Ultimate surrender: перевод, синонимы, произношение, примеры предложений, антонимы, транскрипция
Произношение и транскрипция
Перевод по словам
adjective: окончательный, конечный, максимальный, основной, предельный, последний, первичный, элементарный, самый отдаленный
noun: сдача, капитуляция, отказ
verb: сдаваться, капитулировать, сдавать, уступать, отказываться, подчиняться, предаваться, поддаваться
Предложения с «ultimate surrender»
| The fetid closeness of the air, and a famishing diet, united perhaps to some fears of ultimate retribution, had constrained them to surrender at discretion. | Зловонная духота и голодный рацион вкупе с опасениями неизбежной расплаты побудили их сдаться на милость победителей. |
| The Japanese historian Sadao Asada argues that the ultimate decision to surrender was a personal decision by the emperor, influenced by the atomic bombings. | Японский историк Садао Асада утверждает, что окончательное решение о капитуляции было личным решением императора, на которое повлияли атомные бомбардировки. |
| His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness. | Его просьба о полной самоотдаче и полном доверии основана на его притязаниях на высшую власть, проистекающую из его божественности. |
Copyright © 2009-2021. All Rights Reserved.
ultimate surrender
541 present a surrender ultimatum
542 present or surrender for payment
543 primary task and ultimate goal
544 projected ultimate recovery of oil
545 proof ultimate ratio
546 proof/ultimate factor
547 proved ultimate recovery
548 represent the ultimate in domestic automation
549 right of surrender
550 safety factor versus ultimate
551 sat (In Vedic and early Hindu thought, a significant notion of the nature of ultimate reality)
552 save (one’s) bail, to surrender to (one’s) bail
553 self surrender
554 self-surrender
555 simple surrender
556 sole possessor of ultimate truth
557 starve into surrender
558 stipulate special terms of surrender
559 stipulated surrender
560 strategic surrender
См. также в других словарях:
Surrender (Diana Ross album) — Surrender Studio album by Diana Ross Released June 1971 … Wikipedia
Ultimate Santana — Album par Carlos Santana Sortie 16 octobre 2007 (États Unis) 22 octobre 2007 (France) Durée 77 : 43 Genre rock Ultimate Santana est un album de … Wikipédia en Français
Surrender of Japan — The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a close. On August 10, 1945, after the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Union and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan s leaders at the Imperial conference (… … Wikipedia
Surrender and regrant — In the history of Ireland, surrender and regrant was the legal mechanism by which Ireland was converted from a power structure rooted in clan and kin loyalties to a semi feudal system under the nominal control of the crown of England during the… … Wikipedia
Ultimate Box — Infobox Album | Name = Ultimate Box Type = Box set Artist = Céline Dion Released = Start date|2008|2|27 Recorded = 1990 2007 Genre = Pop Length = CD1 73:43 CD2 76:18 DVD1 134:00 DVD2 143:00 DVD3 100:00 Label = Epic Producer = Walter Afanasieff,… … Wikipedia
New Surrender — Studio album by Anberlin Released 30 September 2008 … Wikipedia
TNA No Surrender — No Surrender is an annual professional wrestling pay per view (PPV) event held by Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. The first one was held in July 2005, but when the PPV names were shuffled for 2006, it was moved to September. Contents 1 Events 2… … Wikipedia
TNA No Surrender — Logo de TNA No Surrender. No Surrender est un pay per view de catch organisé par la Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Le premier se déroulait en juillet 2005, mais finissait par déménager en septembre à partir de 2006. Sommaire … Wikipédia en Français
TNA No Surrender — es un evento anual de lucha libre profesional emitido por PPV, producido por la Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Su primera edición fue en julio de 2005, pero en el 2006 fue cambiado a septiembre. Contenido 1 Resultados 1.1 2005 1.2 2006 … Wikipedia Español
One Woman: The Ultimate Collection — Greatest hits album by Diana Ross Released 1993 … Wikipedia
No Surrender — TNA No Surrender Logo de TNA No Surrender. No Surrender est un pay per view de catch organisé par la Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Le premier se déroulait en juillet 2005, mais finissait par déménager en septembre à partir de 2006. Sommaire … Wikipédia en Français
Ultimate surrender что это
The Ultimate: Full Surrender
Evening Darshan, September 8, 1970
(source in MP3 audio format)
We are recording everything. Do You mind?
