The Absolute
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
N
Nick_A
Guest
Thomas wrote
Meister Eckhart addresses this.
Meister Eckhart addresses this.
S
sonoman
Guest
Ah, if only they were ready to receive the naked mole rat truth. Everything would be cleared up and they would know what Jesus knew about the nature of the Father, about what He knew about resurrection and eternal life but could not explain it to the people of His time, their lacking the science to comprehend it.
So God "glorified" the Son of Man who knew how the system works so the people would look to Him for the spiritual truth even though they themselves could not understand it. They had to ride on the Son of Man's coat-tails vicariously through blind faith in sympathetic magic that the Name conferred to all who believed. But blind faith in a Story, in the words of ancient men about that Name, this is a feat modern minds are rarely capable of and for good reason.
What is to be done? the Father laughs. I know! I shall send in another one and this one they shall believe, I mean, for Christ's sake, when are they going to be ready to know what's what and get on with the job of piloting the Ship of Light to the End of Days where Me and Mom and the Holy Family are all waiting?
Oh, they're still hung up on that "anthropomorphism of God" crap. If they only knew the Truth..(God sighs..--Hurricane Ike destro..lashes Texas..)
So God "glorified" the Son of Man who knew how the system works so the people would look to Him for the spiritual truth even though they themselves could not understand it. They had to ride on the Son of Man's coat-tails vicariously through blind faith in sympathetic magic that the Name conferred to all who believed. But blind faith in a Story, in the words of ancient men about that Name, this is a feat modern minds are rarely capable of and for good reason.
What is to be done? the Father laughs. I know! I shall send in another one and this one they shall believe, I mean, for Christ's sake, when are they going to be ready to know what's what and get on with the job of piloting the Ship of Light to the End of Days where Me and Mom and the Holy Family are all waiting?
Oh, they're still hung up on that "anthropomorphism of God" crap. If they only knew the Truth..(God sighs..--Hurricane Ike destro..lashes Texas..)
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste Nick,
thank you for the post.
sounds good.
as a follower of a different philosophical tradition i would suggest that your understanding of this term is fairly different than mine.
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
sounds good.
as a follower of a different philosophical tradition i would suggest that your understanding of this term is fairly different than mine.
metta,
~v
Hi Nick —
I can see how one can interpret his words according to an Anthroposophical hermeneutic — the diagram is informative too.
I would suggest however, that the understanding that Meister Eckhart was trying to communicate was something entirely different, according to his own Catholic hermeneutic, as the distinction you draw would have been alien to him.
Thomas
I can see how one can interpret his words according to an Anthroposophical hermeneutic — the diagram is informative too.
I would suggest however, that the understanding that Meister Eckhart was trying to communicate was something entirely different, according to his own Catholic hermeneutic, as the distinction you draw would have been alien to him.
Thomas
Hi Nick —
Well, they were Andrew's words, not mine, so I suppose you should sort out this misconception between yourselves.[/quote]
Thomas
Well, they were Andrew's words, not mine, so I suppose you should sort out this misconception between yourselves.[/quote]
Thomas
Hi Vajradhara
The West, in that regard, goes further than the East ... but that's a whole other discussion, on the nuances of 'in-house' theological understanding, I suppose.
St Thomas Aquinas, in the wake of a vision of the Divine Glory, supposedly said 'everything I've written is like straw before the wind' in the light of his experience. I think he might have shared in that sentiment!
Thomas
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.
The West, in that regard, goes further than the East ... but that's a whole other discussion, on the nuances of 'in-house' theological understanding, I suppose.
St Thomas Aquinas, in the wake of a vision of the Divine Glory, supposedly said 'everything I've written is like straw before the wind' in the light of his experience. I think he might have shared in that sentiment!
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.
I had a very unfortunate experience with chilli vodka once ... to this day I can't even bring myself to think about it.
Thomas
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
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
N
Nick_A
Guest
We will have to agree to disagee on this. It seem clear to me that God is ineffable for Meister Eckhart. If he is right, this idea of the personal god which is attractive to the secular conceptions is an error of egotism that wants to put God on their side. I believe he is right.
Meister Eckhart - God unknowable
In his discussion of Godhead, Eckhart gives a beautiful experiential description of the Absolute:
"When I subsisted in the ground, in the bottom, in the river and fount of Godhead, no one asked me where I was going or what I was doing: there was no one to ask me. When I was flowing, all creatures spake God. If I am asked, 'Brother Eckhart, when went ye out of your house?' Then I must have been in. Even so do all creatures speak God and why do they not speak Godhead? Everything in Godhead is one, and of that there is nothing to be said. God works, the Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do; in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. On my emanation, I alone take all creatures out of their sense and into my mind and make them one in me. When I go back into the ground, into the depths, into the well-spring of the Godhead, no one will ask me whence I came or wither I went. No one missed me. God passes away."
