4 2 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 3 The Ground of the Soul, Detachment and Neighbor-Love Eckhart’s doctrine of detachment is based on his theological-psychological reflections on the interaction between God and man. Thus, it is directly linked to his theory of the intellect, which deals with God’s reflection in the ground of the soul. Eckhart draws on the Anaxagorean-Aristotelian metaphysical and psychological tradition, according to which the intellect is separated (Gr. χωριστός; Lat. separatus), unmixed (Gr. άμιγής; Lat. immixtus), it abstracts from here and now (Lat. abstrahit ab hic et nunc), and it has nothing in common with anything else (Lat. nulli nihil habens commune) (Panzing 2005a, 106–111). Eckhart translates the Latin terms separatus and abstractus into German as abegescheiden (Panzing 2005b, 345), from which he derives one of the two German nouns with which he denotes detachment: abegescheidenheit. The other noun gelâzenheit is derived from the verb lâzen –“to let”, “to leave”– that is a translation of the ascetic terminology found in the Latin New Testament: relinquere and abnegare (Panzing 2005b, 338–341). Both abegescheidenheit and gelâzenheit are considered neologisms, as they are not documented in German literature before Eckhart (Panzing 2005b, 345). They are synonyms highlighting the fundamental negative nature of detachment that is in one case related to the notion of separation and in the other to the notion of letting go. In Eckhart, however, they are united in denoting the transcending of the characteristic features of creation: corporeality, multiplicity and temporality. Further details will be provided below. The Latin nouns used by Eckhart to denote detachment are separatio, abstractio and abnegatio. In the medieval dispute between Dominican intellectualism and Franciscan voluntarism, Eckhart sided with the former, which affected both his doctrine of detachment and his theory of interpersonal relations. The theological and psychological primacy of the intellect is in line with Eckhart’s emphasis on oneness and simplicity, while he associates the will with multiplicity and diversity. In a crucial statement, Eckhart claims that “the intellect in the true sense is divine, and ‘God is one’. Therefore, we participate in God, in the One and in the union with God so much as we participate in the intellect and intellectivity. Because the one God is intellect and intellect is the one God. Therefore, God is not God … anywhere but in the intellect” (Eckhart LW iV, 269; imbach 1976, 165; Mojsisch 1983, 86). The undivided intellect (the ground of the soul) is more sublime than the will, because it penetrates to the very essence of God and man and grasps them in their being. The will, whose object is the good, seeks out the good in God and man, and grasps them only to the extent that they are good. Thus, the object of the intellect is simpler and higher than the object of the will. While the intellect aims for the one being of God or man, the will aims for the many good aspects of each of them. Eckhart highlights the primacy of the undivided intellect also vis-à-vis the intellect as the power of the soul. The latter is – just like the will – oriented toward the multiplicity of the creation. The undivided intellect transcends both of these powers: “The proper work of man is to love and to know. Now the question is, wherein does blessedness lie most of all? Some masters have said it lies in knowing, some say that it lies in loving: others say it lies in knowing and loving, and they say better. But we say it lies neither in knowing nor in loving: for there is something in the soul from which both knowledge and love flow: but it does not itself know or love in the way the powers of the soul do. Whoever knows this, knows the seat of blessedness.” (Eckhart 2009, 422). Eckhart does not suggest that the ground of the soul does not know or love at all (Flasch 1998b, 192–193), rather that it does not know or love in a fragmentary way like the powers of the soul. His aim is to go beyond multiplicity and fragmentariness, transcend the powers of the soul and focus on its ground. The process that enables him to do so is detachment. It creates space for a new type of human activity, which proceeds from the ground of the soul – from the undivided whole of knowing and loving – and is focused on the One. When describing detachment Eckhart draws on a number of Biblical motifs that he develops in accordance with his theology and psychology. When commenting on the motif of hearing God’s voice, he claims that this voice proceeds from the ground of the soul. If we are to hear it, we need to detach ourselves from three principal sources of contradictoriness and fragmentariness: corporeality, multiplicity and temporality: “Whoever would hear the eternal wisdom of the Father, he must be within, and at home, and must be one: then he can hear the eternal wisdom of the Father. There are three things that prevent us from hearing the eternal Word. The first is corporeality, the second is multiplicity, the third is temporality. If a man had transcended these three things, he would dwell in eternity, he would dwell in the spirit, he would dwell in unity and in the desert – and there he would hear the eternal Word.” (Eckhart 2009, 295). Thus, corporeality, multiplicity and temporality direct man’s attention to the disunity of the creation and cloud his view of the spiritual, the unified and the eternal. When reflecting on Jesus’ sermon on the Mount of the Beatitudes, Eckhart interprets the motif of spiritual poverty as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=