Meister Eckhart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Johannes Eckhart (1260-1328), also known as Eckhart von Hochheim and widely refered to as Meister Eckhart, was a German theologian, philosopher and mystic, born near Erfurt, in Thuringia. Meister is German for "Master", referring to the academic title he obtained in Paris.
Overview
Eckhart was one of the most influential Christian Neoplatonists, and although technically a faithful Thomist (as a prominent member of the Dominican Order), Eckhart wrote on metaphysics and spiritual psychology, drawing extensively on mythic imagery. Major German philosophers, from Hegel to Heidegger, have been influenced by his work.
Novel concepts Eckhart introduced into Christian metaphysics clearly deviate from the common scholastic canon: in Eckhart's vision, God is primarily fertile. Out of overabundance of love the fertile God gives birth to the Son, the Word. Clearly (aside from a rather striking metaphor of "fertility"), this is rooted in the Neoplatonic notion of "overflow" of the One that cannot hold back its abundance of Being. Eckhart had imagined the creation not as a "compulsory" overflowing (a metaphor based on a common hydrodynamic picture), but as the free act of will of the Trinitary God. Another bold assertion is Eckhart's distinction between God and Godhead (Gottheit in German). These notions had been present in the Pseudo-Dionysius's writings and John the Scot's De divisione naturae, but it was Eckhart who, with characteristic vigor and audacity, reshaped the germinal metaphors into profound images of polarity between the Unmanifest and Manifest Absolute.
Eckhart expressed himself both in learned Latin for the clergy in his tractates, and more famously in the German vernacular (at that time Middle High German) in his sermons. His thoughts reach heights and depths that seem uniquely his. His manner of expression is at once simple yet abstract and bold enough to prompt him to be tried for heresy in his last years. He died before a verdict was reached, but considered himself a submissive child of the Church until the end.
Life
The long controverted question concerning the locality of Eckhart's origin has been settled by Henry Denifle, who states that he was born at Hochheim, a village 8 miles north of Gotha. The year of his birth was probably 1260, and he joined the Dominicans at Erfurt. The lighter studies he no doubt followed at Cologne. Later he was prior at Erfurt and provincial of Thuringia. In 1300 he was sent to Paris to lecture and take the academical degrees, and remained there till 1303. In the latter year he returned to Erfurt, and was made provincial for Saxony, a province which reached at that time from the Netherlands to Livonia. Complaints made against him and the provincial of Teutonia at the general chapter held in Paris in 1306 concerning irregularities among the ternaries, must have been trivial, because the general, Aymeric, appointed him in the following year his vicar-general for Bohemia with full power to set the demoralized monasteries there in order. In 1311 Eckhart was appointed by the general chapter of Naples as teacher at Paris. Then follows a long period of which it is known only that he spent part of the time at Strasbourg (cf. Urkundenbuch der Stadt Strassburg, iii. 236). A passage in a chronicle of the year 1320, extant in manuscript (cf. Wilhelm Preger, i. 352-399), speaks of a prior Eckhart at Frankfurt who was suspected of heresy, and some have referred this to Meister Eckhart; but it is highly improbable that a man under suspicion of heresy would have been appointed teacher in one of the most famous schools of the order. Eckhart next appears as teacher at Cologne, and the archbishop, Hermann von Virneburg, accused him of heresy before the pope. But Nicholas of Strasburg, to whom the pope had given the temporary charge of the Dominican monasteries in Germany, exonerated him. The archbishop, however, pressed his charges against Eckhart and against Nicholas before his own court. The former now denied the competency of the archiepiscopal inquisition and demanded litterce dimissorix (apostoli) for an appeal to the pope (cf. the document in Preger, i. 471; more accurately in ALKG, ii. 627 sqq.). On Feb. 13, 1327, he stated in his protest, which was read publicly, that he had always detested everything wrong, and should anything of the kind be found in his writings, he now retracts. Of the further progress of the case there is no information, except that Pope John XXII issued a bull (In agro dominico), Mar. 27, 1329, in which a series of statements from Eckhart is characterized as heretical; another as suspected of heresy (the bull is given complete in ALKG, ii. 636-640). At the close it is stated that Eckhart recanted before his death everything which he had falsely taught, by subjecting himself and his writing to the decision of the apostolic see. By this is no doubt meant the statement of Feb. 13, 1327; and it may be inferred that Eckhart's death, concerning which no information exists, took place shortly after that event. In 1328 the general chapter of the order at Toulouse decided to proceed against preachers who "endeavor to preach subtle things which not only do (not) advance morals, but easily lead the people into error." Eckhart's disciples were admonished to be more cautious, but nevertheless they cherished the memory of their master.
