eckhart nothingness

7/28/2019 Eckhart Nothingness

1/22

Three Categories of Nothingness in EckhartAuthor(s): Beverly J. LanzettaSource: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Apr., 1992), pp. 248-268Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1205152 .

Accessed: 01/08/2011 10:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1205152?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1205152?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/22

Three Categories of Nothingnessin EckhartBeverly. Lanzetta / villanovaUniversity

Eckhart's exuberant mysticism has attracted wide attention from think-ers both within and outside religious traditions. In particular, his star-tling use of nothingness, with its seeming unconcern for traditionalChristian imagery, has generated a number of vital comparative studies.Primarily, these studies have dealt with the relationship of Eckhart's Godbeyond God to the Buddhist nothingness, although comparisons withother traditions also have been made, most notably from Hindu advaitaand postmodern philosophy.' Interestingly, each of these studies focusesits point of comparison on the apophatic, nontheistic aspect of theMeister's thought and not on the explicitly trinitarian and theistic sub-structure that remains an integral and dynamic part of Eckhart's dialecti-cal mysticism.

I For comparisons with Buddhism, see MasaoAbe, "KenoticGod and Dynamic Sunyata,"andDavid Tracy, "Kenosis,Sunyata,and Trinity: A Dialogue with MasaoAbe,"both in TheEmptyingGod: A Buddhist,Jewish, Christian Conversation,ed. John Cobb, Jr., and Christopher Ives(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990); D. T. Suzuki, Mysticism:Christian and Buddhist(New York:Macmillan, 1961); Reiner Schiirmann,"The Lossof Origin in Soto Zen and MeisterEckhart," nThomist 2 (1978): 281-312; Shizuteru Ueda, Die Gottesgeburtn derSeeleund derDurchbruch urGottheit:Die mystische nthropologieMeisterEckhartsund ihreKonfrontationmit derMystikdesZen-BuddhismusGiitersloh:G. Mohn, 1965), "'Nothingness' in Meister Eckhart and Zen Buddhismwith ParticularReference to the Borderlands of Philosophy and Theology," in TheBuddhaEye:An Anthologyof the KyotoSchool, ed. Frederick Franck (New York: Crossroad, 1982); HansWaldenfels,AbsoluteNothingness: oundationsfor a Buddhist-ChristianDialogue,trans.J. W. Heisig(New York: Paulist Press, 1980). For studies on Eckhart and Hinduism, see Rudolf Otto, Mysti-cism:East and West New York:Collier, 1962); Ewert Cousins, GlobalSpirituality:Toward heMeet-ing of MysticalPaths (Madras:University of Madras,RadhakrishnanInstitute for the AdvancedStudy in Philosophy, 1985). For a postmodern reading of Eckhart and nothingness, see ReinerSchiirmann, MeisterEckhart:Mysticand Philosopher Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1978), "Neoplatonic Henology as an Overcoming of Metaphysics," n Research n Phenomenology13 (1983): 25-41; John D. Caputo, The MysticalElement in Heidegger'sThought New York:Fordham University Press, 1986), particularlychaps. 3, 4, "The Nothingness of the Intellect inMeister Eckhart's 'Parisian Questions,'" in Thomist39 (1975): 85-115, "Mysticismand Trans-gression: Derrida and Meister Eckhart," ContinentalPhilosophy2 (1989): 24-39; Emilie ZumBrunn and Alain de Libera,Metaphysiqueuverbe ttheologie egative Paris:Beauchesne, 1984).?1992 by The Universityof Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-4189/92/7202-0005$01.00248


3/22

Nothingness in EckhartIn this article I am particularly interested in exploring what I considerto be two unresolved puzzles in Eckhart scholarship. The first revolvesaround the provocative way in which "nothingness" or wilderness (wiiste)is employed by Eckhart in the German sermons. Both Buddhist scholarsand contemporary philosophers resonate deeply with the Meister's anar-chic use of language and his obvious prescinding from the standard meta-physical categories of the day. Each sees reflected in Eckhart's mysticism apartner with his or her own thought, albeit slightly veiled by his Christianroots, and each holds that Eckhart in some way leaves behind metaphysicsfor a radical and liberating nothingness. While I cannot disagree withthese interpretations, and in fact believe they unlock a deeply significant

aspect of the Meister's overall project, I also contend that they are not suf-ficient to explain the "whole-cloth nature" of his mystical virtuosity. Thisbrings me to the second unresolved puzzle in Eckhart scholarship: whydoes the Meister, if he is moving beyond Christian metaphysics, still retainthe theistic structure in dynamic and integral relationship with theindistinction of the abyss?Some scholars have claimed that the trinitarianEckhart is a foil for his inquisitors-a device to keep them at bay and topreserve his mystical anarchy.2 This is a position I do not share; in fact Ibelieve that the relationship between the Trinity and the desert is essen-tial to understanding Eckhart's stance on nothingness and the vital,exuberant freedom which pulses throughout his sermons and Latincommentaries.There is a tendency, therefore, either to ignore Eckhart's ontologicalvocabulary or to see it as an impediment to understanding in a compara-tive context. Because of the startling a-theistic and "un-Christian" ele-ments in his thought, comparative study on Eckhart has been with thosetraditions in which priority also is assigned to the indistinct, nondual, andtransrevelatory ultimate. Most of these investigations, whether with Zen,Hinduism, or postmodern philosophy, assume that the dynamic relation-ship in Eckhart's thought between theistic metaphysics and the abyss ofdivinity is either resolved or transcended in (1) the indistinction andnondualism of the God beyond God in the same or similar way asnontheistic Eastern traditions,3 (2) a Neoplatonic strategy in which deter-minate reality is left behind for the sublime difference/distance of the

2 Reiner Schiirmann, Maitre Eckhart ou la joie errante (Paris: Planete, 1972), p. 143; EvelynUnderhill, TheMysticsof the Church(New York: Doran, 1926), p. 134.However, for Buddhist scholars Eckhart'snothingness is not an absolute because his reten-tion of Christianmetaphysicsimplies that his experience of nothingness is mediated by and ulti-mately bound to theism. See Ueda, "'Nothingness' in Meister Eckhart,"pp. 157-60. Thus it isassumed that the relationship between nothingness and theism in Eckhart can only be resolvedthrough a negation of ontological claims in a way similar to the absolute negation of Zen.249


4/22

The Journal of ReligionOne,4 or (3) the existential flux of the human condition, where life livesout of its own ground "without why."5

Each of these philosophical angles, however, concludes with an unac-countable remainder where the Meister's thought eludes the frameworkof hermeneutical inquiry. In fact, the tension in Eckhart scholarshipbetween the "Zen Christian" and the "loyal son of the Church" can betraced to a philosophical uncomfortableness in attempting to fit Eckhartinto a radical Christian Neoplatonism, a quasi postmodernism, or a sub-dued version of Zen nothingness. The task is intriguing because these var-ious interpretations are interwoven in Eckhart's thought and cannot beeasily separated from the whole of his corpus; but the essential question,what view of reality did Eckhart hold that is simultaneously theistic anda-theistic, trinitarian and abyssal, has not been worked out. In what fol-lows I will briefly explore the epistemological and Zen perspectives onnothingness and theism in Eckhart and then present a third, and I believemore adequate, reading of this mystical dynamic. In a concluding section,I will address how these varied manifestations of nothingness can be rec-onciled in light of this third proposal.NOTHINGNESS AND UNKNOWINGThe first order of nothingness to be discussed in Eckhart is epistemologi-cal, in the sense that it refers to the act of knowing, and applies to thenegativity of knowing where being is negated for the sake of that whichtranscends rationality. In Eckhart, this mystical apophasis is preservedthrough a series of dynamic dialectics that prevents the mind from finallygaining closure over reality. Anyone even slightly familiar with theMeister's texts is struck by his use of paradoxes and dialecticalstrategies-a fact that lends an indisputable destabilizing and liberatingundercurrent to his thought.6 The most predominant instances of the use

