Blessed are the poor in spirit

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I happened to read this bit of M. Eckhart, mediaval old school stuff (c. 1260 – c. 1327). The text is from a translation by Maurice O'C Walshe and compressed to optimize reading in the internet age. One could also regard it as a vivid expansion of A=A or its interpretation as "death dogma".

Excerpts from SERMON EIGHTY SEVEN: "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3)

• Beatitude itself opened its mouth of wisdom and said: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven'. This wisdom has declared that the poor are blessed.
  
  Bishop Albert says a poor man is one who finds no satisfaction in all things God ever created, and this is very well said. But we shall speak better, taking poverty in a higher sense: a poor man is one who wants nothing, knows nothing and has nothing. We shall now speak of these three points, and I beg you for the love of God to understand this wisdom if you can; but if you can't understand it, don't worry, because I am going to speak of such truth that few good people can understand.
  
  Firstly, we say that a poor man is one who wants nothing. There are some who do not properly understand the meaning of this: these are the people who cling with attachment to penances and outward practices, making much of these. These people are called holy from their outward appearances, but inwardly they are asses, for they are ignorant of the actual nature of divine truth. These people say that a poor man is one who wants nothing and they explain it this way: A man should so live that he never does his own will in anything, but should strive to do the dearest will of God. It is well with these people because their intention is right, and we commend them for it.
  
  As long as a man is so disposed that it is his will with which he would do the most beloved will of God, that man has not the poverty we are speaking about: for that man has a will to serve God's will and that is not true poverty! For a man to possess true poverty he must be as free of his created will as he was when he was not. For I declare by the eternal truth, as long as you have the will to do the will of God, and longing for eternity and God, you are not poor: you want something for yourself; for a poor man is one who wills nothing and desires nothing.
  
  While I yet stood in my first cause, I had no God and was my own cause: then I wanted nothing and desired nothing, for I was bare being and the knower of myself in the enjoyment of truth.
  
  Then I wanted myself and wanted no other thing: what I wanted I was and what I was I wanted, and thus I was free of God and all things. But when I left my free will behind and received my created being, then I had a God. For before there were creatures, God was not 'God'. But when creatures came into existence and received their created being, then God was not 'God' in Himself - He was 'God' in creatures.
  
  We conclude, then: if a man is to be poor of will, he must will and desire as little as he willed and desired when he was not. And this is the way for a man to be poor by not wanting.
  
  Secondly, he is a poor man who knows nothing. We have sometimes said that a man should live as if he did not, whether for himself, or for truth, or for God. But now we will speak differently and go further, and say: For a man to possess this poverty he must live so that he is unaware that he does not live for himself, or for truth, or for God. He must be so lacking in all knowledge that he neither knows nor recognises nor feels that God lives in him: more still, he must be free of all the understanding that lives in him. For when that man stood in the eternal being of God nothing else lived in him: what lived there was himself. Therefore we declare that a man should be as free from his own knowledge as he was when he was not.
  
  That man should let God work as He will, and himself stand idle. For all that ever came out of God, a pure activity is appointed. The proper work of man is to love and to know. Now the question is: Wherein does blessedness lie most of all? Some masters have said it lies in knowing, some say that it lies in loving: others say it lies in knowing and loving, and they say better. But we say it lies neither in knowing nor in loving: for there is something in the soul from which both knowledge and love flow: but it does not itself know or love in the way the powers of the soul do. Whoever knows this, knows the seat of blessedness.
  
  This has neither before nor after, nor is it expecting any thing to come, for it can neither gain nor lose. And so it is deprived of the knowledge that God is at work in it: rather, it just is itself, enjoying itself God-fashion. It is in this manner, I declare, that a man should be so acquitted and free that he neither knows nor realises that God is at work in him: in that way can a man possess poverty.
  
  The masters say God is a being, an intellectual being, that knows all things. But we say God is not a being and not intellectual and does not know this or that. Thus God is free of all things, and so He is all things. To be poor in spirit, a man must be poor of all his own knowledge: not knowing any thing, not God, nor creature nor himself. For this it is needful that a man should desire to know and understand nothing of the works of God. In this way a man can be poor of his own knowledge.
  
  Thirdly, he is a poor man who has nothing. Many people have said that perfection is attained when one has none of the material things of the earth, and this is true in one sense - when it is voluntary. But this is not the sense in which I mean it. I have said before, the poor man is not he who wants to fulfil the will of God but he who lives in such a way as to be free of his own will and of God's will, as he was when he was not. Of this poverty we declare that it is the highest poverty. Secondly, we have said he is a poor man who does not know of the working of God within him.
  
  He who stands as free of knowledge and understanding as God stands of all things, has the purest poverty. But the third is the straitest poverty, of which we shall now speak: that is when a man has nothing.
  
  Now pay earnest attention to this! We say that a man should be so poor that he neither is nor has any place for God to work in. To preserve a place is to preserve distinction. Therefore I pray to God to make me free of God, - for my essential being is above God, taking God as the origin of creatures. That which I am by virtue of birth must die and perish, for it is mortal, and so must perish with time. In my birth all things were born and I was the cause of myself and all things: and if I had so willed it, I would not have been, and all things would not have been. If I were not, God would not be either. I am the cause of God's being God: if I were not, then God would not be God.
  
  But you do not need to know this. A great master says that his breaking-through is nobler than his emanation, and this is true. When I flowed forth from God, all creatures declared: "There is a God"; but this cannot make me blessed, for with this I acknowledge myself as a creature. But in my breaking-through, where I stand free of my own will, of God's will, of all His works, and of God Himself, then I am above all creatures and am neither God nor creature, but I am that which I was and shall remain for evermore.
  
  If anyone cannot understand this sermon, he need not worry. For so long as man is not equal to this truth, he cannot understand my words, for this is a naked truth which has come direct from the heart of God.
  
  That we may live so as to experience it eternally, may God help us. Amen.

[Bob Michael]

Does Meister Eckhart have anything to say about the following line, Diebert?

"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert, A = A as it is presented by those who call themselves geniuses are not blessed of the poverty of spirit, for reasons that are self-explanatory. To have nothing, means just that, to have nothing. To be poor in spirit, of my comprehension of A = A, is to use the logic of A = A to bring oneself to their metaphorical knees of human pride. To come to see the perfect equality of God's Omniety. And to surrender wholly to that realization. Which is to die of every thought of division, of superiority, of being above any creature, dead or living. To be made into nothing, so that the Invisible, Unknown Something that is God will wholly be expanded into that vacuum of self's absence of its belief it is a known something. And most certainly, to believe one is a genius or a sage is to believe one can be known as a 'thing.'

