On Detachment: Medieval Mysticism to Modern Phenomenology

                                   

On Detachment From Medieval Mysticism to Modern Phenomenology Brian Paul McNeil UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA Fall 2012

 

McNeil

1

 

“ He who would be serene and pure needs but one thing: detachment.” – Meister Eckhart

I. Introduction

The foregoing remark warrants significant pause and reflection for it highlights one of the theoretical cornerstones of Christian Neoplatonism. Indeed, the concept of detachment proves to be a recurring theme found not only among the medieval mystical works afforded by Meister Eckhart and Saint John of the Cross, but among certain phenomenological writings of the late-modern period, as well—viz. the particularly illuminating accounts provided by Martin Heidegger. This principal construct, though applied in rather distinctive ways by each of the aforementioned philosophers, resonates ubiquitously throughout the second millennium and, indeed, still demands proper attention today. To be sure, such resonation obliges apposite deliberation and, thus, serves as the primary impetus for the present analysis. To trace the course of the notional element of detachment throughout the entire history of philosophy would not only be an extremely arduous task but, certainly, one that lies beyond the necessary scope of the current evaluation. That is to say, this central concept can be appraised quite cogently without having to address its ancient inception within the Platonic and Stoic traditions. In fact, performing such a comprehensive survey would only prove to be a superfluous exercise as copious tenets of Christian Neoplatonism remain entrenched in these former traditions. Accordingly, the following investigation embarks with an examination of detachment as perceived during the High Middle Ages through the lens of Johannes (Meister) Eckhart.1 Indeed, the prolific sermons and counsels offered by Eckhart impart incredible insight as to how one should pursue mystical union with the Divine.2 On account of this invaluable insight, it is only fitting that we commence the analysis with an annotated exposé of his teachings insofar as they relate to the critical notion of

German theologian, philosopher, and mystic who lived approximately 1260-1327 A.D. The terms Divine and Absolute shall be used interchangeably throughout the analysis. However, they both refer equally to the Supreme Being that is God. 1 2

 

McNeil

2

  detachment. As a subsequent measure, appropriate consideration shall then be given to certain mystical accounts

conferred by John of the Cross.3 In effect, these passages—insofar as they concern the process of detachment—will facilitate a more robust understanding of true spiritual transcendence. By functioning in a referential capacity, they shall supply the theological and philosophical insight necessary to explicate precisely how one attains this exceptional state of being. Finally, the relevant principles of Heideggerian phenomenology will be solicited so as to further irradiate the overall significance of detachment. While the ensuing analysis seeks to unveil the cardinal dimensions of detachment, the ultimate claim to be evaluated centers upon the authenticity of this particular practice in achieving union with God. Essentially, I intend to demonstrate that the role maintained by detachment is more than simply a thematic one as it bestows us with a genuine—albeit theoretical—blueprint for attaining unity with the Divine. For this reason, the instrumental contributions of Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross, and Martin Heidegger shall be carefully examined in order to authenticate the underlying belief that actual transcendence is indeed possible and, moreover, that is made possible via detachment.

II. Eckhartian Beginnings

Revered by many scholars as an emblem of intellectual spirit, Meister Eckhart serves as the ideal point of departure for the present discussion. Though the theological and philosophical issues addressed in his sermons were seemingly intelligible “only to a highly trained and professional” segment of the Catholic ministry at the time,4 this did not deter him from preaching to underprivileged and unexceptional members of society [Southern, 21]. For he wanted everyone, whether they be learned or otherwise, to intimately know and love God. Not surprisingly, the single dominant message across all of his sermons concerns the immediate presence of God within the individual soul. In order to fully recognize this presence, however, Eckhart understands that we (as imperfect and finite beings) must first become aptly dissociated from all created things. Consequently, the notion of detachment emerges as a pivotal topic throughout a number of his influential sermons and counsels.

Formally, John de Yepes. Eckhart was a devout Dominican—an order which “took pride it its orthodoxy” [EE; xiii]. Many of his German sermons were delivered to convents of Dominican nuns and some houses of Beguines while serving as a special vicar for the Master of the Dominican Order in Strasburg during the early 1300s. 3 4

 

McNeil

3

 

In his treatise On Detachment, Eckhart reveals his unambiguous position on the critical virtue of estrangement. Here, he offers: I have inquired, carefully and most industriously, to find which is the greatest and best virtue with which man can most completely and closely conform himself to God, with which he can by grace become that which God is by nature, and with which man can come most of all to resemble that image which he was in God, and between which and God there was no distinction before ever God made created things. And as I scrutinize all these writings, so far as my reason can lead and instruct me, I find no other virtue better than a pure detachment from all things; because all other virtues have some regard for created things, but detachment is free from all created things [EE; 285].5

This particular excerpt not only attests to the significance of detachment as a supreme virtue,6 but also introduces two ancillary concepts equally germane to the present line of inquiry. These individual elements of grace and reason certainly merit sufficient deliberation in their own right as they pertain to the sacred pursuit of oneness with God. Yet, so as to properly orient ourselves to the rightful Eckhartian disposition, let us first expound a bit further upon the preeminent notion of detachment. As evidenced in the foregoing passage, the virtue of pure detachment 7 is paramount for it signifies a genuine freedom from all created things. For Eckhart, this freedom represents a state of being “without any constraints that impede perfect union with God” [Garitta, 74]. Because attachments prohibit our perfect freedom to serve the will of God, it is foremost necessary that we divorce ourselves unconditionally from such impediments if we aspire to obtain divine union with Him.8 It is imperative to note, however, that Eckhart is referring to neither a wholly cerebral nor wholly physical form of estrangement.9 That is to say, his appeal to detachment does not necessarily entail a literal separation from all created things—a separation that would, undoubtedly, compromise our ability to fulfill the unyielding responsibilities which permeate our finite lives. Indeed, such literal form of detachment would

