is this what you are talking about: "So go to sleep little Jonx, dry those tired eyes, and surrender to sweet dreams of dafodils and prancing ponies and jiggling mala-laden masters doing the hola hoop around the moon."I didn't really mean it as an insult, but I can understand that you might take it that way, in which case I apologize. I meant it as a lullaby, but anyway it doesn't matter. I guess I got carried away and I apologise for offending you.
About your other points, jonx I'm not talking to you as a generic premie, I'm talking to you as one individual to another. I'm also not some collective construct of ex-premie ideology. I'm just me, dant. I have my own ideas about all things including Maharaji and I assume you also have your own thoughts on the matter. If you are not willing to discuss things here, then what are you doing here at all? You are the one who started this whole surrender was misinterpreted schtick. I'm not going to make fun of you about it, I promise. Let's talk about it then. Demonstrate your claim and give it some credibility. If you don't want to talk about your own feelings, then talk about some of the other theories that you say were running around rampant.
Okay your last point about the teacher/student issue. I don't think I was a bad student and I think I did "get it" so I am not using that as a defense. You are really twisting things around here. You said that premies didn't understand what Maharaji meant by surrender, to which I simply asked you the question about how that might reflect on his teaching ability. You still haven't answered the question other than to say that he has held many events. That is avoiding the question jonx.
If I had a French teacher for example that gave me classes every week for 30 years and I still couldn't speak French after all that time, then I could come to the conclusion that either I was a lousy student or the teacher was lousy or both. But if I found out that none of the students of that teacher had learned French after all that time, I would have to come to the conclusion that the teacher was at fault. Either he was lousy or he intentionally taught like that to keep his source of income going.
So is there any place at all in all these years where you might find one small area where Maharaji didn't exactly do the right thing. That he made a mistake somewhere along the line. Sticking to the surrender issue, was he too vague? Or was he expecting too much? Or does it all boil down to premies being completely at fault? Once again, I am asking this based on your claim and not on my own belief. Personally I don't think Maharaji failed at all in making his wishes clear on the subject of surrender.
