Re: No, excuse me!
Re: No, excuse me! -- jonx	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: dant ® 07/30/2005, 01:37:42 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

That is a silly question. Of course it is possible, but I don't think it is probably. I hope you will answer Jim's question now so that this discussion can actually go somewhere. What do you think Maharaji meant by surrender?

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

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 )