Meister Eckhart is absolutely a divine Mystic who speaks the truth, knows the truth and is the truth speaking about the unmoved mover from within who moves all things from the ground of being which is possible for all from inner personal experience. This inner personal experience cannot be expressed for one is speechless in the unknown beyond thoughts and words because the mind is now empty and in awe and baffled!!
Yes, I do think it’s useful to take to heart his claim that the truth itself speaks what he says in sermon 52. That applies much more generally than just what he says in that sermon.
loving it !! Thank you so much my friend. Meister Eckhart is a gold mine, the richness and depth you are so eloquently exposing. I definitely will be buying your book.
Very interesting! Most philosophers/theologians don't get Meister Eckhart's single message and therefore can't get beyond comparing him with other philosophers/theologians which gives them an opportunity to show off their knowledge and intellect. You go much deeper, fascinating! I started to understand Meister Eckharts when I realized he introduced nondualism to Europe: consciousness (or God) is all there is. 'There is nothing but God' (Spinoza). Life is but a dream appearing in, experienced by and consisting of consciousness. We are seemingly separate while we dream (because we exclusively identify with the person) and can each time realize our mistake once awakened out of the dream (look back on any dream to verify this) or awaken into the dream called life where we make the very same mistake. We are pretty stubborn ('asses'). Eckhart continuously tells us that thinking (dreaming) we are a person, a separate somebody, will distance us from God, from our essential nature, our divine nature. Would you agree or do I miss the point?
Oh that’s good! Very interesting. and thanks for the kind words! I always liked Eckhart, but when I started studying him kore closely, I found that the further down the rabbit hole I went, the better it got 😄. I think you’re on to something with the consciousness/dreaming (perhaps even going as far as a simulation argument) is worth exploring. I have that on my list to eventually tackle. The concern with individual consciousness is something that is more modern. So while it’s true to Eckhart’s spirit, we have to recast the idea in his language since the idea of “consciousness” wouldn’t have been something he recognized. He spoke of “awareness” instead, which is less individual. As for dreaming, I have argued that Eckhart anticipates what Kant will do in saying that we make the world with our thoughts (though tuie by is already in the Dhammapadda in Buddhism). Insofar as dream implies a kind of illusion or specifically individual, it is at a distance from God and thus seems distinct. That is, corporeal “consciousness” (awareness as a lower level of spiritual progress) is illusory and is an obstacle that must be cleared away so that we can hear the Word in the divine silence. I have a video I just recorded that will be coming out on divine silence soon. I hope this is helpful to you!
@@goodtothinkwith For me consciousness and awareness are synonyms. Neither are (or can be) individual although they can be experienced that way while still dreaming (identifying with the person only). What if consciousness is all there is (like in any dream)? Dreaming doesn't put us at a distance from God, as you suggest, although it can seem so if we make the mistake to identify with the person only: that incorrect perspective (the personal perspective) can make the dream very frightening (nightmare). We can only laugh about it once awakened out of the dream, having left the personal perspective. And then we resume the dream called 'real life', again living it from the so familiar personal perspective, wondering why we're not happy all the time. Eckhart invites us to awaken into the dream called life (in my opinion), not as the person but as consciousness/awareness (our essential and divine nature). You said you translated his sermons. Can I send you a fascinating paragraph (from sermon 5) in German to illustrate my point: Eckhart was the first European nondualist that we know of? This text disappeared in popular translations (I can see why) but Louise Gnädiger kept it alive.
I've listened to this 3 times. You are really good at describing and explaining the big picture, the gist of it...but you don't just explain, it's almost like you are delivering to us, Eckhart's message as well. You give us not just the letter, but the spirit as well. Other interesting topics... Marguerite Porete, the Cathars and the Christian anarchy of Tolstoy.
You’re very kind! I enjoy Eckhart so much that I suspect some of that is a natural outgrowth of my enthusiasm for his thought. Marguerite Porete is definitely on the list for me. Eckhart stayed with her judge as a colleague a year after she was burned at the stake in 1310. Once I do that video, I’ll talk more about that and the controversy with the beguines. The Cathars would also be really interesting!