4 Mostcommentators see in the Meistera strainof Neoplatonic henology and wouldagree withReiner Schiirmann that it is this foundational nothingness in Eckhart that generates anantimetaphysical strand and in which the real Eckhart should be understood: "It [unwesene]expresses the abolition of the positivity of being, [and] ... points, so to speak, not beneath butbeyond being, as the hyper-onof the Neoplatonists" ("The Loss of Origin," p. 288).5 Postmodern readings of Eckhart emphasize the existential "flux,"the negativity of knowl-edge, and the linguistic flexibility of his texts; see n. 3 above. For a more detailed analysisof thelinguistic virtuosityin Eckhart,consult FrankTobin, MeisterEckhart:Thought ndLanguage Phil-adelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 1986), esp. chap. 5, "Masterof Language."For therelationship between postmodern hermeneutics and Eckhart'smysticalnothingness, see Caputo,"The Nothingness of the Intellect," "Mysticismand Transgression,"and TheMysticalElementnHeidegger's Thought, particularly chaps. 4-5.6 For superb studies on the Meister's use of dialectical language and his themes of being-nonbeing, distinction-indistinction, God and Godhead, etc., see Bernard McGinn, "MeisterEckhart on God as Absolute Unity," in Neoplatonismand ChristianThought,ed. Dominic J.250


5/22

Nothingness in Eckhartof dialectical paradoxes are found in the following: (1) God is both Oneand Three and "neither this nor that";' (2) God is both distinct and indis-tinct, and the more distinct insofar as he is indistinct;8 (3) intellect andbeing are in reciprocal relationship depending on where one "stands"-sometimes intellect is assigned priority over being, at other times being ishigher than intellect;9 (4) nothingness is used for God and for creatures,again depending on the ontological "location" of the journeyer on theway. 10It is possible to read Eckhart'sdialectics from the perspective of a classicalNeoplatonic via negativa;in which case his dynamic strategies are an episte-mological move designed to draw the soul beyond human affirmations intothe unknowing of a hidden God. In fact, Eckhart himself speaks of the neg-ative ascent of knowledge into unitive unknowing: "These three thingsstand for three kinds of knowledge. The first is sensible. The eye sees fromafar things outside it. The second is rational, and is much higher. The thirddenotes a noble power of the soul, which is so high and so noble that it takeshold of God in His own being. This power has nothing in common withanything: it makes anything and everything out of nothing."" However,the dialectical nature of the Meister's thought, and the negativity of the

O'Meara (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1981), pp. 128-39, "The God beyond God: Theology andMysticism n the Thought of MeisterEckhart," ournal of Religion61 (1981): 1-19, "TheologicalSummary," in Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense, ed. andtrans.EdmundColledge and BernardMcGinn(New York:PaulistPress, 1981), pp. 24-61, "Intro-duction," in Meister Eckhart: Teacherand Preacher, ed. and trans. Bernard McGinn and Frank Tobin(New York: Paulist Press, 1986), pp. 1-37; Vladimir Lossky, Theologie egative t connaissance eDieu chex Maitre Eckhart (Paris: Vrin, 1960); Zum Brunn and de Libera; Ueda, Die Gottesgeburt;Schiirmann, Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher; Caputo, The Mystical Element in Heidegger'sThought,and "The Nothingness of the Intellect";and Tobin.7Meister Eckhart,Predigt(sermon;hereafter Pr.) no. 23, as found in Josef Quint et al., eds.,Meister Eckhart: Die deutschen Werke (hereafter DW), 4 vols., and Josef Koch et al., eds., MeisterEckhart:Die lateinischeWerkehereafterLW), 5 vols. (both Stuttgart:Kohlhammer, 1936-). Thequote is from DW, 1:404, lines 27-29; the English translation is from M. O'C. Walsche, ed. andtrans.,MeisterEckhart: ermons ndTreatises, vols. (Longmead:Element, 1987), 2:72. Also consultEckhart's CommentaryonJohn (Comm.Jn.), par. 342 (LW, 3:291), and Commentaryon Exodus (Comm.Ex.), par. 16 (LW,2:21-22).8Majorappearances,Pr. no. 10, in DW,1:174;"Andsince it isone, it can do all things"(Wisd.ofSol. 7:27a), in Commentaryn the Bookof Wisdomin LW, 2:481-94). Translations cited includeColledge and McGinn,trans. (n. 6 above); Walsche,ed. and trans.;and McGinnand Tobin, eds.and trans. (n. 6 above).9For Eckhart'smostextensive developmentof the dialectic of esseandintelligere,ee the ParisianQuestionss found inLW,vol. 5, and "Prologues" o the OpusTripartitum,nLW,vol. 1. Also consultMaster Eckhart: Parisian Questions and Prologues, trans. Armand Maurer (Toronto: Pontifical Insti-tute of Medieval Studies, 1974).10Comm. Jn., pars. 52-60, in LW, vol. 3; Pr. no. 4, in Josef Quint, Meister Eckhart: DeutschePredigtenund TraktateMunich:Carl HanserVerlag, 1955), hereafterabbreviatedas Q (forQuint),p. 171, lines8-18; Pr. no. 5, in Q, p. 175, lines 32-34; Pr. no. 48, in Q, p. 379, lines30-33.'' Pr. no. 11, in DW, 1:182, lines 21-26; Walsche, ed. and trans., 2:159-60.

251


6/22

The Journal of Religionintellect, are not the sum total of his theology but are the manifestedexpressions of his seminal insight into the intradivine movement thatemerges from and returns to the desert of the Godhead. Eckhart's mysticalunknowing, therefore, is a necessary prerequisite to finding the nakedwiiste-where God is free of "god"and springs forth out of its own ground.It is for this very reason, where Eckhart appears to stretch the boundariesof classical metaphysics, that many contemporary scholars interpretEckhart's dialectical themes and his negative epistemology in light of hisstance on nothingness and see in these seeming paradoxes a profoundlymodern speculative philosophy. It is in what has been called the "negativityof consciousness" that some of Eckhart's most provocative and fertilethemes emerge." Here nothingness constantly forces consciousness to "letbe" all categories of thought and to relinguish its predilection for the pre-sumed security of substantial knowledge. The nothingness of consciousnessyields in Eckhart's thought a liberation from metaphysical hegemony, eventhat directed toward God. For the Meister, the negativity of the intellectallows ontological thinking to think itself free of the scholastic categories ofsubstance and accident, analogy and proportion, being and intellect and,thus, to stand back from the metaphysics of presence. In this sense,Eckhart's is a nonsubstantializing ontology designed to show the way toGod, and not show "God" itself.'" Further, consciousness that "lets be"arises in Eckhart's thought, not from the self and human effort, but pre-cisely from the gift of radical detachment in which the Godhead revealsitself as the source and ground of the ultimate Gelassenheit-"that" whichdraws the soul into its own indistinction and nothingness.The virtuosity with which Eckhart commands his subject has been seenbyJohn Caputo, Reiner Schiirmann, and Emilie Zum Brunn to indicate adeconstructive bent, where his subversive play on language not only is alinguistic strategy designed to prevent the mind from assigning closure toreality but also is a critique of the enclosure of being.'4 It is precisely onthe issue of linkages between Eckhart's negativity of consciousness andpostmodern metaphysical suspicion (as in Heidegger or Derrida) thatsome of the most provocative studies have been erected. In particular,some very significant points have been raised in regard to the whole ques-tion of thinking and its relationship to Eckhart's mystical negativity.'5