Kelly put forward a quote in the “Genius and Talent" thread, a quote I wholeheartedly accept as being the truth of the way of being made into nothing for the Unknown Something's sake:

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
-Buddha

To me, going all the way means just that. Going all the way. Sinking so deep into the logic of A = A that you go beyond its logical pointing, and having gone beyond its logical pointing, that you would no more consider calling that pure awareness of one's life an awareness of "genius" than you would call it an awareness of "moron". For me, the death blow of logic is that which eventually commits suicide. In other words, logic is a means of discovering one's wholeness of spirit, and once the discovery is made, and the transformation from creature to pure spirit has begun, logic is "finished."

As one cannot be a little bit pregnant, you cannot be partially dead of your creature interpretations. The Buddha was right, go all the way, or suffer the outcome as revealed by Jesus: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

[Kelly Jones]

Consciousness of God doesn't wipe out distinctions, Pam. It sees the truth in distinctions.

Speaking the truth is largely a negative dynamic of speaking against untruth.

Untruth does not see the real nature of distinctions, but clings to something, like "God" (ie. unconsciousness).

Judgment and abandoning life is the much harder, and much longer, part of the process.

That is a process of deliberately inflicting pain on the ego.


.

[Bob Michael]

"Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes." (Edgard Varese [1883 - 1965])

Which is to also or even better say: (nearly) everyone is born with pure minds, hearts, and spirits, but in most people these things are soon destroyed by the fallen, brutal, and dehumanized world they are doomed to inhabit.

[David Quinn]

I happened to read this bit of M. Eckhart, mediaval old school stuff (c. 1260 – c. 1327). The text is from a translation by Maurice O'C Walshe and compressed to optimize reading in the internet age. One could also regard it as a vivid expansion of A=A or its interpretation as "death dogma".

Excerpts from SERMON EIGHTY SEVEN: "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3)

• Beatitude itself opened its mouth of wisdom and said: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven'. This wisdom has declared that the poor are blessed.
  
  Bishop Albert says a poor man is one who finds no satisfaction in all things God ever created, and this is very well said. But we shall speak better, taking poverty in a higher sense: a poor man is one who wants nothing, knows nothing and has nothing. We shall now speak of these three points, and I beg you for the love of God to understand this wisdom if you can; but if you can't understand it, don't worry, because I am going to speak of such truth that few good people can understand.
  
  Firstly, we say that a poor man is one who wants nothing. There are some who do not properly understand the meaning of this: these are the people who cling with attachment to penances and outward practices, making much of these. These people are called holy from their outward appearances, but inwardly they are asses, for they are ignorant of the actual nature of divine truth. These people say that a poor man is one who wants nothing and they explain it this way: A man should so live that he never does his own will in anything, but should strive to do the dearest will of God. It is well with these people because their intention is right, and we commend them for it.
  
  As long as a man is so disposed that it is his will with which he would do the most beloved will of God, that man has not the poverty we are speaking about: for that man has a will to serve God's will and that is not true poverty! For a man to possess true poverty he must be as free of his created will as he was when he was not. For I declare by the eternal truth, as long as you have the will to do the will of God, and longing for eternity and God, you are not poor: you want something for yourself; for a poor man is one who wills nothing and desires nothing.
  
  While I yet stood in my first cause, I had no God and was my own cause: then I wanted nothing and desired nothing, for I was bare being and the knower of myself in the enjoyment of truth.
  
  Then I wanted myself and wanted no other thing: what I wanted I was and what I was I wanted, and thus I was free of God and all things. But when I left my free will behind and received my created being, then I had a God. For before there were creatures, God was not 'God'. But when creatures came into existence and received their created being, then God was not 'God' in Himself - He was 'God' in creatures.
  
  We conclude, then: if a man is to be poor of will, he must will and desire as little as he willed and desired when he was not. And this is the way for a man to be poor by not wanting.
  
  Secondly, he is a poor man who knows nothing. We have sometimes said that a man should live as if he did not, whether for himself, or for truth, or for God. But now we will speak differently and go further, and say: For a man to possess this poverty he must live so that he is unaware that he does not live for himself, or for truth, or for God. He must be so lacking in all knowledge that he neither knows nor recognises nor feels that God lives in him: more still, he must be free of all the understanding that lives in him. For when that man stood in the eternal being of God nothing else lived in him: what lived there was himself. Therefore we declare that a man should be as free from his own knowledge as he was when he was not.
  
  That man should let God work as He will, and himself stand idle. For all that ever came out of God, a pure activity is appointed. The proper work of man is to love and to know. Now the question is: Wherein does blessedness lie most of all? Some masters have said it lies in knowing, some say that it lies in loving: others say it lies in knowing and loving, and they say better. But we say it lies neither in knowing nor in loving: for there is something in the soul from which both knowledge and love flow: but it does not itself know or love in the way the powers of the soul do. Whoever knows this, knows the seat of blessedness.
  
  This has neither before nor after, nor is it expecting any thing to come, for it can neither gain nor lose. And so it is deprived of the knowledge that God is at work in it: rather, it just is itself, enjoying itself God-fashion. It is in this manner, I declare, that a man should be so acquitted and free that he neither knows nor realises that God is at work in him: in that way can a man possess poverty.
  
  The masters say God is a being, an intellectual being, that knows all things. But we say God is not a being and not intellectual and does not know this or that. Thus God is free of all things, and so He is all things. To be poor in spirit, a man must be poor of all his own knowledge: not knowing any thing, not God, nor creature nor himself. For this it is needful that a man should desire to know and understand nothing of the works of God. In this way a man can be poor of his own knowledge.
  
  Thirdly, he is a poor man who has nothing. Many people have said that perfection is attained when one has none of the material things of the earth, and this is true in one sense - when it is voluntary. But this is not the sense in which I mean it. I have said before, the poor man is not he who wants to fulfil the will of God but he who lives in such a way as to be free of his own will and of God's will, as he was when he was not. Of this poverty we declare that it is the highest poverty. Secondly, we have said he is a poor man who does not know of the working of God within him.
  
