorts of drain inspectors have visited India,mocked India. But India especially the Hindu is a stoic and forgiving soul and this whole sport goes on.

Originally posted by mikelom
Good shot.

It was wrong because "I changed" her final words of ' it is between you and God anyway' to between 'you and yourself'... which misled the whole, as nobody traced to see if the original words had been changed, same as the bible is never traceable, but a much easier thing to trace nowadays, with recent words that is... 😉

-m.

Well "you and yourself" is better than "you and God", imo.

After all, there is no god , right? .... 🙂

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Are you addressing me or Finnegan ?
In any case,the foreigner do- gooders were there aplenty in India as India was a far poorer country than from where the do-gooders came.
Moreover the British came to loot and rule and thought as a part of "White Man's Burden", that they have to educate,clean-up,feed the "Natives" who were" appallingly" poor and dirty. ...[text shortened]... ut India especially the Hindu is a stoic and forgiving soul and this whole sport goes on.

I guess the do-gooders didn't count on Lord Shiva 😉

Originally posted by mikelom
Now it seems I have opened a can of worms?

You mention hypocrisy in the ladie's words, and amassed wealth... such as the churches do, don't they?

Mother Teresa didn't laud in the poverty of India, and I believe if she hadn't been a parting will of such a place it wouldn't be developing financially as it is now. She did give hope and faith.... didn't sh ue as they may.

Am I now being told she was a bad representative of Godliness?

-m.

Well The problem with Mother Theresa was that she did not set up her charity to assist the poor in India. She set up a religious order of nuns in which the poor were seen as helpful to the spiritual development of her nuns. Indeed she though poverty was a good thing, pain and suffering were good things. She provided very basic and impoverished standards of care for her destitute victims but - and this is what is so bizarre - she was given more than enough funds to have provided them with the best modern teaching hospitals and services and that was what the money was intended to achieve - how could it have failed?

There is very little information available as to what became of that money, although she did set up convents around the World, with handsome chapels and fine ornaments and golden chalices. In her words, it was all for the glory of God. Including pain, suffering and poverty - also for His glory. The best guess is that what did not fund her religious order was passed on to the Vatican or expended on her political campaigns in support of fundamentalist causes, notably opposing abortion and birth control, all with an eye to Vatican interests.

Yet she herself benefitted from the very best, privately funded health care when she needed it and she mingled with some of the most wealthy - and some of the most corrupt - people on the planet. She was a huge celebrity and a lot of powerful people found it useful to be seen mixing with her. She was also a magnet for money - and it was not spent on the destitute of Calcutta.

Now such allegations are at the least worthy of serious investigation and public accounting. There has never been a published account of her wealth and its sources or applications. It is astonishing that the Indian Government has not made this a public issue - except that India is not noted for the accountability of its governments. India too has a despicable attitude to its own poor - by all means less so than the British did in their day. One allegation from the Sikhs for example is that the domination of the Brahmin sector of its Hindu population accounts for a lot of this. In any case, there is a corrupt aspect to Indian politics which is not improved by the weight of Hindu nationalism.

The best defense of Mother Theresa is that she was never dishonest - people just did not listen to what she said when she said - it is all for God's work. She never said it is all to provide care for the poor and destitute. Maybe so. Religious fanatics move in mysterious ways but this one had Vatican approval and is now on the road to a premature sanctification.

If this is not so then where is the refutation?

Originally posted by finnegan
Well The problem with Mother Theresa was that she did not set up her charity to assist the poor in India. She set up a religious order of nuns in which the poor were seen as helpful to the spiritual development of her nuns. Indeed she though poverty was a good thing, pain and suffering were good things. She provided very basic and impoverished standards of ...[text shortened]... w on the road to a premature sanctification.

If this is not so then where is the refutation?

In one single paragraph,you have said so many adverse things about India !
i) Indian govt.is not noted for accountability.
ii) India has got a despicable attitude towards its own poor.
iii) Sikhs allege that Brahmins account for a lot of this(you probably mean the despicable attitude towards poor)
iv)The corrupt aspect of Indian politics is not improved by "Hindu" nationalism.
Where from did you get these gems{ esp.the (ii) above} into your mind,my dear sir? You are most welcome to India to have a look for yourself.
If not,please do read about the Lokpal Bill( Ombudsman Bill) being drafted jointly by a the Govt. and an NGO called Civil Society.
As regards "Hindu" nationalism,that suggests that non-Hindu Indians are not nationalistic.That statement is not true. Also why drag the Sikhs and Brahmins in this ?

Originally posted by mikelom
People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank any ...[text shortened]... between you and yourself.
it was never between you and them anyway.

-Mother Teresa.

-m.

With or without your touch I see merely a mountain-high wall of words -dualism and preaching at its best. Thich Quang Duc's final transmission reveals a thing or two about the nature of the projections of the mind
😵