Well, we did some shopping and now we'll do no more of that. We got it out of the way. We finished.
That’s all right. So from tomorrow you’ll be regular in your meditation.
Tomorrow morning you can go there [the room for meditation], sit down at 7:30. I’ll come there when I’ve finished here at nine. Up to nine you will have sufficient time for meditation. That I often do also. Have you any subject now for discussion?
A thing I have hoped for some time is that we could ask You a question such as they asked Jesus, "Lord, if we should pray, how should we pray?" And then He presented the Lord's Prayer. If we asked You that question, what would you say?
I have great regard for Jesus. Jesus was Jesus. He said, «I am a son of man; of course, God is working through me.» That’s all right. He gave an answer that was quite appropriate according to the level of us more worldly people who think and pray, «God give us this day our daily bread.» But there are different levels of prayer. I’ve discussed that point in the book Prayer. There have been such-like people who pray, «Oh, God, we want nothing more than this: we want one mare to ride on, a house to live in, so much to eat and so much to drink, and this and that thing. This is not taxing. If You cannot afford it, we cannot pray.» Some address God like that. This is the ABC; it’s from the level of man. That’s all right. Ultimately they pray, «Thy kingdom come on earth.» We worldly people need everything. In my book you’ll find this point brought out very clearly. Perhaps the average man wants not less than two hundred dollars a month; «This is really what I want. If You cannot give it, I cannot pray,» he says. That’s from the angle of a worldly man. But ultimately as you progress on the way you’ll surrender everything. The tithe system has been with us from time immemorial. So first you’ll give one tenth, then you’ll give more, then more, then everything to Him. In the beginning our Master used to give tithe of His income to the Master who would use it for the good of the people. Then when He progressed, He gave all of His income to the Master’s Feet and He (Baba Jaimal Singh) would send income for the use of Sawan Singh’s family. This is the ultimate.
But from the level of the worldly man, that prayer is good. Other Masters and Saints have also given out prayers like that. So that prayer befits worldly men like us.
We start by asking things from God, but the real prayer is when we surrender everything to God.
Yes. «If You give or not, that’s all right.»
Let me give you an example. I don’t say it fits the situation in the West but it does in the East. A newly married woman goes to her husband; at first, she says, «Well, I want this, I want that.» It’s but natural. Then she thinks, «He loves me.» When a wife knows that her husband loves her, she will think, «I want this. If he gives it to me, all right; if not, all right.» She does not sulk, «You must give me this and that thing, otherwise I can’t go on.» The lowest form of prayer is, as I told You, «I want this, I want that, otherwise I cannot pray. I cannot live.» To ask: «Give us our daily bread»—this is normal. The time comes when the wife sees: «My husband loves me even in rags and torn clothes. He sees my condition and he does not buy me new clothes, but I must be loved by him; if these torn rags appeal to him, all right. The only thing is, I must be loved by him.» This is the ultimate goal. «If he wants to see me in this state and he’s pleased with that; if he knows, he sees and does not give me anything, it means I’m pleasing to him in that manner. My whole job is to win his pleasure, is it not?» So this is the ultimate. There are stages.
The ultimate evidently has been reached in the East, but in the West we have a complicating factor: advertising. The wife perhaps listens to television or radio and finds out that she really should have this desire and that desire, and.
That’s in the beginning. That’s quite elementary. As a son of man, you see, everybody wants something. But when a woman comes in contact with somebody who has chosen her as a companion for life, for weal or woe, then she should win his pleasure. Even if she wants something and he cannot give, she will be satisfied. In the time of Father Abraham, the slaves were bought. He bought a slave, brought him home, and asked him, «Where will you sit? I’m bought; wherever you will make me sit.» «What will you eat? There is no question of my desire; I am bought—whatever you will feed me.» Father Abraham sighed. «Oh God, he is a good servant of yours. I am not.» So this is the ultimate.
