[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Sankara and Eckhart - By TMP Mahadevan

[সপ্ত Rishi]

"Whereas Eckhart’s metaphysics of flow characterizes God as a kind of
fullness of being “boiling over” into creation, his account of creative
divine intellection, while continuous with a long medieval tradition of
theories of divine causal knowledge, rests on a somewhat surprising idea of
God as non-being, a kind of nothingness, or better: no-thing-ness. This
negative characterization of God is also reflected in the metaphors Eckhart
employs in his vernacular sermons when he speaks of God variously as a
“desert” (VeM n.25; DW V 119; EE 247), an “abyss” (Pr. 29; DW II:84 ; TP
289), a “wasteland” or “wilderness” (Pr. 10; DW I:171; TP 265), or simply
“the divine nothing” (Pr. 71; DW III:228; TP 324).

This identification of God with utter non-being, as opposed to total
fullness of being, rests on Eckhart’s approach to intellectus more
generally. In human beings, for example, the intellect, as a natural power
of the soul, is a capacity to take on the representations or “cognitive
forms” (species) of the objects that it cognizes and, ultimately, to become
in some sense identical with them (an idea Eckhart takes over from
Averroes: cf. Flasch 2006 [2015: 184ff.]). However, when considered apart
from its objects, the created intellect is, strictly speaking, nothing. Its
objects lend it form and content, but taken by itself it is “none of the
things it knows” (Qu. Par. 2 n.2; LW V:50; PQP 51) and therefore, unlike
the objects it cognizes, cannot be considered a determinate thing—a “this
or that” (esse hoc et hoc). The intellect is, Eckhart maintains, “neither
here, nor now, nor a definite thing […], [it] is not a being, nor does it
have an existence” (Qu. Par. 2 n.7; LW V:52–3; PQP 53). It is more like an
emptiness or void—one able to be cognitively (in)formed by its intentional
objects. Indeed, given Eckhart’s commitment to the identity of the
intellect and the intelligible, in order to come to know anything, the
intellect must itself be nothing. It must be “‘unmixed’ with anything […]
so that it might know everything” (Qu. Par. 2 n.2; LW V:50; PQP 51)."

The kind of similarity which was then showed by Otto in his work, by now
many things have changed leading to many researches in the works of
Ekchart, where we now know many of his works both in latin and in
german,recently found, shows another picture completely different to that
of a mystic.

The parallels we saw in the above essay of Mahadevan ji, comes from a time
when there was less data, but by now we can see huge currents in
researches, suggesting that eckhart was constantly employing neoplatonists
and aquinas's works interchangebly.

His apophatic attitude is directly related to the kind of theology emerging
out of dionysus's writings of Christianity.

Would like the greats in the group, to actually see my posts, and comment
as to if there is any such resemblance of ekhart to that of Bhagavan
Bhashyakara.🙏

