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 4 1 Peter Šajda terminology. Thus, when referring to the deepest (or highest) dimension of the soul Eckhart used terms, which were common in the contemporary philosophical-mystical discourse: the essence of the soul (Lat. essentia animae), the spark of the soul (Lat. scintilla animae), the supreme part of the soul (Lat. supremum animae), or the apex of the mind (Lat. apex mentis) (Largier 1993, 764; Langer 1987, 177; Ruh 1996, 336). He complements these with a series of German terms, which – while denoting the same entity – evoke a wide variety of images. Eckhart comments on this variety of terms in the following way: “I have sometimes said that there is a power [Ger. ein kraft] in the soul, which alone is free. Sometimes I have called it the guardian of the spirit [Ger. huote des geistes], sometimes I have called it a light of the spirit [Ger. lieht des geistes], sometimes I have said that it is a little spark [Ger. vünkelîn] … It is as completely one and simple as God is one and simple, so that no man can in any way glimpse it … So one and simple is this citadel [Ger. bürgelîn] in the soul.” (Eckhart 2009, 80–81). Although Eckhart’s imagery is at times quite colorful, we must not lose sight of the fact that it refers to a dimension of the soul, which – as Eckhart incessantly reminds us – is completely one and simple. In contrast to Platonic and Aristotelian psychological theories the Stoics developed a monistic view of the soul that did not presuppose separable parts of the soul that could be ordered into a hierarchy (Ivánka 2003, 334). Eckhart integrates this approach into his view of the soul when pointing to the ultimate unity of the soul provided by its ground. This ground is not to be identified with any of the higher powers of the soul – reason, will or memory – that are oriented towards the multiplicity of the created world. Eckhart explains that the higher powers of the soul deal with what comes from outside and are active in the realm of multiplicity. The ground of the soul – that is the ultimate source of the powers of the soul – is “inactive” and “silent” in relation to the world, since it is receptive only to the One: “Whatever the soul effects, she effects with her powers. What she understands, she understands with the intellect. What she remembers, she does with memory; if she would love, she does that with the will, and thus she works with her powers and not with her essence … this part is by nature receptive to nothing save only the divine essence, without mediation … None can touch the ground of the soul but God alone. No creature can enter the soul’s ground, but must stop outside, in the ‘powers.’” (Eckhart 2009, 31). The ground of the soul is inaccessible not only to created things but even to God as manifested in the multiplicity of his actions and characteristics: “No created being or even God clothed in some robe ever penetrates into the essence of the soul.” (Eckhart LW IV, 115). Thus, the ground of the soul is a domain reserved exclusively for God without attributes: God as the One. When explaining the nature of the ground of the soul Eckhart avails himself of the theory of the image of God (Lat. imago Dei). He describes the relation between God and the ground of the soul as the relation between the one, whose image is reflected (Lat. exemplar), and the image itself (Lat. imago). The image is fully dependent on the one whom it reflects, it reflects only the one and owes its being to nobody and nothing else: it is not image by virtue of the bearer in whom it is, but by virtue of the one whom it reflects. The image and its origin are inseparable (Eckhart LW iV, 218; Eckhart LW III, 19; Langer 1987, 182). It is clear that the soul is closest to God there, where it is his image. Since a true image of God can only be found in the ground of the human soul, other created beings are related to God in a different, less intimate way. To be sure, God is present in every creature as its indistinct source of being, but only in the ground of the soul is he fully reflected, and thus present in his own element. This is due to the fact that the ground of the soul has an intellectual nature. This brings us to the most controversial part of Eckhart’s psychology. As we have explained above, Eckhart considers reason (Lat. intellectus) one of the three higher powers of the soul. However, he attributes an intellectual nature also to the ground of the soul: “Beyond the soul, which manifests itself as the source of human impulses, is a principle of an intellectual nature. This principle is the ground of the natural essence of the soul and thus also of the essence of man.” (Sturlese 1998, 95; Largier 2003, 200–201). The intellect as a higher power of the soul is oriented toward the multiplicity of the created world that is incompatible with the ground of the soul. Thus, the intellect as the ground of the soul is an intellect in a very specific sense: it is the undivided intellect, which is the ultimate source of the powers of the soul (Flasch 1998a, 146). With regard to this intellect the question arises to what extent it is the uncreated divine intellect (exemplar), and to what extent it belongs to man (imago). The role of man in the reflection of the divine intellect in the ground of the soul remains an object of scholarly controversy. Although we do not need to enter into the depths of this controversy, it is important to highlight the role of the intellect in Eckhart’s psychology, as it is a key factor in the debate about the dynamic of detachment that we intend to explore.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=