On 28 Aug, 17:12, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > > What I see from this Pat in essance is if you agree with me then you
> > > have found awareness of the truth, if you do not then the awarness you
> > > have is false.
>
> > Rather, if you have found awareness of the truth, you would agree with
> > me. Cart before the horse.
>
> Same thing said in another way.
>
> > > 'If you take 1 step towards God then God takes 1000 steps towards
> > > you'.
>
> > And what happens when you walk so far that you meet? I'll tell
> > you, while both of you walk on, there will only be God's footsteps in
> > the sand.
>
> Yes indeed, yet to carry the anolgy on, there is still a time of two
> sets of foot prints.
>
> > > Again choice. If I choose to submit my will to the will of God then
> > > God helps with that subbmision. Or if I surrender my will in favour
> > > of the will of God, allow God to move me according not to my will but
> > > God's then I become Gurmukh.
>
> > You just made the connection. Surrender your will in favour of the
> > will of God and become that Gurmukh:
>
> Heh that is not a new connection Pat, I have been aware of it for at
> least 20 years.
>
> > The self-willed manmukhs are polluted. They are filled with the
> > pollution of egotism, wickedness and desire.
> > Without the Shabad, this pollution is not washed off; through the
> > cycle of death and rebirth, they waste away in misery. Engrossed in
> > this transitory drama, they are not at home in either this world or
> > the next. (SGGS p.29)
>
> > When I am in my ego, then You are not with me. Now that You are with
> > me, there is no egotism within me.
> > The wind may raise up huge waves in the vast ocean, but they are just
> > water in water. (SGGS p. 657)
>
> > You don't really choose to submit, you realise that, in fact, you have
> > no choice BUT to submit to the will of God.
>
> None of the above says that to me Pat. Again all of the language used
> there indicates a choice.
>
> In fact it clearly denies your premise. 'When I am in my ego you are
> not with me' Can be read as, Until I submit to your will, then I live
> useing my own. Can it not?
>
> 'Now that You are with me, there is no egotism within me'. Can be
> seen to mean, now that I choose your will, I have none of my own.
> Yes?
>
> Your own words also say the same. 'You have no choice BUT to submit
> to the will of God.
>
> How can one submit if there is nothing to submit? If my will is
> already Gods then what have I to submit?
>
Yes, but have you fully realised that? You still cling to 'your
choices' rather than acknowledging them as God's enactment of His will
through you.
> Sorry sir, but the very word submit screams that there is a part of
> your Self that you need giveup.
>
To the uninitiated, it 'appears' that way; and the audience of the
scriptures are mostly uninitiated. In truth, it is only a realisation
that one is the One.
> > Because there is only One. There is nothing ELSE for God to
> > meditate upon!
>
> Ummm well while I can see something in this, there is also this to
> consider. Sikhi says that God is a part of yet apart from the
> creation. I take that as the 'body' of God is all that exists, yet
> the intelegence(or spirit if you prefer, or essance) is seperate.
>
That intelligence aspect is in the Calabi-Yau space and is, therefore,
not a part of space-time. As it has a portion that extends outside of
(space-)time, it is eternal.
> So mixing my faiths for a second or two we can see that when we are
> made in Gods image it cannot mean Gods physical image, I much prefer
> the the idea that it is this spirit, or essance, or intelegence that
> is Gods image that we bear. That part of God that permeates
> throughout humanity, that spark of divinity within all.
>
Yes, you see, I cover that likeness and image bit in OTHER parts of
the book. In fact, I've discussed it here, too. It's the CPU
analogy.
> Now the mind, the intelect is seperate from the soul, it is held
> within the brain, it is a fucntion of the physical body.
> It is the mind that makes the choice. Do I commune with the soul or
> do I not? Do I speak to Crowelys 'guardian angel' or leave it well
> alone? Do I choose to submmit to God's will or do I choose to live in
> human ego?
I'm not so sure of that. I think the brain sets up an interface to
the Calabi-Yau and our consciousness isn't really a part of space-time
but exists simultaneously with it, so long as we are incarnate. After
death, our consciousness is freed from these spatio-temporal bonds.
You will do that which you will do. If you turn that phrase into the
first person and then into Hebrew, you get: Eheieh Asher Eheieh, which
is usually translated as "I AM that I AM". Unfortunately, the word
'Eheieh' does not mean "I am" but "I will be", it's the first person
future tense of 'to be'. The correct translation of that statement
into modern English usage is "I will be that (which) I will be". It
applies to God and each of us by virtue of Him.
Have a great weekend!!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