  He who stands as free of knowledge and understanding as God stands of all things, has the purest poverty. But the third is the straitest poverty, of which we shall now speak: that is when a man has nothing.
  
  Now pay earnest attention to this! We say that a man should be so poor that he neither is nor has any place for God to work in. To preserve a place is to preserve distinction. Therefore I pray to God to make me free of God, - for my essential being is above God, taking God as the origin of creatures. That which I am by virtue of birth must die and perish, for it is mortal, and so must perish with time. In my birth all things were born and I was the cause of myself and all things: and if I had so willed it, I would not have been, and all things would not have been. If I were not, God would not be either. I am the cause of God's being God: if I were not, then God would not be God.
  
  But you do not need to know this. A great master says that his breaking-through is nobler than his emanation, and this is true. When I flowed forth from God, all creatures declared: "There is a God"; but this cannot make me blessed, for with this I acknowledge myself as a creature. But in my breaking-through, where I stand free of my own will, of God's will, of all His works, and of God Himself, then I am above all creatures and am neither God nor creature, but I am that which I was and shall remain for evermore.
  
  If anyone cannot understand this sermon, he need not worry. For so long as man is not equal to this truth, he cannot understand my words, for this is a naked truth which has come direct from the heart of God.
  
  That we may live so as to experience it eternally, may God help us. Amen.

Amazing wisdom there. Up there with the very best of Buddhist and Taoist wisdom.

Why weren't there any priests of Eckhart's caliber when I was growing up in the Catholic faith? Why did I always hear the same womanly pap?

I'm in Vietnam at the moment, and I heard a local describe nirvana as "a place of nowhere". Throosh! I've been spinning out on that one ever since!

-

[Bob Michael]

Why weren't there any priests of Eckhart's caliber when I was growing up in the Catholic faith? Why did I always hear the same womanly pap?

Interesting.....Perhaps telling might even be a better choice of words here.

[Alex Jacob]

David sends a postcard home:

• Hi. I'm in Vietnam and getting Nowhere!'
  
  ---Love, David

[jufa]

David sends a postcard home:

• Hi. I'm in Vietnam and getting Nowhere!'
  
  ---Love, David

That's because it has not been understood there is nowhere to go. David was the same David in America as he is in Vietnam. What does change of location have to do with ascending in ones self?

"Though we should soar into the heaven,
Though we should sink into the abyss,
We never go out of ourselves,
It is aways our own thoughts
that we perceive." - R.W.Emerson

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

Kelly: Consciousness of God doesn't wipe out distinctions, Pam. It sees the truth in distinctions.

What you are describing is human or ego consciousness believing it is seeing truth in distinctions, that it is the omniety of God consciousness. It is not. Tell me how you can see the truth in the distinction of 'cow', when you are not cow consciousness? Or tree consciousness? Or water consciousness?

Speaking the truth is largely a negative dynamic of speaking against untruth.

Sure, one can point to the form we have agreed to call 'cow' and correct someone who is convinced it is the form we have agreed to call 'horse', but at no time, is either individual the TRUTH of 'being cow or being horse.' The ego lives on the surface of an agreed upon dual 'map' of relativity of names; this is why ego consciousness is pain consciousness: the name is not the thing Itself. And yet, the ego believes that its distinctions are the thing itself. Ignorance = pain.

Untruth does not see the real nature of distinctions, but clings to something, like "God" (ie. unconsciousness).

An appearance of distinction is the clinging to distinction. Where there is no distinction, there is no clinging. When a boundary [distinction] appears on the screen of your mind, is it not named immediately? Are you saying that God, who is the All of every thought, NOW, needs to name himself to know himself? That there are human words being exchanged in the consciousness of 'Ultimate' Reality?

Judgment and abandoning life is the much harder, and much longer, part of the process.

Kelly, I cannot speak from the position from which you speak your awareness of you. But what I can do is speak from the position of my awareness of me and how it relates to the words you give me. First of all, it is not possible to abandon life. You are the life of you, you are the pure awareness of you, therefore, how can you abandon you? You can abandon the illusion of you, the ego consciousness of you that wants to divide the life of you into two, but you cannot abandon life or consciousness itself, of which you are never separate. Which means that any judgment you place upon yourself that believes it can abandon life is a false judgment; that which is false is out of order, that which is out of order, brings pain.

That is a process of deliberately inflicting pain on the ego.

I am going to be personal here, to bring my point home, one you are free to accept or reject. “Masculine/feminine” is a duality of ego. Dr. Jekyll says “masculine is good, better, best, for this and that reason.” Dr. Hyde says “feminine is bad, worse, the worst, for this and that reason.” J and H can never come to an objective or whole conclusion about the truth or untruth of “masculine” or “feminine”, because both are dependent on one another for consciousness survival. Which means that to be the wisdom of you is to 'stand above' both J and H and see/realize the whole of you that emanates the two of you. And being that you are the emanator of the emanation of your belief in being two, you can also be the emanator who, as Eckhart suggests, can break free of this emanation of belief (your experience of self-judgment and its union with its pain of being ignorance of 'the all-seeing [not all knowing] eye of you.) Break free and 'bring your-self home to YOU."

Poverty of spirit = sacrificing the emanation of Jekyll and Hyde, or as you might call it, henid emanation. "God is not a man, that he should lie [be divided]"

[Alex Jacob]

• Jufa writes: That's because it has not been understood there is nowhere to go. David was the same David in America as he is in Vietnam. What does change of location have to do with ascending in ones self?
  
  "Though we should soar into the heaven,
  Though we should sink into the abyss,
  We never go out of ourselves,
  It is aways our own thoughts
  that we perceive." - R.W.Emerson

Careful! David's an Australian bloke and might not appreciate being associated with the 'Mericans.

I see things differently: David is having a wonderful experience outside of his own culture and surroundings. Since he is so very interested in Buddhism, in Vietnam he has a wonderful opportunity to see the culture of Buddhism in action. The living truth of it, on the ground, in action. I am sure that the whole thing will enrinch his understanding, and there is nothing wrong with that. Now, if he starts hanging out with sexy Vietnamese girls in the shopping malls, well, that's something else.

Emerson: applied idealism!

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: Consciousness of God doesn't wipe out distinctions, Pam. It sees the truth in distinctions.

Pam: What you are describing is human or ego consciousness believing it is seeing truth in distinctions, that it is the omniety of God consciousness. It is not.

Right there you distinguished God consciousness from ego consciousness. Was that automatically a sign of egotism on your behalf?

