Wie was moeder Teresa werkelijk?

Door Utopia gepubliceerd op Friday 14 February 21:20

Voor wie nog steeds niet wakker is geschud, zoals velen, heb ik hier een tip: KIJK naar >>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG-lgmPvYA

Het was een gestoorde corrupte gek, die zich liet betalen door malafide figuren en bedriegers, om hun reputatie te redden. In haar eigen tijd, deed ze ook niet veel goeds. Haar ideologie oversteeg de feiten. 

Alles wat moeder Teresa deed was dood en verderf zaaien. Gelukkig leven er ook gezond denkende mensen zoals de weilen Christopher Hitchens, een zeer groot intellectueel. Die heeft research gedaan, net als naar velen anderen. Zoals Hendry Kissenger. 

Ook de zeer intelligente filosoof, en later guru: Bhagwan shree Rajneesh, alias "Osho", heeft destijds over haar gesproken. In één lezing van hem, vertelde hij over de reactie van "Mother Theresa" op zijn brief, met uitgebreid respons. - Zwaar lachwekkend en gelijktijdig zeer indrukwekkend en diepgaand-

Hij wist deze 'fraud' 'gestoorde oplichtster' al in de jaren 80' te ontmaskeren. Het is natuurlijk niet zomaar iemand, die Osho. 
Het is dan ook geen toeval als een grootheid als Christopher Hitchens hetzelfde zegt, onafhankelijk. Hitchens heeft er meer reasearch naar gedaan, en komt met harde feiten, terwijl Osho het op een andere manier uitlegt. Beide verdienen een eerbetoon, omdat zij het volk de waarheid geven. We worden teveel voorgelogen, en het zijn alleen de echte Rebellen, die jou ter dienst staan. Ik zou zeggen, profiteer daarvan, en stop niet laf je oren dicht!

Wil je de waarheid weten, luister goed naar de links.....

Hier een stuk van zijn speech:

Just the other day I received a letter from Mother Teresa. I have no intention of saying anything against her sincerity; whatsoever she wrote in the letter is sincere, but it is unconscious. She is not aware of what she is writing; it is mechanical, it is robot-like. She says, 'I have just received a cutting of your speech. I feel very sorry for you that you could speak as you did. Reference: the Nobel Prize. For the adjectives you add to my name I forgive you with great love.'

She is feeling very sorry for me... I enjoyed the letter! She has not even understood the adjectives that I have used about her. But she is not aware, otherwise she would have felt sorry for herself.

The adjectives that I have used -- she has sent the cutting also with the letter -- the first is 'deceiver', then 'charlatan' and 'hypocrite'.

The deceiver is not only the person who deceives others, in a far more fundamental sense the deceiver is one who deceives himself. Deception begins there. If you want to deceive others, first you have to deceive yourself. But once you have deceived yourself you will never become aware of it unless you are shocked by somebody from the outside, shaken, hammered; you will not become aware that the deception has gone very deep on both sides. It is a double-edged sword.

She is a deceiver in this double-edged sense. First she has been deceiving herself, because meditation can certainly create a life of service, a life of compassion, but a life of service cannot create a life of meditation. Mother Teresa knows nothing of meditation: this is her fundamental deception. She has been serving poor people, orphans, widows, old people, and she has been serving them with good intentions, but the way to hell is full of good intentions! I am not saying that her intentions are bad, but the results don't depend on your intentions.

You may sow the seeds of some tree with the intention of growing beautiful flowers, and only thorns may come out because the seeds were not those of flowers at all. You did it with good intentions, you worked hard, but the results will come out of the seeds, not out of your intentions.

She has been serving the poor, but the poor have been served for centuries and poverty has not disappeared from the world. Poverty is not going to disappear from the world by serving the poor; in fact, this whole society exists through serving the poor. The poor have to be served in some way so that they don't feel absolutely rejected, otherwise they will take great revenge, they will go wild, they will become murderous. It is good to keep them consoled that this society is doing so much' for them, for their children for their old people, for their widows -- this is a 'good' society.

