anything dearer to them than looking upon Him. This is the ultimate aim of those who know Him; and does this not entail their loving Him for His own sake, rather than for anything else?

Whoever says that He is not loved for His own sake, and that no pleasure is found in looking upon Him—as a group of speculative theologians and proponents of rational opinion claim—is simply mistaken.

Whoever says that loving Him and desiring Him for His own sake does not entail the servant’s finding pleasure in loving Him, and that the servant neither seeks nor desires it, but instead loves and desires something in which he finds no pleasure, makes a false claim.

Whoever says that the servant passes beyond his personal interests and will, meaning his interests and desires connected with created things, is correct. But if he means that the servant passes beyond all desire and love, so that everything becomes alike to him, he is denying his own experience and inner nature.

For anything desired and loved for its own sake, this can only mean that the thing itself is the ultimate object of those who seek it. That is, the bliss and pleasure they attain constitute their ultimate aim; they do not seek them for the sake of anything else.

If, however, all pleasure were absent, love would be inconceivable, for it is impossible to love something when experiencing it brings no pleasure.