Tell me how you can see the truth in the distinction of 'cow', when you are not cow consciousness? Or tree consciousness? Or water consciousness?

[snip]

Sure, one can point to the form we have agreed to call 'cow' and correct someone who is convinced it is the form we have agreed to call 'horse', but at no time, is either individual the TRUTH of 'being cow or being horse.'

Looks like you're contradicting yourself there. Obviously, you realise that making distinctions doesn't necessarily imply that one is the thing one distinguishes.

The ego lives on the surface of an agreed upon dual 'map' of relativity of names; this is why ego consciousness is pain consciousness: the name is not the thing Itself. And yet, the ego believes that its distinctions are the thing itself. Ignorance = pain.

Distinctions are also things. They're not something existing separate to the rest of the world.

Kelly: Untruth does not see the real nature of distinctions, but clings to something, like "God" (ie. unconsciousness).

Pam: An appearance of distinction is the clinging to distinction. Where there is no distinction, there is no clinging. When a boundary [distinction] appears on the screen of your mind, is it not named immediately? Are you saying that God, who is the All of every thought, NOW, needs to name himself to know himself? That there are human words being exchanged in the consciousness of 'Ultimate' Reality?

Aren't you using words, right there, to distinguish clinging from God consciousness?

Kelly: Judgment and abandoning life is the much harder, and much longer, part of the process.

Kelly, I cannot speak from the position from which you speak your awareness of you. But what I can do is speak from the position of my awareness of me and how it relates to the words you give me. First of all, it is not possible to abandon life. You are the life of you, you are the pure awareness of you, therefore, how can you abandon you? You can abandon the illusion of you, the ego consciousness of you that wants to divide the life of you into two, but you cannot abandon life or consciousness itself, of which you are never separate. Which means that any judgment you place upon yourself that believes it can abandon life is a false judgment; that which is false is out of order, that which is out of order, brings pain.

By life, I meant the delusion that one inherently exists. Samsara (life-and-death, rebirth, etc.)

Kelly: That is a process of deliberately inflicting pain on the ego.

Pam: I am going to be personal here, to bring my point home, one you are free to accept or reject. “Masculine/feminine” is a duality of ego.

Your post is full of dualities. So are you saying your post is full of egotism? Or that it's possible to use dualities and not be egotistical?

Dr. Jekyll says “masculine is good, better, best, for this and that reason.” Dr. Hyde says “feminine is bad, worse, the worst, for this and that reason.” J and H can never come to an objective or whole conclusion about the truth or untruth of “masculine” or “feminine”, because both are dependent on one another for consciousness survival.

It looks like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (they were not both doctors, only the one) in your analogy have roughly the same viewpoint. Perhaps you meant Mr. Hyde thinks feminine is good, better, best, etc.?

If so, then I'll use your analogy to reflect on your own message. You say that there is no truth in distinctions, and that words are unnecessary to truth, or even prevent truth consciousness arising. So this will be Dr. Jekyll saying distinctions and words are bad. On the other side of the court would be Mr. Hyde, saying words and distinctions are good.

According to you, the whole dichotomy of truth / falsehood are dependent on each other, therefore an indication (presumably) of false thinking (uh-oh, I feel a contradiction arising) and therefore ought to be transcended, rather than not-transcended (ooops, there it is..........).

So, given that this is your viewpoint, why did you make your post rather than transcending your distinctions?

I'll tell you. Because you don't actually believe what you're saying. You do believe that distinctions are necessary for truthfulness, and that truth consciousness can indeed be present while making them.



.

[Pam Seeback]

Kelly: Consciousness of God doesn't wipe out distinctions, Pam. It sees the truth in distinctions.[/quote]

Pam: What you are describing is human or ego consciousness believing it is seeing truth in distinctions, that it is the omniety of God consciousness. It is not.[/quote]

Kelly: Right there you distinguished God consciousness from ego consciousness. Was that automatically a sign of egotism on your behalf?[/quote]

Pam: This distinguishing is righteous use of distinguishing, whether you can see it or not. Thought must always be used, for it is all we have in this realm of belief in dualism: it is the direction to which it is pointing that is important. One must go through the mind to go beyond the mind. The Buddha himself had to distinguish to point beyond the realm of distinguishing. As did The Christ. The language of the metaphor of reconciliation; the reconciliation of distinctions to their source.

---------------------------

Pam: Tell me how you can see the truth in the distinction of 'cow', when you are not cow consciousness? Or tree consciousness? Or water consciousness?

Kelly: [snip]

Pam: Sure, one can point to the form we have agreed to call 'cow' and correct someone who is convinced it is the form we have agreed to call 'horse', but at no time, is either individual the TRUTH of 'being cow or being horse.'

Kelly: Looks like you're contradicting yourself there. Obviously, you realise that making distinctions doesn't necessarily imply that one is the thing one distinguishes.

Pam: How have you shown me here how I am contradicting myself? I clearly see the difference between the me that makes distinctions [my awareness of matter] and the me that does not [That which brings matter to my awareness].

----------------------------------------

Pam: The ego lives on the surface of an agreed upon dual 'map' of relativity of names; this is why ego consciousness is pain consciousness: the name is not the thing Itself. And yet, the ego believes that its distinctions are the thing itself. Ignorance = pain.

Kelly: Distinctions are also things. They're not something existing separate to the rest of the world.

Pam: No, things are the infinity of things. Unseen, invisible to your sense eye that makes distinctions between things.

--------------------------------------

Kelly: Untruth does not see the real nature of distinctions, but clings to something, like "God" (ie. unconsciousness).

Pam: An appearance of distinction is the clinging to distinction. Where there is no distinction, there is no clinging. When a boundary [distinction] appears on the screen of your mind, is it not named immediately? Are you saying that God, who is the All of every thought, NOW, needs to name himself to know himself? That there are human words being exchanged in the consciousness of 'Ultimate' Reality?

Kelly: Aren't you using words, right there, to distinguish clinging from God consciousness?

Pam: Words are all I have.

----------------------------------------

Kelly: Judgment and abandoning life is the much harder, and much longer, part of the process.

Pam: Kelly, I cannot speak from the position from which you speak your awareness of you. But what I can do is speak from the position of my awareness of me and how it relates to the words you give me. First of all, it is not possible to abandon life. You are the life of you, you are the pure awareness of you, therefore, how can you abandon you? You can abandon the illusion of you, the ego consciousness of you that wants to divide the life of you into two, but you cannot abandon life or consciousness itself, of which you are never separate. Which means that any judgment you place upon yourself that believes it can abandon life is a false judgment; that which is false is out of order, that which is out of order, brings pain.