For referencing purposes, the following abbreviations are employed throughout: EE–The Essential Eckhart Sermons (1981); MES–Meister Eckhart’s Sermons (2010); TP–Teacher & Preacher (1986); WJ–Wandering Joy (2001). Additionally, any words or phrases italicized both here and in subsequent passages serve to denote my own emphasis, not that of the original author/editor. 6 “The detached heart wants to be nothing so that it might be receptive to God… so it is that detachment makes no claim upon anything” [Dobie, 193]. Thus, if “the soul possesses detachment it will possess all the lesser virtues as well” [Caputo (1986), 11]. 7 Term appears elsewhere as perfect detachment or true detachment. Based upon the available context, however, it is evident that Eckhart employs the terms interchangeably to denote unconditional separation from “all created things” [EE; 286]. 8 The German word used (Eigenschaft) translates, literally, as properties—things we possess to which we become attached. 9 Eckhart provides examples of attachments that are not merely worldly in character, but also religious. To be exact, he maintains that certain religious paraphernalia (e.g. fasting, prayer, vigils, and “all other external exercises and mortifications” of the soul) can likewise present sinister obstacles to attaining oneness with God if such instruments become attachments in their own right—albeit under a guise of spirituality [WJ; 4]. 5

 

McNeil

4

  prove detrimental to the principal objective as it would, presumably, give rise to a penetrating sense of anxiety that

would only bring us further away from God. In his work titled Light, Life, and Love author William Inge addresses such conceptual misunderstandings. Specifically, he remarks: Some people pride themselves on their detachment from mankind, and are glad to be alone or in church; and therein lies their peace. But he who is truly in the right state, is so in all circumstances, and among all persons; he who is not in a good state, it is not right with him in all places and among all persons. He who is as he should be has God with him in truth, in all places and among all persons, in the street as well as in the church; and then no man can hinder him [12].

Inge recognizes here that the Eckhartian notion of detachment is often misconstrued, viz. by those individuals who believe that a literal form of dissociation is the sole modus operandi which engenders union with the Divine. For although this explicit mode of detachment may be an auxiliary measure of attaining such unity, it is by no means the only way to achieve it and should not be perceived as such.10 What is most important proves to be the presiding state of the individual. That is, in order to yield an authentic unity with the Divine it is essential that one finds herself in the right state. As we shall see, this private rightness is crucial to the execution of genuine detachment. As alluded to above, an inevitable corollary of our human condition is that we each possess certain attachments. For some, these attachments may be purely material; for others, they may be more psychological or emotional in constitution. Regardless of composition, however, it remains true that all such attachments encumber our ability to gain immediacy with God. In one of his most renowned sermons, Intravit Jesus in Quoddam Castellum, Eckhart expounds upon this very reality. He submits: Attachment to any work, which deprives you of the freedom to serve God in this present now and to follow him alone in the light by which he instructs you what to do and what not to do, free and new in each now, as if you did not possess, nor desire, nor indeed could do anything else; every such attachment or every premeditated work which deprives you of this ever new freedom, I now call a year, for your mind does not bear fruit as long as it has not accomplished the work that you held with attachment [WJ; 4-5].

It is for this reason that Eckhart petitions unequivocally for a distancing from “everything in us that is profane” [EE; xiv]. For if we long to obtain blessedness (i.e. oneness with God), then we must eliminate the desire underlying

Eckhart acknowledges that it is a “harder and nobler task to preserve detachment in a crowd than in a cell; the little daily sacrifices of family life are often a greater trial than self-imposed mortifications” [Inge, xxx]. Nonetheless, he does not petition for a form of sustained, literal detachment from created things as this would come at too high of an emotional cost to the individual believer. 10

 

McNeil

5

  our prevailing attachments.11 In other words, we must purge ourselves of all worldly desires which only serve to

inhibit our ability to realize the supreme end—genuine intimacy with God. To be sure, the type of disengagement required is a profoundly radical one.12 For true detachment entails a sincere estrangement from particular things, viz. desires related to the self. That is to say, the nature of detachment is essentially self-oriented. For the illusion of self proves to be the direct result of our human attachments. Accordingly, Eckhart insists that we must strive to pursue a life of separation from the self and replace our worldly attachments with the sole desire to be one with God.13 For through such course of detachment we ultimately permit ourselves to embrace a distinct spiritual indifference towards all that occurs in creation. This indifference, moreover, is not merely uninterested apathy or withdrawal from the world, but rather the ability to see the world in the image and likeness of God.14 Quite simply, the process of detachment attunes our souls which, once undeterred, can be immersed in the oneness of the Divine. This stringent, yet abstract, form of dissociation is precisely what Eckhart has in mind when he speaks of detachment. From a more transcendental perspective, it must be admitted that the sought-after separation from our own private attachments (and their underlying desires) can be found only within the divine ground. Such ground confers us with the ability to love God fully, for it represents the fused identity of God and human. That is to say, our capacity to love God is grounded in the relative likeness between ourselves and Him. In order for the divine ground to emerge within us, moreover, Eckhart affirms that we must become spiritually poor. It is important to note that this notion of spiritual poverty extends beyond the standard implication of being materially destitute, however. For the spiritually-impoverished individual is even poor of her own will as she is “free of all subjectivity and subjectivism” [Dobie, 274]. She learns to live not out of her own resources as a created being, but rather out of “the divine living, working, and knowing” [ibid]. To be sure, this mode of living (i.e. one of pure devotion to God) is made possible via detachment. For once we have removed ourselves from all worldly desires and reached the proper state of spiritual nudity, the purity of God’s divine knowledge then begins to emanate from the hallowed

