|
|
Post by Reefs on May 17, 2017 3:58:02 GMT -5
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. Yes, if I remember correctly, he died just before the trial. I think he died on his way to Rome. What a bam bam, ey. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 17, 2017 4:01:12 GMT -5
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/1570624488Seems Eckhart was focusing mostly on the hidden esoteric meaning. Do you have any examples for all 4 levels of meaning? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 17, 2017 4:06:58 GMT -5
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. I'm wondering what bible edition Eckhart was using and what other books he still had access to. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2017 15:15:32 GMT -5
Yes, if I remember correctly, he died just before the trial. I think he died on his way to Rome. What a bam bam, ey. Yea, I browsed back a little at the circumstances. ME was able to appeal directly to the Pope. He died before he heard the Pope's opinion, which basically was, You're getting your information from the devil.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2017 16:13:35 GMT -5
Seems Eckhart was focusing mostly on the hidden esoteric meaning. Do you have any examples for all 4 levels of meaning? I'm headed home for a couple of days, I'll try to find an example, can't think of all four off the top of my head. (I actually have the Bonder book, a most excellent book). I'll give it a go. #1. Adam and Eve, the creation story, literal Adam and Eve. But as the story goes, first, there was only Adam (IOW, Adam was both male and female). The story goes, God caused Adam to go to sleep. We hear that God took a rib from Adam and made Eve, but the Hebrew word is a curved piece. I've read before that this means God took the womb from Adam and made Eve. And you could say that Adam is the head, Eve is the heart. Eve (heart) caused the trouble, desire overruled reason. And then when there is this division, guess who shows up? The serpent, the tempter, divide and conquer. Now what is very peculiar is the story is reverse engineering evolution, the reptilian brain came first (the serpent), the most primitive brain. Now, another thing, there are actually two creation stories, Genesis one and Genesis two. You could look at Genesis one as the creation of the physical body, via evolution (in Gen. one there is no breathing in by God into Adam, IOW, Adam is still an animal. This would be about 60,000-100,000 years ago). OK, when "God" gets the body right, we have the story in Genesis two, God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. This is God putting his Spirit into man (in both Greek and Hebrew, the word for spirit is the same word for breath). OK, then we are back to Eve eating the fruit and giving it to Adam, and he eats too. So this is the fall, the One becoming two, and the dividing of the mind and heart. About 32 years ago I decided that Augustine's concept of original sin just could not be right, so I read the whole Bible looking for it, it's not in the Bible, the fact that all men are born with a sin nature, bla, bla, bla. All just conceptual nonsense. The Bible doesn't teach we are all born sinners, the Jews never had this concept of original sin, so they believe we are born innocent, and I agree, we do not inherit in some kind of genetic sense, the guilt of Adam and Eve. (Turns out Augustine read the Latin Bible, didn't read Greek. In the Latin Bible he had, there was one single word translated wrong. In Romans, maybe chapter 12, Augustine read: ...Adam, in whom all have sinned. But the word wasn't really whom, the correct word was that, Paul was merely saying, in that all have sinned (not that everybody has sinned in Adam). So then Calvin gets it wrong and the whole Protestant church has gotten original sin wrong, basically from Augustine and Calvin. The fall occurs again with every individual, about 18 months to two years of age with the formation of ego, the separate self, small s self, the cultural self. About age six the ego is firmly established, self and the world, subject and object, two-ness. Now, (I think it's) Paul actually talks about the two becoming one, and everybody thinks he's talking about marriage. But I firmly believe he was talking about healing this split, in ourselves. This is probably level 3. But then you can take it to level 4, sod, the real meaning, ND. Now, Jesus probably meant this for everyone, the healing of the split, "I and My Father are One". But over the years it got corrupted, and then the special-ness of Jesus got cranked up, Jesus is the One and Only Son of God. But I firmly believe that Jesus meant to show what is available for everyone (If you read the gospels from this standpoint, it's all completely different). But he also meant it functionally. If you look at how he trained the disciples, he was training them to be a copy of himself, to be transformed into the image of the Son. Bla, bla, bla. And then if you look at Meister Eckhart, this is exactly what he taught. He taught the birth of the "Christ"/Son in the person (I'm sure you can google that quite easily and get ME quotes), he didn't mean it in the sense as taught by the Christian church today, getting "born again". Jesus meant something quite different, ME meant something quite different. ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 19, 2017 9:40:41 GMT -5