Hence the same people who exploit the poor donate to these missions. Mother Teresa's mission is called Missionaries of Charity. From where does all this money come? She feeds seven thousand poor people every day -- from where does this money come? Who donates this money?

In 1974 the Pope presented her with a Cadillac and immediately she sold the car. The car was purchased at a great price because it was from Mother Teresa, and the money went to the poor. Everybody appreciated it but the question is: from where had the Cadillac car come in the first place? The Pope had not materialized it, he had not done any miracle! It must have come from somebody who had enough money to give a Cadillac -- and the Pope has more money than anybody else in the world. From where does that money come? And then a little bit -- not even one percent -- goes to the poor, through these Missionaries of Charity.

These are the agencies. They serve the capitalists: they serve the rich, not the poor. On the surface they serve the poor, apparently they serve the poor, but fundamentally, basically, indirectly they serve the rich. They make the poor feel that 'This is a good society, this is not a bad society. We are not to revolt against it.'

These missionaries, these servants of the people, function like buffers in a railway train or like springs in a car. When you move on a rough road the springs protect you from the roughness of the road. The buffers between two bogies of a train protect the bogies from colliding with each other -- they protect. These missionaries are buffers. These missionaries function like springs. Life remains a little smooth because of these springs, and the poor go on feeling that soon things will be better; they go on hoping.

These missionaries give hope to the poor. if these missionaries were not there, those poor would become so hopeless that out of that hopelessness there would be rebellion, revolution.

Now I have criticized her and said that the Nobel Prize should not have been given to her, and she feels offended by it. She says in her letter, 'Reference: the Nobel Prize.'

This man Nobel was one of the greatest criminals possible in the world. the First World War was fought with his weapons;  he was the greatest manufacturer of weapons. He accumulated so much money out of the First World War. Millions of people died; he was the manufacturer of death. He earned so much money that now the Nobel Prize is being distributed only from the interest on Nobel's money. One Nobel Prize now brings twenty lakh rupees with it, and each year dozens of Nobel Prizes are being given. How much money did this man leave? And from where did that money come? You cannot find any money which is more full of blood than the money that one gets from a Nobel Prize.

And now this Nobel Prize money has gone to the Missionaries of Charity. It comes from war, it comes from blood, it comes from murder and death! And now it serves a few hundred orphans, feeds seven thousand people -- kills millions and feeds seven thousand people, raises a few orphans and makes millions of orphans! This is a strange world! What kind of arithmetic is this? First make millions of orphans and then choose a few hundred and give them to the Missionaries of Charity!

Mother Teresa could not refuse the Nobel Prize. The same desire to be admired, the same desire to be respectable in the world -- and the Nobel Prize brings you the greatest respect. She accepted the prize.

Jean-Paul Sartre seems to be a far more religious man, although he is godless. He does not believe in God, he does not believe in the soul, he does not believe in the beyond, but I say to you he is far more religious than Mother Teresa because he refused that prize, he refused that money, he refused that respectability, for the simple reason that it comes from a wrong source -- one thing. Secondly, he said, 'I cannot accept any respectability from this insane society. To accept any respectability from this insane society means respecting the insanity of humanity.' This man seems to be far more religious, far more spiritual, far more authentic than Mother Teresa.

That's why I have called the people like Mother Teresa 'deceivers'. They are not deceivers knowingly, certainly, not intentionally, but that does not matter; the outcome, the end result is very clear. Their purpose is to function in this society like a lubricant so that the wheels of the society, the wheels of exploitation, oppression can go on moving smoothly. These people are lubricants! They are deceiving others and they are deceiving themselves.

And I call them 'charlatans' because a really religious person, a man like Jesus... Can you conceive of Jesus getting the Nobel Prize? Impossible! Can you conceive of Socrates getting the Nobel Prize or Al-Hillaj Mansur getting the Nobel Prize? If Jesus cannot get the Nobel Prize and Socrates cannot get the Nobel Prize -- and these are the true religious people, the awakened ones -- then who is Mother Teresa?

The really religious person is rebellious; the society condemns him. Jesus is condemned as a criminal and Mother Teresa is respected as a saint. There is something to be pondered over: if Mother Teresa is right then Jesus is a criminal, and if Jesus is right then Mother Teresa is just a charlatan and nothing else. Charlatans are always praised by the society because they are helpful -- helpful to this society, to this status quo.