To this point, Eckhart claims that “if a man will turn away from himself and from all created things, by so much will [he] be made one and blessed in the spark in the soul, which has never touched either time or place” [EE; 198]. 12 [EE; xiv] 13 Indeed, Eckhart denounces “all forms of attachment which might deprive the Christian believer of perfect freedom to serve the will of God” [Garitta, 61]. 14 http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Meister_Eckhart.html. 11

 

McNeil

6

  ground concealed deep within us.15 In a truly detached state we come to know only God and, thus, become one

with Him in such a way that the division between us (as human) and God (as utterly divine) is no longer distinct. The process of detachment proves to be at work within us at an even more profound level still. Undeniably, we are divided creatures—that is, part of us remains continuous with God while the rest endures on a level that is categorically different from Him. In his sermon on Sanctification, Eckhart remarks specifically upon this fundamental dichotomy. Here, he claims that in every human being there are two kinds of men: the inner man and the outer man. While the latter may undergo various outward experiences, the former is “quite free and immovable” [MES; 21]. Because the outer man merely represents our sensual nature, moreover, it is the inner man which is born in God. Consequently, the inner man must strive to detach himself from the outer man [emphasis].16 In this regard, we come to further appreciate the fact that any legitimate quest for blessedness must commence with the obligatory process of detachment. If achieved, Eckhart claims, the presiding state of detachment ultimately yields a God-intoxicated man. For such a state represents the soul’s pure unification with God’s self-knowing. In departing from its own faculties through an emptying of self, the soul frees itself so that it may obtain a knowing not of its own.17 That is, through the process of detachment all of our “knowledge must be reduced to not-knowledge; our reason and will, as well as our lower faculties, must transcend themselves, must die to live” [Inge, xxiii]. This is significant for it underscores the reality that we cannot attain blessedness simply by acquiring some kind of special knowledge, but only by stripping ourselves—via detachment—of the knowledge we currently possess.18 This proves to be the sole means through which the God-intoxicated man can emerge [emphasis]. For such man does not blindly follow the model of others, but rather positively “turns his back on humanity and his face to God” [EE; 242]. As a final measure, let us now return to the notions of grace and reason introduced previously by way of the initial passage from Eckhart’s treatise On Detachment.19 With regard to the former element, he indicates that grace does not reside in the faculties of the mind but in its substance. That is to say, it is found in the core—in the very That is, once we have reached the proper state of spiritual poverty and “our house is empty of all else,” then God will be able to dwell there [Inge, xxiii]. 16 For that which is “divided in the inferior is always one in the superior” [TP; 74]. 17 See Sermon 10 of the German lectures wherein Eckhart proclaims: “the same knowledge in which God knows himself is the knowledge of every detached spirit and nothing else” [TP; 261]. 18 Indeed, one of the deepest challenges posed by Eckhart is that “to a perfectly detached spirit the concept of God would become superfluous” [Garitta, 64]. To this end, he avows in Sermon 83: “you should love God unspiritually, that is, your soul should be unspiritual and stripped of all spirituality, as it has images, it has a medium, and so long as it has a medium, it has not unity or simplicity” [EE; 208]. 19 Refer to the excerpt provided above on p2. 15

 

McNeil

7

  being—of our minds. According to Eckhart, this divine grace does “not give us a new being but rather returns us to

what we primordially are in God” [Dobie, 277]. It is always at work within us through our movement toward true detachment. For the sought-after dissociation that gives rise to blessedness can only come from God, Himself.20 Consequently, if the “soul is to reach its moral goal (i.e. Godlikeness) it must become inwardly like God through grace and [initiate] a spiritual birth which is the spring of true morality” [MES; 26]. In this vein, grace serves to represent the active side of detachment. For it remains the chief agent in the process of sanctification as it tends to “draw men from the transitory and purify them from the earthly” [MES; 20].21 To be sure, the type of grace required to engender true detachment proves to be that of a Divine Light which works through us under the guidance of the Absolute spirit. In his sermon on Outward and Inward Morality, Eckhart remarks explicitly upon this feature of divine grace. Here, he offers: Grace is from God, and works in the depths of the soul whose powers it employs. It is a light which issues forth to do service under the guidance of the Spirit. The Divine Light permeates the soul, and lifts it above the turmoil of temporal things to rest in God. The soul cannot progress except with the light which God has given it as a nuptial gift; love works the likeness of God into the soul. The peace, freedom, and blessedness of all souls consist in their abiding in God’s will. Towards this union with God for which it is created the soul strives perpetually [MES; 24].

This passage suggests that in order to yield the genuine moral freedom which transpires through detachment, the spiritually-impoverished will of the individual must cooperate fully with God’s grace. Once this collaboration occurs, our natural faculties will be elevated above “the merely temporal objects of existence” to a divine union with God [MES; 26]. Indeed, the attainment of such blessedness requires a definitive detachment from the medium of corporeal things.22 For the supernatural power of grace, while proving to be a vital instrument in the process of detachment by allowing one’s will to be unfettered, transcends the need for an intermediating medium as it emanates directly from God, Himself. Accordingly, divine grace does not endow us with a new being but, instead, simply allows us to return to a state in which we are “more one in him” [EE, 205].

