Meister Eckhart

[speed]

Past attempts at making Christian-inspired threads, impelled me to create my own, on the thought of one of the most fascinating philosophical and religious figures I know.

Meister Eckhart was a 13th century mystic Christian neo-platonist convicted of heresy and forced to recant his teachings. His ideas and philosophy centered around God--the platonic One; the soul; and creation. Essentially, as I will further explain, religion has no relation to true faith or oneness with God to Eckhart. God, is explained in almost, but not quite, dualistic infinite terms as well: god is both good and evil; in essence Eckhart takes the position of Job in the bible--God is unknowable by humans. Finally, Jesus did not die for our sins per se: he was a teacher, a Buddha like figure, whose life provides the signpost or the guide to every man to acheive union with god.

Thus, I ask the question, whether or not Eckhart's religious and philosophical ideas in fact make much more sense than current and past Christian dogma? He not only reconciles creation and evil in God--which is highly problematic in Christian dogma and Gospel--(and highly advanced in Platonic philosophy, for any interested Porphyry one of the most important neoplatonic philosophers circa 2-3 century ad, wrote a 15 volume attack Against Christianity, in which fragments that survive mock Jewish and Christian religion for failing to reconcile having a creator god that created evil, and then sent his son, to sacrifice himself for his mistake--thus calling into question his omniscience), but conceives of Jesus as not one who died for our sins per se, but to offer us a guidepost to the immortal divine world.


The preceeding paragraphs, are largely cut from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and explain some of the aformentioned ideas in greater detail.

God and Man
The great need of man is that his soul be united with God; for this a knowledge of God and his relation to the world, a knowledge of the soul and the way which it must go, are necessary. Eckhart does not doubt that such knowledge is given in the traditional faith of the Church, but it is not sufficient for one who is longing for salvation. He must attain to it with his own understanding.

Understanding Eckhart's God
God to Eckhart cannot be understood in mere human and finite terms: no predicate derived from finite being is applicable to the Deity; but this is therefore not mere negation or emptiness. Rather is finite being, as such, negation; and the Deity, as the negation of finite being, is the negation of negation, i.e. the absolute fulness of being. The essential elements of finite things are present in God, but in an exalted degree and in a manner that can not be comprehended by man.

Eckhart's Christ
Also, in regards to his thoughts on Christ, I offer this explanation as found on the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy: Even at the creation of the first man Christ was already the end in view (250, 23); and now after the fact of sin, Christ stands likewise in the center of redemption. After the fall, all creatures worked together to produce a man who should restore harmony (497, 11). This took place when Mary resigned herself so completely to the divine word that the eternal word could assume human nature in her. However, this temporal birth of the son is again included in his eternal birth as a moment of the same (391, 20). And now God is to be born in us. In his human life Jesus becomes a pattern for man; and in all that he did and experienced, above all in his passion and death there is an overwhelming power that draws man to God (218-219) and brings about in us that which first took place in Christ, who alone is the way to the father (241, 17).



Some select quotes:

'The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same — one in seeing, one in knowing, and one in loving.'

'God is not only a Father of all good things, as being their First Cause and Creator, but He is also their Mother, since He remains with the creatures which have from Him their being and existence, and maintains them continually in their being. If God did not abide with and in the creatures, they must necessarily have fallen back, so soon as they were created, into the nothingness out of which they were created.'
​

 

[infoterror]

Meister Eckhart was a 13th century mystic Christian neo-platonist convicted of heresy and forced to recant his teachings. His ideas and philosophy centered around God--the platonic One; the soul; and creation. Essentially, as I will further explain, religion has no relation to true faith or oneness with God to Eckhart. God, is explained in dualistic infinite terms as well: god is both good and evil; in essence Eckhart takes the position of Job in the bible--God is unknowable by humans. Finally, Jesus did not die for our sins per se: he was a teacher, a Buddha like figure, whose life provides the signpost or the guide to every man to acheive union with god.

He was essentially a gnostic: God is all creation.

I would argue he is NOT a philosophical dualist (two worlds).

 

[speed]

He was essentially a gnostic: God is all creation.

I would argue he is NOT a philosophical dualist (two worlds).