Whatsoever adjectives I have used I have used very knowingly. I never use a single word without consideration. And I have used the word 'hypocrites'. These people are hypocrites because their basic life style is split: on the surface one thing, inside something else.

She writes: 'The Protestant family was refused the child not because they are Protestant but because at that time we did not have a child that we could give them.'

Now, the Nobel Prize is given to her for helping thousands of orphans and there are thousands of orphans in the homes she runs. Suddenly she ran out of orphans? And in India can you ever run out of orphans? Indians go on creating as many orphans as you want, in fact more than you want!

And the Protestant family which has been refused was not refused immediately. If there was no orphan available, if all the orphans had been disposed of, then what is Mother Teresa doing with seven hundred nuns? What is their work? Seven hundred nuns... then whom are they mothering? Not a single orphan -- strange! -- and that too in Calcutta! You can find orphans anywhere on the road -- you find children in the dustbins. They could have just looked outside the place and they would have found many children. You can just go outside the ashram and you can get orphans. They will come themselves, you need not find them!

Suddenly they ran out of orphans... And if the family had been refused immediately it would have been a totally different matter. But the family was not refused immediately; they were told, 'Yes, you can get an orphan. Fill in the form.' So the form was filled in. Till they came to the point where they had to state their religion, up to that moment, there were orphans, but when they filled in the form and wrote 'We belong to the Protestant Church,' immediately they ran out of orphans!

And this reason was not given to the Protestant family itself. Now, this is hypocrisy! This is deception! This is ugly! The reason given to the family itself was that because these children... because the children were there, so how could she say, 'We don't have any orphans'? They are always on exhibition!

She has invited me also: 'You can come any time and you are welcome to visit our place and see our orphans and our work.' They are constantly on exhibition!

In fact, those Protestants had already chosen the orphan, the child that they wanted to adopt, so she could not say to those people, 'It is because there are no more orphans. We are sorry.'

She said to them, 'These orphans are being raised according to the Roman Catholic Church and it will be bad for their psychological growth because it will be such a disruption. Now, giving them to you will make them a little disturbed and it will not be good for them. That's why we cannot give the child to you, because you are Protestant.'

Exactly that was the reason given to them. And they are not stupid people. The husband is a professor in a European university -- he was shocked, the wife was shocked. They had come from so far away just to adopt a child, and they were refused because they are Protestants. Had they written Catholic' they would have been given the child immediately.

And one thing to be understood: these children are basically Hindu. If Mother Teresa is so concerned about their psychological welfare then they should be brought up according to the Hindu religion, but they are brought up according to the Catholic Church. And then to give them to Protestants, who are not different at all from Catholics... What is the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant? Just a few stupid things! Otherwise both believe in Jesus, both believe the Bible, so what is really the problem? Protestant or Catholic -- just different brands of cigarettes! The same tobacco is used, the same paper is used, it may even be the same manufacturer. Just different names!

There is no difference between Protestants and Catholics but there is certainly a great difference between a Hindu and a Christian. Hindu children are being brought up according to the Catholic religion and their psychology is not disturbed? Now their psychology will be disturbed! And if this is true then Mother Teresa should never try to convert any person to the Catholic religion. And that's their whole work: conversion.

Just a few days ago there was a bill in the Indian Parliament Freedom of Religion. The purpose of the bill was that nobody should be allowed to convert anybody to another religion: unless somebody chooses it out of his own free will no conversion should be allowed. And Mother Teresa was the first one to oppose it. In her whole life she has never opposed anything; this was the first time, and maybe the last. She opposed it. She wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and there was a heated controversy between her and the Prime Minister: 'The bill should not be passed because it goes against our whole work. We are determined to save people, and people can be saved only if they become Roman Catholics.' They created so much uproar all over the country -- and the politicians are always concerned about votes, they cannot lose the Christian votes -- so the bill was dropped, simply dropped.

Reacties (0) 

Voordat je kunt reageren moet je aangemeld zijn. Login of maak een gratis account aan.