Question:
Can you speak to the issue of passion and desire as an ego versus a soul issue. In one of the later chapters in The Path to Love you describe boredom as the suppression of desire, and yet it seems as though surrender requires putting our personal desires aside. How does one hold on to one’s desires without being selfish about it? I imagine there is something in the answer to this that would help me to better understand resignation versus surrender.
Answer:
I see surrender as the ultimate fulfillment of desire, rather than the suppression of it. At the heart of every little ego desire is the soul’s search for happiness, freedom and wholeness. When one truly surrenders in love, one is relinquishing all the little desires to merge with the wholeness of one’s heart’s desire. It is like a river flowing into the ocean. It is giving up its limited sense of self and values, in order to gain its true unbounded status, what it had been moving toward all along. In that state of surrender, there is no question of holding on or being selfish—your desires are your beloved’s desires, his needs and are your needs.
Love,
Deepak
Ask Deepak
Question:
Ask Deepak: Surrender
April 30th, 2009
9deepak's response
Love,
Leave a Comment




Deepak, what is Love?
How do we surrender? What are the signs that show that we are not surrendering?
Veronica,
the answer to your questions is… When you don’t
accept Deepak’s ideas without questioning or seeing if
they past the test of good logic and critical thinking…
Only then will you have truly surrendered.
Veronica,
Sorry, I hadf an extra word in there. This is what I meant to say.
the answer to your questions is… When you
accept Deepak’s ideas without questioning or seeing if
they past the test of good logic and critical thinking…
Only then will you have truly surrendered.
Or you can go Dale’s way and give up critical thinking
and logic and believe in talking snakes and Jeebus.
Trevor,
It has to at least intrigue you that of all the thousands of people the
Romans crucified, two thousand years later, you can name only one?
You maintain it was a clever hoax, dreamed up by men with bad selfish
intent (or whatever). Meanwhile it is a fact of history that they lived as
as men mostly without material possessions and most of them
were persecuted and then killed for their professing their faith..
In that context, I’m not sure how you can so easily maintain it is a
fairy tale.
Hi,
I never said he didn’t exist, or wasn’t crucified.
Profound teachers that make an impact on their students tend to be
remembered. MLK will be remembered forever because he was such
a great inspiration to many, and a great teacher. Just like Jesus.
Magic stuff though? Ya, made up.
Trevor,
Geez, here we go again with the “great teacher” argument…..
You have to be ignorant to read anything about Jesus, forget the bible,
read the historical accounts, and still think He is nothing but a “great
teacher”… And you put Him in the category of MLK (well known for having
adulterous relationships, nonetheless a good man)?
I don’t think so!
Whose MLK?