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. I'm wondering what bible edition Eckhart was using and what other books he still had access to. Casual research would suggest it was likely the " latin vulgate". While it does seem that Charlemagne commissioned some translations of his own, this source would seem to 2nd that likelihood: Also, Francis of Assisi was Italian, and preceded Eckhart by only two generations. That would suggest the possibility of a stronger Latin cultural influence among German Fransicans of his time than Germanic. Although, there had been alot goin' on in the British Isles over the centuries leading up to his life. (them pesky Celts ...) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 19, 2017 15:31:45 GMT -5
Seems Eckhart was focusing mostly on the hidden esoteric meaning. Do you have any examples for all 4 levels of meaning? Back to Eden. PaRDeS 1. P'shat, literal, obvious. Paradise, people, garden, fruit. 2. Remez, metaphor, symbol, allegory, parable. There were two trees in the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were not obviously physical trees with physical fruit (the apple). Adam and Even could eat of every tree except the ToKoG&E. So they had access to the Tree of Life. But they chose the ToKoG&E. And so, they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. The reason given? So, now being in a state of "sin", they could not eat of the Tree of Life, and then live forever in a state of "sin". 3. Drosh, searching, examining for the meaning of the metaphor and symbol. There is a lot of argument even in Judaism about what happened here. Look at Adam and Even as young and immature, but innocent. IOW, they weren't sages. So, in order for A & E to grow up, was it God's intention all along for them to eat of the ToKoG&E? God could have made everybody wise and mature, whole, but God chose not to, chose to put everybody through the school of hard knocks. He knew A & E would inevitably choose the ToKoG&E, that is, disobey, and then go through the process of maturing. OK, Drosh goes on and on and on like this. This is what Midrash is, discussion among the sages of Judaism about the meaning of the scriptures. 4. Sod, hidden, secret, esoteric. It becomes obvious that the fall, the choice of A & E to "eat of" the ToKoG&E, means a fall in consciousness, a downgrading of consciousness, this a fall out of the Whole (they had formerly walked and talked with God, now their access to God was not like it formerly had been). How do we know it did not merely mean getting kicked out of a physical Eden? (if there was such a physical Eden, there is even doubt among the Jewish sages about this). Look at the angel (Cherubim) that guarded the gate to Eden, not letting A & E enter. It turned about, it pivoted in one place. So it was defending a point. It was defending access to the higher dimension which A & E had formerly inhabited. And the whole purpose of man, is to come back to the garden (Orchard = PaRDes). So the fall was a set-up, man was inevitable going to fall. Why? Because of immaturity. So every man goes through life as a school. The purpose is to get back to Eden, to seal the breach, come to Wholeness. Make the two one again. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For years I picked up books on Kabbalah and browsed, but could not get anywhere, all too dense, impenetrable. Then I picked up God Is A Verb, Kabbalah and the practice of mystical Judaism by Rabbi David A Cooper. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 19, 2017 22:15:41 GMT -5
God and the soul
M.E.: God is in all things as intelligence, and is more truly in them than they are in themselves... God is in all things as being, as activity, as power.... The soul is the natural image of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 19, 2017 22:57:58 GMT -5
Now, (I think it's) Paul actually talks about the two becoming one, and everybody thinks he's talking about marriage. But I firmly believe he was talking about healing this split, in ourselves. This is probably level 3. But then you can take it to level 4, sod, the real meaning, ND. Now, Jesus probably meant this for everyone, the healing of the split, "I and My Father are One". But over the years it got corrupted, and then the special-ness of Jesus got cranked up, Jesus is the One and Only Son of God. But I firmly believe that Jesus meant to show what is available for everyone (If you read the gospels from this standpoint, it's all completely different). But he also meant it functionally. If you look at how he trained the disciples, he was training them to be a copy of himself, to be transformed into the image of the Son. Bla, bla, bla. And then if you look at Meister Eckhart, this is exactly what he taught. He taught the birth of the "Christ"/Son in the person (I'm sure you can google that quite easily and get ME quotes), he didn't mean it in the sense as taught by the Christian church today, getting "born again". Jesus meant something quite different, ME meant something quite different. ... Here's what I've decoded so far after reading a couple of sermons: God = Self soul = the 'I am' the birth = awakening/SR creatures = objects/objectified perception powers (of the soul) = mind essence (of the soul) = consciousness/awareness the word = Truth (realization) I've also got a quote where ME talks about becoming one: |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 19, 2017 23:05:09 GMT -5