12See Caputo, "The Nothingness of the Intellect" (n. 1 above).13See Reiner Schfirmann, MeisterEckhart:Mysticand Philosopher n. 1 above), and MaiztreEckhartou la joie errant (n. 2 above).14Caputo, "Mysticismand Transgression" (n. 2 above); Schiirmann, "The Loss of Origin inSoto Zen and Meister Eckhart"(n. 1 above), and "Neoplatonic Henology as an Overcoming ofMetaphysics"(n. 1 above); Zum Brunn and de Libera (n. 1 above).15See Caputo, "The Nothingness of the Intellect," in The MysticalElementin Heidegger'sThought n. 1 above), pp. 223-40.252


7/22

Nothingness in EckhartUnfortunately, the scope of this article cannot address this very provoc-ative area of comparative study between Eckhart's mystical perplexity and

postmodern hermeneutics at this time. Nonetheless, it is possible to inferthat it is the Meister's seminal insight into the relationship between noth-ingness and metaphysics that is directly correlated to both the dialecticalparadoxes in his thought and the negativity of the intellect. In the finalsection of this article, the preceding observation will be explored in moredepth.PRAGMATIC NOTHINGNESSThe second category of nothingness might be termed "pragmatic"and isfound most predominately in the "Zen Christian" Eckhart in such themesas the nothingness of God, the nothingness of creatures, life lived "with-out why," the Mary-Martha story, and pure detachment from all createdthings.'16 In this particular usage, nothingness expresses the verdant flow-ing of life itself--free from category, metaphysics, ontology, and so forth.The "nothingness of metaphysics" is expressed most eloquently byEckhart in his discourses on leaving behind the Father, Son, and HolySpirit to enter God where he is not "God"and "neither this nor that" andin his famous sermon on poverty of spirit where the detached soul "wantsnothing, and knows nothing, and has nothing.""7 It is in these instancesthat Eckhart's nothingness comes the closest to the Mahayana Buddhistnotion that "form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form";'8at timeshis thought even displays traces of the Absolute Nothingness of Zen: "Butif God is neither goodness nor being nor truth nor one, what then is He?He is pure nothing: he is neither this nor that."'9The pragmatic nothingness in Eckhart bears a remarkable similarity tothe Buddhist expression of sinyata, or dynamic openness.20 In the world's

16The nothingness of God, the nothingness of creatures: see Caputo, "The Nothingness of theIntellect" (n. 1 above). Life lived "without why":see Pr. no. 5b, in DW, 1:90, line 6 and lines11-12; Walsche,ed. and trans., 2:117: "Here God'sground is myground and my ground is God'sground.... Out of this inmost ground, all your works should be wrought without Why."TheMary-Martha story: see Pr. no. 2, Intravit Jesus in quoddam castellum, in DW, 1:24-45. Puredetachment: see Pr. no. 10, in DW,1:161-74; Pr. no. 12, inDW, 1:192-206; andDW,5:400-434.7Pr. no. 52, in DW (n. 7 above), 2:487, lines 6-7; Colledge and McGinn, eds. and trans.,p. 199.'8 The Heart Sutra, in BuddhistWisdomBooks, rans. EdwardConze (London: Allen & Unwin,1966), p. 81.19Pr. no. 23, in DW, 1:402, lines 1-3; Walsche, ed. and trans. (n. 8 above), 2:72.20 The primarydialogue between Eckhart and Easternthought has come in this century fromscholars of the Kyoto school, which draws from the philosophy of Nagarjuna (2d century C.E.).Building on the Buddhist tradition, Nagarjunadeveloped a radicaldoctrine of iinyat& as an ulti-mate letting go or nothingness, which alwaysrelates to salvation and liberation. This philosophyof emptiness wasdeveloped by Nishida Kitaro(1870-1945) into a comprehensive philosophical253


8/22

The Journal of Religionreligions, Buddhism achieves the penultimate expression of the in-distinction of reality in Buddha's enlightenment to "that"which is neitherbeing nor nonbeing and, thus equidistant from all positions, is pure "noth-ingness." A Buddhist, therefore, accepts the transiency of form, meta-physics, and ontology on the precepts of the four noble truths and comes,via transcendental wisdom (prajiia-paramita), to the experience of anatta(no self), dependent coorigination, and the final releasement of ego iden-tity in nirvana.21In the movement from the transient emptiness of self toultimate nothingness, the metaphysics of being and its correlates of sub-stance, form, and accident are not a soteriological problem for the Bud-dhist since the ephemerality of their existence is affirmed by Buddha'senlightenment experience.In having to confront reality, not from the Buddhist side of its ultimatenothingness, but from the side of its absolute presence, Eckhart's task isdecidedly different, but not unrelated, to the Buddhist one. For Eckhart,as a Christian, the metaphysics of being and the death of Christ on thecross with its ontological implications are of central concern. Unlike theBuddhist who holds that the truth of form is emptiness, Eckhart, comingout of his Christian roots, must explore what transformsthe human condi-tion or moves the finite to its ontological freedom. Following in the foot-steps of his Christian predecessors, the Meister is concerned with afundamental soteriological puzzle at the heart of Christian thought: whatis the relationship between the death of the Son and Christian metaphys-ics? In other words, how does the soul follow the path of Christ into theultimate death, in which definition and identity are shed into the opennessand newness of the resurrection? To use Buddhist language, we might saythat Eckhart is concerned with what makes conditioned reality (in thiscase, the metaphysics of being) Boundless Openness.

In the many comparisons made between the nothingness in Eckhart'sthought and in Buddhism, the primary distinction regarding the seminalfaith experience and its relationship to metaphysics in the two instances isoverlooked. Because it is assumed that Eckhart's anarchic use of nothing-ness is a radical moment in the history of Christian Neoplatonism, and nota breakthrough of that history, the theistic aspect in his thought is seen asevidence that nothingness in Eckhart is not an absolute, for if it were it

system. Some of the better-known members of the Kyoto school include D. T. Suzuki, KeijiNishitani, Masao Abe, and Shizuteru Ueda. Abe says sunyata should be understood as "a verbwhich signifies 'emptying' or 'nonsubstantializing.' ... True Sunyata is a complete emptying, self-negating function without any fixation" (Masao Abe, "The Impact of Dialogue on My Self-Understanding as a Buddhist" (paper delivered at the American Academy of Religion annualmeeting, Comparative Studies in Religion Section, Boston, December 6, 1987, p. 4).21 See Edward Conze, Buddhist Texts through the Ages (New York: Philosophical Library, 1954),pp. 99-102, 146-72.254


9/22

Nothingness in Eckhartalso would negate substantial metaphysics. Thus, in comparing the desertof the Godhead with dynamic isinyata, Buddhist scholars contend that,while Eckhart presents a radical apophatic perspective, the desert of theGodhead still retains an ontological vocabulary intrinsic to Christianity.Eckhart's wiiste is not an absolute nothingness, according to this view,because it does not negate the ontotheological claim but, instead, reconsti-tutes it in a higher, more indistinct realm: "In Zen Buddhism this samecoincidence is at stake-except that there negation and affirmation areeffected more radically than they are in Eckhart. The radicalness of Zen isevident from the fact that it speaks of nothingness pure and simple, whileEckhart speaks of the nothingness of the godhead. For Eckhart, to say thatGod is in his essence a nothingness is to treat nothingness as the epitome ofall negative expressions for the purity of the essence of God, after themanner of negative theology; conversely, when Eckhart arrives at affirma-tion, he does so in the first instance mediately, through God who is thefirst affirmation."22 In contrast, si`nyatiais depicted as a self-negatingultimacy, which cannot be seen as any kind of "thing"and, therefore, can-not be affirmed or denied in substantialist language. The importance ofnothingness in the context of Zen is its destabilizing dynamism in which allduality is denied in and of itself, and not for the sake of a higher unity.This is a negation of negation, which in philosophical terms "entails a puremovement in two directions at the same time: (1) the negation of negationin the sense of a further denial of negation that does not come backaround to affirmation but opens up into an endlessly open nothingness,and (2) the negation of negation in the sense of a return to affirmationwithout any trace of mediation."23In the above quotes by Shizuteru Ueda, three themes can be detectedthat are consistent with the position of Buddhist scholars that sinyata- is amore radical and wider interpretation of nothingness than Eckhart'sdesert of the Godhead. They can be summarized as follows: (1) Buddhismspeaks of nothingness and transparency, while Eckhart refers to the noth-ingness of the Godhead; (2) "nothingness" in Zen is an absolute nothing-ness ("zettaimu");Eckhart follows the Christian apophatic tradition, thushis "nothingness" is a linguistic strategy designed to preserve God's purityof essence; and (3) affirmation, for Eckhart, is achieved through the medi-ation of God, who is the first and formal affirmation, while in Zen ceaselessnegation leads to straightforward affirmation: tree is tree.