Yes, I suppose that is my point: that since God is all creation, God inhabits both good and evil. I am immediately reminded of Job in the bible when I think of Eckhart, and his experience of exegenesis. Job who learns God is both good and evil, and inconceivable to the human mind. But yes, duality is perhaps the wrong term.

Well gnosticism arose entirely out of Platonic thought; however, I see his writings more in line with Plotinus, than say the Gnostics, like the Monists and Manicheans who did believe in duality. Hence, your claim about him being a gnostic is a bit confusing, after you stated he is not a philosophical dualist.

 

[derek]

It remains possible to understand a world that consists of sense-data, that (might, perhaps...maybe) pertain to something spacial AND not be a dualist.

I do appreciate alot of his ideas though. Christianity as a starvling spiritual cult had some divine ideas...then it went and screwed them up with dogma.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I actually had a lecture on Eckhart not so long ago. Very important figure. He was among the first to write in German, and actually invented much of the language. It's also interesting to note how his language was often very much geared towards woman, as you can see from the one example above.

If you're interested in Eckhart you should look into Marguerite Porete as well. She was a contemporary of his. I find her take on spirituality more interesting. She believed in a negative path to god, accomplished by trying to bring the soul to the state it was in before birth, sort of an absolute nothingness. She was against the structures of the church, and felt that any individual could have divine encounters, which was not acceptible at the time. She also stated that there's no need for virtue, since the soul in it's purest state has no need for it. Her ideas were way out there, and in fact, she was burned at the stake for not retracting her ideas, whereas Eckhart did retract some of his statements to avoid such a fate. Her famous text is "Mirror of Simple Souls", which outlines her 7 stages of annihilation, used to bring the soul as close to nothingness as possible.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

i know i've said this before, but i'm saying it again

the initial thread starting post should be short-ER than the other posts, i really don't have any problem at all with the longer posts, but i still feel that the initial thread starting post should be asking a question instead of being a final exam essay

for example
this thread's first post should have been simply

Do you agree or disagree with Eckhart's ideas???
​

this way the people posting on this thread would actually have to do their own reaserch into this Eckhart person in order to actually participate in this conversation instead of having this thread degenerating into one of those previous threads where everyone is quoting the previous person and it's either obvious that the initial post contained bogus info or noticable that absolutely no one other than the thread starter knows anything at all about the actual topic

i seriously think that puting severe limit on how many words are actually allowed to be in the initial 1st post will prevent most of the newer threads from degenrating into being as bad as the last few pages of the threads that had to be closed​

 

[Dushan S]

In some other religions, difference between mass-religion part and mystical part is more evident, and deeper level of teaching is more easily accessible. In Islam and Christianity it is different, when you are not in "Mainstream" they were tolerating you up to the certain point. Technically, if you are working on self enlightement, at one point you will be in collision with your own relligion because you have your own real experiences, you are not reading about someone lses concepts of god, but understand divine thru finding it thru your very self.
So I don't see any sense in commenting Eckhart's ideas strictly from a philosophical point of view. His experiences were not made based on intellectual, mental process, but on experince. There is really no "Gnostic Philosophy" because gnosticism is based on personal experience, it is more about showing individual how to have his own experience of god, not about defining it on intelectuall level (as it is not possible). Btw, even today there are some people in Christianity that are treating it as a technology to reach to divine, in the same way as it was always case in the far east. And every christian that starts to have his own experiences of divine will start to sound like a gnostic a bit, because he is talking from himself, not from the book.

 

[derek]

In some other religions, difference between mass-religion part and mystical part is more evident, and deeper level of teaching is more easily accessible. In Islam and Christianity it is different, when you are not in "Mainstream" they were tolerating you up to the certain point. Technically, if you are working on self enlightement, at one point you will be in collision with your own relligion because you have your own real experiences, you are not reading about someone lses concepts of god, but understand divine thru finding it thru your very self.
So I don't see any sense in commenting Eckhart's ideas strictly from a philosophical point of view. His experiences were not made based on intellectual, mental process, but on experince. There is really no "Gnostic Philosophy" because gnosticism is based on personal experience, it is more about showing individual how to have his own experience of god, not about defining it on intelectuall level (as it is not possible). Btw, even today there are some people in Christianity that are treating it as a technology to reach to divine, in the same way as it was always case in the far east. And every christian that starts to have his own experiences of divine will start to sound like a gnostic a bit, because he is talking from himself, not from the book.

