Meister Eckhart says that we should survey ourselves, and wherever we find ourselves, take leave of ourselves so that God alone can love himself in us. This is a perplexing notion so I would like to explore what it could mean.
Thanks for sharing this! Interesting way of thinking about God’s Love and His Love for us. We exist only by His Love for sure and I think His Love for us is eternal so yes very very comforting
Meister Eckhart was the first of the so-called, "Rhineland Mystics", whose number was 11. Rudolf Steiner's very first lecture-course before the Berlin circle of theosophists in late 1900, was about these mystics, and not at all about philosophy.
Meister Eckhart, in definite respects, has a very intimate relationship to God Himself, as you denote very well. In fact, it can be likened to the latter-day disciple of Christ, who would put his head on the breast of Christ at the Last Supper, and ask: "who is it"?
Of course, there is a story here. Surprisingly, it is rarely spoken of in anthroposophical circles today, and for many years in my experience. According to Steiner, the disciples of Christ were formerly the Maccabees of the Old Testament time of the Maccabean Revolt. This is described here, and why these 12 were chosen to be the direct followers of Christ. It is an intriguing story:
Well, it would lead to the further occasion of the faithful disciples of Christ, numbering 11, after their deaths on earth, and sojourning together in the sphere of Venus, to experience the true meaning of what they experienced as the followers of Christ. Thus, it was in the mystical mood of Venus that they learned for the first time about Adam Kadmon. Adam Kadmon became the common denominator of the Rhineland Mystics. And the Eleven each individually showed a hierarchical progression, with Eckhart demonstrating the most direct kinship to God Himself. This is well documented by now in the scholarly work of people like Rufus M. Jones, who wrote particularly of Jakob Boehme.
The discussion reminds me of something I recently read from Kühlewind, which perhaps speaks to Federica's question and your response above. Another metaphor we can use for desires rooted in the misled perception of the Good is a state of disease, which isn't necessarily the absence of health, but a healthy process that has unlawfully extended its reach into a domain unsuitable for it, like a nerve-sense process that takes root in the rhythmic or metabolic systems.
"The more honest a man is in his thinking, the more his own being seems to slip away from him, since his thinking tells him something quite different from what he would otherwise feel about himself. Because he does not experience thinking in “present” process, he also has no present experience of the Thinker and looks for his own being where only clear, contoured contents of consciousness are to be found: in the soul's past, in the already thought, already perceived, already mentally pictured, in the mirrored past consciousness. But the image of one's own being as something already past is just as unreal as any other image in this consciousness. And so we have to continually convince ourselves anew of our own existence; we have to find confirmation in order to feel that we are. We are similar to the Zen student who asks his master about the Buddha nature (we would ask about our true I-being) and receives the reply, “You're looking for the ox you're riding on."
We have arrived at the roots of egoity. Because man does not experience the Seeker, the Thinker, the Experiencer in his presentness, he needs property, success, self-assertion—confirmation that he is. Instead of experiencing himself as a thinker, which is certainly possible, he seeks to convince himself of his existence from the outside, and that brings him to the habit of self-feeling. But man can only feel himself because of something—everything that serves him in this way, everything important and “necessary,” everything he clings to. Finally other men begin to serve the same purpose for him, and this determines his relationship to them. Position, power, money, and recognition form his world, on which he is dependent, and in which he has continually to make an effort to prove himself, to be certain of his own existence."
There is a kind of parallel between this interpretation of Kühlewind, and where Steiner speaks of how certain spiritual beings were held back for Earth evolution, and for the purpose of being used to cause errors of perception in the human astral and etheric bodies. Thus, due to a kind of manipulation of sorts, they were "tricked" into seeking something that was not possible. They became "spirits of the lie", instead of spirits working diligently to earn their "wings"within the Third Hierarchy. This is clearly stated here, and how they were maneuvered for certain roles in human evolution that would lead eventually to a freedom for humanity far beyond anything conceived before. These were Lucifer and Ahriman, who have taken a detour path on the road to their own salvation. Thus, human misdeeds and errors of perception are owing to them, and I have never found a more thorough description of the scheme then here in lecture 6 of "Spiritual Beings in the Heavenly Bodies and Kingdoms of Nature":
At some point, we will have to talk about the Eighth Sphere, and how and why it came into being. I have it as a complete presentation on my Spirit Logic blog, and ready for some time. This is how Lucifer and Ahriman were first used on behalf of earth evolution. Prior to this, they were designated as the "dregs of the ancient Moon". They worked in order to form the element of coarseness on the ancient Moon, and then held over as backward Angels for the Earth evolution. Yet, as seen, as dregs of the ancient Moon sphere, they served a very important purpose, and it was rewarded by their evolution into the Third Hierarchy. They were totally committed to their new role in serving the Divine Will by working amongst the Angels, Archangels, and Archai. They were on the road to redemption and wings.