The problem with the absolutizing of contingent historical interpreta-tions is that scholars risk implying that absolute nothingness logically canbe assigned only one normative description, or be one thing, and conse-22Shizuteru Ueda, "'Nothingness'in MeisterEckhartand ZenBuddhism" n. 1above), p. 159.23 Ibid., p. 161.

255


10/22

The Journal of Religionquently that Sisnyatais its ultimate or universal expression. The risk ofuniversalizing the particularity of salvation is always present in cross-cultural or interreligious encounters, and it is found in many Christian cir-cles where the ultimate and final expression of God's message is seen to beuniversally present in Christ. The tendency to assess another's traditionfrom the vantage point of one's own can be seen in this context whereBuddhist scholars assume that absolute nothingness can be achieved onlythrough an ultimate negation-the negation of negation-of ontologicalstructures. However, this interpretation emerged out of Buddha'senlightenment experience and was formulated in direct response toHindu theisms. Thus Buddhism emphasizes the a-theistic and the noth-ingness that is beyond both theism and nontheism, in part because Bud-dhism develops in negative dialogue with a theistic tradition.Instead, I want to keep open the following possibility in the context ofthis article: Eckhart retains theistic metaphysics precisely because in theChristian context he uncovers the road to liberation by going throughthemetaphysics of Being to the point (or breakthrough) where Being itselfceases to be (or unbecomes) in the ground and fount of divinity-thewomb of nothingness. Thus for the Meister, the Trinity, metaphysics, andso on, are essential for Gelassenheit("releasement") because it is only byfollowing the paradigm enacted by the Son at the moment of his death,when the determinate divinity reenters the abyss, that the soul finds itstrue ground and understands why God is both "One and Three." I believeit accurate to say that Eckhart broke through into what might be looselycalled a Buddhist perspective, and he did so in a manner that is intrinsic toChristianity itself. What is more remarkable is that he not only succeedsbut also offers us a profoundly provocative hermeneutic for comparativestudy.24THE DESERT OF THE GODHEAD AND "CHRISTOCENTRIC" NOTHINGNESSThe above interpretations-the one Buddhist, the other epistemo-logical-illuminate two distinct categories of nothingness in Eckhart:the pragmatic and the deconstructive. Interestingly, they do so byprescinding from the specifically theistic and trinitarian elements in theMeister's thought. Now I want to turn again to the question raised at the

24See Cobb and Ives, eds. (n. 1above), esp. the chaptersby MasaoAbe and DavidTracy;JohnP. Keenan, TheMeaningofChrist:AMahayanaTheologyMaryknoll,N.Y.: Orbis, 1989), esp. chaps.10 and 11 (although this book does not specificallymention Eckhart,it traces the negative tradi-tion in Christianityand concludes with a Mahayana nterpretationof Christ and Trinity);BeverlyLanzetta, "The Godhead as a Theological Foundation for Interreligious Dialogue, Drawnfromthe Writings of Meister Eckhart and Raimundo Panikkar"(Ph.D. diss., Fordham University,1988), chaps. 4-6.256


11/22

Nothingness in Eckhartbeginning of this article: what is the relationship between theistic meta-physics and nothingness in Eckhart's thought? Further, if Eckhart is notsolely contained in a deconstructionist, Zen Buddhist, or Neoplatonicframework, then how does one understand the inner logic of "nothing-ness" in his thought?One of the most striking aspects of Eckhart's mysticism is the depth towhich he moves along the path of negation. It has been said that the cen-tral theme of Eckhart is actually a radical apophasis-so radical, in fact,that it borders on a-theism.25 The desert occupies a primary place in theMeister's thought, and in the German sermons this deeper groundbeyond the Trinity alternately is depicted as a womb, a nothingness, themost indistinct of indistinctions, and a desert.26 Any serious student of histhought is confronted with two Eckharts-one, in the Latin works, is trin-itarian; the other, in the German sermons, has passed beyond the Trin-ity into nothingness. Yet these "two Eckharts" are never separated in hisoverall theology but, instead, are linked in a way unprecedented in the his-tory of Christian mysticism. What Eckhart accomplishes can be expressedas follows.While Eckhart affirms the centrality of the abyss, he departs fromNeoplatonic henology precisely because he maintains that dynamic reci-procity between the Trinity and the desert is at the heart of Christian sal-vation. The nothingness, or "superessential ray of divine darkness," is notthe culminating moment for Eckhart;27 f it were, his thought would beanother instance of apophatic theology taken to a new height. Instead, it isthe nothingness that trans-forms and re-forms existence and thus meta-physics, ontology, the spiritual journey, and so forth. True salvation forthe Meister is not complete in climbing the mystical ladder of ascentbecause the soul comes to an "end"in a known (Trinitarian) or unknown

25Schiirmann, Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher (n. 1 above), pp. 117-18; John Caputo,"FundamentalThemes in Meister Eckhart's Mysticism,"Thomist42 (1978): 211.26For the womb, see Pr. no. 71, in DW,3:224, lines 5-7, and DW,3:225, line 1, where Eckhartsays:"Itappearedto a man as in a dream ... that he became pregnant with Nothing likea womanwith child, and in that Nothing God wasborn. He was the fruit of nothing. God wasborn in theNothing." See Pr. no. 21, in DW, 1:368, lines 4-8; Pr. no. 23, in DW, 1:402, lines 1-7; Pr. no. 52,in DW,2:486-506; Pr. no. 71, in DW,3:222-3 1;Pr. no. 83, in DW,3:437, lines 3-14, and in DW,3:348, lines 1-3, for major references to God as "nothing."See Pr. no. 10, in DW, 1:173, lines2-5, for reference to the indistinction of the Godhead. See Pr. no. 10, in DW, 1:171, line 15, and1:172, line 1;Pr. no. 12, in DW, 1:193, line 4; Pr. no. 28, in DW,2:66, line 6; Pr. no. 29, in DW,2:77, line 1;Pr. no. 48, in DW,2:420, line 9;Pr. no. 60, in DW,3:21, lines 1-2; Pr. no. 81, in DW,3:400, line 4; Pr. no. 86, in DW,3:488, line 19; and the Liberbenedictus,n DW,5:119, lines 2-7,for references to the desert. For further analysisof the desert metaphor, consult McGinn,"TheGod beyond God" (n. 6 above), p. 5, n. 13.27The quote is from Pseudo-Dionysius, TheMysticalTheology, hap. 1, par. 1, taken fromDionysius the Areopagite: The Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, trans. C. E. Rolt (London:SPCK Press, 1983), p. 192.257


12/22

The Journal of Religion(Dionysian darkness) God. Instead, salvation is premised on undoing boththe ontological structures that make the road possible and the intentionedend of the journey: God. For Eckhart, liberation entails a moment of truenothingness, when reality is "neither this nor that."28To retain the senseof radical uncertainty the soul encounters as true freedom, Eckhartapplies the insights of the desert to the language of Christian metaphysicsand shows the "how"of breakthrough-a feat he accomplishes by follow-ing the soul's movement beyond the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into thenaked Godhead.29