Sri Krishnarpanamastu🙏

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025, 18:10 সপ্ত Rishi, <saptarshirythm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Moreover, like Avicenna, Aquinas, and most of his contemporaries, he
> affirms that God’s qualityless existence is identical with God’s essence.
> Adapting for his own purposes the metaphors of “boiling” employed by
> scholastic thinkers like Albert the Great and Dietrich of Freiburg, and
> drawing heavily on the mystical imagery of birthing, metalworking, liquid,
> light, and mirrors reminiscent of contemplative authors like Bernard of
> Clairvaux and Marguerite Porete, Eckhart writes:
>
> […] the repetition [in I am who I am] indicates […] a “boiling” or giving
> birth to itself [bullitionem sive parturitionem sui]—glowing in itself, and
> melting and boiling in and into itself, light that totally forces its whole
> being in light and into light [lux in luce et in lucem se toto se totum
> penetrans] and that is everywhere totally turned back and reflected upon
> itself. (In Exod. n.16; LW II:21–22; EE 46)
>
> He continues, citing John 1:4 (“In him was life”):
>
> “Life” expresses a type of “pushing out” [exseritionem] by which something
> swells up in itself [in se intumescens] and first breaks out totally in
> itself [se profundit primo in se toto], each part into each part, before it
> pours itself forth and “boils over” on the outside [effundat et ebulliat
> extra]. (ibid.)
>
> Eckhart’s use here and elsewhere of bullitio (“boiling”) and ebullitio
> (“boiling over”) is central to his metaphysics of flow. The former term
> refers to the timeless divine emanation of the Trinity within the Godhead.
> Put in terms of the transcendentals, the Father (here identified with
> “Oneness” or “Unity”) eternally begets the Son (“Truth” or “Wisdom”), and
> together they “breathe” or “spirate” the Holy Spirit (“Love”/“Goodness”)
> (cp. In Sap. n.28; LW II:348; TP, 150). This “inner boiling” or “swelling”
> is, for Eckhart, a purely formal emanation. It does not result in any new
> beings but rather merely represents the internal dynamism of the
> Godhead—i.e., the eternal “unfolding” of the divine perfections within
> Godself. The latter ebullitio, on the other hand—the “boiling over” or
> “outflowing” of God’s overabundant fullness of being into the
> world—represents God’s constant, wholly free act of creation ex nihilo that
> not only grounds the being of all creatures (as their formal cause) but
> also gives rise to their existence (as their efficient cause) and orders
> them to their proper ends (as their final cause). Put in more Neoplatonist
> terms, it represents the Eckhartian version of the ontological exitus—the
> “fall” or “departure” from divine unity into created multiplicity. On this
> view, only God has “true being”, and creatures are, strictly speaking,
> nothing. Since, for Eckhart, “whatever is outside of God, inasmuch as it is
> outside of being is not something else or [even] something at all” (In Ioh.
> n.215; LW III:181, quoted in Tobin 1986: 39), whatever being creatures
> might be said to have is derivative of the puritas essendi that is the
> Godhead and wholly dependent on their participation in it.
>
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025, 18:06 সপ্ত Rishi, <saptarshirythm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> These seemingly inconsistent statements themselves correspond to two ways
>> the Meister discusses God’s creation of the universe and the status of the
>> creatures that emerge from God’s creative act. The first involves what
>> Bernard McGinn (2001, 2005), following Alain de Libera (1990), has called a
>> metaphysics of flow, involving a sort of “spilling over” of the divine
>> plenitude of being into creation. The second—perhaps best described as a
>> form of causative epistemology—maintains that the divine’s thinking or
>> knowing all things is what both formally grounds and efficiently causes
>> those things to come to be. The former account of creation, in which
>> Eckhart commonly uses maternal metaphors to represent creation as a kind of
>> ontological “emanation” from the “pregnant” Godhead (McGinn 2001: 84–85),
>> is commonly cited in discussions of the Meister’s “mystical” Neoplatonism.
>> The latter account, in contrast, is sometimes invoked by contemporary
>> scholars to highlight the Dominican’s adherence to a form of Aristotelian
>> intellectualism and his commitment to the doctrine of the primacy of
>> intellect over will (or, for Eckhart, even over being itself)
>>
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025, 18:05 সপ্ত Rishi, <saptarshirythm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On ekchart continuing,
>>>
>>> "For example, in the opening sentence to the “Prologue to the Book of