Then, someone came along and said: "I have a special assignment for you, and it requires leaving your place of security and special joy in getting your wings. It requires your help in creating the Eighth Sphere. Yet, you will have to imagine that it is possible for you to seek an independent existence free from the Third Hierarchy, which is actually impossible".
So, this is how it happened that these backward Angels from the Old Moon evolution became key players in Earth evolution, and known as Lucifer and Ahriman. All further explication requires the revealing of the Eighth Sphere, and its purpose and function.
-- All love is love for the Good, as Diotima says.4 That’s what “good” means—something that is worthy of our love. --
I got entangled in: “all love is love for the Good” complemented by: “Good means worthy of our love”.
If *all* love is love for the Good, then even our misled love/will for the seemingly Good is love for the Good. Doesn’t that make *all* perceived Good good (worthy of our love), regardless of whether our perception misled us or didn’t? However, since the perception of Good can be right or wrong, it must mean that the Good is objective. If so, how can Good *mean* “worthy of *our* love”, rather than worthy of God's love/essence?
I'm not certain I grasped your objection but let me try:
Imagine seeing the Sun in a hall of mirrors: no matter where it seems to stand, it's still the Sun, and you might depart from it by seeking to pursue it, but it's still the Sun that you pursue.
When we study Genesis from chapter one to three, we are able to discern the elements of a creation which is "all inclusive and abiding". In other words, God's creative plan is to create with the intent of bringing "goodness" into every process involved in the seven days of creation. This includes the creation of Man on the 6th Day, and wherein Man is made to be the Lord of the Earth, and having ruling power over all that has been created by God. This is because God loves His highest creation over all else. God's vision is to create Man in His own Image, and this He does. He makes Man an Archetypal Being, both male and female. Then, He rests on the seventh day and contemplates His Virgin birth. Yes, in the sign of Virgo, God rests from His labors and experiences blissful rest in duration. This is called, in spiritual-scientific terminology, a pralaya, or manvantara. Thus, an interval before the next phase.
This next phase begins when Genesis, chapter two, announces the entry of the Lord God, "in the day the Lord God created earth and heaven". Gen. 2:4. From here, we have a kind of different creation, and wherein the Lord God sees that God has made an Image of perfection; a perfect love. Yet, not even rain has descended upon the earth. A nature-world had yet to be created. And Man had yet to become a material being formed from the dust of the ground, and receiving the breath of life which made him a living soul. So, in total, the first three chapters of Genesis describe the very first evolutionary cycle of earth evolution. Seven days accord to God, the Father, and five days to the Lord God; thus, 12 days in all.
The sense of separation from the Godhead is owed to this necessary re-arrangement of factors involved when God first said: "Let Us make man in Our image, and according to Our likeness." So, it was God who first envisioned 'likeness'. And, this is a complex process. The Lord God had to work from the Moon in order to bring it about.
I am sure I was taking you into consideration throughout. As such, what is your stumbling block in recognizing God's love from the beginning? Just because twists and turns have taken place, we are still within the fold. Steiner made it a manifold consideration. Spiritual Logistics simply wants us to understand it.
I don't have any such stumbling block. I was rather wondering about the very meaning of "Good" being axiomatically given as "worth of human love" (beyond the fact that the Good *is* of course worth of our love).
Thanks for sharing this! Interesting way of thinking about God’s Love and His Love for us. We exist only by His Love for sure and I think His Love for us is eternal so yes very very comforting
Yes, it harkens back to the statement in the Epistle of John, that love is something God is and not something he does.