Kelly: By life, I meant the delusion that one inherently exists. Samsara (life-and-death, rebirth, etc.).

Pam: And when that delusion ends, will not the distinction between birth and death not also end, what I call the 'primary dualism?' If there is no birth of you, there can be no death of you, no sense awareness of you, ergo, no distinctions of you.

-------------------------------------------

Kelly: That is a process of deliberately inflicting pain on the ego.

Pam: I am going to be personal here, to bring my point home, one you are free to accept or reject. “Masculine/feminine” is a duality of ego.

Kelly: Your post is full of dualities. So are you saying your post is full of egotism? Or that it's possible to use dualities and not be egotistical?

Pam: We're gonna chew on this bone until the meat falls off, aren't we? Of course I remain caught in my belief I am born and that I die, for I talking to you, am I not? Do I not need my breath to speak with my fingers? It is true that it is not possible to use dualities and not be egotistical, but I am aware that I am using dualities and being egotistical. If I was truly in the full darkness of my egotism, I would not acknowledge that I need to overcome the darkness of my egotism.

-------------------------------------

Pam: Dr. Jekyll says “masculine is good, better, best, for this and that reason.” Dr. Hyde says “feminine is bad, worse, the worst, for this and that reason.” J and H can never come to an objective or whole conclusion about the truth or untruth of “masculine” or “feminine”, because both are dependent on one another for consciousness survival.

Kelly: It looks like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (they were not both doctors, only the one) in your analogy have roughly the same viewpoint. Perhaps you meant Mr. Hyde thinks feminine is good, better, best, etc.?

Pam: I am aware only one was a doctor = typo. Does it matter whether Mr. Hyde thinks feminine is 'good' or 'evil' or vice versa? It is the inner war of the [temporal] duality that is at issue.

Kelly: If so, then I'll use your analogy to reflect on your own message. You say that there is no truth in distinctions, and that words are unnecessary to truth, or even prevent truth consciousness arising.

Pam: The truth is, I said none of the things you said that I said. Is this THE truth of me? No. It is a moment of awareness of "this is not so."

Kelly: So this will be Dr. Jekyll saying distinctions and words are bad. On the other side of the court would be Mr. Hyde, saying words and distinctions are good.

Pam: This could be one scenario of J and H. It is a scenario that I once played out in my head, but no more. Words are words and need to be used, regardless of whether it is to expand one's world of matter, or to eliminate one's world of matter.

-------------------------------------------------

Kelly: According to you, the whole dichotomy of truth / falsehood are dependent on each other, therefore an indication (presumably) of false thinking (uh-oh, I feel a contradiction arising) and therefore ought to be transcended, rather than not-transcended (ooops, there it is..........).

Pam: Again, I neither said nor implied such insanity of thinking.

First of all, I do not equate reality with truth. Reality is reality, truth is 'something' I want to find about reality, which is false sight, for I cannot find out about reality. Secondly, I never used the term 'falsehood', that is your term. The relationship between sight of reality and false sight is the relationship of darkness [ignorance] and light [wisdom]. I will try to explain using another vision: false sight [darkness] is dependent on sight of reality to exist, but sight of reality [the light that sees no darkness] is not dependent upon false sight to exist.

Kelly: So, given that this is your viewpoint, why did you make your post rather than transcending your distinctions?

Pam: Pass the bone....

Chew, chew...If I had transcended my distinctions, I would not be here speaking about the way to transcend distinctions. This is why it is said in many traditions that to be reborn into human consciousness is a holy thing, for it is only when one is in the flesh of distinction-attachment do they have the opportunity to complete their transcendence beyond their belief in 'being only of sense' which is the same belief 'of being only of distinctions.'

Kelly: I'll tell you. Because you don't actually believe what you're saying. You do believe that distinctions are necessary for truthfulness, and that truth consciousness can indeed be present while making them.

Pam: I so do not believe what you are saying I believe. This is blatant projection of your ego-paining unto me, which you are welcome to keep to yourself.

So once again, I tell you, using words, what I truly believe: I was never born, nor will I ever die. But, if I continue to make distinctions, I will continue to believe that I am born and that I will die. And vice versa. I will continue to ride the merry-go-round of samsara. Ergo, I am working at the elimination of distinctions/belief in birth and death in my consciousness; I am stopping, albeit gradually, my turning wheel of "what ye sow, distinctions, so shall ye reap, distinctions."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To have nothing, means just that, to have nothing.

That's just a repetition. What it actually means, is pretty hard, as the default is to have a lot, right there the moment you're born, still crying for mother's milk and warmth.

To be made into nothing, so that the Invisible, Unknown Something that is God will wholly be expanded into that vacuum of self's absence of its belief it is a known something.

So much richness! God only arises with its creatures. Forever expanding into vacuums are only ones breathtaking flights of fancy.

And most certainly, to believe one is a genius or a sage is to believe one can be known as a 'thing.'

But opening your mouth on this very topic already establishes a belief something can be shared, said or thought about it with skill. Denying this would be dishonest and self-deceiving.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Does Meister Eckhart have anything to say about the following line, Diebert?

"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."

In Eckhart's work the ideas of purity and emptiness are virtually interchangeable.

Like in About Disinterest [although some might translate the original Abegescheidenheit with detachment, but also possible is solitary, "set apart" but not at all "removed" of course.]

• What is the prayer of the disinterested heart? I answer by saying that a disinterested man, pure in heart, has no prayer, for to pray is to want something from God, something added that one desires, or something that God is to take away. The disinterested person, however, wants nothing and neither has he anything of which he would be rid. Therefore he has not prayer, or he prays only to be uniform with God.
  
  In this sense we may understand the comment of St. Dionysius on a text of St. Paul - 'they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize" - that is, all the soul's agents race for the prize but only the soul's essence receives it. Thus, Dionysius says: "This race is precisely the flight from creatures to union with the uncreated". When the soul achieves this, it loses its identity, it absorbs God and is reduced to nothing, as the dawn at the rising of the sun. Nothing helps toward this end like disinterest.
  