[Dobie, 80] The term sanctification denotes the refusal to be moved by the powers of human emotions; an immovability which allows us to attain the nearest possible likeness to God. 22 Eckhart insists that “all true union must take place without a medium” [TP; 395]. For “as long as the soul is not laid bare and stripped away of every kind of medium, no matter how small it may be, it will not see God” [TP; 312]. Thus, only those who see God immediately (i.e. without a medium) may come to realize true divine unity. 20 21

 

McNeil

8

 

As alluded to above, God’s grace distributes itself among the faculties of the soul—one of which being that of reason.23 In its appearance as belief,24 our faculty of reason (intellect) persists as the driving “power in the soul” according to Eckhart [TP; 313]. It is through reason, moreover, that we are able to arrive at the necessary foundations of essence and existence. For when the Divine Light penetrates our soul, it is united with God as light with light.25 Once our intellect is raised by grace to the appropriate level (i.e. where the purity of all things reside in their divine ideas), the limits of human reasoning then emerge within reach. Yet, because “there is no limitation or negation in God,” we are able to transcend the limits of such reason [Brient, 131]. Through reason, therefore, our contemplative ascent (i.e. reunion with meaning) becomes conjoined with a distinct resignation from the world.26 This resignation proves to be the mainspring of the very process of detachment. For, above all else, it is “necessary that a man should apply and exercise his reason, firmly and constantly directing it toward God, and so always inwardly it will become divinized [EE; 275]. Because reason never orients itself in any other direction other than towards God we cannot come to understand Him without first exploiting our private intellectual capacities. By fully engaging our rational faculties, we ultimately force ourselves to assume the rightful disposition necessary to transcend the limits imposed by reason. If we hold this to be true, moreover, then we must likewise acknowledge the value of Eckhart’s contention that there exists an absolute congruence between truths revealed by scripture and those unveiled by natural reason. Now that we have pierced the core of Eckhart’s mystical doctrine as it relates to the transcendental process of detachment, we are aptly poised to examine this critical element from an alternate mystical perspective. For although John of the Cross recorded his experiences with the Divine in another time and place,27 this endeavor should still prove fruitful as all mystics possess the uncanny ability to emphatically identify with the hallowed ground inherent within them. Thus, it is anticipated that these complementary interpretations will serve to further reify certain indispensable features associated with the central notion of detachment hitherto presented. A rational man, according to Eckhart, is “one who comprehends himself rationally, and who is himself separated from all matter and forms” [EE; 191]. For the more that “he is separated from all things and turned into himself, the more he knows all things clearly and rationally within himself, without going outside” [ibid]. 24 “The inner work is first of all the work of God’s grace in the depth of the soul which subsequently distributes itself among the faculties of the soul, in that of Reason appearing as Belief, in that of Will as Love, and in that of Desire as Hope” [MES; 25]. 25 This referred to by Eckhart as the “light of faith” [MES; 25-6]. 26 Eckhart “broke through the traditional distinction between the active life and the contemplative life” [McGinn, 156]. Indeed, he petitions for a living union between the two lives. 27 Whereas Eckhart lived in Germany during the latter half of 13th and early 14th centuries, John of the Cross was born in Spain in 1542 and died there in 1591. Both individuals, however, received divine understanding through intense meditation and deep reflection. 23

 

McNeil

9

  III. Mystical Parallels

Much like the sermons of Meister Eckhart, the mystical accounts of John of the Cross are transcribed in the conspicuous language of the Christian tradition. For they impart, efficaciously, the very substance of the eternal mysteries in a unique style that is both illuminating and original.28 Indeed, the teachings of these mystics are strikingly similar in terms of their transcendent approach to obtaining unity with the Divine. To be precise, both accounts remain analogous in four distinct ways. For the parallel between the two philosophies is manifest when evaluating their respective positions regarding: (i) freedom from attachments; (ii) spiritual poverty; (iii) the demand for private rightness; and (iv) the roles of grace and reason. To begin with the paramount notion of detachment, it is plainly evident that John of the Cross places due emphasis upon the need to properly attune one’s soul as a means of attaining genuine unity with God. According to the mystic, this form of attunement is engendered by allowing the soul to free itself of any impure desire.29 Such freedom is accomplished by engaging in the very process of detachment—a reality upon which John of the Cross comments specifically in the second chapter of The Ascent of Mount Carmel. He maintains: The more the soul cleaves to created things, relying on its own strength, by habit and inclination, the less it is disposed for union with God, because it does not completely resign itself into the hands of God, that He may transform it supernaturally. The soul has need, therefore, to be detached from these natural contraries and dissimilarities [77].30

This key excerpt reveals his explicit conviction that detachment is a necessary function which must be performed by those who seek union with the Divine. Like Eckhart, he insists that our souls must be freed from all sensual and worldly attachments in order to facilitate the realization of such union. This particular claim is echoed in Dark Night of the Soul, as well. For he professes: “the soul needs to stand upright and be detached with regard to affection and sense [if it desires to commune with God]” [Night; 50]. Indeed, the “soul cannot come to this union without great purity, and this purity is not gained without great detachment from every created thing and sharp mortification” [Night; 134]. Accordingly, the process of detachment proves to be a significant component of the requisite spiritual purgation that one must endure before gaining access to God.31

http://www.domlife.org/beingdominican/Tradition/MeisterEckhart.htm. That is, any desire other than the desire to be one with God. 30 For referencing purposes, the following abbreviations shall be employed: Ascent–The Ascent of Mount Carmel (1906); Night–Dark Night of the Soul (1994). 31 Indeed, the soul becomes conscious of “the yearnings of love [for God] when it has made some progress in this spiritual purgation” [Night; 96]. 28 29

 

McNeil

10

 