Meister Eckhart was the first of the so-called, "Rhineland Mystics", whose number was 11. Rudolf Steiner's very first lecture-course before the Berlin circle of theosophists in late 1900, was about these mystics, and not at all about philosophy.
https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA007/English/RSP1960/GA007_index.html
Meister Eckhart, in definite respects, has a very intimate relationship to God Himself, as you denote very well. In fact, it can be likened to the latter-day disciple of Christ, who would put his head on the breast of Christ at the Last Supper, and ask: "who is it"?
Of course, there is a story here. Surprisingly, it is rarely spoken of in anthroposophical circles today, and for many years in my experience. According to Steiner, the disciples of Christ were formerly the Maccabees of the Old Testament time of the Maccabean Revolt. This is described here, and why these 12 were chosen to be the direct followers of Christ. It is an intriguing story:
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA139/English/AP1986/19120916p01.html
Well, it would lead to the further occasion of the faithful disciples of Christ, numbering 11, after their deaths on earth, and sojourning together in the sphere of Venus, to experience the true meaning of what they experienced as the followers of Christ. Thus, it was in the mystical mood of Venus that they learned for the first time about Adam Kadmon. Adam Kadmon became the common denominator of the Rhineland Mystics. And the Eleven each individually showed a hierarchical progression, with Eckhart demonstrating the most direct kinship to God Himself. This is well documented by now in the scholarly work of people like Rufus M. Jones, who wrote particularly of Jakob Boehme.
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA184/English/RSP1985/19181005p02.html
Please consider the Venus Wisdom described here.
Loved it!
thanks Eugene :-)
Thanks, Max!
The discussion reminds me of something I recently read from Kühlewind, which perhaps speaks to Federica's question and your response above. Another metaphor we can use for desires rooted in the misled perception of the Good is a state of disease, which isn't necessarily the absence of health, but a healthy process that has unlawfully extended its reach into a domain unsuitable for it, like a nerve-sense process that takes root in the rhythmic or metabolic systems.
"The more honest a man is in his thinking, the more his own being seems to slip away from him, since his thinking tells him something quite different from what he would otherwise feel about himself. Because he does not experience thinking in “present” process, he also has no present experience of the Thinker and looks for his own being where only clear, contoured contents of consciousness are to be found: in the soul's past, in the already thought, already perceived, already mentally pictured, in the mirrored past consciousness. But the image of one's own being as something already past is just as unreal as any other image in this consciousness. And so we have to continually convince ourselves anew of our own existence; we have to find confirmation in order to feel that we are. We are similar to the Zen student who asks his master about the Buddha nature (we would ask about our true I-being) and receives the reply, “You're looking for the ox you're riding on."
We have arrived at the roots of egoity. Because man does not experience the Seeker, the Thinker, the Experiencer in his presentness, he needs property, success, self-assertion—confirmation that he is. Instead of experiencing himself as a thinker, which is certainly possible, he seeks to convince himself of his existence from the outside, and that brings him to the habit of self-feeling. But man can only feel himself because of something—everything that serves him in this way, everything important and “necessary,” everything he clings to. Finally other men begin to serve the same purpose for him, and this determines his relationship to them. Position, power, money, and recognition form his world, on which he is dependent, and in which he has continually to make an effort to prove himself, to be certain of his own existence."
- Georg Kühlewind, From Normal to Healthy
There is a kind of parallel between this interpretation of Kühlewind, and where Steiner speaks of how certain spiritual beings were held back for Earth evolution, and for the purpose of being used to cause errors of perception in the human astral and etheric bodies. Thus, due to a kind of manipulation of sorts, they were "tricked" into seeking something that was not possible. They became "spirits of the lie", instead of spirits working diligently to earn their "wings"within the Third Hierarchy. This is clearly stated here, and how they were maneuvered for certain roles in human evolution that would lead eventually to a freedom for humanity far beyond anything conceived before. These were Lucifer and Ahriman, who have taken a detour path on the road to their own salvation. Thus, human misdeeds and errors of perception are owing to them, and I have never found a more thorough description of the scheme then here in lecture 6 of "Spiritual Beings in the Heavenly Bodies and Kingdoms of Nature":
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA136/English/SBC1981/19120408p01.html
At some point, we will have to talk about the Eighth Sphere, and how and why it came into being. I have it as a complete presentation on my Spirit Logic blog, and ready for some time. This is how Lucifer and Ahriman were first used on behalf of earth evolution. Prior to this, they were designated as the "dregs of the ancient Moon". They worked in order to form the element of coarseness on the ancient Moon, and then held over as backward Angels for the Earth evolution. Yet, as seen, as dregs of the ancient Moon sphere, they served a very important purpose, and it was rewarded by their evolution into the Third Hierarchy. They were totally committed to their new role in serving the Divine Will by working amongst the Angels, Archangels, and Archai. They were on the road to redemption and wings.