  To this point we may quote a saying of St. Augustine: "There is a heavenly door for the soul into the divine nature - where some-things are reduced to nothing". On earth, this door is precisely disinterest, and when disinterest reaches its apex it will be unaware of its knowledge, it will not love its own love, and will be in the dark about its own light. Here, too, we may quote the comment of an authority: "Blessed are the pure in heart who leave everything to God now as they did before they ever existed". No one can do this without a pure, disinterested heart.
  
  That God prefers a disinterested heart for His habitation may be seen from the question: "What is God looking for in everything?" I reply with these words from the Book of Wisdom: "I seek peace in all things". There is, however, no peace except in disinterest.

[jufa]

• Jufa writes: That's because it has not been understood there is nowhere to go. David was the same David in America as he is in Vietnam. What does change of location have to do with ascending in ones self?
  
  "Though we should soar into the heaven,
  Though we should sink into the abyss,
  We never go out of ourselves,
  It is aways our own thoughts
  that we perceive." - R.W.Emerson

Careful! David's an Australian bloke and might not appreciate being associated with the 'Mericans.

I see things differently: David is having a wonderful experience outside of his own culture and surroundings. Since he is so very interested in Buddhism, in Vietnam he has a wonderful opportunity to see the culture of Buddhism in action. The living truth of it, on the ground, in action. I am sure that the whole thing will enrinch his understanding, and there is nothing wrong with that. Now, if he starts hanging out with sexy Vietnamese girls in the shopping malls, well, that's something else.

Emerson: applied idealism!

Man is man regardless of what. "Every thing after its kind." David is not having a wonderful experience outside of his own culture. David is becoming aware of a reflection of what he is aware of. If this was not true, David could not become aware of that which he has no knowledge of. That which is not in a man cannot be outside of his awareness.

All apply idealism, even you and I.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

Pam,

I've formatted your post so it's easier to read. Using the quote function enables the reader to find one's last response quickly, as well as to see a connection between all of one's latest thoughts. It is a bit like a meta-conversation.

Kelly: Consciousness of God doesn't wipe out distinctions, Pam. It sees the truth in distinctions.

Pam: What you are describing is human or ego consciousness believing it is seeing truth in distinctions, that it is the omniety of God consciousness. It is not.

Kelly: Right there you distinguished God consciousness from ego consciousness. Was that automatically a sign of egotism on your behalf?

Pam: This distinguishing is righteous use of distinguishing, whether you can see it or not. Thought must always be used, for it is all we have in this realm of belief in dualism: it is the direction to which it is pointing that is important. One must go through the mind to go beyond the mind. The Buddha himself had to distinguish to point beyond the realm of distinguishing. As did The Christ. The language of the metaphor of reconciliation; the reconciliation of distinctions to their source.

Why do you believe that distinctions aren't themselves direct manifestations of God?

Pam: Tell me how you can see the truth in the distinction of 'cow', when you are not cow consciousness? Or tree consciousness? Or water consciousness?

[snip]

Pam: Sure, one can point to the form we have agreed to call 'cow' and correct someone who is convinced it is the form we have agreed to call 'horse', but at no time, is either individual the TRUTH of 'being cow or being horse.'

Kelly: Looks like you're contradicting yourself there. Obviously, you realise that making distinctions doesn't necessarily imply that one is the thing one distinguishes.

Pam: How have you shown me here how I am contradicting myself? I clearly see the difference between the me that makes distinctions [my awareness of matter] and the me that does not [That which brings matter to my awareness].

Is the true nature of the "me" you mention (both parts) the same throughout?

Pam: The ego lives on the surface of an agreed upon dual 'map' of relativity of names; this is why ego consciousness is pain consciousness: the name is not the thing Itself. And yet, the ego believes that its distinctions are the thing itself. Ignorance = pain.

Kelly: Distinctions are also things. They're not something existing separate to the rest of the world.

Pam: No, things are the infinity of things. Unseen, invisible to your sense eye that makes distinctions between things.

The Infinite is not beyond the senses, or awareness, otherwise it would be finite.

Kelly: Untruth does not see the real nature of distinctions, but clings to something, like "God" (ie. unconsciousness).

Pam: An appearance of distinction is the clinging to distinction. Where there is no distinction, there is no clinging. When a boundary [distinction] appears on the screen of your mind, is it not named immediately? Are you saying that God, who is the All of every thought, NOW, needs to name himself to know himself? That there are human words being exchanged in the consciousness of 'Ultimate' Reality?

Kelly: Aren't you using words, right there, to distinguish clinging from God consciousness?

Pam: Words are all I have.

And are you conscious of Ultimate Reality while doing that distinguishing?

Kelly: Judgment and abandoning life is the much harder, and much longer, part of the process.

Pam: Kelly, I cannot speak from the position from which you speak your awareness of you. But what I can do is speak from the position of my awareness of me and how it relates to the words you give me. First of all, it is not possible to abandon life. You are the life of you, you are the pure awareness of you, therefore, how can you abandon you? You can abandon the illusion of you, the ego consciousness of you that wants to divide the life of you into two, but you cannot abandon life or consciousness itself, of which you are never separate. Which means that any judgment you place upon yourself that believes it can abandon life is a false judgment; that which is false is out of order, that which is out of order, brings pain.

Kelly: By life, I meant the delusion that one inherently exists. Samsara (life-and-death, rebirth, etc.).

Pam: And when that delusion ends, will not the distinction between birth and death not also end, what I call the 'primary dualism?'

The belief that that distinction is intrinsically real disappears, but the distinctions don't. Nothing changes except the content and meaning of one's ideas, in becoming enlightened.

If there is no birth of you, there can be no death of you, no sense awareness of you, ergo, no distinctions of you.

And yet I still have a birth certificate and parents and siblings to prove that I was born at some point, expect that my bodily organism and consciousness will end at some point, and I'm conscious of sensory information, and am making distinctions. Yet at every moment I'm fully immersed in the Infinite. I have no problem seeing God in everything that happens.

Kelly: That is a process of deliberately inflicting pain on the ego.

Pam: I am going to be personal here, to bring my point home, one you are free to accept or reject. “Masculine/feminine” is a duality of ego.

Kelly: Your post is full of dualities. So are you saying your post is full of egotism? Or that it's possible to use dualities and not be egotistical?