We have a new factor in the West that enters in, called women's liberation, in which they don't believe in accommodating themselves to the husband the way that You've discussed.
Strictly speaking, husbands and wives should have equal rights. But they must be one soul in two bodies. Otherwise there’s no good family life. God has united them as a matter of reactions of the past. Now I’m speaking very strictly according to principles. You don’t mind that? According to principle when a man takes a wife and they want to leave each other, then even if the wife remarries or the husband remarries, they are both adulterers. These are the words of Moses. We fall short of these Commandments. And there’s real happiness only when one is attached to one person throughout life. In India this has been proverbial. In the West there are divorce courts. Every day if some trouble arises. «All right, I’ll go (for a divorce),» the wife or husband says. So where’s the peace? No peace. After six years just see them. One son has been born here, another is born there. Who claims them? Very difficult situation, I would say. India has been proverbial for family stability, but this disease has now also crept in here too. Divorced people think they are advanced. To my mind, they have degraded themselves by this level of thinking. So there is actually no permanent peace, union, or integration. You follow me? We also have divorce courts in India now—not many, but still they have been started; it is the nation’s loss. In the West you’ll find that trouble arises every day. There are very few who are sincere to each other. God has united you as a reaction of the past, so let God disunite. Both of you should go together as equals; both united together, not as slave—I don’t mean that—but as equals, both united. So marriage means taking a companion in life who will be with us in weal or woe in our earthly sojourn, and we should help each other to meet God. One duty may be of begetting children. But if divorce comes, they say: «This is my son; you can keep that son.» All this trouble is going on. First a son is living with his father; two years later he is living with his mother. Excuse me if I say, there is no sincerity. Divorce is one of the main causes of trouble in the West. It has crept into India too, I’m sorry to say. The Mohammedans also allow it, with some restrictions. A man wanting a divorce gives notice for three months, then reconsiders for six months—that’s the rule. Then after one year or so if he and his wife cannot be reconciled, they are divorced. At the time of divorce the man pays something. You see? This is what Mohammedanism has got. In Hinduism that has not been the custom. You may approve of divorce, but I say evil has crept in here, too. If a man considers he has to, he will adjust. In my letters, you’ll find the advice, «Try to adjust, please.» And many couples, after having applied for divorce, have returned to each other. Now they’re living a good life. When once you think that you both have to carry on, you’ll adjust. Otherwise one will go this way and one that way, and there will be no peaceful home. So I always tell them, «Be polite to your wife, be truthful, be loving, adjust, control yourself.» And to the wife, «If your husband hates you, you must be sincere.» I’ve found in many cases they’ve come back to a normal life. So everyday, try to adjust.
As it is, a young man gets married. After two years he divorces; he takes another wife, and the wife takes a husband. After two more years he gets another divorce. Every time he has to remarry he has to take the role of a young man again; he’s never out of the sensual life. I’m pointing this out from the spiritual point of view. So these are very strict orders I am giving you; if those who are divorced remarry, both are adulterers. You see you cannot stamp out good or evil altogether, but we have to take such a recourse in which there is more good as compared with evil. Married couples should say, «You and I have to carry on somehow; we haven’t adjusted yet. We will try to adjust.» But if one partner threatens divorce, then the other will retaliate. That’s not the way; there will be no peace with all these frivolous thoughts haunting your brain. I’m just explaining from the practical point of view, that’s all. Once I had a very long correspondence on this subject. There are some genuine cases too, but they are very few, very few, not like what goes on now. Now everybody with a little excuse can say, «I am going to divorce you.» How can you love two men at a time or two wives at a time? After all, there are some obligations. I’m not talking deep philosophy, only common sense. There’s more peace that way. I now find those who have come in contact with me through correspondence are changed. Those who had already taken recourse to divorce, that was too late, but those who were intending to divorce, they have changed their minds. Now they have comparatively peaceful lives. To give you an example: if you have one bangle, maybe of iron or gold, that won’t make any noise. But if there are two or three, they will always be jingling. One heart attached to so many places—where’s the rest? Sometimes driven that way, sometimes driven this way. So this is very important, a very grave question to consider. I’m sorry this evil has crept into India too. Even now it affects, I think, ten percent of all marriages. You see, once a custom starts, it continues. It will take time, but what they have started will spoil the whole thing. In the case of family planning, India has the highest birthrate now.
