Re: I think premies suffer from "Analysis Envy" or "Doubt Envy"
Re: I think premies suffer from "Analysis Envy" or "Doubt Envy" -- Jim	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: jonx ® 07/28/2005, 07:08:31 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

I just wanted to add that the way premies now talk, with their trumped up stories of how they deftly resisted the siren calls of the organization, PAMs, Holy Family, mahatmas and instructors, to dedicate and surrender, it's as if they want to prove that they, too, have discerning minds.  The message is that they don't need to analyze anything, they did it all so thoroughly years ago.  The only trouble is, they're lying.    Well now, that’s an intelligent and tolerant response Jim. Something I would expect from Pol Pot or Osama Bin Laden.     Yes, people resisted surrendering alright but it sure wasn't because they thought that wasn't what Rawat really wanted.  He couldn't have been clearer: surrendering to him was what it was all about and surrender to him meant surrending his way which in turn meant joining in and doing whatever was asked of you.    Just what did surrender mean Jim? Did it mean surrendering to what you thought it meant to surrender? Or what Joe Premie did that apparently looked like surrendering? Or was surrender based on what he said last year, even though that seemed to be contradicted by what he said yesterday? Or was it surrendering to your mind telling you what your heart was feeling? Or maybe when in doubt (assuming you left room for it) it meant taking ideas on the topic from the Gita-Bible-Vedas-Koran-Torah-Shastras… just to be sure.   So just what did it mean to “surrender to him” mate? Do you think many people got it right? (By the way, on a scale of 1 to 10, how did you do?)

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Once again...Jonx! --- Danny ( Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 07:53:45 ) ( 2378 bytes ) Hey, it's Jonx the Clown! --- Jim ( Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 10:27:10 ) ( 219 bytes ) +1 Better a clown than a loud-mouth who preaches intolerance! --- jonx ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 05:47:38 ) ( 2123 bytes ) img +4 You sound like a Hitler apologist --- Jim ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 10:00:59 ) ( 432 bytes ) +1 What a ridiculous claim! --- jonx ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 10:57:21 ) ( 1823 bytes ) +5 Mate --- Marshall ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 11:40:06 ) ( 173 bytes ) sweet dreams --- dant ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 14:35:07 ) ( 1637 bytes ) +1 Re: sweet dreams --- jonx ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 14:47:47 ) ( 92 bytes ) +1 um, excuse me? --- dant ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 15:24:17 ) ( 1350 bytes ) +1 No, excuse me! --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 01:22:32 ) ( 125 bytes ) +1 Re: No, excuse me! --- dant ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 01:37:42 ) ( 225 bytes ) +1 Re: No, excuse me! --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 01:54:17 ) ( 538 bytes ) +1 integrity --- dant ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 05:11:30 ) ( 897 bytes ) +3 Now what could surrender mean --- Jethro ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 05:44:13 ) ( 465 bytes ) Re: integrity --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 09:14:23 ) ( 1586 bytes ) +2 dant being very serious now --- dant ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 11:55:17 ) ( 2712 bytes ) Checkmate again, Jonx! LOL!!!!!!!!! (I love it!) --- Jim ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 16:00:47 ) ( 787 bytes ) +1 What a perfectly lame argument! --- jonx ( Sun, Jul 31, 2005, 05:28:48 ) ( 441 bytes ) img +1 So what if you were an instructor? You lose, MATIE! --- Jim ( Sun, Jul 31, 2005, 10:57:58 ) ( 448 bytes ) +1 Re: So what if you were an instructor? You lose, MATIE! --- jonx ( Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 01:07:52 ) ( 1040 bytes ) img pointless --- Toby ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 09:53:22 ) ( 545 bytes ) +1 Re: pointless --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 11:11:45 ) ( 362 bytes ) OK, Jonx, mate, why don't YOU tell us what "surrender" meant? --- Jim ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 15:00:53 ) ( 213 bytes ) Problem solved r.e. the meaning of surrender --- Steve ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 19:34:38 ) ( 5968 bytes ) link Re: What a ridiculous claim! --- Hilltop ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 00:48:54 ) ( 123 bytes ) file img +1 Re: What a ridiculous claim! --- Hilltop ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 01:12:21 ) ( 344 bytes ) file img +1 Re: What a ridiculous claim! --- Hilltop ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 01:29:02 ) ( 112 bytes ) file img Re: Better a clown than a loud-mouth who preaches intolerance! --- songster ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 10:02:46 ) ( 391 bytes ) +1 Whoa there matey! --- jonx ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 11:03:45 ) ( 204 bytes ) +1 Hey there matey mate mate mate - mate this! --- songster ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 13:00:21 ) ( 1726 bytes ) +2 Re: Hey there matey mate mate mate - mate this! --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 04:37:37 ) ( 508 bytes ) Re: Hey there matey mate mate mate - mate this! --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 04:48:33 ) ( 270 bytes ) So THIS is an example of ..... --- Danny ( Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 17:04:37 ) ( 2135 bytes ) +1 Re: So THIS is an example of ..... --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 01:47:21 ) ( 1246 bytes ) +3 Laughable --- Danny ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 07:31:02 ) ( 5558 bytes ) +1 Okay, I'll respond to your whole post this time --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 09:53:16 ) ( 4196 bytes ) +2 Jon, show me where Maharaji clarified "surrender" --- JHB ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 18:02:34 ) ( 614 bytes ) +2 Hurray for the calm light of reason. You are my hero JHB! (no text) --- songster ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 20:01:57 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: Jon, show me where Maharaji clarified "surrender" --- jonx ( Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 01:11:14 ) ( 264 bytes ) img +1 This is just a cheap insult and in no way a substantive or meaningful response (no text) --- songster ( Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 10:20:54 ) ( 0 bytes ) Glad you did ..but you failed to understand --- Danny ( Sun, Jul 31, 2005, 03:21:37 ) ( 4093 bytes ) Re: So THIS is an example of ..... --- Danny ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 07:34:21 ) ( 47 bytes ) Re: So THIS is an example of ..... --- songster ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 10:50:30 ) ( 1177 bytes ) jonx, answer a few questions please --- Steve ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 18:37:41 ) ( 1227 bytes ) link Perhaps this would help --- Will ( Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 10:51:22 ) ( 749 bytes ) I surrendered to knowledge jonx --- hamzen ( Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 16:13:54 ) ( 106 bytes )