It should be noted here that the pivotal dark night metaphor provided by John of the Cross exhibits a fundamentally dyadic structure. That is to say, it is constitutive of two separate nights which correspond to the two distinct parts of man’s nature—the sensual and the spiritual. Upon entering into the former night, the soul of the believer is “purged and stripped” of its maladies and, thereby, detaches itself from sense so as to be made ready for union with God [Night; 36]. It is in this initial night that we engage the process of detachment, thus enabling the transpiration of “the purgation of the imperfections of the soul” [Night; 67]. For once the soul is purged of “alien possessions and desires” it will be duly conditioned to encounter divine truth [Collings, 39]. In resigning itself into the hands of God during the first night, therefore, the soul becomes properly detached from the natural contraries of the present world which prove incongruent to the divine state of the Absolute.32 While the preliminary night of sense is fairly common insofar as it is available to most believers, the latter night of spirit remains accessible only to a “portion of very few” [Night; 36]. For it is rare that someone who willingly endures the intense series of immanent trials associated with fulfilling the requisite spiritual purgation during the first night will possess the fortitude necessary to ascend fully into this subsequent period of infused contemplation. Indeed, it is during this night of profound contemplation that “the soul journeys with no other guide or support” other than that of divine love [Night; 8]. For, at this point, God simply perfects and completes what the soul has begun of its own accord—in the initial condition of infused contemplation—by expressing the resolve to enter into this latter night. Thus, it is in this manner (as in the Eckhartian one) that we come to know God immediately. That is to say, during such state of pure and intense contemplation, it is God who is “now working in the soul” [Night; 40]. If one is fortunate enough to venture all the way through both nights, however, then their soul at once will be liberated; thereby effecting perfect purgation of the soul and enabling it to act with wonderful energy upon encountering the Divine.33 Accompanying the notion of spiritual purgation afforded by John of the Cross is a call for spiritual poverty. Like Eckhart, he contends that we must truly become spiritually poor in order to attain union with God. This notion of spiritual poverty, moreover, extends beyond mere material destitution. For he states: “For just as the elements, in order that they may have a part in all natural entities and compounds, must have no particular color, odor or taste, so as to be able to combine with all tastes odors and colors, just so must the soul be simple, pure and detached from all kinds of natural affection, whether actual or habitual, to the end that it may be able freely to share in the breadth of spirit of the Divine Wisdom” [Night; 80]. To this blessing (i.e. joining the loving substance of God) no one “attains save through intimate purgation and detachment and spiritual concealment from all that is creature” [Night; 131]. 33 After passing fully through the dark night, one arrives at a state of utter perfection marked by “the Divine union of the soul with God” [Night; 17]. 32

 

McNeil

11

  Inasmuch as God here purges the soul according to the substance of its sense and spirit, and according to the interior and exterior faculties, the soul must be in all its parts reduced to a state of emptiness, poverty and abandonment and must be left dry and empty and in darkness… Wherefore, because the soul is purified in this furnace like gold in a crucible, it is conscious of this complete undoing of itself in its very substance, together with the direst poverty [Night; 70-1].

This passage attests to the need for emptying our souls to a state of absolute indigence before being able to encounter the Divine. Indeed, the cleanness of a poor heart proves to be “nothing less than the love and grace of God” [Night; 91]. While it is necessary that the will of the soul be devoid of all impurities, however, this does not necessarily entail that it should be “so completely purged with respect to the passions, since these very passions help it to feel impassioned love” [Night; 94].34 Nevertheless, it is patently evident that the appeal by John of the Cross for genuine spiritual asceticism exhibits a strict parallel with the Eckhartian petition for such privation. As alluded to above, the quest for unity with the Divine demands a certain openness and quietude. Yet, in order for the soul to be reduced to the preferred state of emptiness and poverty, it is necessary that it remain true to itself throughout the entire venture. For the soul must be left “free and disencumbered and at rest from all knowledge and thought, troubling not… but content with merely a peaceful and loving attentiveness toward God… without anxiety” [Night; 43].35 To be sure, this state of private rightness is essential for attaining union with the Divine—a reality which resonates the Eckhartian directive to prime oneself for the presence of God. For although the soul may come to find itself at once in the grace of God, the soul remains the soul even upon gaining exposure, or greater approximation, to God.36 Indeed, it is with the “whole of himself that the believer is called to make the journey” [Cugno, 142]. By residing within itself, therefore, it follows that the soul does not become completely transformed by passing through the dark night. To be more precise, God simply perfects what the soul has begun of its own volition. Ultimately, this perfection is what enables us to share in His omnipotence [emphasis]. Finally, with respect to the particular elements of grace and reason, John of the Cross informs us that “we are to deny and purify ourselves with the ordinary help of grace in order to prepare our senses and faculties for union with God through love” [Night; 4]. For, although the Divine may communicate Himself to us naturally, it is

That is to say, one must sustain a fervent desire (passion) to be one with God throughout the entirety of both nights. As a final comment upon the citations presented in this section, it should be noted that the spiritual works afforded by John of the Cross were written with a certain devout audience in mind⎯principally, the nuns and friars of the Carmelite Order. Consequently, it would be difficult for a non-believer to extract meaningful guidance from these passages. 36 According to John of the Cross, God “secretly teaches the soul and instructs it in perfection of love without its doing anything” [Night; 66]. For in this state, great things prove “to be at work in the spirit” [Night; 63]. 34 35

 

McNeil

12

  equally conceivable that He may communicate Himself supernaturally by the order of grace.37 While grace, along

with reason, equips our souls by preparing “our senses and faculties for union with God through love,” it is important to note that neither grace nor reason can escort us all the way to such union. Rather, an abundance of divine aid is required for this union to be fully realized.38 For, indeed, the ordinary aid of grace cannot produce in man the “degree of purgation” necessary to engender authentic communion with God [Night; 5]. To be sure, it is evident that John of the Cross—like Eckhart—occasionally privileges the unique elements of grace and reason. Notwithstanding this privilege, however, both mystics hold that while each individual element is significant in its own right, neither one has the capacity to bring one all the way to blessedness (i.e. complete union with God).39

