What a ridiculous claim!

What a ridiculous claim!
Re: You sound like a Hitler apologist -- Jim	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by:
jonx ^®

07/29/2005, 10:57:21
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators

Even if, for argument's sake, some crazy person at some time misconstrued Rawat's meaning, it doesn't mean he didn't have one.

First of all it doesn’t take a crazy person to misconstrue Maharaji’s meaning. I’m presuming you are not clinically insane. Second, what the f**k are you talking about here mate?

Any reasonable person reading Rawat's many, many lectures about surrender would have no difficulty understanding exactly what he meant.

That is a completely erroneous statement. What he really meant when he talked about surrender is certainly a topic of debate, which I don’t have the stomach to entertain with you guys again. The point of this discussion is: Anything he did say is open to interpretation, and is at risk of getting wrong. Your problem is you don’t have the integrity or the guts to attest to that fact?

Your problem is that he said it. Sorry, fella, there's nothing we can do about that. If you can't handle it, get a new guru!

I have benefited by what he said in the past and says today. Sorry mate, nothing for me to handle.

Recommend Current page

Replies to this message

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