|
|
Post by Reefs on May 10, 2017 21:16:46 GMT -5
God is in all ways and equal in all ways, for anyone who can take Him so
M.E.: I will give you a rule, which is the keystone of all that I have ever said, which comprises all truth that can be spoken of or lived. It often happens that what seems trivial to us is greater in God's sight than what looms large in our eyes. Therefore we should accept all things equally from God, not ever looking and wondering which is greater, or higher, or better. We should just follow where God points out for us, that is, what we are inclined to and to which we are most often directed, and where our bent is. If a man were to follow that path, God would give him the most in the least, and would not fail him. It often happens that people spurn the least, and thus they prevent themselves from getting the most in the least, which is wrong. God is in all modes, and equal in all modes, for him who can take Him equally.
Some people want to find God as He shines before them, or as He tastes to them. They find the light and the taste, but they do not find God. A scripture declares that God shines in the darkness, where we sometimes least recognize Him. Where God shines least for us is often where He shines the most. Therefore we should accept God equally in all ways and in all things.
Now someone might say, 'I would take God equally in all ways and in all things, but my mind will not abide in this way or that, so much as in another.' To that I say he is wrong. God is in all ways and equal in all ways, for anyone who can take Him so. If you get more of God in one way than in another, that is fine, but it is not the best. God is in all ways and equal in all ways, for anyone who can take Him so. If you take one way, such and such, that is not God. If you take this and that, you are not taking God, for God is in all ways and equal in all ways, for anyone who can take Him so.
Now someone might say, 'But if I do take God equally in all ways and in all things, do I not still need some special way?' Now see. In whatever way you find God most, and you are most often aware of Him, that is the way you should follow. But if another way presents itself, quite contrary to the first, and if, having abandoned the first way, you find God as much in the new way as in the one that you have left, then that is right. But the noblest and best thing would be this, if a man were come to such equality, with such calm and certainty that he could find God and enjoy Him in any way and in all things, without having to wait for anything or chase after anything: that would delight me!
Taken from "The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart", Appendix B: The Master's Final Words
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 11, 2017 6:16:32 GMT -5
M.E. was very clear, and his sermons were directed to people at many different levels. I've found that some translations of his sermons are much better than others. Somewhere he has a sermon on what it means to be poor in spirit. He starts at the most superficial level and says, in essence, that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. Then, he takes it to another level, and says that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. He keeps going deeper and deeper until finally he leaves behind intellectual understanding completely and goes totally cosmic. It's easy to see why the Vatican had serious questions about him.
Eckhart once said, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I'd hold fast to truth and let God go." That's pretty heavy for a Christian priest!
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 12, 2017 6:52:13 GMT -5
M.E. was very clear, and his sermons were directed to people at many different levels. I've found that some translations of his sermons are much better than others. Somewhere he has a sermon on what it means to be poor in spirit. He starts at the most superficial level and says, in essence, that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. Then, he takes it to another level, and says that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. He keeps going deeper and deeper until finally he leaves behind intellectual understanding completely and goes totally cosmic. It's easy to see why the Vatican had serious questions about him. Eckhart once said, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I'd hold fast to truth and let God go." That's pretty heavy for a Christian priest! Yes, he had been accused of heresy (duh).  I've only read a few quotes of him here and there in the past but never a complete sermon. After having read a couple of his sermons now, I have to say that he's definitely on par with Ramana and Niz. And the way he explains bible quotes in non-dual terms is absolutely fascinating! I'll put some of that stuff in an extra quote thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 13, 2017 4:48:54 GMT -5
The powers of the soul vs the ground of the soul
M.E.: Whatever the soul effects, she effects with her powers. What she understands, she understands with the intellect. What she remembers, she does with memory; if she would love, she does that with the will, and thus she works with her powers and not with her essence. Every external act is linked with some means. The power of sight works only through the eyes; otherwise it can neither employ nor bestow vision, and so it is with all the other senses. The soul's every external act is effected by some means. But in the soul's essence there is no activity, for the powers she works with emanate from the ground of being. Yet in that ground is the silent 'middle': here nothing but rest and celebration for this birth, this act, that God the Father may speak His word there, for this part is by nature receptive to nothing save only the divine essence, without mediation.
