Just a side note, Pat. On the scientific level, the English language is mostly seen as not having developed a - let's say: proper - future tense. The underlying concept of the will construction is that of volition - in contrast to the going-to construction and its planning aspect.
Enjoy your weekend trip! :-) On 28 Aug., 18:31, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > , 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. > > > >l a tiin 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, er my willto move me according not to my will but > > > > God's then I become Gurmukh. > > > > You just made the connection. Surrender your will in favour e the c > > > will of God and become that Gurmukh: > connection Pat, I have been aware of it for at > > least 20 years. > new coThe self-wt, ed manmukhs are polluted. They are filled with the > > > pollution of egotism, wickedness and desire. > > > Withou with thabad, this pollution is not washed off; through the > > > cycle of death and rebirth, they waste away in misery; throossed 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 me, th 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 realisa the > > that one is the One. > s 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 exkhi , yet > > the intelegence(or spirit if you prefer, or essance) is seperate. > 'bodt intelligence aspect is in the Calabi-Yau space and is, therefore, > not a part of space-time. As it has a portion that extendspect is in > (space-)time, it is eternatherefo > not a ping my faiths for a second or two we can see extenws o 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 imag > thron OTHt humanity, > 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 Cody. > >'guais the mgel' or leave it well > > alone? Do I choose to submmit t> > do Iwill 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 Ca to live and our consciousness isn't really a part of space-time > but rain sesimultaneously with it, so long as we are incarnate. After > death, our consciousness is freed from these spatio-temporal bonds. > > You as weoareat 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". Unfoand thely, 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 t mean atement but "Io modern English usage is "I will be that (which) I will be". It > applies to Godn of tach 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
