4 0 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 7 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 1 2 Eckhart’s Theological Psychology as the Basis of His Doctrine of Detachment Eckhart develops his doctrine of detachment against the background of his theology and psychology. In both of these areas he places a great emphasis on oneness: the oneness of God and the oneness of the soul. In his theology Eckhart develops the traditional Christian teaching of the one God, which he enriches with elements from Neoplatonic philosophical theories of the One. He claims that God is one (Lat. unus), the One (Lat. unum), the pure One (Ger. daz einvaltic ein), and the indivisible One (Ger. daz einig ein) (Eckhart LW IV, 264; DW I, 43; DW III, 437) [2]. Reflecting on the Christian debate about God’s names, Eckhart acknowledges the name the One (Lat. unum; Ger. daz ein) as the most appropriate, since it corresponds best to God’s simplicity and indivisibility (Eckhart LW IV, 31) [3; 4]. Eckhart is well-aware of the fact that human talk about God is characterized by a multiplicity of divine names. However, in order for this polyonomy to be meaningful, it “must in the end converge to a single name ‘that is above all other names’. ‘Unum’ ... is superior to all other names, which are combined in its unified perfection” (Lossky 1998, 60). Although Eckhart sometimes attaches to the name the One uncontroversial adjectives, such as pure or simple, he mostly uses the basic nouns alone: unum in Latin and daz ein in German. Eckhart interprets the name the One in an apophatic way. Unlike kataphatic names, it does not highlight a partial characteristic or action of God, rather it negates all partiality and particularity. Thus, it can be defined as a negation of a negation. The negation, which it negates is the contradictoriness that is inherent in the created world: created things are opposed to each other, they negate each other and are innerly conflicted. They are in a constant flow colliding with each other. By contrast, the One is characterized by immobility and changelessness, it is innerly at peace and the fullness of being subsists in it (Eckhart LW III, 608–609). Since the name the One does not highlight any particular feature of God, it does not “contaminate” God’s being with additional characteristics. It negates all partial negations, since particular attributes exclude and negate their opposites (Eckhart LW II, 486). The One as the negation of the negation is not part of the process of particular negations that takes place in the realm of multiplicity. For this reason, the name the One is preferable to other divine names – such as the Good (Lat. bonus) and the True (Lat. verus) – that constitute a specific prism, through which we perceive God and direct our attention at a particular mode of his being. Yet another fact that the focus on God’s oneness brings to the forefront is that the One is indistinct. Through his indistinctness God distinguishes himself from all created beings, which are distinct from each other and themselves are composed of distinct parts (Eckhart LW II, 482, 490; Beierwaltes 1980, 97–104). God is devoid of inner distinction; He is absolutely simple and indivisible. God is mere unity and none of the inner divine processes are marked by otherness and multiplicity. Eckhart interprets also the mystery of the Holy Trinity along these lines: It is “Unity, which begets Unity, and its shine is reflected in itself” (Eckhart LW III, 135; Ruh 1995, 336). God is indistinct not only in relation to himself but also in relation to the created world, whose source of being he is. While created beings differ from each other and negate each other, God is present in the ground of their being as a unifying indistinct foundation. Drawing on the Neoplatonic doctrine of the One that is simultaneously above everything and in everything, Eckhart argues that the One is “the exclusion of distinction, the exclusion of number and multiplicity … [note: it is] in-distinct in itself and simultaneously indistinct from other things, which are in themselves and among themselves distinct” (Beierwaltes 1972, 40–41). The created otherness is distinct both internally and externally, it is characterized by multiplicity and limitation. God as the indistinct One is absolutely simple and permeates all creation as its indistinct ground. Eckhart transposes his theological insights into psychology and identifies the indistinct One as the deepest source of one’s being. The One is reflected in the innermost “part” of the human soul. When applying a name to this “part” Eckhart follows the line of thought he developed when discussing the issue of the supreme divine name. He refers to the soul’s deepest dimension as the one of the soul (Lat. unum animae) (Eckhart LW IV, 313). However, most commonly he refers to it as the ground of the soul (Ger. grunt der sêle), while using also other metaphorical names. While all the terms employed by Eckhart to denote the ground of the soul are semantic equivalents, the most frequent Latin counterpart of the German term grunt der sêle is essentia animae (Langer 1987, 177). Eckhart developed his thinking in the context of medieval Christian mysticism that was inspired by the Stoic concepts of the “center of the personality” (Ivánka 2003, 339). These concepts were adapted for the purposes of Christian psychology and combined with Neoplatonic and Augustinian
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=