IV. Modern Developments

In a discussion concerning divine union with God, Martin Heidegger may initially seem out of place. Though his personal life proved to be quite incongruent with those pursued by the aforementioned mystics of the High Middle Ages, he nonetheless emerged as one of the preeminent theorists in the field of Phenomenology.40 While it would be wrong to claim that his philosophy is a Christian one, it can be “interpreted in a way that is compatible with Christian faith [thus] yielding important insights into the faith” [Macquarrie, 108]. Accordingly, an investigation of Heideggerian thought is essential to the current analysis insofar as it further irradiates our understanding of self-transcendence. For, indeed, the substance of such philosophy is acutely germane to the task of adequately explicating the precise nature of phenomenological experience. Before probing the merits of Heideggerian philosophy related to the present line of inquiry, it is first necessary to address one critical point. This particular issue concerns the marked distinction between the works afforded by the early Heidegger vis-à-vis those produced by the later Heidegger. For in his doctoral thesis on Duns Scotus’ Doctrine of Categories and Meaning (1916), the former Heidegger remarks: If one reflects on the deeper sense of philosophy in its character as a philosophy of world-views, then the conception of the Christian philosophy of the Middle Ages as a scholasticism which stands in opposition to the contemporaneous mysticism must be exposed as fundamentally wrong. In the medieval [Ascent; 77] In this sense, our “faculties will then be Divine rather than human [Night; 63]. 39 Let us recall here Eckhart’s assertion that “faith bears the soul to heights unreachable by her natural senses and faculties” [MES, 25]. 40 Heidegger was raised in the tradition of Roman Catholicism but later vacated the religion, describing it as incompatible with his own philosophy. 37 38

 

McNeil

13

  world-view, scholasticism and mysticism belong essentially together. The two pairs of ‘opposites’ rationalism-irrationalism and scholasticism-mysticism do not coincide. And where their equivalence is sought, it rests on an extreme rationalization of philosophy. Philosophy as a rationalist creation, detached from life, is powerless; mysticism as an irrationalist experience is purposeless.41/42

Indeed, the early Heidegger was “convinced that medieval thought should be understood as a philosophical dynamic where thinking was not constrained by ideology” [O’Meara, 212]. Yet, sometime around 1920, it is clear that Heidegger’s attitude toward medieval thinkers began to change. For around this time he elected not to seek out the depth dimension in the medieval experience of being as such, but rather take the philosophers of the Middle Ages at their face value—that is, to take them at their actual word.43 This transition is evinced specifically in the Phenomenology of Religious Life,44 where Heidegger follows in the tradition of Eckhart’s “elevation of the practical concern for the self’s transformation through its divine kinship over the theoretical regard for knowledge” [Schalow, 28]. Thus, it is evident that—at this point—Heidegger ceased to heed his own advice offered in his doctoral dissertation and, instead, gave rise to what would eventually be referred to as late Heideggerian thought.45 Despite the ostensible divergence with respect to the style and content of their thought, Heidegger finds “a formal similarity to Eckhart’s detached ontology of the breaking-in of graced birth” in the self-disclosing revelation of Dasein.46 For both philosophers agree that “human existence is a place of disclosure [wherein] something comes to pass which is both greater than and constitutive of the human spirit” [O’Meara, 213]. In spite of its complexities and sophistication, moreover, Hedeiggerian philosophy has its origins in very simple experience. For his contention that the voice of Being, which “we human beings may name as the soul or the world or God, but which is essentially nameless,” indeed, retains a certain air of mysticism [Macquarrie, 14]. In developing a more skeptical outlook, then, Heidegger “does not so much abandon his religious outlook as much as seek its deeper ontological underpinnings” [Schalow, 32]. Furthermore, recent scholarship has shown that Heidegger was greatly

For referencing purposes, the following abbreviations shall be employed henceforth: Being–Being and Time (2010); Life–Phenomenology of Religious Life (2010); Supplements–From the Earliest Essays to ‘Being and Time’ and Beyond (2002). 42 [Supplements; 68] 43 [Caputo (1982), 251] 44 Phänomenologie des religiösen Lebens (1919/21). 45 To be sure, the surprising devotion to Eckhart displayed by the later Heidegger indicates that he “does not fully abandon the unified and purified scholasticism-mysticism of the Middle Ages” [O’Meara, 214]. 46 Introduced in Being and Time, this term is used by Heidegger to denote a discreet, all-encompassing Being that is appropriate to all humanity. It is both a universally self-evident and a fundamentally temporal concept “different from everything objectively present and real” [Being; 303-4]. The term can be defined further as “a being which is related understandingly in its being toward that being (Sein)” which, in positing such assumed truth, indicates the formal concept of existence. In truth, Dasein is “the being which I myself always am” [Being; 53]. 41

 

McNeil

14

  influenced by Augustine and that his monumental work Being and Time would not have been possible without such