In India one sees billboards everywhere advertising family planning. Do you approve of it?
Truly speaking, I don’t; they should maintain celibacy, chastity. This is a very valuable thing. They spoil it. I am not in favor of family planning. I tell you honestly. The point is, to conserve that power helps you physically, intellectually, and spiritually. We fall down every moment. I have put one column in the diary for chastity of thought, word, and deed. In these points, I’ve made it clear what I think.
All right, tomorrow morning you may meditate at seven thirty over there. If you call me, I will come about nine or nine thirty. Then in the evening we’ll have a heart-to-heart talk. Now if you don’t mind, I’ll attend to them. [So many Indian initiates are waiting to see their Beloved Master.] Good night to you all.
Ultimate surrender что это
Keshan, речь идёт об отказе от внутреннего сопротивления тому, что уже ЕСТЬ сейчас. Какой смысл бороться с тем, что невозможно изменить, потому что оно уже есть? Речь не о пассивности, а о вменяемости. Сопротивление тому, что есть — это безумие, но мы на столько привыкли так жить, что не осознаём этого. Сумасшедшие ведь не знают о том, что они сумасшедшие.
Показать полностью.
«В жизни некоторых людей существует одно большое ограничение, которое воспринимается ими как ужасное бремя. Это то, что христиане называют «мой крест». Большинство из вас имеют множество мелких ограничений. Это тоже сойдёт. Но одно огромное ограничение работает лучше! Если вы настолько везучий, что у вас есть невыносимое бремя, такое – «ну совершенно неприемлемое, которое никто не смог бы принять» (как говорит вам мышление), вот тогда происходит капитуляция (surrender). Для других это будет множество мелких капитуляций.
Что такое капитуляция? Это обнаружение внутреннего «нет» и смещение сознания к «да». Принятие означает, что вы больше не судите это, этому позволено быть в поле вашего внимания, пространства, осознанности, которое является вашей сущностью. Поэтому капитуляция перед одним большим ограничением может освободить вас раз и навсегда.
Капитуляция – не более чем принятие этого момента, каким бы он ни был. Другие духовные практики не требуются. Но если вы счастливы, выполняя другие практики, – это тоже хорошо. Однако все практики в конечном итоге указывают именно на это. Так почему бы не сделать это сейчас?»
Denmark, known to be the “happiest” nation on the planet, has a long and storied history of providing its citizens with a strong social safety net—a system designed, in the words of the nation’s official website, to provide its people with “the necessary material framework for living a reasonable life.”
Yet, a proposed new law in Denmark that many are describing as nothing less than the dawn of an economic and monetary revolution—a law that is viewed as the first step in removing cash from the economic systems of the world and ending traditional bank accounts as we know them—might very well transform the supposed Disneyland of nations into the land that launched our planet onto the path of ultimate and complete government control of humanity.
The proposed law would allow Danish business operators to refuse cash as payment for goods and services, and, in its place, demand only electronic payment as the means for bartering goods and services.
Granted, it doesn’t much sound like a very big deal when considering that so many of us already rely almost solely on credit and debit cards to do our daily business.
But there is so much more to this than what initially meets the eye—and what you may not be seeing should scare the stuffing out of you.
The Danish proposal is based on the notion that by removing the administrative and financial burdens that come with dealing in cash—such as hiring protective services when transferring large wads of paper money to the bank for deposit—overall growth in the Danish economy would be stimulated.
However, for many who believe in the benefits of cashless societies, the proposed Danish law is simply the first step in the movement to remove all cash from all of the economic systems of the world, once and for all.
Why would anyone want to end the use of paper notes and coins?
There are many perfectly good reasons to do so as noted in a fascinating paper entitled, “Improved macroeconomic control with electronic money and modern monetary theory,” by Trond Andresen of the Norwegian University of Science & Technology.
Imagine the reduction in crime that would follow if cash were to become a thing of the past.