Oh how interesting! (And thank you!) Pr.105 is an unusual one. That’s all about his metaphysics of emanation, activity/passivity with works and being “free” or at “rest.” It’s actually relatively compact and not too difficult - *if* you’re familiar with how he approaches external works and anything that has flowed out from God. Of course, if someone wasn’t familiar with that, reading that sermon would probably be incredibly confusing 😄. I was thinking of doing Pr.2 next since it’s also a popular one (also dealing with activity/passivity), but I like the idea of doing 105 too. I’ll have to see about doing that! I need to look more closely at the A and B versions though in DW IV.1. There are snippets from very incomplete manuscripts that made it in. So I need to find out why. I also haven’t read Blakney’s translation of this one recently at all (it was long before the critical edition). And aside from that, Walshe is the only one in English. Anyway - if things slow down enough soon, I’ll try and do that one!
@@goodtothinkwith Amazing, I'm yearning for someone to analyze Q105, and I love Pf 2 as well! I'm sure I have a lot to learn from you, no matter how much I know that Sermon by heart haha.
Thank you so much!! This is timely, actually. I was just working today to get my notes together for an analysis of sermon 2 (the Middle High German one)
ปีที่แล้ว +3
I Charish this explication, and your explication of sermon #1. Thank you. And more please!
I love this sermon. Its just what I needed to hear. It helped to both clear up and support what I've been coming to understand recently. Thank you for this information.
It seems to me that "from God", "Through God", "In God" are 3 operations and not exactly the same operation. Recall Sermon (Pf 43, Q 41, QT 46, Evans II, 12): “It has been written that a virtue is no virtue unless it comes from God or through God or in God: one of these things must always be.” When he says one of these must always be, this implies they are 3 distinct operations. Don't you think?
I love it - great observation! That sermon is a course in how to interpret the “in” “with” and “through” as we see, naturally, in John 1:1. That passage occurs toward the end of the sermon after eckhart has already spent time talking at length about “with” and “in.” The way I interpret it is that he’s saying that virtue cannot exist (cannot coherently be conceived) without some intimate relation to God - that is, some combination of in, with and through. Now, it would be interesting to consider the different virtues and see which ones he describes with each of those little words “in” “with and “through.” Metaphorically, each of those words are used slightly differently in Scripture and in Eckhart, though they are not mutually exclusive since they are sometimes used together to emphasize the intimacy and oneness of the union. It’s funny that he teases us shortly afterward by saying “I’m not going to tell you now which is the best”… so he leaves it hanging. Still, to try and answer your question, I would say that he imagines each of those relations to be useful in different circumstances and potentially with different virtues insofar as they describe different ways that something can be related to God. If I had to wager a guess, if we did the study I described above and surveyed his works to see how he uses them, we would find that those things that are closer to God and are thus higher emanations are likely to be described using more of those little words. Detachment, for example, as the highest virtue, probably receives all three. Love and knowing (and justice etc) may receive fewer depending on what he’s trying to do with them. I’m not totally guessing there because that’s what he does at the beginning of sermon 41: love is described with “in” referring to indwelling. I hope this helps - great question!!
“Willing before you were”. Sounds like willing before the development of the ego and it social garments. To be a child, to be born again. To will again from a present place.
Please keep up your work. Very interesting stuff. Valuable perspectives from your cross-religion/philosophy knowledge and mastery as an interpreter 👍 deep+provocative. Dislike the ads 😊 this is stuff to listen to over+over. Etwas = something: sounded like a bad translation to me at first, so I looked it up and see that although it does translate to something .. it has a dozen translations depending upon context. Not sure why that caught my attention. It may also mean: A little Any Anything Around (some amount) Not bad Ok Ought Slightly Some Somewhat Sort of Thing Vaguely As 'something', it is widely modified for many purposes depending upon context, even into things where 'something' or related terms cannot be used in translation. Originally, it meant some-what. FWIW. Kind of a note to myself because I think it was part of an important point. Need to listen again.
