I explained what I thought surrender meant. You in turn are not willing to talk about your own so that we might actually have a meaningful discussion about what Maharaji might have meant. Instead you insult me.

Tell you what sweetheart, don't take offence to my insult, and I won't to yours. In case you're wondering what I'm talking about re-read your posts to me.

How about offering some other alternatives to my definition, which you claim were rampant, even if they aren't your own. Otherwise your rather nasty insult has no substance, and is simply that, a nasty insult to hide behind because you can't or won't talk about the issue.

No hiding going on at all mate. You see, I've had discussions before with ex-premies about personal and intangible things of this nature and it's a waste of effort... a complete waste. So if you want to waste your time be my guest, but you'll have to find somebody other than me to do it with.

And while your at it, I return to my previous assertion and this time do request that you answer it. If people were as confused about what Maharaji meant about surrender as you claim, what does that say about his ability as a teacher?

How many events over how many years did he have with premies helping to understand the subtleties of his teaching? And how many people continue to benefit from his efforts? Again I'll say -- this time to you -- if your primary defence for not "getting it" was a bad teacher, how much do you attribute to being a bad student?