Following the path of negation, the very foundation of Christian meta-physics must be "let go" and "let be" in order to enter the most indistinctof indistinctions, to be One. While at times he distinctly implies the prior-ity of the abyss, Eckhart never strays very far from the theistic infrastruc-ture that is intregral to the dynamism of his thought and to themetaphysical breakthrough he unveils.30 His theology retains a co-terminous reciprocity between the indistinction of the God beyond Godand the plenitude of the trinitarian life.3 For the Meister, distinction andindistinction, Trinity and One are intimately interrelated: "I oncepreached in Latin ... that the distinction in the Trinity comes from theunity. The unity is the distinction, and distinction is the unity. The greaterthe distinction, the greater the unity, for that is distinction without distinc-tion."32The startling power of Eckhart's mystical theology rests squarelyon this dynamic relationalism that is not subverted or compromised in lieuof a final, metaphysical end. In Eckhart's thought, differences are notbrought to closure in the face of a higher, more transcendent realm;

28Various statements of this theme are present in Eckhart'sthought. One of the more famousinstances, which attracted the attention of his inquisitors, is from Pr. no. 3, in DW(n. 7 above),vol. 1, "God is neither this nor that. A master says: 'Whoever imagines that he has understoodGod, if he knowsanything, it is not God that he knows"' McGinnand Tobin, eds. and trans.[n. 6above], p. 256).29One of Eckhart's more famous quotes is found in Pr. no. 48, in DW, 2:419, line 3, and2:420, lines 1-10, where he says, "This spark [of the soul] rejects all created things, and wantsnothing but its naked God, as he is in himself... this same light ... wants to go into the simpleground, into the quiet desert, into which distinction never gazed, not the Father, nor the Son,nor the Holy Spirit" (Colledge and McGinn, eds. and trans. [n. 6 above], p. 198).30 The priority of the divine abyss has been underscored by more than one scholar. SeeMcGinn, "Theological Summary"(n. 6 above), pp. 35-38; Cousins (n. I above), pp. 119-25;Caputo, "FundamentalThemes," pp. 197-98; Schiirmann, "The Loss of Origin in Soto Zen andMeister Eckhart" (n. 1 above), and Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher, pp. 85-92. For furtherdiscussionon the theistic substructure in Eckhart'sthought, see n. 8 above;and BernardMcGinn,"Meister Eckhart: An Introduction," in An Introduction to the Medieval Mystics of Europe, ed. PaulE. Szarmach(Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1984), pp. 237-57; Oliver Davies,GodWithin:TheMys-tical Tradition of Northern Europe (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), pp. 40-59.3' For references to the fullness of life in Eckhart, see Cousins, pp. 123-26; Caputo, "Funda-mental Themes," pp. 197-98; McGinn, "Theological Summary,"pp. 34-39."2Pr. no. 10, in DW, 1:173, lines 2-5; Walsche, ed. and trans. (n. 8 above), 2:145.258


13/22

Nothingness in Eckhartrather, he risks openness and uncovers one set of hermeneutical tools forthe determinate, trinitarian life and another for the indistinction andnondualism of the desert. Further, Eckhart does not leave these twodomains distinct but, instead, climbs up the metaphysical ladder of Chris-tianity to show a pathway from distinction to indistinction, and back again,into the lived life, based on the logos structure itself.As we have seen, the epistemological approach traces one dimension ofEckhart's nothingness, but not its whole essence. Buddhism understandsthe nonsubstantializing "thusness"(Tathata)but does not have (or need tohave) the language to explain its relationship to the determinate divinityin a Christian context. I believe a more adequate reading of Eckhart'sinner logic lies in the following line of investigation. In addition to thesetwo uses of nothingness is a third that takes on another and wholly uniqueperspective: the metaphysical/ontological nothingness that emerges fromlogocentric roots. Eckhart, as an inheritor of the classical tradition, uncov-ers the metaphysics of nothingness intrinsic to Western thought and,therefore, related to the very theistic structure that remains a dynamicpart of his entire theological corpus. This nothingness is not only beyondthe metaphysical, antimetaphysical, or transmetaphysical; nor is it only alinguistic strategy pointing toward the purity of essence. It is a nothing-ness birthed into being with theism, without which determination couldnot "be,"and the prior ground given for its trans-form-ation. Where thetheistic God emerges, the nothingness does, too: "When the soul comesinto the One, entering into the pure loss of self, it finds God as in Nothing-ness. ... In this Nothingness God was born. He was the fruit of Nothing-ness; God was born in Nothingness."33 Eckhart underscores the undoingintrinstic to all coming to be, even at the intradivine level, by distinguish-ing the ground and fount of the Godhead as the locus where "Godbecomes and unbecomes."34 Thus the ontological condition "to be"precontains the existential letting go, or death, in which the pathway ofliberation is encoded in its original nature. For Eckhart, theism and theinner trinitarian relations are the pathway to ultimate openness and free-dom; they reflect the paradigm of transformation precontained in theabyssal birth.35 In the mystery of the inner divine nature, theism is the

33Pr. no. 71, in DW,3:224, lines 4-7, and 3:225, line 1;also see McGinn,"Godbeyond God,"p. 10.S4"God and Godhead are as different as heaven and earth. I say further: the inner and theouter man are as different as heaven and earth. But God is loftier by many thousands of miles.God becomes and unbecomes"(Pr. no. 26, in Q [n. 10 above], p. 272, lines 13-17; and Walsche,ed. and trans., 2:80).35It is because the Father pours into the Son all that he is that the Son's birth in eternity and,by extension, in the worldprecontainsthe mysteryof the soul'sreturn to the Father'sunbegottenindistinction. Eckhartstates: "Ihave often saidthat through this act in God, the birth wherein theFatherbears His only-begotten Son, through this outflowing there proceeds the Holy Ghost,that