Illegal enterprises are most often predicated on the use of cash in order to avoid those pesky bank records and other tracking mechanisms that expose such enterprise to the light of day, not to mention the difficulties of doing large drug transactions through traditional banking means. Forgery scams and robberies would be a thing of the past as there is little point in hitting grandma over the head to steal her purse if there is nothing inside her pocketbook that the bad guys can use to make purchases.
What’s more, imagine the efficiency that would result when everything on Earth were to be bought and sold by a simple push of a button or scan of your smartphone screen that would move around electronic debits and credits in furtherance of commerce.
However, the dramatic reduction in crime and advances in monetary efficiency that would likely result is but the icing on the cake to those who would further amend the system to include the “benefits” of the second part of the plan being pushed by monetary theorists who believe in a cashless society.
To really reap the benefits of ending cash as a means of concluding transactions, theorists propose that we also end the era of the private bank account as the repository of your electronic credits and, instead, transfer all monetary credits to central bank, operated by the government.
Why would anyone want to do such a thing?
By putting all money accounts under either the actual control of governments or subject to absolute monitoring by governments, nations would finally possess the ability to bring to a close the “boom or bust” economic cycles that prove so deeply damaging to the world’s economies.
Also on Forbes:
Gallery: The World’s Most Reputable Countries, 2014
How this would work is remarkably simple.
Were it to be determined that more spending is required to keep an economy humming, the government could simply impose a negative interest rate on the money in everyone’s account—accounts held in a central bank where government can always gain access to the same.
Thus, allowing your money to sit inactively in your account would result in a penalty, leading most to conclude that they might as well spend the money on goods or services rather than simply see sums confiscated by government as a punishment for not spending one’s electronic credits.
When you consider the economic impact of entire populations realizing that they get more by spending their money than saving it, is not hard to see the massive, positive impact this could have on a struggling economy.
If you think the notion of government daring to impose a negative interest rate on your bank account for the crime of deciding not to spend your money is a bit too fanciful, you should know that both the Danish and Swiss governments already charge depositors in their respective countries a negative interest charge on their accounts.
Conversely, when faced with an over-heated economy, the central bank—where your electronic credits live—would simply drop the negative interest rate on your account, causing you to lose nothing by leaving your money safely tucked away. What’s more, governments would be in a position to impose and immediately take a transaction tax every time you chose to spend a few bucks—make that electronic credits—on a purchase if the desire is to cool down the economy by removing your incentive to spend.
You have to admit that such a system would be far more subtle, refined and effective than the rather blunt and risky tools we currently use, such as an across the board increases or decreases in the official interest rate.
The days of income tax evasion would be a thing of the past, what with the government knowing precisely what you gathered up in electronic credits over a given year.
But then, there is this pesky problem that must be considered…
Does anyone really want to turn total and ultimate control of one’s money over to a government? How could that possibly be a good idea?
If the government gets angry with me, could they then just push a button and wipe out every single, electronic credit in my account?
Should the government and I have a disagreement over how much I should be paying in taxes, do they get to put a lock on my account until that disagreement is resolved? And who would have the upper hand in resolving that disagreement?
Would it be a danger to be registered to one political party if the central bank that controls all my money is under the control of someone who is of a different party?
If I wish to exercise my right to exist outside the system or, as the saying goes, take myself “off the grid,” how could I do that if I am denied the opportunity to use cash for my support and sustenance?
It should appear obvious that allowing a government to have total, physical and actual control over the totality of one’s finances is not even in the same universe as a good idea—even to those of us who believe that government is intended and can operate as a powerful force for good.
A cashless society—let alone one where a system of electronic debits and credits are fully managed and controlled by governments—may be a great tool for stabilizing economies and efficiently managing monetary policy, but would be a true and frightening challenge to the basic rights of man.
Let’s hope that the Danish Parliament is able to see the dangers of what they are contemplating and turn away from what could spark a very dangerous development in the way the world operates and a severe diminishment in the basic rights of all human beings.
The price to be paid for a smoothing of economic policy no matter how useful the tools created might be, is far too large a price to the freedoms that should be inherent to all humanity.