Good stuff, thank you so much! Indeed that’s an example of one of the important decisions translators have to make. I used “something” because it’s inconspicuous and common, which I think is in line with what he would have wanted
Suppose that we use the Augustinian/platonic framing, with creation as a willed emanation from God, which is united to him via archetypes, but which are finally united in the good/one. Even so, is there not a significant difference between Augustinian orthodox ontology and what Eckhart is saying? Namely, in the orthodox Hebrew frame everything dwells in God, but the return to God is a willing and knowing by repentance, not a return to a pre-created identity with God? That is, redemption in scripture is the bodily resurrection which participates in immortality and the ethical purification of the creature’s “I.” It is not a return to the pre-created state? In essence, orthodox Christians would differ with Eckhart over the possibility of the “return to God.” Such language of the “I” which is prior to creation as being a cause of the created “I” is problematic, as this I of the archetype, is not really my “I,” but is part of God. My “I” only exists as me, as a created being. Therefore, to attempt to go beyond and to speak of the I as me before, this is an orthodox impossibility. One might wish to agree with Eckhart and Buddhism on this point, but is it not fair to say that this is a significant difference between Eckhart and the traditional Christian view, which he moved beyond? In simple terms, the claim would be that Eckhart’s ontology and way of speaking about the “I” violates the creator creature distinction of Christianity. Is this a fair accounting of what makes Eckhart’s views controversial?
That's definitely what was at issue, though not always directly stated as such. In fact, some of the articles from the bull are pretty clearly Augustinian, which is unfortunate. In general - yes, Eckhart's mysticism is broadly Augustinian and Origenist. I argued as much in the opening chapter of Paradox at Play. The tie to Origen is especially interesting since Origen may have been a pupil of Ammonius Saccas in Alexandria with Plotinus. The preservation of the "spark" of the "undescended individual" in the One is Plotinian (though notably not in line with his Neoplatonic successors). In 1992, the pope said that Eckhart was a "perfectly orthodox theologian," which was a surprisingly direct and wonderful thing to hear for the Eckhart community. So, I wouldn't say that orthodox Catholicism necessarily is at odds with Eckhart's rhetoric of the individual, even if most people may not recognize themselves in it. As for a pre-created identity, yes, but only insofar as "pre-" in "pre-created" is not a temporal distinction, just as the emanations in Neoplatonism are not temporally successive. great questions, by the way!
Meister Eckhart is absolutely a divine Mystic who speaks the truth, knows the truth and is the truth speaking about the unmoved mover from within who moves all things from the ground of being which is possible for all from inner personal experience. This inner personal experience cannot be expressed for one is speechless in the unknown beyond thoughts and words because the mind is now empty and in awe and baffled!!
Yes, I do think it’s useful to take to heart his claim that the truth itself speaks what he says in sermon 52. That applies much more generally than just what he says in that sermon.
"Once you get to the otherside you discover that you were there all along..." But don't worry about it. Blessings from Ireland.
Yes indeed - I hope all is well in Ireland!
Exactly!! Past, present and future exists simultaneously in Union as one. Therefore all are one in nothingness whether they know this truth or not 💫
Yes indeed. ❤️
I bought your book. It's exceeding my expectations! More of Meister Eckhart please.
How wonderful! I’m so glad to hear that you’re enjoying it! Just let me know if you have any thoughts or questions about it
I'm bilingual so I find myself going from the English back to the German sometimes. Very cool!@@goodtothinkwith
I'm not religious but love Meister Eckhart! Thank you for these deep dives.
Eckhart appeals to a lot of people today. That’s part of my fascination with his work. I’m so glad you enjoyed the video!
Absolutely brilliant
Thanks!! I’m glad you enjoyed it!
loving it !! Thank you so much my friend. Meister Eckhart is a gold mine, the richness and depth you are so eloquently exposing. I definitely will be buying your book.
