Re: Dr. Reender Kranenborg about Guru Maharaj Ji

Re: Dr. Reender Kranenborg about Guru Maharaj Ji
Re: Dr. Reender Kranenborg about Guru Maharaj Ji -- Andries	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by:
Mike Finch ^Ž

12/30/2004, 03:09:08
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators

Good quote Andries:

A good example of a guru with near absolute power is Guru Maharaj Ji

The only quibble I have is that is was not 'near' absolute power, but absolutely absolute power. Of course, in reality he had very little power of his own, all his power was what we gave him.

And we gave him absolute power - I would have been shocked to hear of Maharaji as having 'near' absolute power, it would have been an insult, both to him as the living Lord, and to myself as a devotee, trying to be absolutely surrendered to the absolute Lord.

Following on from our thread quite a way down now, about the value of academic opinions of Maharaji: I don't mind these academic quotes appearing, so long as it is clear that they are not evidence for or against.

It so happens that this quote, and Schnabel's below, happen to hit the mark; but they are not evidence of how things were (and are), any more than other academics denying it all happened are evidence. As Cynthia said below, the only evidence is eye-witness accounts.

Take care

-- Mike

Recommend Current page

Replies to this message

Re: Dr. Reender Kranenborg about Guru Maharaj Ji --- Andries ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 07:59:49 ) ( 1357 bytes ) +2

I disagree about two things --- Jim ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 08:57:39 ) ( 3226 bytes ) +2

The world cult does not explain things --- Andries ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 13:14:26 ) ( 1042 bytes ) +1

Re: The world cult does not explain things --- Jim ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 14:44:24 ) ( 2491 bytes )

Re: I disagree about two things --- jonx ( Tue, Jan 04, 2005, 16:03:02 ) ( 1460 bytes ) +1

Here's why you simply MUST be wrong, jonx --- Jim ( Tue, Jan 04, 2005, 16:55:34 ) ( 2808 bytes ) +1

Re: Here's why you simply MUST be wrong, jonx --- jonx ( Wed, Jan 05, 2005, 18:27:11 ) ( 2120 bytes ) +1

Boy, Jonx, you really ran out of steam there, didn't you? --- Jim ( Wed, Jan 05, 2005, 19:21:39 ) ( 4359 bytes ) +1

Re: Boy, Jonx, you really ran out of steam there, didn't you? --- jonx ( Sat, Jan 08, 2005, 18:37:58 ) ( 2866 bytes ) +1

You missed the whole point, Jonx -- surprising, really --- Jim ( Sat, Jan 08, 2005, 20:22:16 ) ( 4044 bytes ) +1

Re: You missed the whole point, Jonx -- surprising, really --- jonx ( Sun, Jan 09, 2005, 15:14:15 ) ( 1068 bytes ) +1

You didn't answer the question, Jonx --- Jim ( Sun, Jan 09, 2005, 16:21:47 ) ( 3245 bytes ) +1

Re: You didn't answer the question, Jonx --- jonx ( Mon, Jan 10, 2005, 18:21:58 ) ( 1581 bytes ) +1

You're losing site of the ball, I'm afraid, Jonx --- Jim ( Mon, Jan 10, 2005, 20:15:41 ) ( 3264 bytes ) +1

Re: You're losing site of the ball, I'm afraid, Jonx --- jonx ( Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 13:46:37 ) ( 7391 bytes ) +1

So Rawat's like Einstein and I'm homophobic? LOL!!!! --- Jim ( Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 15:01:27 ) ( 796 bytes ) +1

Cop out --- jonx ( Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 17:04:52 ) ( 97 bytes ) +1

If that's your honest opinion, so be it --- Jim ( Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 17:33:27 ) ( 341 bytes ) +1

Re: If that's your honest opinion, so be it --- jonx ( Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 17:48:00 ) ( 456 bytes )

Re: Dr. Reender Kranenborg about Guru Maharaj Ji --- Cynthia ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 09:54:38 ) ( 1602 bytes ) +2

Re: Dr. Reender Kranenborg about Guru Maharaj Ji --- Toby ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 11:04:36 ) ( 933 bytes ) +1

Re: Dr. Reender Kranenborg about Guru Maharaj Ji --- Jim ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 11:08:12 ) ( 189 bytes ) +2

How do you know that that is accurate Jim? --- Andries ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 11:36:42 ) ( 474 bytes ) +1

I've read enough to know --- Jim ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 21:25:04 ) ( 349 bytes )

Re: Dr. Reender Kranenborg about Guru Maharaj Ji --- Toby ( Thu, Dec 30, 2004, 11:39:34 ) ( 557 bytes )

Why treat NRM scholars as enemies? Barrett & I do have some questions for... --- Andries ( Fri, Dec 31, 2004, 10:52:12 ) ( 2234 bytes ) +2

The real question is why treat them like SCHOLARS? --- Jim ( Fri, Dec 31, 2004, 13:57:10 ) ( 249 bytes )
Re: Why treat NRM scholars as enemies? Barrett & I do have some questions... --- Cynthia ( Fri, Dec 31, 2004, 14:05:39 ) ( 1773 bytes ) +1

As someone who appreciates "Spoonerisms" ... (OT) --- cq ( Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 10:15:40 ) ( 300 bytes ) +1

Re: As someone who appreciates G.W. Bush style Dyslexia. --- Lexy ( Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 11:57:41 ) ( 215 bytes ) +1

Raising our glasses to you, Lexy ... --- cq ( Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 12:10:52 ) ( 117 bytes ) +1

as opposed to glazing our - ahem ... --- cq ( Mon, Jan 03, 2005, 15:00:40 ) ( 150 bytes ) file img +1

Re: Pussy that got the cream... --- Lexy ( Mon, Jan 03, 2005, 19:41:07 ) ( 150 bytes ) file img +2

Blissful Pussy... --- Hilltop ( Mon, Jan 03, 2005, 22:42:40 ) ( 57 bytes ) file img
OK, hands up, puddy-tat, dis is a stick-up --- cq ( Tue, Jan 04, 2005, 06:48:45 ) ( 1653 bytes ) file img