|
|
|
|
|
|
| Events |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| New members |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - With almost 1,500 entries in Niklaus Largier’s Eckhart bibliography, covering „only“ the years up to its publication in 1989, and with many new volumes and articles having appeared since then, it sounds difficult to produce a) anything new to Eckhart and b) to make an even outstanding contribution covering common grounds. |
|
Review of: Hee-Sung Keel, Meister Eckhart: An Asian Perspective (Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs, 36), Louvain a.o.: Eerdmans 2007, ISBN 978-0-8028-6, 319pp.
The present volume proves that both, producing new insights in Eckhart and making an outstanding contribution to understanding him, is possible, despite the vast scholarly output – and to be clear from the beginning of this review, this Eckhart monograph is one of the few books on Eckhart which stands out from many others, different, but comparable to contributions like Bernard McGinn’s published Birmingham Cadbury Lectures on Eckhart’s theological thinking: B. McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from Whom God Hid Nothing (The Edward Cadbury Lectures 2000 – 2001), New York 2001; or the ground-breaking study of Burkhard Mojsisch, Meister Eckhart: Analogie, Univozität u. Einheit, Hamburg 1983 on Eckhart’s philosophy; Vladimir Lossky, Théologie négative et connaissance de Dieu chez Maître Eckhart, Paris 1960 on his exegesis and theological epistemology; Kurt Ruh, Meister Eckhart: Theologe, Prediger, Mystiker, Munich 21989 (11985) biographical essay or the mentioned bibliography by Niklaus Largier.
Having supervised a number of Korean students, it often strikes me, how extraordinary learned, sensible and creative scholars from an „Asian Perspective“ are when they approach „Western topics“ only to discover to what extent the label of „Western-ness“ quickly becomes questionable and equally how much they have to contribute in original reading, functioning as eye-openers for „Western“ scholars who have become half-blind from applying their own glasses to the sources they are used to. The author of the present volume, although not a specialist in Western Mysticism, nor in Christian Theology, or Spirituality proves how fruitful the crossing over of disciplines can be. Himself a „student of comparative religion and a lay Christian theologian with an Asian background,“ he is an outstanding specialist in mediaeval non-Western thinkers, published a study on the „eminent Korean monk who laid the foundation for the Korean Sǒn (Zen) tradition“, Chinul (1158-1210), followed by another on „the Pure Land Buddhist thought of Shinran (1173-1262), a seminal figure in the Japanese Buddhist tradition“ (ix). This medieval non-western background allowed the author to highlight how „the Dominican monk and most of the illustrious Asian religious thinkers share a fundamental belief in divine-human unity as the core of their thoughts“ (xi), not in a superficial common sense equation nor in inter-relating similarly sounding concepts without marking the differences – on the contrary, the monograph reads first and foremost similar to the mentioned study of Bernard McGinn, introducing the reader into systematic areas of Eckhart’s thinking by extensively quoting him and interpreting these quotes from within Eckhart rather than applying non-Eckhartian pre-conceptual hermeneutical questions to him. And only once the author has established his attempt of understanding Eckhart, he asks to what extent the Eckhartian ideas have or have not corresponding moments in Asian thinkers.
So, what is new, if parts of the study go over the same grounds that many other Eckhart publications have already covered? And what is outstanding in this work?
To begin with those elements which the author sees as widely neglected in past Eckhart studies:
The first is Eckhart’s practical methods of detaching: Obviously deducted from Augustine, that man has to leave behind authorities, the role models of ‘good and holy people’, that mark the beginning of any spiritual life is being, Eckhart was sceptical of any Christian educator, authority, preacher and teacher. It might have to do with his own spiritual way on which he got first used to and was dependent of ‘good and holy people,’ from which, according to Eckhart’s interpretation of Augustine’s, man has to turn away. Hee-Sung Keel, however, is certainly right that Eckhart scholars usually too quickly jump over the first step of the soul’s preparation by hinting at Eckhart’s criticism of any spiritual or ascetic endeavour. The latter, however, is not a criticism in principle, but rather ‘a warning against attachment to the method of spiritual training. ... Let us not forget the simple fact that Eckhart was, after all, a friar whose life was unthinkable apart from some sort of regular spiritual exercise, even if it is true that he belonged to the Dominican order which understood itself as the order of preachers (ordo fratres praedicatorum). Whatever active duty his order may have imposed on its members, spiritual exercise must have been mandatory, at least for the novices in the training stage, if not for all’ (185f.). Keel points to passages in Eckhart’s Talks of Instruction where he ‘recommends two methods of spiritual training, the “inward work” (inwendiges wirken)’ (186): ‘One is that a man has shut himself off well inwardly, so that his mind is on its guard against the images without, that they remain without and do not unfittingly keep company and walk with him, and that they find no resting-place in him. The second is that he should not let himself be caught up by his internal imagery, whether it be in the form of pictures or lofty thoughts, or outward impressions or whatever is present to his mind, nor be distracted not dissipate himself in their multiplicity. A man should train and bend all his powers to this and keep his inner self present to him.’ The ‘exercises’ that Eckhart recommends, are closely related to detachment, namely that ‘one is to shut (verschliessen) oneself off inwardly so that external images may “remain without” and find no “resting-place” in one’s mind. ... Then a further step is necessary for maintaining inner freedom in the midst of busy activities. Not only should we be alert, lest the images of the external objects invade our mind; we should also be on guard against internal images, of whatever kind they may be, lest we be “caught up” by them and let them “distract” (zerlassen), “dissipate” (zerstreuen), and “externalize” (veräussern) our inner self’ (186f.). It is no wonder that a highly sensitive scholar like Keel with his thorough expertise in medieval and contemporary Asian Zen-tradition discovered these practical elements in Eckhart that have hitherto been hardly seen. The second ‘exercise,’ that relates to the inner pictures, seems to be even of higher importance to Eckhart, as it is easier for the soul to close herself away from the outside and its world of images, than to avoid or overcome its own inner world of imagery. This overcoming of the soul’s self-love moves away from the consideration of external images and positions the soul in front of divine wisdom. The soul, however, still has to climb of her ‘mother’s lap’ which indicates the need for overcoming the internalised scenarios.
Only after having established the importance of this two staged practical training in detaching, Keel introduces an Asian ‘echo’, the ‘Zen masters’ warning against seeking the truth outside of one’s own mind. One should “turn the light inward” and find the truth in one’s own mind’ (188). And then extends his cautious religious comparison: ‘This practice is very similar to the well-known Hindu yoga which aims at mental absorption (samādhi). An essential step in the classical eight-step (astāṅga) yoga is to withdraw our sense faculties from their objects “as a tortoise withdraws its limbs” ...’ (189).
A second element where Keel sharpens the conventual understanding of Eckhart relates to a spiritual and theological topic: suffering. In his monograph, B. McGinn suggests that ‘the role of suffering in imitation of Jesus received its most profound analysis’ in Eckhart in his Book of Divine Consolation, triggered off not at least, because ‘the pious Queen Agnes of Hungary … had undergone much suffering, including losing her father to assassination. Here Eckhart takes suffering into the heart of his dialectical understanding of God and God’s relationship to us.’ (B. McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart, 2001, 123). And Donald F. Duclow in his study (id., ‘My Suffering is God:’ Meister Eckhart’s Book of Divine Consolation: Theological Studies 44, 1983, 570-586, 575f.) remarked, ‘Eckhart takes the coincidence of comfort and suffering still further, into God Himself. … God is not only our fellow sufferer but our very suffering somehow becomes divine.’ Keel sharpens this even further and shows that the relationship is more than dialectical (45) and does not only result in some likelihood between human suffering and God or some divine shaping of its characteristics, but culminates in the identification between man’s pain and God’s pain, when Eckhart states: ‘My suffering is in God and my suffering is God.’ (Eckhart, BgT [DW 5:54.3]: ‘... mîn leit in gote ist und mîn leit got ist’).
In addition, Keel draws on the circular understanding of Eckhart’s idea of detachment and suggests that ‘detachment and breakthrough do not constitute the end of the mystical journey for Eckhart. Returning to where the soul originally flowed out, she does not simply remain there, savouring eternal rest and blessedness. There in the silent desert of the soul and the hidden darkness of the Godhead, where all distinctions and multiplicity are done away with, she experiences a new birth as the Son of God and begins to live a new life of dynamic productivity.’ (209; similarly before Keel, Robert Dobie, Meister Eckhart’s metaphysics of detachment: The Modern Schoolman 80, 2002, 35-54, 35). Although scholars like Dietmar Mieth (id., Die Einheit von Vita activa und Vita contemplativa in den deutschen Predigten und Traktaten Meister Eckharts und bei Johannes Tauler: Untersuchungen zur Struktur des christlichen Lebens, Studien zur Geschichte der kath. Moraltheologie, 15, Regensburg 1969; id., Christus, das Soziale im Menschen: Texterschließungen zu Meister Eckhart, Topos Taschenbücher, Düsseldorf 1972; id., Gottesschau und Gottesgeburt: Zwei Typen Christlicher Gotteserfahrung in der Tradition: Freiburger Zeitschrift für Theologie und Philosophie 27, 1980, 204-23; id., Meister Eckhart: Authentische Erfahrung als Einheit von Denken, Sein uns Leben, in: Das ‘einig Ein:’ Studien zu Theorie und Sprache der deutschen Mystik, ed. Alois M. Haas / Heinrich Stirnimann, Dokimion, 6, Freiburg / Switzerland 1980, 11-61; id., Die theologische Transposition der Tugendethik bei Meister Eckhart, in: Abendländische Mystik im Mittelalter, 1986, 63-79; id., Mystik und Lebenskunst, Düsseldorf 2004) have