inspiration from one of the acclaimed Fathers of Christianity.47 One of the most basic similarities between Eckhartian and Heideggerian thought involves the very structure exhibited by each. For both philosophies maintain that a transcendent reality (i.e. God and Being, respectively) transpires in man; and that such man is not conceived anthropologically, but rather ontologically as “the locus of the realization of the transcendent” (i.e. ground of the soul and Dasein, respectively).48 That is to say, God is to the soul in Eckhart as Being is to Dasein in Heidegger [ibid]. While this analogy merely relates to the structural disposition of each account, it testifies to the existence of a demonstrable correspondence between the two ideas. For, indeed, the “living relationship between the soul and God represented in Eckhart’s mysticism constitutes a model in terms of which one can conceive the relationship between thinking and being” [Caputo (1974), 482].49 Perhaps the most striking parallel between Eckhart and Heidegger concerns the focal concept of letting be. As indicated previously, the most significant terms in the Eckhartian vernacular prove to be those of releasement (Gelâzenheit) and detachment (Abgeschiedenheit). To be sure, for many scholars—viz. Caputo and Schalow—these terms are entirely synonymous. For others, however, Gelâzenheit represents “a more thoroughgoing state of abandonment to divine will” [Garitta, 74]. Yet, in formulating his mystical account, it is evident that Eckhart intimately binds a formal interpretation of Gelâzenheit with the adjuvant concept of detachment.50 It can thus be inferred that the position maintained by Caputo et al. endures as the more compelling estimation. For Heidegger’s “initial interest in mystical illumination and self-knowledge” centered upon Eckhart’s principal notion of Gelâzenheit—a term which he believed to wholly assimilate the process of detachment.51 Indeed, the late Heidegger was inspired by Eckhart and sought to revive this robust notion (of letting be) through his usage of Gelassenheit.52 During the Schelling Lectures in 1936, Heidegger effected this transition to Gelassenheit by uncovering the ultra-human origin in freedom. That is, he disclosed how the self-choosing of Dasein commences with the breadth of being’s unconcealment.53 True freedom, he contends, is simply “an openness to the good that God reserves for each individual, insofar as the individual relinquishes the envy of her narrow self-centeredness” [Schalow, 161]. For the See: The Influence of Augustine on Heidegger: The Emergence of an Augustinian Phenomenology (2006) edited by C.J. De Paulo. [Caputo (1974), 483-4] 49 In this relationship, moreover, neither “the absoluteness of God nor the integrity of the soul is destroyed, but the soul—stretching out into the transcendent—is given to share in God’s absolute value” [Caputo (1974), 481]. 50 http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/eckhart.html. 51 [Schalow, 28] 52 Referred to as Gelâzenheit in medieval German. 53 [Schalow, 45] 47 48

 

McNeil

15

  progression towards genuine releasement, or detachment, emanates from an “understanding of the self as

something solid and closed to the understanding of the self as finite openness” [Macquarrie, 119]. In this openness, moreover, there is a distinct relation to Being that proves quite comparable to the mystics relation to God.54 Effectively, Heidegger comes to nurture the insight originally provided by Eckhart so as to “see philosophy as a practical conduit for self-transformation, rather than as a purely theoretical endeavor” [Schalow, 62]. The final notable congruency between Eckhartian and Heideggerian philosophy entails an invocation of their respective positions on fallenness. For each describes a similar fallenness into everyday existence. Indeed, both petition for “a return to a forgotten ground within man which is deeper than anything human, in which man is opened up to the presence of something which transcends beings altogether” [Caputo (1986), 160]. In Being and Time, for instance, Heidegger indicates that our way of questioning defines our very nature. By finding ourselves always already fallen into a world of presuppositions, we tend to lose touch with what being is per se.55 Thus, as a proposed solution to such quandary, he advocates a return to the practical being in the world; thereby allowing being to reveal, or unconceal, itself.56 According to Heidegger, moreover, fallenness remains temporally rooted in the present moment while the imminent moment of existence is projected into the future. Consequently, the held Moment of our being-in-the-world bridges the present with that of the impending future. The mystical analogue here is evidenced in the way in which Heidegger—like Eckhart—interprets our fallenness as “a forgetfulness of a silent, hidden ground in which the everyday is transcended” [Caputo (1986), 160]. That is to say, both philosophers maintain that there is nothing disgraceful about the outer man, but merely emphasize the fact that such man is “something derivative, resting on deeper grounds” [ibid].

“While the birth of the Son in the soul is the work of God, there is a sense in which it is the soul’s work also, inasmuch as it cannot be accomplished without the soul’s cooperation, without its detachment and resignation. The selfdisclosure of Being in Dasein is the ‘work’ of Being, but it cannot be accomplished without Dasein’s cooperation… Just as for Eckhart the soul must utter its fiat, so Heidegger’s Dasein must open itself to the workings of the Event. The proximity of Heidegger to Eckhart in this matter is so great that Heidegger can find no better word to describe the posture of Dasein than Eckhart’s own—Gelassenheit” [Caputo (1975), 65]. 55 According to Heidegger, such fallenness is “temporally rooted primarily in the present” [Being; 350]. For it refers “precisely to the way in which Dasein is liable to understand itself—not in terms of possibilities, but in terms of entities within the world” [Garitta, 34]. 56 In this regard, late Heideggerian philosophy is often considered revolutionary. For, indeed, there is a definite bipartite configuration to his phenomenology which centers upon the concurrent state of being-in-the-world and dwelling-on-the-earth. 54

 

McNeil

16

  V. Towards a United Posture

The foregoing examination has chauffeured us, at last, to the point where an erudite attempt to formulate a united posture can be posited. For, indeed, the preceding discussion has systematically unveiled the cardinal dimensions of detachment as they relate to the pursuit of divine transcendence. These dimensions—viz. the need to purge ourselves of all desires motivating our worldly attachments; the self-oriented character of the rightful state which must be sustained; the demand for spiritual poverty and an emptying of the self; and the assistance provided by divine grace—hold equally across both mystical accounts presented by Meister Eckhart and Saint John of the Cross. This unequivocal position regarding the central notion of detachment, indeed, proves consonant with prior doctrinal teachings, as well. For it was Augustine who initially asserted that the “soul has a secret entry into the divine nature when all things become nothing to it” [EE; 292]. Accordingly, it can be readily established that the claims afforded by both mystics concerning the transcendental process of detachment serve to vindicate one another in a manner that obliges veritable theoretic admission. While the congruencies among the mystical accounts offered by Eckhart and John of the Cross remain glaringly evident, the more modern phenomenological teachings promulgated by Heidegger may appear to some as unbefitting—especially if one considers the specific positions established by the early Heidegger at the onset of his academic career. Yet, as evidenced above, it is quite possible to attain a sensible position on detachment which duly assimilates certain keystones of his phenomenological thought. For instance, it can be inferred that our longing for blessedness (i.e. unity with God) proves to be a rational response to the harsh reality of being faced with the finiteness our being—a reality that is vividly revealed during the held Moment. To be sure, as finite beings we seek transcendence with the anticipation that that it will provide a certain level of understanding over the dense phenomenon characteristic of our being-toward-death. For, as conveyed Heidegger, certain truths (such as those revealed during the process of Gelassenheit) remain impervious to the implemental relationship found among corporeal beings.57 In this sense, our detachment retains the unequivocal power to exposes our profound predicament⎯an exclusive predicament warrantable of due time and consideration by not only Martin Heidegger, but also the likes of Meister Eckhart and Saint John of the Cross.

