Re: No side-stepping whatsoever
Re: You're missing the main point -- Jim	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: paddy ® 08/18/2005, 19:46:31 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

I didn't think then and I don't think now that "surrender" as it was being portrayed then was "eradicating the individual mind" and replacing it with "Guru Maharaj Ji = good", whatever that means. It was straightforward. Practisng Knowledge was a process of 3 or 4 activities: satsang, service, meditation and darshan. You engaged in those activities and you were in the process of surrender. The results of that practice and surrender were obviously unknown as it was a state of consciousness that you currently weren't (in). Mahatmas, or at least our false concepts of mahatmas were the ideal but certainly initiators and instructors who many of us actually knew as people were not ideals just other premies trying to practise Knowledge though in most cases obviously trying harder. Those moments when I thought of ceasing that process I considered it and decided that at this time I hadn't practised long enough and it was still too early to quit and I continued t practise. No guilt, no fear certainly some doubt but after considering the options, no confusion. When I decided that the evidence was overwhelming I began to exit. That process took a while as I had been living in a premie community for quite a few years but that went on in the same way: no fear, no guilt, no confusion, plenty of doubt. Your story was different. Fine. While I wish unnecessary guilt and fear on no-one I'm glad it was you that suffered them and not me but I can't pretend they were part of my life at that time. People are different.

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

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 )