Saint...

I hadn't heard about the process of 'canonization' until today when I saw on TV that sister Alphanso from India was to elevated to sainthood by the Pope. She had died in 1946 at the age of 36. This made me curious. I didn't know that it takes so many years before being raised to sainthood. First of all I didn't know what sainthood was. Believe me this still one of the shortest periods [1946-2008] where a person has been called as saint. It takes number of decades or even centuries to be proven that a person is a saint [in Roman Catholic culture].

A saint (from the Latin sanctus) is a human being to whom has been attributed a high level of holiness and sanctity in an exemplary life of virtuous behaviour. A saint is therefore not simply a believer but one who has been transformed by virtue presents an example other human beings striving to conform their lives to God. In short saint's a mini/secondary god...

The concept of sainthood developed in the Christian tradition. However, there are parallel concepts in other religions that recognize certain individuals as having particular holiness.

In Roman Catholic tradition, a person who's seen as exceptionally holy can be declared as saint by a formal process called 'canonization'. This particular form of recognition formally allows the person so canonized to be listed in the official Litany of the saints during Mass. This process of canonization is a tedious process taking many years, even centuries. The first step in the process is detailed investigation about the person's [candidate for sainthood] life undertaken by an expert. Report's given to the bishop of the area ans further studying is done. It is then sent to congregation of causes of saints in Rome for approval. If its through then the candidate will be given the title 'venerable'. Further investigation may lead to beatification and the title 'blessed'. Now comes the toughest and interesting process. After beatification, at least a minimum of two miracles are to be formally declared for the candidate to be pronounced a saint. Miracles like curing of a disease or a curse or getting out of penurious condition or something/anything dats considered a miracle that would happened after praying the candidate. It has been claimed that these miracles are to verified scientifically. oh oh oh.... hold on now..

That which is scientifically proven can't be a miracle, can it be? Miracles are called miracles for the reason that they cannot be proved. Something that is scientifically proven is a fact. And it can be repeated. Suppose say I pray one of the sainthood candidates to cure my illness and it miraculously gets cured. This cure is to be scientifically proven before the candidate is conferred 'saint' title. Suppose say, its proved scientifically now. This means that this is repeatable, i.e. any one with the disease who prays the candidate will be cured.. Sounds nonsense? It does to me..

Its not one miracle that has to proved its minimum two that are to be proved before being given sainthood..

Since the 16th Century, when the modern saint-making process began, there have been approximately 300 saints declared. But Pope John Paul II has declared more saints in the 25 years of his papacy than all 264 popes before him combined. This's quite surprising. Did we have more humans with holy spirits in them in the last last century than any other previous centuries combined?

I don't want to comment or hurt anyone's sentiments about the process, but its not really scientific, its just blind faith, I would say. Billions of us believe it, I don't and won't unless its proved to me.. :-)

What do you think?

I stopped cribbing for the pair of brand new NIKEs [I had bought a pair of puma not even a week ago] when I looked into a guy's eyes who had his legs amputated and was sitting on a wheel chair, staring @ me from outside the shop... The guy on the wheel chair could've afforded to buy a pair of NIKE but were of no use for him now.. I've also looked into the the eyes of children who stare from outside the glass window wondering if they could ever have their feet in one of those glittering footware. These children I'm talking about couldn't have afforded to buy them.. There are humongous number of people who walk around bare footed in the scorching sun, pouring rain, on a pebbly road, near the construction sites, in the jungles of Africa and in many other places. This isn't about the shoes but about those useless things which we crave for or crib for just because we have that extra cash to spill over.

Neither these children did anything wrong nor did we anything of significance [most of us] to lead the life we are leading today. They didn't choose the life they've. We are just fortunate to have parents who were good [talking in terms of economical aspect] enough to raise us with care, help us to get educated [not all of us utilize everything we get though] and pamper us. Why are some, in fact many are devoid of even basic necessities? These are poverty stricken people...

We have people who spend billions to build a mansion so that four of them could stay with seven other people who are required to maintain the orderliness of the mansion. On the contrary we have people who can not even dream of seeing billions. Is it necessary to spend billions to have a place just to live in and sleep?

We have a choice to choose what we eat, what we drink, what we wear, what we ride, what we see and what not we do. Still we crib for something more. Thousands of people die of hunger around the world every year out of which children account for the maximum percentage. We spend thousands on just to know what to eat and how much to eat but thousands die of malnutrition. We are not happy with public transport, instead we need a 2-wheeler for short distance and a 4-wheel of our own for long distance. There are people who walk more than 30 miles everyday bare footed just to fetch water. We want to watch movies in a multiplex, booze in bars, play on playstation, @ snooker junction just to kill time. Some don't even know what entertainment is and some just can't afford to even dream about them. We need our collection in the wardrobes to keep changing regularly and there are people whose joy will know no bounds they get a used cloth from one of us.

Even after all this how many of us can have a sound sleep every night? How many of us can sleep without that comfy bed and the useless costly pillow? How many of us feel safe inside the house? How many of us can sleep in a place where there's commotion? They do and they can...

We show off too much. We make some people feel really jealous. People who can't afford have no other way to have things they dream of other than stealing it. Is it justified? Are we responsible in a way for the thefts? Do we feel pity about these people? Is just feeling pity will help them? You ask me if I've done something myself to help them when I talk so much about this? Can we help them in any way? Why are some of us so stingy? Is this gap between us and poverty stricken need to be so wide? Can we be more generous? Can this inequality be narrowed down? Or do we want the gap to remain just to have some businesses running and to have a strata of people who can be our slaves? Or is it that people who spend lavishly or waste a lot have the right to do so as it is their buck, hard earned buck? Can we say that, those who cannot earn need not dare to dream. Is it so? Dreams know no strata.

Contrary opinion...

We didn't choose our parents. Its not our fault if we are leading the life we are leading now. Not everyone of us had everything we have today. We have earned it, worked hard to earn or achieve what we have today. We have one life to live so we'll enjoy the life to its fullest. There's nothing wrong in longing for a pair of NIKE when we can afford them. How'll the product and manufacturing industries survive if we don't spend what we have on them? If these industries go out of business lot of lower strata people will be out of job and they are the ones who'll be affected more. We can't do much about the people who struggle in Africa. Its not wrong if we spend some time out of our hectic schedule to enjoy. We need rest too. Whatever we have didn't just drop from the sky. We have earned it [not true true in some cases].. We show off because we can and there's nothing wrong in it. Its our buck, we spend it or throw it or give it, its our own personal choice and we don't need any advice on this....


Which side are you on?

Being perfect's no FuN...

[Not complete yet...]

How many of us wanna be a perfectionist? Most of us want/try to be. Is it worth becoming one? Its worth but not if we want be perfect @ everything. We'll miss out the fun in being non perfect. Some things are good when they are not perfect, when they are out of order. Energy/excitement that is found in an unstable [non perfect] things/events is much more than that is in the stable ones.

Something that is planned is no fun. Since you have planned it and want that thing to be perfect you already know what's going to happen unless you've a surprise from some unknown source. So its not fun at all to plan something or everything. Somethings are good when they are surprises. Let the things flow, don't try to design them the way you want.

This reminds me of THE JOKER who said "Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that like a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all, part of the plan".

Trying to be perfect is good but trying to be perfect in everything we do isn't. Is it so? you might ask... Yes, 'it is' is what I believe. Whatever it is, I believe that being perfect in anything's impossible. Life's all about throwing surprises. If we could know or predict the behavior or nature of life then it wouldn't have been life in which we are living it would have been an "Utopia". But living in a place like utopia is boring, at least for me..

Perfection is no fun...