Again, we have the metaphor of water. earl
"When I subsisted in the ground, in the bottom, in the river and fount of Godhead, no one asked me where I was going or what I was doing: there was no one to ask me. When I was flowing, all creatures spake God. If I am asked, 'Brother Eckhart, when went ye out of your house?' Then I must have been in. Even so do all creatures speak God and why do they not speak Godhead? Everything in Godhead is one, and of that there is nothing to be said. God works, the Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do; in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. On my emanation, I alone take all creatures out of their sense and into my mind and make them one in me. When I go back into the ground, into the depths, into the well-spring of the Godhead, no one will ask me whence I came or wither I went. No one missed me. God passes away."
Again, we have the metaphor of water. earl
lunamoth
Episcopalian
It seems we need to get comfortable with paradox if we want to talk about the Absolute as relevant.
It seems that Meister Eckhart had no problem thinking about God as knowable too:
"All God wants of man is a peaceful heart."
"God expects but one thing of you, and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being made and let God be God in you."
"Man goes far away or near but God never goes far-off; he is always standing close at hand, and even if he cannot stay within he goes no further than the door."
"The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge."
So, how does he 'know' these things?
It seems that Meister Eckhart had no problem thinking about God as knowable too:
"All God wants of man is a peaceful heart."
"God expects but one thing of you, and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being made and let God be God in you."
"Man goes far away or near but God never goes far-off; he is always standing close at hand, and even if he cannot stay within he goes no further than the door."
"The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge."
So, how does he 'know' these things?
You are correct. Luna, that old Meister seemed to alternate between discussions about "God" and "Godhead," though he obviously made distinctions between the 2, spoke more often about "God." Though, probably because, as he said, "Godhead" is truly ineffable. It seems that for him, when one is still caught in "mutliplicity," creatureliness, oneself and the Absolute are at arms length and God language prevails. But when one has broken through to an experience of Godheaded oneness, the sense of separated individuality melts away and the artificial self-God distinction goes with it. That's not to say he stopped being theistically-inclined however. earl
N
Nick_A
Guest
I even dare say that the man's insights seem a tad "panentheistic."earl
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
lunamoth
Episcopalian
I even dare say that the man's insights seem a tad "panentheistic."
I think it's interesting that panentheism is often accused of being thin atheism.
Embrace the mess.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Earl,
You said,
"Again, we have the metaphor of water."
--> Water is an important symbol of one the building blocks of our universe, and of past and future universes.
First, take a look at this picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Now, take a look at this picture of the Buddhist deity named Kwan Yin.
Please note that both pictures are symbolizing the exact same cosmic principle -- the birth of our universe. Kwan Yin is pouring water from a small vase, and Mary is holding Jesus. Both water and Jesus symbolize the same thing -- our universe.
There is another, more important use of the symbology of water. Both Kwan Yin and Mary symbolize something that can only be described briefly as "the material from which universes are created." This material is called Mulaprakriti. Water is always used to symbolize this material.
This is why water is often used to symbolize the beginnning of any universe, especially our universe. Genesis says that Darkness moved across the waters, which is again referring to this cosmic concept known as Mulaprakriti. (Darkness moved across the waters -- Mary/Kwan Yin/Mulaprakriti -- to create the Son, our universe, as the first chapter of Genesis states.)
(For those of you who do not know, Kwan Yin is an important Buddhist diety. Thousands of temples have been built in her honor, and millions of people pray to her every day. Her appeal is the same as Mary's, because both deities symbolize the same cosmic principle.)
You said,
"Again, we have the metaphor of water."
--> Water is an important symbol of one the building blocks of our universe, and of past and future universes.
First, take a look at this picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Now, take a look at this picture of the Buddhist deity named Kwan Yin.
Please note that both pictures are symbolizing the exact same cosmic principle -- the birth of our universe. Kwan Yin is pouring water from a small vase, and Mary is holding Jesus. Both water and Jesus symbolize the same thing -- our universe.
There is another, more important use of the symbology of water. Both Kwan Yin and Mary symbolize something that can only be described briefly as "the material from which universes are created." This material is called Mulaprakriti. Water is always used to symbolize this material.
This is why water is often used to symbolize the beginnning of any universe, especially our universe. Genesis says that Darkness moved across the waters, which is again referring to this cosmic concept known as Mulaprakriti. (Darkness moved across the waters -- Mary/Kwan Yin/Mulaprakriti -- to create the Son, our universe, as the first chapter of Genesis states.)
(For those of you who do not know, Kwan Yin is an important Buddhist diety. Thousands of temples have been built in her honor, and millions of people pray to her every day. Her appeal is the same as Mary's, because both deities symbolize the same cosmic principle.)
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.
earlThe 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.