I very much agree. That makes Eckhart quite an interesting figure - He tried to recapture the gnostic, spiritual influences of early christianity but perhaps did not realise the irony in trying to make them more dogmatic in nature.

 

[proglodite]

In some other religions, difference between mass-religion part and mystical part is more evident, and deeper level of teaching is more easily accessible. In Islam and Christianity it is different, when you are not in "Mainstream" they were tolerating you up to the certain point. Technically, if you are working on self enlightement, at one point you will be in collision with your own relligion because you have your own real experiences, you are not reading about someone lses concepts of god, but understand divine thru finding it thru your very self.
So I don't see any sense in commenting Eckhart's ideas strictly from a philosophical point of view. His experiences were not made based on intellectual, mental process, but on experince. There is really no "Gnostic Philosophy" because gnosticism is based on personal experience, it is more about showing individual how to have his own experience of god, not about defining it on intelectuall level (as it is not possible). Btw, even today there are some people in Christianity that are treating it as a technology to reach to divine, in the same way as it was always case in the far east. And every christian that starts to have his own experiences of divine will start to sound like a gnostic a bit, because he is talking from himself, not from the book.

very well said - 'religion' itself implies following rules to become closer to God et al.

As for the first post, I agree that god created evil, but not as a mistake; if there were no evil, man would love god because he knew no better, it is the choice to love god over satan (or the world) that matters to god

 

[derek]

very well said - 'religion' itself implies following rules to become closer to God et al.

As for the first post, I agree that god created evil, but not as a mistake; if there were no evil, man would love god because he knew no better, it is the choice to love god over satan (or the world) that matters to god

That's rather silly. If man knew no better he loves god regardless, he has no other concept, so arguably...thats still better.

 

[speed]

very well said - 'religion' itself implies following rules to become closer to God et al.

As for the first post, I agree that god created evil, but not as a mistake; if there were no evil, man would love god because he knew no better, it is the choice to love god over satan (or the world) that matters to god

But this is entirely...well, a human emotion. Why would God have such low self esteem to even need one to choose him over another? And if this was the case, what does this say about your God? A God that would create evil for the mere delight in having persons choose him. How sinister; how petty. Thus, you understand how Eckhart also came to the conclusion of Job, and found the very idea of God creating evil, an impossible one to answer.

 

[derek]

But this is entirely...well, a human emotion. Why would God have such low self esteem to even need one to choose him over another? And if this was the case, what does this say about your God? A God that would create evil for the mere delight in having persons choose him. How sinister; how petty. Thus, you understand how Eckhart also came to the conclusion of Job, and found the very idea of God creating evil, an impossible one to answer.

An omnpresent and all loving god cannot ever be reconciled with the problem of evil, and any excuse I have ever heard claiming the contrary has always been left wanting.

 

[speed]

An omnpresent and all loving god cannot ever be reconciled with the problem of evil, and any excuse I have ever heard claiming the contrary has always been left wanting.

I agree, and thats why I posted about Porphyry, who made a central argument against Judaism and Christianity on this very fact that is, by and large, a central tenet of Christian teaching. The only way it makes sense, is if the Judeo-Christian God is not the Creator God, and there is a Demiurge of some sort.

I am totally surprised the religious are unfamiliar, or do not have the self-searching power or ability to read the best work in the entire Bible: the Book of Job. Its not only the most philosophically powerful, but the best written; a true literary and philosophical masterpiece.

Job asked the very same question as he experienced such grave misfortune despite being faithful; his friends told him he must be wicked because God would only punish the wicked, not the good and faithful. But Job finally talks with God, chastizes God for forsaking him for no reason--like Christ--and God's response is a mere mortal cannot understand the wisdom of the Lord.

 

[derek]

I agree, and thats why I posted about Porphyry, who made a central argument against Judaism and Christianity on this very fact that is, by and large, a central tenet of Christian teaching.

I am totally surprised the religious are unfamiliar, or do not have the self-searching power or ability to read the best work in the entire Bible: the Book of Job. Its not only the most philosophically powerful, but the best written; a true literary and philosophical masterpiece.

Job asked the very same question as he experienced such grave misfortune despite being faithful; his friends told him he must be wicked because God would only punish the wicked, not the good and faithful. But Job finally talks with God, chastizes God for forsaking him for no reason--like Christ--and God's response is a mere mortal cannot understand the wisdom of the Lord.

