The Absolute

[Nick_A]

Interesting that this page quotes Matthew Fox employing my same metaphor of fish-in-water. earl

It is basic.

John 14:

10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

 

[sonoman]

If God breathed life into "man," do we still not share that breath? earl

The spiritual mystery I've found in the ankh connection to Jesus points to this "breath of life".

What if Jesus knew who and what God is but could not reveal the information to the world because they would not be able to comprehend it? What if times have changed and now with science we can comprehend what Jesus was trying to tell us. What then?

 

[earl]

Sonoman, I don't look for esoteric messages hidden in the words of Jesus myself. To me he is what he said he is: the way and truth, for me, a doorway. But, I also don't mean that in the typical conventional sense. What I find is that when I make a space for Christ-meditating/contemplating Christ's presence in my heart, I find Christ opens up my cramped self-awareness to the grandeur of "God." I am not so much "saved," as "expanded." earl

 

[Thomas]

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. earl

Oooh, big nail, bang on the head!

I'm part-way through a response to this very question by Path-Of-One ... I think some here might be pleasantly surprised!

One point though:
Meister Eckhart was (I would argue), and considered himself to be, entirely orthodox ... so we must pose the question: If in his speculations he knowingly began preaching that which was not Church doctrine, then the honourable thing to do is shut up, or ship out. If he remains in orders, then he is either a coward, or a charlatan, neither of which are a good character reference for a speculative mystic. If unwittingly in error, then his speculations are all undermined.

Matthew Fox, for example, saw this paradox and so left the Dominican order to continue teaching his own message.

I would argue that Eckhart was orthodox, and loyal. He studied first at the Dominican Studium in Cologne, made famous by Albertus Magnus — in fact he studied the works of Albertus, and we have a text attributed to Albert which most people would assume to be Eckhart's, if they heard it.

Eckhart's fame, like Origen's, although in no small part due to the depth of his insight, is in some part due to his teachings being easily misconstrued and claimed as 'correct' by many who would would refute the orthodox doctrine, and also in some part to his notoriety for having come under scrutiny and indeed for having some of his works condemned.

As Eckhart himself claims loyalty and fidelity to the Church, and as I believe he is neither charlatan, coward or unwise, I support and am loyal to his claim of orthodoxy, and therefore must assume that any heterodox interpretations of his works to be erroneous in their assumption of his meaning.

He would expect nothing less, I'm sure.

Thomas

 

[earl]

Thomas, I don't doubt Eckhart would have neither considered himself or his insights/views unorthodox. earl

 

[earl]

Wanted to add, Thomas, that, when I read Eckhart's words, they strike me as "contemplative" insights; that is, he is describing how he experiences things as opposed to coming at these issues from the intellect only-that is, adhering only to doctrinal interpretations to understand what he is experiencing. What he actually thought about church doctrine, I have no idea. But the man's words of his experiences do of course resonate with mystics across the religious divide. He is the one as I understand it that coined the phrase that all mystics speak the same language, more a poetic one than an intellectual discourse it seems. earl

 

[sonoman]

I don't know about that. In fact, I have always seen a division between mystics and mysticism and the folks who generated the religious ideas these mystics "contemplated". The prophets did not seem to think or behave like mystics at all. They were driven by their visions to share them with their communities and had no sense of seeking God through mystical contemplation. God usually sought them out and made them go through the paces where there was no time or thought to one's personal spiritual journey.

 

[earl]

I don't know about that. In fact, I have always seen a division between mystics and mysticism and the folks who generated the religious ideas these mystics "contemplated". The prophets did not seem to think or behave like mystics at all. They were driven by their visions to share them with their communities and had no sense of seeking God through mystical contemplation. God usually sought them out and made them go through the paces where there was no time or thought to one's personal spiritual journey.

Don't know about prophets, but I do tend to value mystical insight over doctrine since I value experience over theory. I see Eckhart as the mystic par excellence. Mysticism to me is the attempt to see reality beyond our limited self views. That is the salvation I seek. earl

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Earl,

You quoted Eckhart,

"There I neither increase nor decrease. For there I am the immovable which moves all things."

--> That sentence shows a good understanding of what the Absolute is. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[sonoman]

Don't know about prophets, but I do tend to value mystical insight over doctrine since I value experience over theory. I see Eckhart as the mystic par excellence. Mysticism to me is the attempt to see reality beyond our limited self views. That is the salvation I seek. earl

I don't seek personal salvation but to do the will of my Father from which salvation comes automatically. I don't seek spiritual knowledge to learn about God and myself but to be better able to do the spiritual work assigned to me from which salvation comes automatically. But then, I've never been a seeker as such, only a follower of the Spirit of Christ which has brought me enough to chew on for one lifetime.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Earl —

Wanted to add, Thomas, that, when I read Eckhart's words, they strike me as "contemplative" insights; that is, he is describing how he experiences things as opposed to coming at these issues from the intellect only-that is, adhering only to doctrinal interpretations to understand what he is experiencing.