>>> Propositions” in the Opus tripartitum, Eckhart appears to follow his
>>> Dominican predecessor Thomas Aquinas in giving being place of
>>> priority—though he subtly reverses Thomas’s emphasis on the idea that God
>>> is being itself, asserting instead: Esse est deus (Prol. op. prop. n.11; LW
>>> I/2:29; PQP 93). Elsewhere, he speaks of God as “existence itself” (In
>>> Exod. n.21; LW II:28; TP 48), or as “the fullness of all existence
>>> [plenitudo omnis esse]”, which “can have nothing outside of it” (ibid.
>>> n.48; LW II:52; TP 58). However, in the first of the Parisian Questions,
>>> Eckhart boldly states that
>>>
>>> it is not my present opinion that God understands because he exists, but
>>> rather that he exists because he understands. God is an intellect and
>>> understanding [intellectus et intelligere], and his understanding itself is
>>> the ground of his existence. (Qu. Par. 1 n.4; LW V:40; PQP 45)
>>>
>>> In fact, not only does Eckhart claim here that “among [the] perfections
>>> intelligence comes first and then being or existence” (ibid. n.6; LW V:43;
>>> PQP 47), he claims that “everything in God transcends existence” (ibid.
>>> n.8; LW V:44; PQP 48) and that “nothing in him has the nature of being”
>>> (ibid. n.10; LW V:46; PQP 49).
>>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025, 17:59 সপ্ত Rishi, <saptarshirythm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One way of thinking about how the various vertices of Eckhart’s thought
>>>> are connected to each other is to explore his nuanced approach to and use
>>>> of language in the pursuit of what his student, Heinrich Seuse (Henry
>>>> Suso), would later characterize in his widely read Horologium Sapientiae as
>>>> the highest form of philosophy, a philosophia spiritualis (one which Seuse
>>>> took Eckhart to embody). Not only does the Meister engage in a kind of
>>>> “serious play” with words and language in both his Latin and German
>>>> writings, much of his work ultimately revolves around the ways in which
>>>> words, especially understood as “signs” or “images”, can both reveal and
>>>> obscure. This tension is played out in a dynamic, distinctly Eckhartian
>>>> dialectic that moves back and forth between saying and “unsaying” (Sells
>>>> 1994), univocity and equivocity (Mojsisch 1983 [2001]; Wendlinder 2014),
>>>> speech and silence (Duclow 1984)—between the limits of finite human
>>>> language and the self-communication of the Divine Intellect in the “Eternal
>>>> Word” (i.e., Christ). In fact, despite his strong apophatic tendencies, the
>>>> speculative aspect of Eckhart’s mystagogy might best be characterized as a
>>>> philosophy of the Word, according to which the second person of the
>>>> Christian Trinity (understood as the divine logos or scholastic ratio)
>>>> represents the metaphysical threshold between the human and the divine, as
>>>> well as the medium by which the timeless, singular Godhead (the “One” of
>>>> Neoplatonist philosophy) is “translated”—linguistically, epistemically, and
>>>> even ontologically—into the discursivity and multiplicity characteristic of
>>>> the grammar, thought, and very existence of creatures.
>>>>
>>>> On Ekchart
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025, 17:10 Divya Shivashankar, <divyameedin at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sankara and Eckhart - By TMP Mahadevan
>>>>>
>>>>> Part 2
>>>>>
>>>>> What is true of Shankara's doctrine of God is true of Eckhart's also.
>>>>> The view of both is super-theism and not anti-theism. Even when he mounts
>>>>> up high on the towers of mysticism, the German. Dominican monk keeps close
>>>>> to the Christian belief in God. Clinging to God, having intimate communion
>>>>> with Him, according to Eckhart, is the very meaning of the life of man.
>>>>> God, here, is conceived as the power of life, as light and life, as truth,
>>>>> knowledge, essential holiness and justice, rather than as King, Father,
>>>>> Judge - a person in relation to persons. What Eckhart is not in favour of
>>>>> is the external view of God. God is not to be looked upon as an "objectum".
>>>>> To possess God is to live God, or rather "to be lived by God." The meaning
>>>>> of Eckhart's statement that man must get rid of God is that man must get
>>>>> rid of the conceived and apprehended God. What man should realize is that
>>>>> God is the inward power and the health of his spiritual life. In Eckhart's
>>>>> "talks of Instruction" the following occurs:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Man should not have merely a God intellectually conceived. For when
>>>>> thought passes them God (intellectually conceived) also passes. Rather, man
>>>>> must have an essential God, who is high above the thoughts of men (because
>>>>> He is inwardly possessed and lived). This God does not pass away unless man