Such responses are begging the question. Appleaing to a something outside our understanding is a lame duck argument.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Why would God have such low self esteem to even need one to choose him over another? And if this was the case, what does this say about your God? A God that would create evil for the mere delight in having persons choose him. How sinister; how petty.

this is pretty much where Judeo-Christianity falls apart for me, near as i can tell, if the Judeo-Christian God actually exists, then evilness exists just to give humans free will, the choice of choosing good or choosing evil, that seems really sinister, really petty, but explainable nonetheless, way i see it, if this Judeo-Christian God actually exists, (which i'm not comepletely convinced he actually does btw) then he is really just some high school kid and Earth is really just some highschool science fair project, he says "thou shalt worship no other deities before me" such a comandment would not be neccassary if other deities did not exist. When the other deities disagreed with "God's" desire "to be the only deity" then this "God" talked to the people and described those other deities as being less than himself by calling them "angels" and "demons" and "false gods" after that the "bible" had to be written, each lie and exaggeration being neccassary to cover-up the bogusness of the previous one

 

[infoterror]

Well gnosticism arose entirely out of Platonic thought;

Disagreed here...

I'll say this instead, because getting tangled over language is a failure to communicate and thus is Very Boring: he's closer to the Hindu view. Instead of God, Godhead. Interesting how much linguistic style Schopenhauer inherited from this most-beloved Catholic thinker...

I'd recommend him to fans of any transcendentalists, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, who also influenced an important German-Polish philosopher...

 

[esteban lobos d]

this is my first post.
hopefully my english will not collapse as sometimes happen, i'm an spanish speaking person in a spanish speaking country.
----------------------------
this is kind of related but it also goes a bit further:

in some way it reminds me of lao tse's tao, where, in order to be in harmony with the "way of things" you must be one with the tao.
that purpose is helped if you follow the wise man advice.

the very first epigram says:
(translating tao into "the way of things" or "the way of heaven")

"the tao that can be defined, is not the true tao".
(it cannot be understood but it's presence and influence is unquestionable
and if its understandable then it's something that belongs to the "tao of man" or "the way of man" or humanly things)

"since I (lao tse) don't know its name, i call it tao"
(tao becomes a way of calling that something that cannot be called by a name)

also the tao doesn't define something as evil or something as good, because when you know something as good, then evil appears, and backwards.
so if you get to talk about evil and good, they are a unity that is tracended by the tao. at the end, things are.

it has happen(not always) that in occidental religions some people relate the trascendental experience to the more knowledge of teology they adquire related to the history of the religion or the misteries of the bible and so on.
so what you think or what you know about the religion is very important in the way you relate to it.

orient's view seems more practical
from the first moment they accept that they cannot understand it, (language is finite) and the only way to trascend is to be a unity with the
so because of that they practice a certain discipline, and the most important, they meditate.

hopefully it wil make sense
ELD.

 

[infoterror]

orient's view seems more practical
from the first moment they accept that they cannot understand it, (language is finite) and the only way to trascend is to be a unity with the
so because of that they practice a certain discipline, and the most important, they meditate.

"Language is finite" is expressed best in Goedel's theorem and Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense," I think.

The tao cannot be written down, for the tao is life - so to speak.

There's quite a tradition of this in the West as well.

 

[proglodite]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, uni has just started in Australia

IMO:
God first created the angels, and gave them free will. In doing so, he created evil, as the angels were able to be evil. God could have created evil beforehand by being evil himself, but that is against his nature. The necessity of free will can be put into context by considering one's own situation: If all your friends and family (partner and/or children if applicable) had to love you, wouldn't that devalue their love? Surely the fact that they make the choice to love you is of the most importance.
As for God's need to create others, I believe that he created us for our benefit, not (just) his, as its a selfless act, not a selfish one, to let others share in your glory and majesty, rather than live alone
/imo off

Feel free to pick my argument to pieces

Brad

 

[Demiurge]

God first created the angels, and gave them free will. In doing so, he created evil, as the angels were able to be evil. God could have created evil beforehand by being evil himself, but that is against his nature.

God cannot be free to go against his nature. That is like saying that God is free to decide not to be God, that Godliness is not his very essence. It's absurd.