Then, someone came along and said: "I have a special assignment for you, and it requires leaving your place of security and special joy in getting your wings. It requires your help in creating the Eighth Sphere. Yet, you will have to imagine that it is possible for you to seek an independent existence free from the Third Hierarchy, which is actually impossible".
So, this is how it happened that these backward Angels from the Old Moon evolution became key players in Earth evolution, and known as Lucifer and Ahriman. All further explication requires the revealing of the Eighth Sphere, and its purpose and function.
-- All love is love for the Good, as Diotima says.4 That’s what “good” means—something that is worthy of our love. --
I got entangled in: “all love is love for the Good” complemented by: “Good means worthy of our love”.
If *all* love is love for the Good, then even our misled love/will for the seemingly Good is love for the Good. Doesn’t that make *all* perceived Good good (worthy of our love), regardless of whether our perception misled us or didn’t? However, since the perception of Good can be right or wrong, it must mean that the Good is objective. If so, how can Good *mean* “worthy of *our* love”, rather than worthy of God's love/essence?
I'm not certain I grasped your objection but let me try:
Imagine seeing the Sun in a hall of mirrors: no matter where it seems to stand, it's still the Sun, and you might depart from it by seeking to pursue it, but it's still the Sun that you pursue.
Thank you!
When we study Genesis from chapter one to three, we are able to discern the elements of a creation which is "all inclusive and abiding". In other words, God's creative plan is to create with the intent of bringing "goodness" into every process involved in the seven days of creation. This includes the creation of Man on the 6th Day, and wherein Man is made to be the Lord of the Earth, and having ruling power over all that has been created by God. This is because God loves His highest creation over all else. God's vision is to create Man in His own Image, and this He does. He makes Man an Archetypal Being, both male and female. Then, He rests on the seventh day and contemplates His Virgin birth. Yes, in the sign of Virgo, God rests from His labors and experiences blissful rest in duration. This is called, in spiritual-scientific terminology, a pralaya, or manvantara. Thus, an interval before the next phase.
This next phase begins when Genesis, chapter two, announces the entry of the Lord God, "in the day the Lord God created earth and heaven". Gen. 2:4. From here, we have a kind of different creation, and wherein the Lord God sees that God has made an Image of perfection; a perfect love. Yet, not even rain has descended upon the earth. A nature-world had yet to be created. And Man had yet to become a material being formed from the dust of the ground, and receiving the breath of life which made him a living soul. So, in total, the first three chapters of Genesis describe the very first evolutionary cycle of earth evolution. Seven days accord to God, the Father, and five days to the Lord God; thus, 12 days in all.
The sense of separation from the Godhead is owed to this necessary re-arrangement of factors involved when God first said: "Let Us make man in Our image, and according to Our likeness." So, it was God who first envisioned 'likeness'. And, this is a complex process. The Lord God had to work from the Moon in order to bring it about.
Hello Steve! I am not sure whether your notes were meant as a reply to my comment in particular, but thanks for your thoughts in any case :-)
I am sure I was taking you into consideration throughout. As such, what is your stumbling block in recognizing God's love from the beginning? Just because twists and turns have taken place, we are still within the fold. Steiner made it a manifold consideration. Spiritual Logistics simply wants us to understand it.
I don't have any such stumbling block. I was rather wondering about the very meaning of "Good" being axiomatically given as "worth of human love" (beyond the fact that the Good *is* of course worth of our love).