259


14/22

The Journal of Religiondesert and the desert is theism;36thus at the base of the logos structure,metaphysics, ontology, language, and the spiritual journey rests a noth-ingness that both delimits and deconstructs reality, drawing the soul to thesource of its original openness and freedom.In the generation of the Son in eternity, the Father pours into the Sonall that he is; thus Christ the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, con-tains in himself the paradox of fullness and emptiness, theism anda-theism. It seems that one could make a valid extrapolation from theeternal self-giving toJesus' historical death on the cross and conclude that,for Eckhart, Christis the deconstruction of ontology, for he embodies thecollapse of the transcendent-immanent distance by reenacting in historythe double kenosis that occurs within the divine nature, and must, there-fore, be mystically present in the "now"of the world for salvation to takeplace.37 In Eckhart is found a profound mystical understanding of thistwofold kenosis: the one occurs in the bullitio, the "boiling over,"38of thethe Spirit proceeds from both, and in this procession the soul is outpoured, and that the image ofthe Godhead is imprinted on the soul;and in the outflowing and return of the three Persons thesoul is poured back; being reformed into her primal and imageless image" (Pr. no. 50, in DW,2:456, lines 7-13; Walsche, ed. and trans., 2:318). And again, "The eternal Word did not takeupon itself this man or that, but it took upon itself one free, indivisiblehuman nature, bare andwithout image.... And since, in this assumption, the eternal Word took on human natureimagelessly, therefore the Father'simage, which is the eternal Son, became the image of humannature. So it isjust as true to say that man became God as that God became man. Thus humannature wastransformedby becoming the divine image, which is the image of the Father"(Pr.no.46, in DW, 2:379, line 6; 2:380, lines 1-5; 2:381, lines 1-2; Walsche,ed. and trans.,2:27-28).36"In the One, 'God-Father-Son-and-HolySpirit' are stripped of every distinction and prop-erty and are one" (Colledge and McGinn,eds. and trans., p. 227). And again, "The distinction inthe Trinity comes from the unity. The unity is the distinction, and distinction is the unity"(seen. 32 above).37While scholars are in agreement that the Meister's texts are short on references to the his-toricalJesus and his passion, I believe this is the result of Eckhart'smysticalconcentration on theintradivineaspect, over the historical or ad extracomponent. Despite a lack of abundant refer-ences, the centrality of the absolute self-giving of Christ'sdeath is not compromised in Eckhartbut, rather, forms an implicit foundation for many of Eckhart'smore controversial themes, e.g.,detachment, poverty of spirit, the oneness of the soul and the Godhead, etc. In Eckhart'sownwords from Latin Sermon no. 45 (LW[n. 7 above], 4:374-87): "The arms of the kingdom ofheaven and of Christiansis the cross ... in light itself. ... While he washanging on the cross, theauthor of mercy divided up his inheritance, willing persecution to the apostles,peace to the disci-ples, his body to theJews, his spirit to his Father, [John]the 'bestman' to the Virgin Mary,para-dise to the thief, hell to sinners, and the cross to penitent Christians. .. This is why it says inMatthew 16, 'If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and fol-low me' ... 'after me.' Manywish to come along with Christ, but not after Christ. Thus 'it wasnecessaryfor Christ to sufferand so to enter into hisglory.'... Third, he says'after me' by inspir-ing us to follow, since he goes before us, struggling in our behalf.... Christ, who conquered forus once and for all, is alwaysconquering in us."Further, Eckhartsayswe ought to carryChrist'scross in four ways: through (1) "frequent and devout remembrance of the Lord's passion,"(2)"hatred of sin,"(3) "givingup the world'spleasures,"and (4) "mortificationof the fleshand com-passion for our neighbor" (McGinn and Tobin, eds. and trans., pp. 227-33).38Eckhartsays,"This is why the formal emanation in the divine Persons isa type of bullitio,andthus the three Persons are simply and absolutely one" (Comm.n. [n. 7 above], par. 342 [in LW,260


15/22

Nothingness in EckhartTrinity from the nothingness of the desert and in which the Father poursthe totality of his divinity into the Son;39the other occurs in the ebullitio,"flowing out,"40 of the Trinity toward creation, and the Son's self-emptying of his divinity for the sake of the world.I believe it is in this kenotic context that Eckhart's dialectical stance onindistinction and distinction (God as One and Three) can be understood:(a) the distinction within the Persons is the indistinction based on theinner divine bullitio, or self-birth from the womb of nothingness; (b) thedistinction that takes place in the flowing out of creation from itsPrinciple/Logos is reversed by the path of indistinction that occurs in theabsolute self-emptying of Christ on the cross. Three things now occur inEckhart's thought that no doubt contributed to the unease of his inquisi-tors: (1) the soul mystically reenacts the twofold emptiness; (2) the soulmystically gives birth to the Son and, therefore, in its ground is beyondthe distinction of transcendent and immanent; (3) the moment of kenosis,which in Eckhartian language is "radical detachment," is an absolute oneand, therefore, cannot be assigned predicates.In the light of the first proposal, that the soul mystically experiences thetwofold detachment, Eckhart's radical stances take on new meaning. Thefirst kenosis takes place in a "breakthrough" (durchbruch)where the soulas a "virgin" strips itself of images-even of the Father, Son, and HolySpirit-to enter the naked Godhead.41 This radical poverty of spirit isnecessary to reverse the process of creation by which the soul knows of itscreatureliness and therefore creates "god." To return to blessedness, tothe exuberant life of the uncreated ground, the soul mystically experi-ences the radical death of the Son, which is that moment when the Logosreenters the abyss and metaphysics is undone. The utter emptiness of thesoul, and its radical detachment from all created things, create a place in3:29 1]). Again, "'I am who am' (Ex. 3:14), ... further indicates a bullitioor giving birth to itself,and melting and boiling in and into itself" (Comm.Ex. [n. 7 above], numera 16 [in LW,2:21-22]).Translations are from Colledge and McGinn, eds. and trans., p. 37. For further elucidation ofthese themes, see McGinn's"Theological Summary"and notes, as well as hisarticle "GodbeyondGod" (n. 6 above).

39 "The first break-out and the first melting forth is where God liquifies and where he meltsinto his Son and where the Son melts back into the Father"(Pr.no. 35, in DW[n. 7 above], 2:180,lines 5-7, and McGinn's translation in "Theological Summary," p. 38).40 "'Life'bespeaksa type of pushing out by which something swellsup in itself and first breaksout totally in itself, each part into each part, before it pours itself forth and boils over on the out-side [ebulliat]" Comm.Ex., par. 16 [in LW, 2:21-22]; and College and McGinn, eds. and trans.[n. 6 above], p. 37).41For some key texts on the "breakthrough," ee Pr. nos. 15, 26, 29, 48, 52, and 84. "Virgin" sa favorite Eckhartianimage that conveys the soul's detachment from all created things: "'Virgin'is as much as to say a person who is free of all alien images, as free as he was when he was not"(Pr. no. 2, in DW, 1:24, line 8, and 1:25, lines 1-2; also see Colledge and McGinn, eds. andtrans., p. 177).261


16/22

The Journal of Religionwhich God must work and in which the birth of the Son occurs. The exitusand reditus of the soul from the uncreated ground parallels the unceasinggeneration of the Son ad intra and his return and resurrection throughdeath on the cross ad extra. Yet, the self-emptying of the soul is not final-ized in the stillness and indistinction of the Godhead but flows out againbearing the gifts of a "wife" and gives birth to the self-same Son in theground or "spark"of the soul. For Eckhart, the resurrected or new exis-tence takes place in this life when the soul as a virginal wife lives out of itsown ground: "Avirgin who is a wife is free and unpledged, without attach-ment; she is always equally close to God and to herself. She produces muchfruit, and it is great, neither less nor more than is God himself."42Themovement of the soul from radical detachment ("virgin")to the exuber-ance of a fruitful life ("wife") follows the dynamic pattern of the intra-divine kenosis. In Eckhart's thought, then, the theistic structure is not theprelude to a deeper life that is finally transcended in lieu of a transhistor-ical silence but (1) the necessary element required for the ultimate self-emptying and transformation into a life lived "without why" and (2) therecipient or structure, now fully detached, in which this new life is birthedin the here and now of the temporal world.If Eckhart had been content with the received wisdom concerning thebirth of the Son in the soul, he no doubt would have ameliorated some ofthe attacks made against him.43 Instead, it is in reference to hisreappropriation of a profoundly Christian insight-the mysticism of thebirth of the Son in the ground of the soul-that the Meister betrays thedepth and profound creativity of his vision and departs from classicalChristian thought. According to Eckhart, to enter the naked Godhead thesoul must be fully detached from all created things; hence, in such a soul,God must work.44The soul, in passing through images and all categoriesof existents-even the Trinity-dies to its distinction and mystically givesbirth to the Son. But the generation of the Son in eternity involves anintradivine kenosis, and therefore the birth of the Son also must be a full-ness that emerges from the radical detachment and self-emptiness of thesoul. The soul, if it could "naught" itself for one moment, would experi-

42See DW, 1:30, lines 3-5; and Colledge and McGinn, eds. and trans., p. 178.43The birth of the Son imagery has a long history in Christianmysticism.Fora detailed analy-sis of the sources of this idea, see Hugo Rahner, "DieGottesgeburt:Die Lehre der Kirchenvatervon der Geburt Christi im Herzen der Glaubigen,"Zeitschriftfiir katholischenTheologie 9 (1935):333-418.44According to Eckhart,in a fully detached soul God mustwork:"Indeed, when a manis quiteunpreoccupied, and the active intellect within him is silent, then God musttake up the workandmust be the master-workmanwho begets Himself in the passiveintellect"(Pr. no. 3; Walsche, ed.and trans. [n. 8 above], 1:30). Again, "First,because the best thing about love is that it compelsme to love God, yet detachment compels God to love me" (On Detachment,n Colledge andMcGinn, eds. and trans., p. 286).262