I’m so glad to hear it! Thanks for the kind words!! I look forward to hearing what you think about the book
Very interesting! Most philosophers/theologians don't get Meister Eckhart's single message and therefore can't get beyond comparing him with other philosophers/theologians which gives them an opportunity to show off their knowledge and intellect. You go much deeper, fascinating!
I started to understand Meister Eckharts when I realized he introduced nondualism to Europe: consciousness (or God) is all there is. 'There is nothing but God' (Spinoza). Life is but a dream appearing in, experienced by and consisting of consciousness. We are seemingly separate while we dream (because we exclusively identify with the person) and can each time realize our mistake once awakened out of the dream (look back on any dream to verify this) or awaken into the dream called life where we make the very same mistake. We are pretty stubborn ('asses'). Eckhart continuously tells us that thinking (dreaming) we are a person, a separate somebody, will distance us from God, from our essential nature, our divine nature. Would you agree or do I miss the point?
Oh that’s good! Very interesting. and thanks for the kind words! I always liked Eckhart, but when I started studying him kore closely, I found that the further down the rabbit hole I went, the better it got 😄.
I think you’re on to something with the consciousness/dreaming (perhaps even going as far as a simulation argument) is worth exploring. I have that on my list to eventually tackle. The concern with individual consciousness is something that is more modern. So while it’s true to Eckhart’s spirit, we have to recast the idea in his language since the idea of “consciousness” wouldn’t have been something he recognized. He spoke of “awareness” instead, which is less individual. As for dreaming, I have argued that Eckhart anticipates what Kant will do in saying that we make the world with our thoughts (though tuie by is already in the Dhammapadda in Buddhism). Insofar as dream implies a kind of illusion or specifically individual, it is at a distance from God and thus seems distinct. That is, corporeal “consciousness” (awareness as a lower level of spiritual progress) is illusory and is an obstacle that must be cleared away so that we can hear the Word in the divine silence. I have a video I just recorded that will be coming out on divine silence soon.
I hope this is helpful to you!
@@goodtothinkwith For me consciousness and awareness are synonyms. Neither are (or can be) individual although they can be experienced that way while still dreaming (identifying with the person only). What if consciousness is all there is (like in any dream)? Dreaming doesn't put us at a distance from God, as you suggest, although it can seem so if we make the mistake to identify with the person only: that incorrect perspective (the personal perspective) can make the dream very frightening (nightmare). We can only laugh about it once awakened out of the dream, having left the personal perspective. And then we resume the dream called 'real life', again living it from the so familiar personal perspective, wondering why we're not happy all the time. Eckhart invites us to awaken into the dream called life (in my opinion), not as the person but as consciousness/awareness (our essential and divine nature).
You said you translated his sermons. Can I send you a fascinating paragraph (from sermon 5) in German to illustrate my point: Eckhart was the first European nondualist that we know of? This text disappeared in popular translations (I can see why) but Louise Gnädiger kept it alive.
@geertmeertens I, for one, would LOVE to see the Eckhart message from sermon 5
I've listened to this 3 times. You are really good at describing and explaining the big picture, the gist of it...but you don't just explain, it's almost like you are delivering to us, Eckhart's message as well. You give us not just the letter, but the spirit as well. Other interesting topics... Marguerite Porete, the Cathars and the Christian anarchy of Tolstoy.
You’re very kind! I enjoy Eckhart so much that I suspect some of that is a natural outgrowth of my enthusiasm for his thought. Marguerite Porete is definitely on the list for me. Eckhart stayed with her judge as a colleague a year after she was burned at the stake in 1310. Once I do that video, I’ll talk more about that and the controversy with the beguines. The Cathars would also be really interesting!
Perhaps God. Has never been God He has always been Father. We are prodigal sons
Thanks so much. This lecture will outlast us all. So, eternal gratitude:-)
That is very kind - thank you so much!!! ☺️
good video; this popped up in my suggestions algorithm
I’m glad you enjoyed it!
