Re: War with the Mind Was Personal
Re: Now THAT's bullshit, Paddy -- Jim	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: paddy ® 08/18/2005, 15:51:53 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

Wow Jim, so we were at war with the mind were we? And exactly what did that war entail? Satsang, service and meditation were the weapons of choice as I recall. For myself, the only major problem I had was the young guru and his inadequacies but they were only printing magazines once a month and showing movies starring his Balyogeshwar even less often so I could easily ignore that. Sure the premies were young and immature and meditative calm was in short supply but it was early days and enlightenment didn't come after months of meditation but years. Now I can understand that this was a personal experience. I'm an optimistic happy-go-lucky sort of guy who only sees the best in people and situations unless forced to delve deeper by events. So for me, the DLM daze were enjoyable and interesting and quite exciting. Satsang was concentrated bliss for me and meditation while hardly cosmic assured me that I was making an effort towards the Divine that I had yearned for for years. What was there not to like? Now once again it may just be me though it certainly looked like lots of other premies were experiencing something similar and remember we talked about it all the time back then but I had not experienced that level of "bliss" in my life before except with my children and everybody has children but not everybody is going to experience God Realisation. Documentary evidence of "war with the mind"? What, were you thinking "bad thoughts" and they were conflicting with your "good thoughts" and you were writing this down in a journal? Please explain!

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

.....not if you were a "true" devotee, Paddy. --- Lexy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 16:32:18 ) ( 707 bytes ) +1 Re: .....how true is true? --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 17:01:13 ) ( 711 bytes ) +2 Did you listen to Rawat or not? --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 17:06:03 ) ( 244 bytes ) +1 Re: Did you listen to Rawat or not? --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 19:51:50 ) ( 634 bytes ) +1 That's fine -- but, face it, you were hardly a premie --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 20:15:46 ) ( 557 bytes ) +1 Re: That's fine -- but, face it, were you a premie? --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 21:43:13 ) ( 2353 bytes ) +1 Suspect we approached it similarly but --- hamzen ( Mon, Aug 22, 2005, 18:08:44 ) ( 110 bytes ) Your "experience" of seventies premiedom doesn't seem fun,Paddy ! --- Lexy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 03:27:36 ) ( 517 bytes ) Come on, Paddy -- this is too obvious --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 16:51:19 ) ( 1057 bytes ) +1 Re: Come on, Paddy -- this is too obvious --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 17:09:21 ) ( 928 bytes ) +1 You're missing the main point --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 17:16:07 ) ( 886 bytes ) +1 Re: No side-stepping whatsoever --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 19:46:31 ) ( 1526 bytes ) +2 Surrender -"depends on what the defination of "is" is. NOT! (no text) --- Karen K ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 19:58:16 ) ( 0 bytes ) So what did you think stuff like this was about? --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 20:10:24 ) ( 9806 bytes ) +2 Right On!!!! Great post (no text) --- Karen K ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 20:44:47 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: So what did you think stuff like this was about? --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 20:48:50 ) ( 1326 bytes ) +1 I disagree --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 21:30:26 ) ( 4409 bytes ) +1 Re: I disaguilt --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 21:48:51 ) ( 499 bytes ) +1 I hear you --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 22:02:11 ) ( 908 bytes ) +1 Re: I hear you and I sing to you --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 23:25:30 ) ( 1938 bytes ) +2 truth - pathless land or maze ? --- Flywithoutwings ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 03:59:35 ) ( 408 bytes ) +2 Re: ISB OT --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 16:51:49 ) ( 380 bytes ) OK, FWW, it's time for a vote! --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 19:07:13 ) ( 79 bytes ) +1 Re: Don't be ridiculous Jim --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 19:58:21 ) ( 688 bytes ) +1 LOLLLLLL!!! (no text) --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 20:08:08 ) ( 0 bytes ) I don't agree that guilt was optional --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 10:22:55 ) ( 897 bytes ) +2 Guilt was optional --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 11:16:34 ) ( 963 bytes ) +1 But WAS guilt really optional? --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 13:19:31 ) ( 921 bytes ) +1 Re: But WAS guilt really optional? --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 14:57:14 ) ( 3919 bytes ) +2 ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 18:36:29 ) ( 718 bytes ) +1 Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 21:53:51 ) ( 878 bytes ) +1 Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 07:00:18 ) ( 649 bytes ) +1 Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 08:53:34 ) ( 1377 bytes ) +2 The point is, it wasn't a popular view with RAWAT --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:25:16 ) ( 236 bytes ) +1 Re: The point is, it wasn't a popular view with RAWAT --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 16:45:14 ) ( 422 bytes ) Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 18:01:38 ) ( 1599 bytes ) +1 Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 19:05:40 ) ( 421 bytes ) +1 Thanks for the clarification Steve --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 20:52:17 ) ( 519 bytes ) But Steve, didn't we have a guru or something? --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 18:38:50 ) ( 1988 bytes ) +1 Re: But Steve, didn't we have a guru or something? --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 19:48:50 ) ( 3943 bytes ) +2 In a cult, only the leader can decide who's a good follower --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 20:00:31 ) ( 1080 bytes ) +1 Re: In a cult, only the leader can decide who's a good follower --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 21:46:19 ) ( 4239 bytes ) +1 This is a BIZARRE argument (but you're still wrong) --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 22:23:02 ) ( 4702 bytes ) +2 Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but seriously) --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 22:59:06 ) ( 217 bytes ) +1 Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but seriously) --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 11:52:04 ) ( 266 bytes ) Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but you're still wrong) --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 23:41:19 ) ( 3251 bytes ) link +1 Sorry, but that's NOT what "devotion" meant --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 11:37:46 ) ( 1854 bytes ) link +1 Let's agree to disagree --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 17:35:21 ) ( 2987 bytes ) +1 Steve, if you can look at this fairly and dispassionately .... --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:37:33 ) ( 1251 bytes ) +1 P.S. --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:49:03 ) ( 988 bytes ) +1 Re: P.S. --- Steve ( Sun, Aug 21, 2005, 17:57:57 ) ( 931 bytes ) Teachers always have different categories of followers --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:14:38 ) ( 4104 bytes ) +2 Sounds like you weren't a good premie either --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:33:33 ) ( 1519 bytes ) +1 Can Roupell come to the party? --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 13:31:36 ) ( 338 bytes ) +4 Re: Roupell was scum --- paddy ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 17:35:54 ) ( 510 bytes ) +1 Oops --- Tempora ( Sun, Aug 21, 2005, 08:21:49 ) ( 699 bytes ) A decent guy --- Marianne ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 18:33:40 ) ( 249 bytes ) Are you drunk? --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:52:56 ) ( 338 bytes ) Re: Can Roupell come to the party?:..sure --- Jethro ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 22:09:12 ) ( 185 bytes ) De (no text) --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:43:54 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: I don't agree that guilt was optional --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 17:03:19 ) ( 1755 bytes ) +1 You're distorting what I said --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 18:44:51 ) ( 1294 bytes ) +1 Re: You're distorting what I said --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 20:17:07 ) ( 1650 bytes )