17/22

Nothingness in Eckhartence all the blessedness of its uncreated ground.45 It is because of thismoment of nothingness, when the self is annihilated, that Eckhart nowsays that "my eye and God's eye are one seeing and one knowing and oneloving."46 The transcendent-immanent distance is mended, and thewound in consciousness healed, through the soul's reenacting the mysteryof emptiness at the heart of Being. Thus Eckhart is not saying the soul isGod-this is not a monistic statement in the sense of one-on-oneidentity-but, rather, that the soul "gods"itself when it mystically under-goes the self-same process of ultimate emptiness, a process that theMeister calls "detachment": "It [detachment] then draws a man into purityand from purity into simplicity, and from simplicity into unchangeability,and these things produce an equality between God and the man."47It isnow that the transformed soul lives where life springs forth out of its ownground and, following the path of Martha, who leads a life of active con-templation, finds the "better part" in this world.48Thus we arrive at the very crucial third point in Eckhart scholarship.Precisely because Eckhart sees the path of emptiness, and the effects ittraces in terms of metaphysical dialectics and linguistic deconstruction, toemerge from an intradivine kenosis, his theology cannot be christocentricin the normally accepted use of the term. In other words, while I believethe hidden element in Eckhart's thought is a christocentric nothingness, itis this very metaphysical nothingness that cannot, and will not, culminatein any kind of substantial theology and, therefore, cannot rest at any finaland definitive revelation of God. The very mystery of the twofold kenosisintrinsic to Christian thought always points beyond tself never resting on afinal identity. Therefore, the true "end" of the soul is not trinitarian,christocentric, or necessarily tradition-centered, but the nothingness thatis "neither this nor that." In terms of Christian mysticism, the momentwhen Christ reenters the abyss is an absolute one, and therefore God can-

45"Ifyou could naught yourself for an instant, indeed I say less than an instant,you would pos-sess all that this [the desert] is in itself"(Pr.no. 28, inDW,2:66, lines 7-9; Walsche,ed. and trans.,1:144.46Pr. no. 12, in DW, 1:201, lines 6-8; Colledge and McGinn, eds. and trans., p. 270.47 In DW,5:412-13; Colledge and McGinn,eds. and trans.,p. 288. For a contemporaryanaly-sis of the problem of monism in Christian mysticism,see GraceJantzen, "'Where Two Are toBecome One': Mysticism and Monism," in Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture Series, no. 25: ThePhilosophyn Christianity,d. Godfrey Vesey (New York:Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp.147-66.48 One of the more interesting themes in Eckhart is his reversal (see Pr. no. 2) of the Mary-Martha story: "Martha, Martha, you worry and fret about so many things, and yet few areneeded, indeed only one. It is Marywho haschosen the better part;it is not to be taken from her"(Luke 10:41-43). In the usual reading, Maryis assigned the better part as she sits at the feet ofJesus and quietly contemplates his message, while Marthaactively bustles about. In a reversalofthis traditional rendering, Eckhartassigns Marthathe superior role, in that she has learned tolive a life of active contemplation in the world.

263


18/22

The Journal of Religionnot be a God of predicates but that which is indistinct, unspoken. Eckhartis no longer in the silence of the Father but in silence, abyss, wiiste. Thedesert of the Godhead is not an element outsidethe Trinity or Christ but"that"in which the Trinity empties itself of distinction for the freedom ofits own oneness and indistinction. It is this nothingness of the Godheadthat liberates consciousness and that draws the soul throughthe metaphys-ics of being, beyond being and nonbeing, to the ultimate openness of thedesert, and back again to experience liberation in history.For the Meister,it is his seminal insight into the nothingness of the desert that frees himfrom the confines of a fixed and static theism and in which his a-theisticand unchristocentric theology can be understood.

Seen from this perspective, the main thrust of the German sermonsreveals a sustained working out of a theistic metaphysics of nothingness inlight of the desert of the Godhead. Eckhart insists that absolute negationtakes place not only within the soul but also within God itself: Godbecomes and unbecomes. Thus no longer encountering divinity solelyfrom the revealed distinction of the Trinity, but following the Trinity as itempties into the wilderness of the Godhead, Eckhart comes face to facewith a dynamic liberation intrinsic to theism itself. The dialectical rela-tionships in Eckhart's theology are necessary for preserving ultimateopenness, an openness that takes place for him in the intradivine kenosis,the Son, and therefore in the soul, the world, ontology, epistemology, lan-guage, and metaphysics. The openness to the question is not stilled by the-ism but preserved in a different way; the capacity for abyssal existence isthe potentiality in which self-emptying occurs in the very historicity of theperson. It is because of his seminal insight concerning the desert of theGodhead that Eckhart's texts are astir with heterodox rumblings and thathe is able to uncover the end of Christian metaphysics that is precontainedin the beginning. Thus the path of salvation does not end in Eckhart'smysticism with the reditus and breakthrough into the abyss but must befollowed as it pours forth again into the Trinity and the determination ofone's own existence. It is from this perspective that Eckhart's most radicalthought emerges, culminating in a theology that, no longer bound touphold ontological certainty, turns on end the classical metaphysicalthinking of his time.CONCLUDING REMARKSThis article has attempted to show that the relationship between theismand nothingness in Eckhart can be understood in terms of a twofoldkenotic metaphysics, or movement, from distinction to indistinction thattakes place ad intra in the welling up of the three Persons and the genera-tion of the Son and which has an ad extra expression in the death and res-264


19/22

Nothingness in Eckharturrection of Christ.49 The desert for Eckhart is one pole of a dynamicsoteriology that not only breaks through substantial metaphysics but alsotraces a path of transformation of the determinate divinity in its reditusasit reenters the abyss and its exitus from the womb of nothingness. His mys-tical perplexity, therefore, also must be seen in light of this dynamic pro-cess. From the side of return, as the soul undergoes a radical detachmentand breaks through all "gods," it is possible to interpret, along with Bud-dhist scholars, Eckhart's dialectics as an antimetaphysical, a-theistic stancethat is not fully complete. Here he follows the nothingness of the logosstructure, the nothingness of metaphysics, and the nothingness of ontol-ogy in the moment when the determinate divinity empties into the nakedGodhead. The radicalness of Eckhart's thought can be followed to theflowing back of the Trinity into the One, which is exemplified historicallyin the utter and absolute abandonment of distinction on the cross. How-ever, after reentering the abyss, in the moment of pure self-giving, thesoul encounters an ontological nothingness-nothingness itself, thatoccurs for Eckhart because of the intradivine movement from distinctionto indistinction. Theism is essential for ultimate openness, according tothe Meister, because precontained in the mystery of Person-and hencetime, space, history, metaphysics, and the like-is the existential "lettinggo" or intradivine kenosis. Thus in Eckhart's mystical logic these twocategories-theism and a-theism, Trinity and nothingness-must re-main in intimate relationship. It is because of the very openness oftheism, which arises from its simultaneous birth out of nothingness,that the human person can return to the ground of divinity and salvationoccurs.I now want to return to the two categories of nothingness (the epistemo-logical and pragmatic) presented in the beginning of this article in light ofthe above proposed perspective. First, as noted earlier, in investigatingthe negativity of the intellect, contemporary scholars detect a strikinglypostmodern and deconstructive element in Eckhart's thought that is not