Here God enters the soul with His all, not merely with a part. God enters here the ground of the soul. None can touch the ground of the soul but God alone. No creature can enter the soul's ground, but must stop outside, in the 'powers.' Within, the soul sees clearly the image whereby the creature has been drawn in and taken lodging. For whenever the powers of the soul make contact with a creature, they set to work and make an image and likeness of the creature, which they absorb. That is how they know the creature. No creature can come closer to the soul than this, and the soul never approaches a creature without having first voluntarily taken an image of it into herself. Through this presented image, the soul approaches creatures - an image being something that the soul makes of (external) objects with her own powers. Whether it is a stone, a horse, a man, or anything else that she wants to know, she gets out the image of it that she has already taken in, and is thus enabled to unite herself with it. But for a man to receive an image in this way, it must of necessity enter from without through the senses. In consequence, there is nothing so unknown to the soul as herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 13, 2017 9:09:39 GMT -5
M.E. was very clear, and his sermons were directed to people at many different levels. I've found that some translations of his sermons are much better than others. Somewhere he has a sermon on what it means to be poor in spirit. He starts at the most superficial level and says, in essence, that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. Then, he takes it to another level, and says that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. He keeps going deeper and deeper until finally he leaves behind intellectual understanding completely and goes totally cosmic. It's easy to see why the Vatican had serious questions about him. Eckhart once said, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I'd hold fast to truth and let God go." That's pretty heavy for a Christian priest! This was one of the sermons where he was very clear?...just to be clear.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 13, 2017 11:14:45 GMT -5
M.E. was very clear, and his sermons were directed to people at many different levels. I've found that some translations of his sermons are much better than others. Somewhere he has a sermon on what it means to be poor in spirit. He starts at the most superficial level and says, in essence, that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. Then, he takes it to another level, and says that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. He keeps going deeper and deeper until finally he leaves behind intellectual understanding completely and goes totally cosmic. It's easy to see why the Vatican had serious questions about him. Eckhart once said, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I'd hold fast to truth and let God go." That's pretty heavy for a Christian priest! This was one of the sermons where he was very clear?...just to be clear. I tried to find my copy of a particular book of his sermons that would illustrate his clarity and depth, but I could only find two books in my office about Eckhart and neither of them contained very good translations. My point was that his sermons were designed to be understood on many different levels. His attitude was, "If you're just an average person with a conventional understanding, you're doing the best you can and these words apply to you, but if you've seen a little deeper into the issue, here are some words that you can take to heart, and if you've gone really deep, here is a way more cosmic way to look at the issue, etc." IOW, everybody who listened to him could take away something of value, but as his sermons progressed, they went deeper and deeper. From what I can tell he accepted people wherever they were, but was always encouraging them to look a little more deeply. I haven't yet posted one of his sermons, but if I can find a good translation that illustrates what I'm describing, then I'll post it and let people decide for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 13, 2017 22:31:53 GMT -5
]This was one of the sermons where he was very clear?...just to be clear. If you are referring to the OP, that wasn't a sermon. What I've posted in the Eckhart quotes thread is taken from his sermons though. You have to keep in mind that Eckhart had to talk within the context the bible and was also limited to the vocabulary used in the bible (for obvious reasons). So it all comes across a little awkward at first. But once you've got an idea of what he's talking about then it's actually exceptionally clear and concise. He's basically talking about SR, CC, NS, coming empty, non-attachment, non-objectifying, non-doing etc. all the time. And he's taking that directly from bible quotes. Which is the fascinating part for me because I didn't expect the bible to have that kind of (hidden?) non-dual layer built into it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 13, 2017 23:10:08 GMT -5
The powers of the soul vs the ground of the soul (cont'd)
M.E.: Accordingly, one master says that the soul can neither create nor obtain an image of herself. Therefore she has no way of knowing herself, for images all enter through the senses, and hence she can have no image of herself. And so she knows all other things, but not herself. Of nothing does she know so little as of herself, for want of mediation. And you must know too that inwardly the soul is free and void of all means and all images - which is why God can freely unite with her without form or likeness.
Therefore you have to be and dwell in the essence and in the ground, and there God will touch you with His simple essence without the intervention of any image. No image represents and signifies itself: it always aims and points to that of which it is the image. And, since you have no image but of what is outside yourself (which is drawn in through the senses and continually points to that of which it is the image), therefore it is impossible for you to be beatified by any image whatsoever. And therefore there must be a silence and a stillness, and the Father must speak in that, and give birth to His Son, and perform His works free from all images.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 13, 2017 23:35:43 GMT -5
]This was one of the sermons where he was very clear?...just to be clear. If you are referring to the OP, that wasn't a sermon. What I've posted in the Eckhart quotes thread is taken from his sermons though. You have to keep in mind that Eckhart had to talk within the context the bible and was also limited to the vocabulary used in the bible (for obvious reasons). So it all comes across a little awkward at first. But once you've got an idea of what he's talking about then it's actually exceptionally clear and concise. He's basically talking about SR, CC, NS, coming empty, non-attachment, non-objectifying, non-doing etc. all the time. And he's taking that directly from bible quotes. Which is the fascinating part for me because I didn't expect the bible to have that kind of (hidden?) non-dual layer built into it. I can see how that would be intriguing. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 14, 2017 9:43:40 GMT -5
I tell you the truth, any object you have on your mind, however good, will be a barrier between you and the inmost truth.
To the quiet mind all things are possible. What is a quiet mind? A quiet mind is one which nothing weighs on, nothing worries, which, free from ties and from all self-seeking, is wholly merged into the will of God and dead to its own.