I think he is expressing those insights in the language of the doctrine he has embraced — albeit pushing it to its limits. In his own words, if his insight contradicts the doctrine, he withdraws it as he has expressed it. Therefore I don't think he'd deny himself, I think he's unpacking or exploring new terrain contained within the spirit of the doctrine, but then he and I don't see doctrine as restrictive boundary, but as the Ground...

Referring to another conversation, if it's 'the way, the truth and the life' — it's in the box; if it's outside the box, it's not the way, the truth nor the life ... Eckhart's not out of the box, he's unpacking stuff from the deep corners and recesses.

Buddhism, for example, is not 'out of' the Christian box, it's another box — nor am I saying the Christian box renders all other boxes void or wrong, I'm saying if it's not from the box, it's not authentically Christian.

What he actually thought about church doctrine, I have no idea.

We have his words on that topic.

But the man's words of his experiences do of course resonate with mystics across the religious divide.

Yep ... and that's a two-way street.

He is the one as I understand it that coined the phrase that all mystics speak the same language, more a poetic one than an intellectual discourse it seems.

I don't know about that.

Here's something interesting from the Christian Hermetic "Meditations on the Tarot", its from the commentary on the Sun Card:

... the flowering of mysticism during this epoch (13-17th c) was the fruit and result of scholasticism ... the believing thinker thus becomes the seeing mystic. And this transformation did not take place in spite of scholasticism, but rather thanks to it, its fruit and crowning glory.

... what happened to St Thomas Aquinas also happened to a group of individuals who the crest of the wave of scholasticism ... (they) arrived at contemplation (then mysticism) ... ie the aim of scholasticism, which is intuition, or the state of union of faith and intelligence ...

To the author's mention of Blessed Albertus Magnus, St Thomas, Eckhart, Ruysbroeck and St John of the Cross I would add St Bonaventure ...

... are spirits amongst whom you will search in vain for a spirit of opposition to scholasticism ... they surpassed scholasticism by attaining its aim... in them intelligence was baptised and Christianised

p539.

Thomas

 

[earl]

As you put it Thomas about Eckhart unpacking little gems from the deep corners of the box he operated in-I think those gems of insight he found point to a larger reality found in other mystic traditions as well. I didn't entitle the first thread I started here "the zen of Eckhart" for nothing. That is a number of his insights are remarkably similar to Buddhist insights. But, he didn't come to those realizations via Buddhist practice of course. Rather, through whatever means he took to be following Christ, (don't know if he engaged in contemplative practices but would be interesting if he did). So, again Thomas, I never suggested Eckhart was an out-of-the-box kind of guy. However, his words speak for themselves as to how much bigger the box he operated in was than it might be for others. earl

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Thomas

One point though:
Meister Eckhart was (I would argue), and considered himself to be, entirely orthodox ... so we must pose the question: If in his speculations he knowingly began preaching that which was not Church doctrine, then the honourable thing to do is shut up, or ship out. If he remains in orders, then he is either a coward, or a charlatan, neither of which are a good character reference for a speculative mystic. If unwittingly in error, then his speculations are all undermined.

This is why Simone Weil is considered the Patron Saint of Outsiders. Perhaps Orthodox Christianity is out of balance and expresses too much secularized Christianity. If this is the case, people like Meister Eckhart transmit its essence. They understand the esoteric depth of the church even though surrounded by dominant secular influences. They simply cannot just leave. Their influence is too important for preserving the essence of the church.

 

[Thomas]

As you put it Thomas about Eckhart unpacking little gems from the deep corners of the box he operated in-I think those gems of insight he found point to a larger reality found in other mystic traditions as well.

In that sense, agreed.

I didn't entitle the first thread I started here "the zen of Eckhart" for nothing. That is a number of his insights are remarkably similar to Buddhist insights.

"The truth is out there"

But, he didn't come to those realizations via Buddhist practice of course. Rather, through whatever means he took to be following Christ, (don't know if he engaged in contemplative practices but would be interesting if he did).

Contemplative practice is part of the Dominican Rule. I'll try and dig up some details, but it would be prayer, reading, and lectio divina. What techniques, I don't know.

So, again Thomas, I never suggested Eckhart was an out-of-the-box kind of guy. However, his words speak for themselves as to how much bigger the box he operated in was than it might be for others. earl

And some!

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Perhaps Orthodox Christianity is out of balance and expresses too much secularized Christianity.

That will ever be the case ... the Church is human, in that regard.

If this is the case, people like Meister Eckhart transmit its essence. They understand the esoteric depth of the church even though surrounded by dominant secular influences.

It's curious that many mystics have often undergone hardship at the hands of their (ecclesial) superiors for the above reason.

They simply cannot just leave. Their influence is too important for preserving the essence of the church.

That essence is why they stay — to preserve it, yes, but to preserve themselves in it, also.

Thomas

 

[earl]

Somebody just put words in my mouth. earl

 

[Nick_A]

Somebody just put words in my mouth. earl

Take the positive approach earl, who better to be associated with?