Pam: We're gonna chew on this bone until the meat falls off, aren't we? Of course I remain caught in my belief I am born and that I die, for I talking to you, am I not? Do I not need my breath to speak with my fingers? It is true that it is not possible to use dualities and not be egotistical, but I am aware that I am using dualities and being egotistical. If I was truly in the full darkness of my egotism, I would not acknowledge that I need to overcome the darkness of my egotism.

Hang on, are you really saying that you think that anyone who uses words, dualities, and has a self-concept is automatically deluded (mistaken as to the nature of Reality)? Really?

Nonduality isn't separate from dualities for the following reason. If nonduality were separate from duality, it would be dualistic. It is all dualities. The Infinite is not finite, as in separated from finite things. It is all finite things. One doesn't need to stop talking or thinking, using words or distinctions, or trying to pretend there are no things or selves in enlightenment, because everything is part of the Totality.

The Totality is everywhere, and Everywhen. It is literally present in every thought, every idea, every imagination. Consciousness of the nature of the Totality simply perceives truthfully what is so. It doesn't try to grasp hold of anything as God, but "lives alongside" everything.

Pam: Dr. Jekyll says “masculine is good, better, best, for this and that reason.” Dr. Hyde says “feminine is bad, worse, the worst, for this and that reason.” J and H can never come to an objective or whole conclusion about the truth or untruth of “masculine” or “feminine”, because both are dependent on one another for consciousness survival.

Kelly: It looks like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (they were not both doctors, only the one) in your analogy have roughly the same viewpoint. Perhaps you meant Mr. Hyde thinks feminine is good, better, best, etc.?

Pam: I am aware only one was a doctor = typo. Does it matter whether Mr. Hyde thinks feminine is 'good' or 'evil' or vice versa? It is the inner war of the [temporal] duality that is at issue.

I was merely trying to work out if you were really posing a duality or not. It seemed inconsistent, so I was just checking.

Kelly: If so, then I'll use your analogy to reflect on your own message. You say that there is no truth in distinctions, and that words are unnecessary to truth, or even prevent truth consciousness arising.

Pam: The truth is, I said none of the things you said that I said. Is this THE truth of me? No. It is a moment of awareness of "this is not so."

Well, no, you did.

For instance, back at the beginning:

Kelly: Consciousness of God doesn't wipe out distinctions, Pam. It sees the truth in distinctions.

Pam: What you are describing is human or ego consciousness believing it is seeing truth in distinctions, that it is the omniety of God consciousness. It is not.

You were clearly saying that seeing the truth in distinctions, which for me means to be able to see God in the presence of, in the actuality of, distinctions, is egotism. So you were saying that there is no truth present, or visible, in distinctions.

Kelly: So this will be Dr. Jekyll saying distinctions and words are bad. On the other side of the court would be Mr. Hyde, saying words and distinctions are good.

Pam: This could be one scenario of J and H. It is a scenario that I once played out in my head, but no more. Words are words and need to be used, regardless of whether it is to expand one's world of matter, or to eliminate one's world of matter.

I don't see what the last two clauses have to do with anything. What is the point you were making?

Kelly: According to you, the whole dichotomy of truth / falsehood are dependent on each other, therefore an indication (presumably) of false thinking (uh-oh, I feel a contradiction arising) and therefore ought to be transcended, rather than not-transcended (ooops, there it is..........).

Pam: Again, I neither said nor implied such insanity of thinking.

First of all, I do not equate reality with truth. Reality is reality, truth is 'something' I want to find about reality, which is false sight, for I cannot find out about reality.

Are you saying you cannot understand anything about Ultimate Reality?

Secondly, I never used the term 'falsehood', that is your term.

What's truth but the opposite of falsehood? You used the former.

The relationship between sight of reality and false sight is the relationship of darkness [ignorance] and light [wisdom]. I will try to explain using another vision: false sight [darkness] is dependent on sight of reality to exist, but sight of reality [the light that sees no darkness] is not dependent upon false sight to exist.

The term "false" is related to "falsehood" on the planet where I come from. I suppose you must be talking about something else.

Anyway, it's blatantly clear that you're quibbling. First you say it's not possible to find out something about Reality, and now you say sight of reality is possible. Unless you start making some sense, I won't be sticking around.

Kelly: So, given that this is your viewpoint, why did you make your post rather than transcending your distinctions?

Pam: Pass the bone....

Chew, chew...If I had transcended my distinctions, I would not be here speaking about the way to transcend distinctions. This is why it is said in many traditions that to be reborn into human consciousness is a holy thing, for it is only when one is in the flesh of distinction-attachment do they have the opportunity to complete their transcendence beyond their belief in 'being only of sense' which is the same belief 'of being only of distinctions.'

Well, I've transcended distinctions. I'm fully aware of God's presence in every word, idea, breath, and mood. All is God to me.

Kelly: I'll tell you. Because you don't actually believe what you're saying. You do believe that distinctions are necessary for truthfulness, and that truth consciousness can indeed be present while making them.

Pam: I so do not believe what you are saying I believe. This is blatant projection of your ego-paining unto me, which you are welcome to keep to yourself.

So once again, I tell you, using words, what I truly believe: I was never born, nor will I ever die. But, if I continue to make distinctions, I will continue to believe that I am born and that I will die. And vice versa. I will continue to ride the merry-go-round of samsara. Ergo, I am working at the elimination of distinctions/belief in birth and death in my consciousness; I am stopping, albeit gradually, my turning wheel of "what ye sow, distinctions, so shall ye reap, distinctions."

Isn't "I was never born, nor will I ever die" a distinction that includes a self-concept? Is it then false, according to you?


.

[Pam Seeback]

Kelly: Unless you start making some sense, I won't be sticking around.

I came you tell you the same thing, and here you beat me to it. I guess we're both dismissed.

[David Quinn]

• Jufa writes: That's because it has not been understood there is nowhere to go. David was the same David in America as he is in Vietnam. What does change of location have to do with ascending in ones self?
  
  "Though we should soar into the heaven,
  Though we should sink into the abyss,
  We never go out of ourselves,
  It is aways our own thoughts
  that we perceive." - R.W.Emerson

Careful! David's an Australian bloke and might not appreciate being associated with the 'Mericans.

I see things differently: David is having a wonderful experience outside of his own culture and surroundings. Since he is so very interested in Buddhism, in Vietnam he has a wonderful opportunity to see the culture of Buddhism in action. The living truth of it, on the ground, in action. I am sure that the whole thing will enrinch his understanding, and there is nothing wrong with that.