already pointed out the ethical focus of Eckhart’s thinking, Keel’s chapters on ‘the birth of the Son of God’ (209-261) and ‘the life of the Son of God,’ (263-294) are outstanding. From Asian perspectives Keel grasps in all sharpness Eckhart’s circular art of detachment with its very practical implications. In the latter chapter, the author compares Eckhart’s view on contemplation and action with Asian teachings: ‘Eckhart calls the person born the Son of God simply ‘a true person’ ... Like the Daoist sage, Eckhart’s true man, who wants nothing and seeks nothing, lives a carefree life of no-action and no-desire (wuyu). This is also the spirit of Zen epitomized by “nothing to seek” (wusuoqiu), not even the Buddha or the enlightenment itself! It is a life with “nothing to do” (wushi): “Followers of the Way, as to Buddha-dharma no effort is necessary. You have only to be ordinary with nothing to do.” The enlightened one “just” lives, “just sits in zazen (shikan taza) without looking for anything, without waiting for anything – not even enlightenment. ... Life, like God, is an end in itself; it is not accountable for anything else. ... (However,) Eckhart’s concept of detachment has nothing to do with the flight from the world or the activities of life. ... All things, all acts, all works, and all places can equally be an avenue to God or block our way to God, depending on our attitude and disposition. It is detachment that makes the crucial difference, the art of “separation” as well as “unseparation” from all things, as God is. ... Detachment does not mean for Eckhart abandoning works and activities in favour of quietism. On the contrary, it could lead to the most active life precisely because it makes our acts pure and unselfish, flowing out from the roots of our being. The Daoists were also well aware of this paradox: no-action can be the most powerful form of action because it is the most natural. Zen also emphasizes a dynamic life of spontaneous acts based upon no-mind and no-thought. One should act and live like a clean and bright mirror reflecting various objects with which it comes into contact.’ (All these quotes taken from chapter six, ‘The life of the Son of God’, 263-94).
Coming back to Eckhart’s understanding of religion – the author sees him as ‘the most radical and daring thinker in Christianity to transgress the dualistic dividing line’ which marks the ‘qualitative ontological difference between God the creator and creatures.’ This divide appears to the author as the major difference between Asian perspective and Christian understanding of religion, a divide that has anthropological repercussions: ‘The gap between God and the human being is such that humans can never become God or be made completely one with him. In spite of the belief that the human being was created in the image of God and that God became incarnate as a person in Christ, the fact remains that Christianity has traditionally emphasized the unbridgeable distance between God and the human being. In contrast to this, Asian religions have generally taught the immanence of the infinite within the finite. Accordingly, they hold up a perfect divine-human unity not only as possible but also as necessary for the highest spiritual attainment of all human beings. Since the absolute is always and already present within all human beings and everywhere in the natural world, all we need to do is to realize this fundamental truth. Consequently, self-realization or self-discovery has been the central concern in Asian religious traditions. Asian religions are, in their highest aspiration, the religions of mystical unity between the infinite and the finite, a perfect divine-human unity. Everyone without exception can be a saint or sage in Asian religions. This sharply contradicts the Christian attribution of a special ontological status to Christ as the incarnate Son of God. We can never become Christ in Christianity. At the most, we can become the sons of God by grace or by adoption, whereas Christ is the Son of God by nature. In contrast to this, the Asian religions affirm without the slightest reservation the essential divinity of human nature and the universal attainability of the perfect divine-human unity’ (297). Although and especially of the author being brought up in an evangelical Christian environment ‘and who had long been preoccupied by the idea of the “uniqueness” of Christianity’ wished and wishes ‘to reconcile all these streams of thought’ and to ‘find peace of mind’ – an endeavour which came to fruition through his ‘encounter with Meister Eckhart’, ‘a decisive turning point’ in his life (ix).
The book is most accurately edited with only very minor typo errors (for example, p. 166 Abgeschiedenheit, p. 173 Gelassenheit), and, of course, there are the occasional paragraphs where the reviewer had put a different emphasis or would have liked to see some further explanations and developments (p. 171), where one would have liked that the author engages with the more recent Eckhart research and its findings, but, as stated in the beginning – the present volume deserves full recognition as one of the highlights in contemporary Eckhart research.
Markus Vinzent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Replies to post |
|
|
No replies.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Markus Vinzent
University of Birmingham (from 09/10: King's College London)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other posts by author |
| No posts available |
|
|
|
|
|
| Keywords |
|
|
|
|