Meister Eckhart and Religious ComparisonContemplations - Maurice Walsh
I have in my translation noted an external parallel to Buddhism here by pointing out that the words 'God is in all modes, and equal in all modes' are repeated with the hammer-blow effect of a Buddhist sutta. In many a sermon Eckhart has described the birth of the Word in the human soul and other mysteries. Here, in his final exhortation, he is insisting on what his disciples ought to do. It is above all the essence of his practical teaching — which to my mind argues strongly in favour of its authenticity. As regards Buddhism, I long ago ventured to coin the phrase: Buddhism is not something to believe but something to do, and it is here in the practice, or in the practical attitude, that Eckhart's teaching and Buddhism seem to come especially close.
It would of course be easy, in a superficial kind of way, to dismiss the whole of Eckhart's teaching as irrelevant to Buddhism simply because he speaks of God, which Buddhism notoriously doesn't. Some people may argue that this is not just a superficial or vulgar objection, but one of substance, pointing to a fundamental difference, an unbridgeable gap, between Buddhism and Christianity, and at one level it must be conceded that they have a case. I think it is best to deal, as best I can, with this troublesome point right away. Just because we want to be frightfully ecumenical, or frightfully high-minded, we should not try to gloss over what may be perceived as a real difficulty by some. It is good Christian doctrine, amply subscribed to by Eckhart in his inimitable way, that God is ineffable and beyond the normal range of human thought. Much the same is said by Buddhists about Nirvana, or the Unborn. Therefore, whatever may be the case with great sages and saints, we ordinary Buddhists and Christians, when we speak of God or Nirvana, literally do not know what we are talking about, and most of us are prepared to admit the fact. There is, O monks,' said the Buddha, 'an Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Unconditioned. If there were not this Unborn there would be no deliverance here visible from that which born, become, made, conditioned.' While this statement (which has been variously interpreted) does not in the Buddhist view imply a personal God, it could be interpreted as so doing. In fact in Indonesia, where a religion to be recognised must be theistic, some Buddhists have used this 'Unborn' passage for the very purpose of legitimising their faith in the eyes of the authorities.
Eckhart did not enjoy the freedom of thought prevalent in ancient India. Like the Indonesian Buddhists of today, only far more so, he had to conform outwardly. Until he landed up in Cologne, this may have been no great problem, but as soon as he encountered the persecuting Archbishop, he was in trouble. He was far too important a man to be sent to the stake, but the Archbishop aimed to discredit and silence him — and largely succeeded. It is not to Eckhart's dishonour to say that he was compelled to work within the system with all the restrictions that implied. To have deviated too obviously from orthodoxy would simply have meant martyrdom not only for himself, which he might have been willing to face, but for his followers. I am not, for instance, suggesting that Eckhart believed in any form of reincarnation or the like. I am merely saying that if he had any such belief he would necessarily — and sensibly — have kept quiet about it.
The comparison of Eckhart's thought with Buddhism has hitherto been really only made with Zen. The question is whether this was really due to an affinity with Zen in particular, or because the two writers to make the comparison were themselves Zen Buddhists, D.T. Suzuki writing in English, and Shizuteru Ucda writing in German. This question is perhaps of less importance than it might seem, especially since the miasma of misinformation — and worse — about Zen itself has begun to lift. It has become increasingly apparent that despite certain idiosyncrasies, Zen is after all not so different from other schools of Buddhism, and even — believe it or not - Theravada Buddhism, as many have thought. And since Theravada is the Buddhist school with which I am most familiar, it is to that that I will relate rather than to Zen.
The constant burden of Eckhart's sermons is above all the birth of the Word in the soul — a theme which he repeats over and over again with variations. In his theology the Word is the Son, the word spoken by the Father in the silent depths of the soul. There is, Eckhart says, and the proposition was among those condemned, something in the soul that is not created. Sometimes he calls it a castle, sometimes a spark. This spark (scintilla animae) is, in so far as it is pure divine intellect, uncreated and one with God, but as 'a power of the soul' it is uncreated, being an analogue of the uncreated intellect. According to Eckhart, who here differs from St Thomas Aquinas, being is a property of God alone — hence his statement condemned in the bull: 'All creatures are mere nothing'. This is of course closer to Vedanta than to Buddhism.
I have said that Eckhart could not introduce some new and unorthodox doctrine — such as reincarnation, supposing he believed in it — without disaster. Similarly, he could not totally pass over anything in the official teaching that he might not have approved of. The most he could do was play it down, and refer to it as little as he decently could. There was one such doctrine that he does seem to have treated in this fashion. It has been observed that there are remarkably few references to Hell in Eckhart's writings, and those there are are pretty perfunctory. In this he differs notoriously from a whole range of popular preachers from his day to our own. The awful doctrine of eternal punishment derives from the Bible and was rigidly believed in by the Church of his time and later. Indeed, it was this frightful teaching that was responsible for all the tortures and persecutions of the inquisition, for witch-hunts, and for untold misery and despair for untold numbers of believing Christians throughout the ages. Though it is ascribed to Jesus, personally, without being a Christian, I find it impossible to believe that he taught any such thing. If he did, he would have been worse than the Pharisees, who took a less extreme view. Of course there are some pretty frightful descriptions of hells in the Buddhist scriptures, but though
long-lasting they are not said to be eternal, and they are not the creation of a loving father. In any case we don't have to believe in them in any literal way — though it can be assumed that those guilty of really nasty behaviour will have cause to bitterly regret it in some future existence. Meister Eckhart and Religious Comparison
Related Documents:
- Buddha and God
- Joy is Born - Eckhart and Nagarjuna
- Meister Eckhart and Religious Comparison - Current Page
- Buddhism God and Meister Eckhart
External Resources on Meister Eckhart:
