The warning against the anthropomorphic tendency is always needful, but nothing can be gained by the attempt to form a concept of God which offers nought but a negation of all human thought and activity.
"The mind never rests but must go on expecting and preparing for what is yet known and what is still concealed. Meanwhile, man cannot know what God is, even though he be ever so well of what God is not; and an intelligent person will reject that. As long as it has no reference point, the mind can only wait as matter waits for him. And matter can never find rest except in form; so, too, the mind can never find rest except in the essential truth which is locked up in it--the truth about everything. Essence alone satisfied and God keeps on withdrawing, farther and farther away, to arouse the mind's zeal and lure it to follow and finally grasp the true good that has no cause. Thus, contented with nothing, the mind clamors for the highest good of all."
Vaj,
To me, the Absolute is the same thing as the Buddhist concept of Sunyata.
Eckhart's "godhead" refers to the Absolute, while his "God" refers to the Third Logos (The Son — our physical universe).
Thomas, You said,
"...you insist one can know nothing of the absolute...."
--> This is a common misconception. We know of five 'attributes' of the Absolute.
Christianity differs in that regard, in that which is beyond human knowledge can be made known by Revelation ... we have a number of Scriptural references in that regard, although there is much discussion between West and East as to precisely how the text is understood.in any event, Andrew X is correct, that which is defined as beyond human knowledge cannot thereby be known by human knowledge.
i've always found this conversation to be both pointless and instructive but that's just me
That is cataphatic theology in our tradition, is counterpart is apophatic theology, which is often described as 'negative' but I think that oversimplifies it. Rather it corresponds (loosely) to the idea of 'not this, not that' of Advaita philosophy.if one changes the definition of "asbolute" to something that is within ability of the human mind to grasp then something can be said of it.
I had a very unfortunate experience with chilli vodka once ... to this day I can't even bring myself to think about it.the only Absolute that i can actually talk about is the Vodka.
Meister Eckhart addresses this.
Hi Nick_A
T'is a pity (for us) that Eckhart never fully developed a comprehensive theological system, that's what left him open to all manner of accusation — today as then, for whatever reason, everybody wants a piece of the Master! (inc. me!)
If you compare the quote you offer to the one above, offered by Earl, one who is unfamiliar with his ideas will begin to get a glimpse into just how technically complex he is ...
Funny thing is, I was reading something by Albertus Magnus, the Dominican Master who established the reputation of the Studium Generale at Cologne where Eckhart first studied, and no doubt anyone would say 'that's Eckhart!' — but where is Albertus Magnus today?
Thomas
I even dare say that the man's insights seem a tad "panentheistic."earl
I even dare say that the man's insights seem a tad "panentheistic."earl
If God breathed life into "man," do we still not share that breath? earlI think it's interesting that panentheism is often accused of being thin atheism.
Embrace the mess.![]()
Interesting that this page quotes Matthew Fox employing my same metaphor of fish-in-water.Quite true. People often make the mistake of calling him a Pantheist but Meister Eckhart is asserting Panentheism as I understand the term which is essential to Christianity as compared to the personal God of Christendom.
Biblical Panentheism: God in all things
The chief caveat I think in embracing panentheism is that we have to carefuly discern when we are making the mistake of confusing our ego-self with God. earlI think it's interesting that panentheism is often accused of being thin atheism.
Embrace the mess.![]()