49Eckhart primarily focuses on the intradivine structures of reality, which have an ad extraarchetypal expression. As noted by numerous commentators, however, Eckhartdoes not explic-itly explore the birth and death dimension of the historicalJesus but instead concentrates on theeternal birth in the soul. In the sermon, Dum mediumsilentium,Eckhart, quoting Augustine,clearlystates that the birth of Christin time and human nature is of utmost significancefor salva-tion: "Whatdoes it avail me that this birth isalwayshappening, if it does not happento me?"Thuswhile Eckhart does not explicitly develop the ad extradimension of Christ'sdeath and resurrec-tion, he doesdevelop, according to his soul mysticism,an ad intraexpression in the birth of theSon in the soul. It is in this interior christology that Eckhart sees the soul as a mirror of theintradivine kenosis and in which the soul becomes the self-sameSon in its strippingof all distinc-tions, even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to enter the hidden castle where the ground of thesoul and the ground of the Godhead are one. I believe this metaphysicsis consonant with thedevotional chistological language that takes shape in Suso, and especially in Tauler, and thatflowers in Ruusbroec and later in John of the Cross.265


20/22

The Journal of Religioncontent with God in his "antechamber" but seeks the naked wiiste, whereGod is free of all names. For Eckhart, to think that from which the entiretradition springs and, more important, to reenact the ontological "lettingbe" is to follow the metaphysics of being to its origin-there where it isundone. It is precisely because of the liberating force of nothingnessprecontained in the mystery of theism, that the Word/Logos, and thatwhich emerges from it-metaphysics, ontology, and the like-cannot bestatic constructs superimposed on Being. In other words, for Eckhart, Godbecomes and unbecomes, and therefore the flux of existence is precon-tained in the intradivine process that transforms or undoes the entireground from which being comes "to be" or, in more Christian terms, thatmoment when Christ the Logos mystically flows out from and returns tothe abyss of divinity. It is from a mysticalperspective that Eckhart uncov-ers a profoundly liberating and modern apprehension of a God who, fromthe vantage point of nothingness, expresses the divine nature which itselfnever comes to closure. If Eckhart's ontology and epistemology of detach-ment are "on the way" toward the fullness and indistinction of the God-head, this is so because the very capacity to "unbecome" is mysticallycontained in the "origin"of tradition and is thus also present in language,being, metaphysics, and so on. The Meister shows the futility of languageand signifiers not solely because they are historically conditioned signs butalso because the force of liberation intrinsic to consciousness-that spiritwhich defies the notion of absolute speech-is itself divine. Hence thedeconstructive reading would appear to Eckhart, I believe, as an effect,ves-tige, or residue of this intradivine emptiness that traces a pathway in lan-guage to the origin of releasement and ultimate openness and, thus,salvation.

Second, because thinking takes place in history and thus in language,ultimately there cannot be a metaphysics of presence because all "comingto be" is on the way to "that"which is beyond both being and nonbeing.Eckhart, knowing the futility of substantialist thought, shows why meta-physics can be "let be," what makes it possible to be free of "God"and theFather, Son, and Holy Spirit. The truly radical thing he does is not to putthe blame on human frailty or history or on negative theology thatprescinds from final knowing. Rather, he sees the "why,"the "cause,"tobe the very source of this freedom; God is the "whywithout why." God isthat which "lets be." The desert of the Godhead is the ontological noth-ingness that draws consciousness outside the dialectical boundaries ofbeing and nonbeing into the indistinction and splendor of life. It isbecause the Word is bothfullness and emptiness, both silence and speech,that the soul has the potential to live "without why"(sunderwarumbe).Thepossibility for new and transformed language, and the uncreated freedomof existence, arise from the indistinction that is contained in distinction:266


21/22

Nothingness in Eckhartthe nothingness in the Word. Metaphysics must be nothingness; andhence can there be heretical speech?

While Boundless Openness is the goal of enlightenment and salvationfor a Buddhist, Eckhart, confronted with the death of Christ on the cross,takes a seemingly opposite path. To the Meister, salvation is achievedthrough entering into and breaking through the metaphysics of being, afeat he accomplishes by tracing the effects of a radical "letting be"(Gelassenheit)of God that takes place in the detached soul. While bothBuddhist scholars and Eckhart might agree on the ultimate soteriologicalvalue of passing beyond theism, the ontological path they pursue is verydifferent in each case. For Eckhart, breakthrough and salvation occurthrough enteringinto Christian metaphysics, and passing beyond the threePersons, as a necessary condition for liberation in the abyss-a liberationthat takes place in and returns to the determinate divinity following a radi-cal breakthrough in the desert of the Godhead. For Eckhart the pathwayof detachment is precontained in the mystery of being as giving rise toboth the ontological condition "to be" and the existential "letting go." Incomplement to the Buddhist position, Eckhart sees nothingness as the ulti-mate negation of distinction and, hence, all metaphysical speculation, butin addition he also sees it as the womb from which the liberation from dis-tinction takes place in the here and now of the historical world. Thus, inEckhart is found a movement from emptiness (desert of the Godhead) toform (Trinity) and from form back to emptiness centered in the inner lifeof divinity. To adopt a Buddhist viewpoint, we might say that for Eckhartdistinction is not indistinction until the moment of breakthrough (ofmetaphysics, ontology, etc.), and indistinction is not distinction until themoment of birth in its flowing out from the abyss. At all levels, the deter-minate divinity, following its path of detachment, breaks apart or is eman-cipated from its own self-distinction in the nothingness (or in Christianterms, in Christ's death on the cross), and emptiness, following its path ofkenosis, or openness, pours its divinity or ultimacy into the archetypalform, or Son.Rather than asserting that Absolute Nothingness is fully grasped in theBuddhist context, I would be more inclined to say that "nothingness" hastwo pathways: one from the side of theism, in which it is concerned withthe transformative potentiality of form and, thus, history, time, andmatter; and the other from the side of nontheism, which focuses on thelimitless openness that, equidistant from all positions, affirms and pre-serves the mysterious exuberance and newness of life. In keeping withBuddha's enlightenment experience, dynamic isnyata reveals the pro-foundly startling self-emptying Real, which is absolute by virtue of its ulti-mate emptiness. In Eckhart, however, ontological nothingness, and thedynamic, a-theistic exuberance of his thought occurs because the theistic

267


22/22

The Journal of ReligionGod reenters the abyss, and all metaphysical certainty is undone. Perhapsthe relationship of these two varieties of nothingness can be understood assimply this. Buddhism, born out of the soil of Hindu monism, brings tospiritual consciousness a radical nothingness equidistant from all posi-tions, and neither theistic nor nontheistic. Eckhart, while he also uncoversa nothingness beyond "this or that," focuses not on nothingness itself buton the movement rom distinction to indistinction that occurs in the innerlife of divinity.From the classical Christian perspective of his day, Eckhart was accusedof heresy, a label he stoutly denied, primarily because, I believe, he wasbringing into speech an integral aspect of Christianity as yet unspoken,and one with potentially threatening implications. In the German ser-mons, we find an Eckhart pushing against the boundaries of Christianmetaphysics and breaking through the walls of dogma, substantialist lan-guage, and popular piety. For Eckhart, nothingness was profoundly seri-ous and real, and it was to the depths of its liberation, where the soul isfreed from "god" and God is finally "let be" that he harnessed his atten-tion. Thus it can be seen that Eckhart develops a very particular anddynamic road to salvation, a road that is intimately related to creationitself. His Mary-Martha story, in which the Meister assigns superiority tothe active life over against the traditional priority given to the contempla-tive life, may be seen to be a Western mystical version of the "samsazrasnirvana" of the Buddhist world. For Eckhart, samsara is nirvana (condi-tioned reality is Boundless Openness) because of the metaphysics of break-through intrinsic to the nature of ultimate reality itself and precontainedin the Christian message via the twofold eternal birth from nothingness,which returns (1) the Son to the fullness and mysterious abyss of theFather and (2) the Trinity to the oneness and indistinction of the desert.

268

eckhart nothingness

Documents