>>>>> turns from Him of his own free will. Whoever has God thus in his being
>>>>> conceives Him divinely. For him God shines in all things. In him God has
>>>>> His eyes open at all times. In him there is a quiet turning from outward
>>>>> things and a penetrating into the ever-present God."
>>>>>
>>>>> It is surprising that even for the concept of maayaa there is a
>>>>> parallel provided by Eckhart's conception of the "creature". In so far as
>>>>> creature is regarded by the German Mystic as what God is not, as vain,
>>>>> unreal and non-essential, his thought comes very close to the Advaita view
>>>>> of the world of maayaa-avidyaa. Adopting the Platonic rather than the
>>>>> Aristotelian way of thinking, Eckhart characterises the world as a copy, an
>>>>> expression of the eternal God, falling far short of the prototype. "All
>>>>> that is created" he declares, "has no truth in itself. All creatures in so
>>>>> far as they are creatures, as they "are in themselves" are not even
>>>>> illusion, they are "pure nothing". All that is created is nothing". This
>>>>> declaration, however, does not mean that the creatures have no empirical
>>>>> existence. They do exist; but, as for Shankara, they exist through avidyaa.
>>>>> The two Masters are not interested in the "how" and "why" of avidyaa so
>>>>> much as in the way to its transcendence. How creatureliness is to be
>>>>> overcome is what they are primarily concerned with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Close as is the parallel between Shankara and Eckhart in reagard to
>>>>> their metaphysical doctrines, closer still is their agreement over the
>>>>> practical disciplines. Salvation or release and the means to it occupy the
>>>>> centre of attention in the teaching of the two Masters. Like Shankara,
>>>>> Eckhart considers, not equality with God, but identity with Him as the
>>>>> goal. "God is the same one that I am" says Eckhart. This is almost the same
>>>>> as the Upanishadic teaching, "That thou art" (tat tvam asi). The direct way
>>>>> to the realization of transcendent unity lies not through occult practices
>>>>> or ecstatic yoga but through divine knowledge or jnana. The soul has to
>>>>> come to its true nature by discarding the assumed limitations, by
>>>>> renouncing all "me and mine." It is by withdrawing inwards through
>>>>> knowledge that the soul discovers its infinitude and divine glory.
>>>>>
>>>>> After explaining the similarities between Shankara and Eckhart in his
>>>>> penetrating comparative study entitled Mysticism East and West, Rudolf Otto
>>>>> speaks about the differences also. One of the points of difference,
>>>>> according to Otto, is that while Shankara's Brahman is static Being,
>>>>> Eckhart's God is a living process. Another great distinction is that while
>>>>> the goal for Shankara is the stilling of all karmas, all works, all
>>>>> activity of will, for Eckhart the goal is never a static rest and the
>>>>> "oneness" which the soul strives to gain is never closed as boundary, but
>>>>> is continually opening afresh like a vault with an over-rising roof.
>>>>> Stating the differences in other words, Otto observes: "Shankara knows the
>>>>> atman in us but this Atman is not the soul in the Christina and Eckartian
>>>>> sense; it is not "soul" as identical with 'Gomut', infinitely rich in life
>>>>> and depth... Least of all is his Atman, "soul" in the sense of religious
>>>>> conscience, which "hungers and thirsts after righteousness".... Sankara's
>>>>> mysticism is certainly mysticism of the Atman but it is not mysticism as
>>>>> Gomuts-mystik. Least of all is it a mystical form of justification and
>>>>> sanctification as Eckhart's is through and through. And Shankara's
>>>>> mysticism is none of those things because it springs not from the soul of
>>>>> Palestine, but from the soul of India."
>>>>>
>>>>> We are ready to acknowledge with Otto that there are differences. But
>>>>> we do not agree with him when he says that Brahman is static Being, that
>>>>> moksha is a state of passivity and that Shankara has no ethic because the
>>>>> background of His teaching is not Palestine but India. Otto is evidently
>>>>> wrong in several of the statements he has made about Shankara, as for
>>>>> instance when he observes that "salvation in Brahman is for Sankara
>>>>> realized only after death". The main difference between Eckhart and
>>>>> Sankara, according to us, is that while the former is influenced by dogma,
>>>>> the latter is not. Shorn of the elements of dogma, Eckhart should as
>>>>> universal as Shankara is.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Series - The Philosophy of the East and the West by TMP
>>>>> Mahadevan.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 8:33 AM Divya Shivashankar <