“Just as, for Eckhart, the soul becomes grounded, acting out of its own ground, only when it becomes without ground or without why, so, for Heidegger, human beings become secure only when they give up their quest to secure their being” [Sikka, 181]. 57

 

McNeil

17

 

Indeed, Eckhart encourages his audience to identify with “a fruitfulness that can be achieved only by radical detachment” [McGinn, 139]. For if we long to attain blessedness, then we must come to love God unspiritually—that is, our souls should be stripped of all spirituality since this spirituality retains both images and a medium; and so long as it has a medium it cannot realize genuine unity with the Divine. Such transcendental reality reverberates stridently within the mystical accounts yielded by John of the Cross, viz. the categorical metaphor of the dark night. And while this reality may not be disclosed as explicitly in the phenomenological writings of the late Heidegger (for his philosophy was not an overtly Christian one), it is evident that he alludes to the authenticity of such reality through his conspicuous revival of Eckhart’s conception of Gelâzenheit—a robust term denotative of the associated processes of releasement and detachment. Furthermore, the Heideggerian concentration upon simple human experience is remarkably tantamount to Eckartian mysticism, which proves to be “a mysticism of everyday life” [McGinn, 156]. All things considered, it can be determined that the acclaim given to Heidegger for his advancements in the field of Phenomenology serve to circuitously defend the transcendental claims propounded by the medieval mystics [emphasis].

VI. Concluding Remarks

The foregoing analysis sought to evaluate the claim that the role maintained by detachment is more than simply a thematic one as it bestows us with a legitimate blueprint for attaining oneness with God (i.e. blessedness). An investigation into the cornerstones of the process of detachment has led us to a positive conclusion in support of this very claim. For, in order to obtain the desired union with the Divine, it is foremost necessary that we separate ourselves, unconditionally, from all created things. That is to say, we must come to detach ourselves from the improper desires which cause us to remain intimately entwined with created things. To produce true genuine spiritual fulfillment via detachment, thus, requires an emptying of self—a purging of our utter impurities—while allowing the soul to remain itself throughout the entire process. For the soul remains the soul even upon encountering the Divine. It is merely God’s work in the soul, through the assistance of divine grace, which facilitates a genuine transcendence of self in the individual believer. By internally exhausting ourselves to the point of spiritual nudity, we effectively give rise to the requisite state that must be sustained in order for blessedness to ensue. In sum, the principal doctrine of detachment advanced by Eckhart proves to be to the sole means through which we, as believers, may come to realize true union with God.

 

McNeil

18

  VII. References

Brient, Elizabeth. “Meister Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa on the ‘Where’ of God” in Nicholas of Cusa and His Age: Intellect and Spirituality. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2002. Caputo, John. Heidegger and Aquinas. New York: Fordham University Press, 1982. ⎯⎯. The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought. New York: Fordham University Press, 1986. ⎯⎯. “Meister Eckhart and the Later Heidegger: The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought (Part One).” Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1974): pp.479-94. ⎯⎯. “Meister Eckhart and the Later Heidegger: The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought (Part Two).” Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1975): pp.61-80. Collings, Ross. John of the Cross. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990. Cugno, Alain. Saint John of the Cross: Reflections on Mystical Experience (trans. by Barbara Wall). New York: The Seabury Press, 1982. Dobie, Robert J. Logos and Revelation: Ibn 'Arabi, Meister Eckhart, and Mystical Hermeneutics. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Eckhart, Meister. The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense (trans. by Edmund Colledge & Bernard McGinn). Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1981. ⎯⎯. Meister Eckhart’s Sermons (trans. by Claud Field). Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2010. ⎯⎯. Teacher and Preacher (ed. & trans. by Bernard McGinn). Mahway: Paulist Press, 1986. ⎯⎯. Wandering Joy: Meister Eckhart's Mystical Philosophy (trans. by Reiner Schürmann). Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books, 2001. Garitta, Mario. “Illuminating the Meaning of ‘Being’ in the Later Heidegger through Aspects of the Theologies of Pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart.” KU ScholarWorks. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 2010. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time (trans. by Joan Stambaugh). Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010. ⎯⎯. The Phenomenology of Religious Life (trans. by Matthias Fritsch & Anna Gosetti-Ferencei). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010. ⎯⎯. Supplements: From the Earliest Essays to ‘Being and Time’ and Beyond (ed. by John van Buren). Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Inge, W.R. Light, Life, and Love: Selections from the German Mystics of the Middle Ages. London: Methuen & Co., 1904. John of the Cross. The Ascent of Mount Carmel (trans. by David Lewis). New York: Benziger Brothers, 1906. ⎯⎯. Dark Night of the Soul (trans. by Allison Peers). Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1994. Macquarrie, John. Heidegger and Christianity. New York: Continuum Publishing, 1994. McGinn, Bernard. The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from Whom God Hid Nothing. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001.

 

McNeil

19

  O’Meara, Thomas. “Heidegger and His Origins: Theological Perspectives.” Theological Studies, Vol.47, No.1 (1986): pp.205-26.

Schalow, Frank. Heidegger and the Quest for the Sacred. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. Sikka, Sonya. Forms of Transcendence: Heidegger and Medieval Mystical Theology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. Southern, Richard. Medieval Humanism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970.