It would be amazing if you analyze the sermon on Luke 15:32 (Pf 15, Q 105, QT 44). It's one of those special sermons. Your work is brilliant!
Oh how interesting! (And thank you!) Pr.105 is an unusual one. That’s all about his metaphysics of emanation, activity/passivity with works and being “free” or at “rest.” It’s actually relatively compact and not too difficult - *if* you’re familiar with how he approaches external works and anything that has flowed out from God. Of course, if someone wasn’t familiar with that, reading that sermon would probably be incredibly confusing 😄. I was thinking of doing Pr.2 next since it’s also a popular one (also dealing with activity/passivity), but I like the idea of doing 105 too. I’ll have to see about doing that! I need to look more closely at the A and B versions though in DW IV.1. There are snippets from very incomplete manuscripts that made it in. So I need to find out why. I also haven’t read Blakney’s translation of this one recently at all (it was long before the critical edition). And aside from that, Walshe is the only one in English. Anyway - if things slow down enough soon, I’ll try and do that one!
@@goodtothinkwith Amazing, I'm yearning for someone to analyze Q105, and I love Pf 2 as well! I'm sure I have a lot to learn from you, no matter how much I know that Sermon by heart haha.
Amazing, thank you for this. More, more, more
Thank you so much!! This is timely, actually. I was just working today to get my notes together for an analysis of sermon 2 (the Middle High German one)
I Charish this explication, and your explication of sermon #1. Thank you. And more please!
You’re quite welcome! I plan on doing more analyses of his works. That alone could keep me busy with Eckhart for a long time
Great stuff, thank you!
You’re quite welcome, thank you!
Wow....glad to find this: excellent teacher/lecturer/presenter...I'm on board!
Thank you so much!!
I love this sermon. Its just what I needed to hear. It helped to both clear up and support what I've been coming to understand recently.
Thank you for this information.
I’m so glad to hear that!
Masterclass double!
Thanks for the talk on the Great Void :)
Haha, you’re quite welcome! 🥥
A superlative lecture ❤
Thank you so much!!!
1:18:40 not only did we not need to hear that, Eckert didn't need to say it.
(long pause) ;)
It seems to me that "from God", "Through God", "In God" are 3 operations and not exactly the same operation. Recall Sermon (Pf 43, Q 41, QT 46, Evans II, 12): “It has been written that a virtue is no virtue unless it comes from God or through God or in God: one of these things must always be.”
When he says one of these must always be, this implies they are 3 distinct operations. Don't you think?
I love it - great observation! That sermon is a course in how to interpret the “in” “with” and “through” as we see, naturally, in John 1:1. That passage occurs toward the end of the sermon after eckhart has already spent time talking at length about “with” and “in.” The way I interpret it is that he’s saying that virtue cannot exist (cannot coherently be conceived) without some intimate relation to God - that is, some combination of in, with and through. Now, it would be interesting to consider the different virtues and see which ones he describes with each of those little words “in” “with and “through.” Metaphorically, each of those words are used slightly differently in Scripture and in Eckhart, though they are not mutually exclusive since they are sometimes used together to emphasize the intimacy and oneness of the union. It’s funny that he teases us shortly afterward by saying “I’m not going to tell you now which is the best”… so he leaves it hanging. Still, to try and answer your question, I would say that he imagines each of those relations to be useful in different circumstances and potentially with different virtues insofar as they describe different ways that something can be related to God. If I had to wager a guess, if we did the study I described above and surveyed his works to see how he uses them, we would find that those things that are closer to God and are thus higher emanations are likely to be described using more of those little words. Detachment, for example, as the highest virtue, probably receives all three. Love and knowing (and justice etc) may receive fewer depending on what he’s trying to do with them. I’m not totally guessing there because that’s what he does at the beginning of sermon 41: love is described with “in” referring to indwelling.
I hope this helps - great question!!
“Willing before you were”. Sounds like willing before the development of the ego and it social garments.