>>>>> divyameedin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sankara and Eckhart - By TMP Mahadevan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time and territory make no difference to the teachings of the
>>>>>> Masterminds. The distinction of East and West has no relevance to
>>>>>> "Perennial Philosophy". Great thoughts consitute the legacy of the entire
>>>>>> mankind. No matter when a sage or saint lived, or where, his message has
>>>>>> universal import. This truth may be exemplified by comparing two of the
>>>>>> world's greatest teachers - Acharya Shankara and Meister Eckhart. Sankara
>>>>>> lived in India, belonged to the Upanishadic tradition, and taught Advaita
>>>>>> which, he was convinced, was the culmination of all philosophical thought
>>>>>> and spiritual aspiration. Eckhart was born in Germany in the thirteenth
>>>>>> century, belonged to the Dominican Order of monks, taught and wrote his
>>>>>> sermons and works as a Prior or Provincial of the Catholic Church. Although
>>>>>> the Indian Acharya, Sankara, and the German Meister, Eckhart, lived and
>>>>>> flourished in different ages and hemispheres, they are "contemporaries" to
>>>>>> use Rudolf Otto's expression;for, as he explains, "contemporaries in the
>>>>>> deeper sense are not those who happen to be born in the same decade, bu
>>>>>> those who stand at corresponding points in the parallel development of
>>>>>> their environments."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is close similarity between the two teachers in their
>>>>>> metaphysical teachings. According to both, the Ultimate Reality is the
>>>>>> non-dual Spirit. Brahman, for the Advaita of Shankara, is one only, without
>>>>>> a second, ekameva adviteeyam; without parts and without multiplicity,
>>>>>> without any distinctions and differences, nirgunam, nirvisesham. For
>>>>>> Eckhart also, the pure "Godhead" is Being though and through and nothing
>>>>>> other than Being, without any addition and qualification. Reality, in fact,
>>>>>> is beyond the reach of words, for the normal use of words is to distinguish
>>>>>> and to differentiate. "Wouldst thou be perfecct, do not yelp about, God"
>>>>>> says Eckhart. Citing an Upanishadic text, Sankara declares, "This Atman is
>>>>>> peaceful, quiet", santo yam atma.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both the Masters contrast the Godhead with God, Brahman with Ishvara.
>>>>>> The supra-personal Godhead is above God and is the round thereof. In the
>>>>>> pure Godhead, there is transcendence of subject and object, knower and
>>>>>> known. Referring to the conception of the Godhead, the One, the Absolute,
>>>>>> in Eckhart, the American Philosopher, Josiah Royce, says that it is a old
>>>>>> conception, much older than the Neo-Platonic. "It is almost identical", he
>>>>>> goes on to observe, with the conception of the Absolute Self or Atman of
>>>>>> the earliest Hindu speculation. But Eckhart, Knowing nothing, of course, of
>>>>>> the remoter sources or counterparts of his conception, and himself learning
>>>>>> it in the main from Dionysius discovers the everlastingly fresh and
>>>>>> convincing verification of it in his own religious life."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as the two Masters agree in their conception of the Godhead,
>>>>>> they agree also in regard to the idea of God. Critics of Shankara wrongly
>>>>>> make him on to be a non-theist, it not an atheist, even as the Churchmen
>>>>>> branded Eckhart as a pantheist. The truth, however, is that both are
>>>>>> theists. Simply because, according to Shankara, the knowledge of the
>>>>>> personal Ishvara is lower knowledge, aparaa vidyaa, it does not mean that
>>>>>> this knowledge belongs to the region of error, avidyaa. Saguna brahman is
>>>>>> not a brahman different from the nirgunaa. Ishvara is brahman as the world
>>>>>> ground. He is the efficient as "well as the material cause of the world.
>>>>>> Shankara allows of no second beside God as the world cause. As Otto
>>>>>> correctly understands, "The nirguna Brahman is not exclusive opposite of
>>>>>> the saguna brahman, but it is superlative and a development of the
>>>>>> tendencies which lead to the saguna brahman itself." Only, while Otto uses
>>>>>> the term samucchaya (summing up) to describe Shankara's method of relating
>>>>>> the saguna and the nirguna brahman, we would prefer the expression
>>>>>> samanvaya (harmony).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be continued...
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "advaitin" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To view this discussion visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAO01tgnRrpNjgb9-83XTiy%2BPuSX63m9rH%3DAijhORFrpEbKGXjQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAO01tgnRrpNjgb9-83XTiy%2BPuSX63m9rH%3DAijhORFrpEbKGXjQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>