So if we give our whole mind to God, then it is he in fact who is doing all our works, and nothing whatever can disturb him, not company or place. Nor can anyone disturb the man who minds nothing, seeks nothing, relishes nothing but God, for God is united with this man in all his thoughts, and as God is not disturbed by multiplicity, so nothing can disturb or diversify this man who is one in The One where all multiplicity is one and homogeneous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 14, 2017 23:30:20 GMT -5
The powers of the soul vs the ground of the soul (cont'd)
When the powers have been completely withdrawn from all their works and images, then the Word is spoken. Therefore he said, 'In the midst of the silence the secret word was spoken unto me.' And so, the more completely you are able to draw in your powers to a unity and forget all those things and their images which you have absorbed, and the further you can get from creatures and their images, the nearer you are to this and the readier to receive it. If only you could suddenly be unaware of all things, then you could pass into an oblivion of your own body as St. Paul did, when he said, "Whether in the body I cannot tell, or out of the body I cannot tell; God knows it" (2 Cor. 12:2).
In this case the spirit had so entirely absorbed the powers that it had forgotten the body: memory no longer functioned, nor understanding, nor the senses, nor the powers that should function so as to govern and grace the body; vital warmth and body-heat were suspended, so that the body did not waste during the three days when he neither ate nor drank. Thus too Moses fared, when he fasted for forty days on the mountain and was none the worse for it, for on the last day he was as strong as on the first. In this way a man should flee his senses, turn his powers inward and sink into an oblivion of all things and himself.
(Sermon One)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 14, 2017 23:42:28 GMT -5
Now this sounds familiar. Isn't that exactly the kind of stories we've heard about Ramakrishna and Ramana? So according to Eckhart, St. Paul and Moses spent considerable time in deep samadhi, exactly as Ramana and Ramakrishna did.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2017 10:38:42 GMT -5
M.E. was very clear, and his sermons were directed to people at many different levels. I've found that some translations of his sermons are much better than others. Somewhere he has a sermon on what it means to be poor in spirit. He starts at the most superficial level and says, in essence, that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. Then, he takes it to another level, and says that if this is the way you understand it, that's okay. He keeps going deeper and deeper until finally he leaves behind intellectual understanding completely and goes totally cosmic. It's easy to see why the Vatican had serious questions about him. Eckhart once said, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I'd hold fast to truth and let God go." That's pretty heavy for a Christian priest! I've only read a few quotes of him here and there in the past but never a complete sermon. After having read a couple of his sermons now, I have to say that he's definitely on par with Ramana and Niz. And the way he explains bible quotes in non-dual terms is absolutely fascinating! I'll put some of that stuff in an extra quote thread. Yes, if I remember correctly, he died just before the trial. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2017 11:06:31 GMT -5
]This was one of the sermons where he was very clear?...just to be clear. If you are referring to the OP, that wasn't a sermon. What I've posted in the Eckhart quotes thread is taken from his sermons though. You have to keep in mind that Eckhart had to talk within the context the bible and was also limited to the vocabulary used in the bible (for obvious reasons). So it all comes across a little awkward at first. But once you've got an idea of what he's talking about then it's actually exceptionally clear and concise. He's basically talking about SR, CC, NS, coming empty, non-attachment, non-objectifying, non-doing etc. all the time. And he's taking that directly from bible quotes. Which is the fascinating part for me because I didn't expect the bible to have that kind of (hidden?) non-dual layer built into it. The Jewish mystics of old said there are four levels of meaning in the Bible, PaRDeS. The plain obvious apparent meaning. Metaphor, symbol and allegory. Sod, the hidden esoteric meaning. www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/819698/jewish/How-Is-the-Torah-Interpreted.htmIn the following book Rabbi Nilton Bonder discusses the four (PaRDeS), That apparent realm of what is apparent (known knowns) 2. The hidden realm of what is apparent (unknown knowns) 3. The apparent realm of what is hidden (known unknowns) 4. The hidden realm of what is hidden. (unknown unknowns) www.amazon.com/Yiddishe-Kop-Creative-Problem-Learning/dp/1570624488 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 16, 2017 16:55:15 GMT -5
]This was one of the sermons where he was very clear?...just to be clear. If you are referring to the OP, that wasn't a sermon. What I've posted in the Eckhart quotes thread is taken from his sermons though. You have to keep in mind that Eckhart had to talk within the context the bible and was also limited to the vocabulary used in the bible (for obvious reasons). So it all comes across a little awkward at first. But once you've got an idea of what he's talking about then it's actually exceptionally clear and concise. He's basically talking about SR, CC, NS, coming empty, non-attachment, non-objectifying, non-doing etc. all the time. And he's taking that directly from bible quotes. Which is the fascinating part for me because I didn't expect the bible to have that kind of (hidden?) non-dual layer built into it. Regardless of whether they were SR or not some of the authors had profound insight into human nature. Read the Book of Job with a comparative eye for the patterns of dialog on these forums. That the same stories are playing themselves out repetitively across thousands of years and radically different cultural contexts is incredibly ironic and reveals a sublime poignancy about the human condition. |
|