To be a child, to be born again.
To will again from a present place.
How does Eckhart’s wild rhetoric in this sermon strike you?
I don't know.
Yo yo yo
Hah… well, that works too 😂
Please keep up your work. Very interesting stuff. Valuable perspectives from your cross-religion/philosophy knowledge and mastery as an interpreter 👍 deep+provocative. Dislike the ads 😊 this is stuff to listen to over+over.
Etwas = something: sounded like a bad translation to me at first, so I looked it up and see that although it does translate to something .. it has a dozen translations depending upon context. Not sure why that caught my attention. It may also mean:
A little
Any
Anything
Around (some amount)
Not bad
Ok
Ought
Slightly
Some
Somewhat
Sort of
Thing
Vaguely
As 'something', it is widely modified for many purposes depending upon context, even into things where 'something' or related terms cannot be used in translation. Originally, it meant some-what. FWIW. Kind of a note to myself because I think it was part of an important point. Need to listen again.
Good stuff, thank you so much! Indeed that’s an example of one of the important decisions translators have to make. I used “something” because it’s inconspicuous and common, which I think is in line with what he would have wanted
Suppose that we use the Augustinian/platonic framing, with creation as a willed emanation from God, which is united to him via archetypes, but which are finally united in the good/one.
Even so, is there not a significant difference between Augustinian orthodox ontology and what Eckhart is saying? Namely, in the orthodox Hebrew frame everything dwells in God, but the return to God is a willing and knowing by repentance, not a return to a pre-created identity with God? That is, redemption in scripture is the bodily resurrection which participates in immortality and the ethical purification of the creature’s “I.” It is not a return to the pre-created state?
In essence, orthodox Christians would differ with Eckhart over the possibility of the “return to God.” Such language of the “I” which is prior to creation as being a cause of the created “I” is problematic, as this I of the archetype, is not really my “I,” but is part of God. My “I” only exists as me, as a created being. Therefore, to attempt to go beyond and to speak of the I as me before, this is an orthodox impossibility.
One might wish to agree with Eckhart and Buddhism on this point, but is it not fair to say that this is a significant difference between Eckhart and the traditional Christian view, which he moved beyond?
In simple terms, the claim would be that Eckhart’s ontology and way of speaking about the “I” violates the creator creature distinction of Christianity. Is this a fair accounting of what makes Eckhart’s views controversial?
That's definitely what was at issue, though not always directly stated as such. In fact, some of the articles from the bull are pretty clearly Augustinian, which is unfortunate.
In general - yes, Eckhart's mysticism is broadly Augustinian and Origenist. I argued as much in the opening chapter of Paradox at Play. The tie to Origen is especially interesting since Origen may have been a pupil of Ammonius Saccas in Alexandria with Plotinus. The preservation of the "spark" of the "undescended individual" in the One is Plotinian (though notably not in line with his Neoplatonic successors).
In 1992, the pope said that Eckhart was a "perfectly orthodox theologian," which was a surprisingly direct and wonderful thing to hear for the Eckhart community. So, I wouldn't say that orthodox Catholicism necessarily is at odds with Eckhart's rhetoric of the individual, even if most people may not recognize themselves in it.
As for a pre-created identity, yes, but only insofar as "pre-" in "pre-created" is not a temporal distinction, just as the emanations in Neoplatonism are not temporally successive.
great questions, by the way!
Blessed to be 1st ❤
Indeed, welcome to the conversation ☺️
40:00
You are gods Jesus said what gods, true self or false self to know the truth,Yes it will set you free
My friend let it go its over your head.
Too many ads
I appreciate the feedback. I didn’t change the default setting
too many advertisements.
It’s the default setting for TH-cam. I haven’t changed anything with that. I appreciate the feedback though.
It takes you almost two hours to convince us to be poor in spirit?
Haha… well, Heidegger spent what, 60+ pages talking about one sentence from Anaximander… so proportionally, I’m not doing too badly 😆