Why should the individual's exercise of will not be intended to be brought to a point of being able to fulfil the laws of love if the entire structure of the universe is love? Going against the universe is fatal for the microbe
1416. And does not this gigantic panorama stretch from the most extreme regions of the universe or the most distant cities of suns hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of light years away, right down to the workings of our own organism? Is this not the same creation, the same transformation of matter in favour of the creation of habitable conditions for intellectuality in flesh and blood? But if this enormously predominant or gigantic part of our collective sensory horizon is one-hundred-per-cent "love", why should not the invisible part of this horizon – which in relation to this is absolutely microscopic, stretching, as it does, from the workings of our organs into our I or will – also be intended to be in harmony with this "love"? Is it not perfectly obvious that going against the universe must be difficult, indeed, even fatal for the microbe? How can a speck of dust go against the wind? Must not every will that goes against the universe fail? It is not the universe that perishes when the will breaks down in this way, but the well-being of the individual. How could the microbe possibly go on hating if the entire universe loves? And is failing to love one's neighbour not the same as going against the universe and thereby against life itself? What is it we see in the form of warring individuals and powers? Are they not microbes wrestling with the universe?
Return to start page
Previous