From what I see, there isn't much Buddhism in action here, at least not the wise form of Buddhism that Eckhart refers to. It's all superstition, fortune-telling, ancestor worship, psychic medium, etc. In other words, the same womanly pap that comprises the Catholic religion.

Even the bloke who offered that "nowhere" phrase didn't really understand it. He was merely repeating something he heard elsewhere.

An individual only ever becomes wise in spite of his culture, not because of it.

-

[Alex Jacob]

Then what ARE you doing there then? ;-)

[Bob Michael]

In other words, the same womanly pap that comprises the Catholic religion.

Is it possible, David, that your Catholic upbringing, along with its "womanly pap", may have had a deep emasculating effect on you which you may never be able to fully overcome? My observations of others over a period of many years in the rooms of A.A., especially, seem to indicate to me that this is very often the case with men who were raised in Catholic homes.

[David Quinn]

In other words, the same womanly pap that comprises the Catholic religion.

Is it possible, David, that your Catholic upbringing, along with its "womanly pap", may have had a deep emasculating effect on you which you may never be able to fully overcome? My observations of others over a period of many years in the rooms of A.A., especially, seem to indicate to me that this is very often the case with men who were raised in Catholic homes.

Not really. You're reading too much into it. My complaint would apply to any culture or religion the world over. We are all drowning in womanly pap. It's everywhere.

The kind of wisdom Eckhart speaks about is unknown to all but a few individuals, here and there. It's the way of the world, sadly.

-

[Alex Jacob]

It is larger and more relevant than you suspect, David. Consider the Baptism of the Frankish King Clovis. Quite an event, and quite a surrender of sword and phallus. Here is an article on the Christianization of the Germanic Tribes.

In Catholic Catechisms, this event is depicted as the humbled King who kneels obediently before the sceptor of the Church and Clergy to receive the baptismal water. It is in many ways the very image of emasculation.

The beginnings of your 'womanly pap' is to be found here. Also, the peculiar way that Catholicism directs itself to the women-faithful and 'seduces' them out from under their men. That Sceptor, like Kelly's rather exaggerated microphone, seems to have multiple uses!

[Bob Michael]

Not really. You're reading too much into it. My complaint would apply to any culture or religion the world over. We are all drowning in womanly pap. It's everywhere.

Surely it's everywhere, however I do feel that Catholics suffer disproportionately and perhaps far more fatally from it than others, at least here in the U. S. And I must ask here. Are you having any real effect in the awakening of any of your fellows? Personally I don't feel that I am presently, though I believe I'm finally on to developing the right approach for this undertaking, which it seems all the heretofore gurus, godmen, saints, saviors, teachers, preachers, geniuses, etc. have failed to do.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
To have nothing, means just that, to have nothing.

Diebert: That's just a repetition. What it actually means, is pretty hard, as the default is to have a lot, right there the moment you're born, still crying for mother's milk and warmth.

To you, my words are just a repetition. To me, they are the very substance, the very life of my journey. You have put forward your interpretation, which, to me, is a but a repetition. The relativity of perception.

Quote: Pam:
To be made into nothing, so that the Invisible, Unknown Something that is God will wholly be expanded into that vacuum of self's absence of its belief it is a known something.

Diebert: So much richness! God only arises with its creatures. Forever expanding into vacuums are only ones breathtaking flights of fancy.

This is not what M. Eckhart says. I quote from your quoting of Eckhart:

"But you do not need to know this. A great master says that his breaking-through is nobler than his emanation, and this is true. When I flowed forth from God, all creatures declared: "There is a God"; but this cannot make me blessed, for with this I acknowledge myself as a creature. But in my breaking-through, where I stand free of my own will, of God's will, of all His works, and of God Himself, then I am above all creatures and am neither God nor creature, but I am that which I was and shall remain for evermore.

If anyone cannot understand this sermon, he need not worry. For so long as man is not equal to this truth, he cannot understand my words, for this is a naked truth which has come direct from the heart of God."

Man is always wanting to make that which is of his finite breath to be that of the infinite God of no-breath. From my understanding of Eckhart, it was to this error that he never stopped passionately addressing. From wiki:

...it was Eckhart who, with characteristic vigor and audacity, reshaped the germinal metaphors into profound images of polarity between the Unmanifest and Manifest Absolute. One of his most intriguing sermons on the "highest virtue of disinterest," unique in Christian theology both then and now, conforms to the Buddhist concept of detachment and more contemporarily, Kant's "disinterestedness." Meister Eckhart's Abgeschiedenheit was also admired by Alexei Losev in that contemplative ascent (reunion with meaning) is bound with resignation/detachment from the world. The difference is that truth/meaning in the phenomenological sense was not the only result, as expressed in Eckhart's practical guide "for those who have ears to hear", but creation itself. He both understood and sought to communicate the practicalities of spiritual perfection and the consequences in real terms.

In other words, the creature is sourced in God, but God is not of the creature [mentality].

Quote: Pam:
And most certainly, to believe one is a genius or a sage is to believe one can be known as a 'thing.'

Diebert: But opening your mouth on this very topic already establishes a belief something can be shared, said or thought about it with skill. Denying this would be dishonest and self-deceiving.

Of course I believe something can be shared, said or thought about! As I have said countless times, there is no way to transcend the creature mentality except to do it while one is a captive of its karma/attachments. This is why I come here, to share this wisdom of, as I put it in my most recent thread, the ending of the God of endless becoming, which from your interpretation of Eckhart's words "So much richness! God only arises with its creatures. Forever expanding into vacuums are only ones breathtaking flights of fancy" I assume is your God 'of choice.'

I will put it bluntly. Your romantic God of "forever expanding in vacuums are only ones breathtaking flights of fancy" is the same God who takes flights of fancies into rape, genocide, suicide, mental illness, chronic anxiety, self flagellation, and puffed up delusions of believing himself a Genius or deflated delusions of believing himself a moron, who can say or do anything, good, evil or indifferent in the name of I AM. This is the reality of the God of the creature mentality - flesh eating flesh, ego eating ego; flesh begatting flesh, ego begatting ego.

This line from wiki about Eckhart's message "He both understood and sought to communicate the practicalities of spiritual perfection and the consequences in real terms", to me, is the renunciation of the creature/breath/ego mentality and of the living of the thoughts devoted to this renunciation, thoughts such as those you quote in your opening post in this thread. The same message as the one I bring to the "Genius" forum.