I'm wondering what bible edition Eckhart was using and what other books he still had access to. Casual research would suggest it was likely the " latin vulgate". While it does seem that Charlemagne commissioned some translations of his own, this source would seem to 2nd that likelihood: Also, Francis of Assisi was Italian, and preceded Eckhart by only two generations. That would suggest the possibility of a stronger Latin cultural influence among German Fransicans of his time than Germanic. Although, there had been alot goin' on in the British Isles over the centuries leading up to his life. (them pesky Celts ...)He mentions and quotes Dionysius a lot. Maybe he's got a lot of his knowledge from him. Not sure who that Dionysius is.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2017 0:34:27 GMT -5
Casual research would suggest it was likely the " latin vulgate". While it does seem that Charlemagne commissioned some translations of his own, this source would seem to 2nd that likelihood: Also, Francis of Assisi was Italian, and preceded Eckhart by only two generations. That would suggest the possibility of a stronger Latin cultural influence among German Fransicans of his time than Germanic. Although, there had been alot goin' on in the British Isles over the centuries leading up to his life. (them pesky Celts ...)He mentions and quotes Dionysius a lot. Maybe he's got a lot of his knowledge from him. Not sure who that Dionysius is. Interesting challenge. My 30 sec frontrunner is this guy. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 20, 2017 5:26:50 GMT -5
He mentions and quotes Dionysius a lot. Maybe he's got a lot of his knowledge from him. Not sure who that Dionysius is. Interesting challenge. My 30 sec frontrunner is this guy. I went thru the footnotes of the book and it's actually two different guys: 1) Dionysius the Areopagite2) Pseudo-Dionysius the AreopagiteThis part here from wikipedia is interesting: |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2017 6:16:29 GMT -5
That squares with how the real deal was a levels/hierarchy guy. The summary read like any old modern day new age practice aficionado. Same conversation, different millenia. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2017 7:32:06 GMT -5
Yes. Seems it was common at the time to give a false impression as to who the author was, to sort of beef up your resume. So later they found out DtA wasn't really DtA, so they called him P-DtA. Doesn't really matter if he was a disciple of so-n-so or not. The quality of the writing is what matters. It's the question, did Shakespeare write the works of Shakespeare? Who cares, they are what they are. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2017 7:40:20 GMT -5
Now, (I think it's) Paul actually talks about the two becoming one, and everybody thinks he's talking about marriage. But I firmly believe he was talking about healing this split, in ourselves. This is probably level 3. But then you can take it to level 4, sod, the real meaning, ND. Now, Jesus probably meant this for everyone, the healing of the split, "I and My Father are One". But over the years it got corrupted, and then the special-ness of Jesus got cranked up, Jesus is the One and Only Son of God. But I firmly believe that Jesus meant to show what is available for everyone (If you read the gospels from this standpoint, it's all completely different). But he also meant it functionally. If you look at how he trained the disciples, he was training them to be a copy of himself, to be transformed into the image of the Son. Bla, bla, bla. And then if you look at Meister Eckhart, this is exactly what he taught. He taught the birth of the "Christ"/Son in the person (I'm sure you can google that quite easily and get ME quotes), he didn't mean it in the sense as taught by the Christian church today, getting "born again". Jesus meant something quite different, ME meant something quite different. ... Here's what I've decoded so far after reading a couple of sermons: God = Self soul = the 'I am' the birth = awakening/SR creatures = objects/objectified perception powers (of the soul) = mind essence (of the soul) = consciousness/awareness the word = Truth (realization) I've also got a quote where ME talks about becoming one: Yes, I would say very good, most excellent. And to add, I'd say that for Meister Eckhart this new beginning, is not just metaphorical. I think he came to understand what Jesus had really been talking about, and few do, certainly not today's church. (I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is closest, church, as a whole. As ZD says, mileage varies, as per the person). |
|