Works and doctrines
For centuries none of Eckhart's writings were known except a number of sermons, found in the old editions of Johann Tauler's sermons, published by Kachelouen (Leipzig, 1498) and by Adam Petri (Basel, 1521 and 1522). In 1857 Franz Pfeiffer in the second volume of his Deutsche Mystiker (Stuttgart), which is wholly devoted to Eckhart, added considerable manuscript material. Pfeiffer was followed by others, especially Franz Jostes, Meister Eckhart und seine Junger, ungedruckte Texte zur Geschichte der deutschen Mystik (Collectanea Friburgensia, iv., Freiburg, 1895). But some pieces are of doubtful genuineness, and the tradition concerning others is very unsatisfactory. It was a great surprise when in 1880 and 1886 Denifle discovered at Erfurt and Cues two manuscripts with Latin works of Eckhart, the existence of which Nicholas of Cusa and Trittenheim had indeed mentioned, but which had since then been considered lost. There can be no doubt as to their genuineness, but thus far only the (comparatively extensive) specimens which Denifle had published (in ALKG, ii.) are known. The extant writings appear to be only parts of a very large work, the Opus tripartitum, which, to judge from the prologue in the first part treated of more than 1,000 propositions, in the second part debated a number of special questions, and in the third part, first expounded Biblical texts (opus sermonum) and afterward explained the books of the Bible in their order with special reference to the important passages. Entirely unknown at present are the contents of the more important manuscript of Cues, especially the exposition of the Gospel of John.
View of God
It is unlikely at present that a final decision on Eckhart's world of ideas be reached. Nevertheless an attempt may be made to delineate his fundamental thoughts, based upon the material at hand. The great need of man is that his soul be united with God; for this a knowledge of God and his relation to the world, a knowledge of the soul and the way which it must go, are necessary. Eckhart does not doubt that such knowledge is given in the traditional faith of the Church, but it is not sufficient for one who is longing for salvation. He must attain to it with his own understanding. Eckhart accordingly does not move and live in ecclesiastical tradition after the manner of Bernard of Clairvaux or Hugo of St. Victor; in his thinking on the highest questions he is independent and in this way he arrives at views which do not harmonize with the teaching of the Church, without, however, as far as can be seen, being conscious of any opposition. The last and highest object of thinking is the Deity, i.e. the divine entity as distinguished from the persons, yet Eckhart often uses "God" in the sense of "Deity," where his thought does not call for accurate definitions. The Deity is absolute being without distinction of place or manner (ALKG, ii. 439-440). No predicate derived from finite being is applicable to the Deity; but this is therefore not mere negation or emptiness. Rather is finite being, as such, negation; and the Deity, as the negation of finite being, is the negation of negation, i.e. the absolute fulness of being. For Eckhart, Pseudo-Dionysius’s negative theology is clearly wrong. When in other passages Eckhart himself designates God as non-existent, he only means that he has none of the characteristics of finite existence. The same apparent contradiction is found, where Eckhart on the one hand calls God absolute being, and on the other denies that he is a being (319, 4; 659, 1); but he reconciles the two views (268-269). The same is the case with occasional seemingly paradoxical expressions, e.g. that God is not good, etc. (269, 18; 318, 35-319, 3). The essential elements of finite things are present in God, but in an exalted degree and in a manner that can not be comprehended by man (322, 20; 540, 2-7).
Trinitarian process
The absolute, unqualified being of the Deity Eckhart also calls unnatured nature. This unnatured nature, however, manifests itself in the natured nature, the three persons. The Trinity is the self-revelation of the Deity (540, 31; 390,12-22). In it God comprises himself. Accordingly, Eckhart attributes to the Father a sort of genesis; only the Deity is absolutely without any progression and reposes everlastingly in itself. The Father was made through himself (534, 17). This self-revelation of God Eckhart designates as a cognition, a speaking, or a demeanor. The Father perceives the whole fulness of the Deity (6,S); or, what is the same, he speaks a single word, which comprises everything (70, 25). He procreates the Son (284, 12); for the Father is father only through the Son. The Son, however, is in everything like the Father, only that he procreates not (337, 3). The essence of the Father is also that of the Son, and the essence in both is no other than that of the Deity. From the pleasure and love which both have for each other springs the Holy Ghost (497, 26). Eckhart leaves no doubt that the entire trinitarian process must not be conceived of as a temporal one, but as a process extending throughout eternity (254, 10). Preger thought that Eckhart's distinction between Deity and God should be interpreted as a distinction between potentiality and actuality. To this interpretation Denifle (ALKG, ii. 453 sqq.) has strongly objected and cited Eckhart's Latin writings, in which he, with Thomas Aquinas and others, designates God as actus purus, thus excluding all potentiality. Denifle is right, in that Eckhart does not consciously and deliberately make any such distinction; but it can not be denied that his conception leads to it. Especially significant is Eckhart's explanation in 175, 7 sqq. where he tries to illustrate the relation between the fatherhood as it is determined in the Deity and the paternity of the person of the Father by the relation between the maternity peculiar to the Virgin as such, and the maternity which she acquires by bearing. But this is exactly the relation of potentiality and actuality (cf. also the peculiar passage 193, 33). It must be admitted that Eckhart here expresses two views which can not be harmonized with one another, though the second is not fully developed. Eckhart had a wealth of ingenious ideas, but he was unable to systematize them.
God in Creation
The self-manifestation of God in the Trinity is followed by his manifestation in his creatures. Everything in them that is truly real is God's eternal being; but God's being does not manifest itself thus in its entire fulness (101, 34; 173, 26; 503, 26). In this antithesis may be expressed the relation of Eckhart's philosophy to pantheism, both as regards similarities and differences. According to Eckhart, God's creatures have not, as Thomas Aquinas held, merely ideal preexistence in God, i.e. their conceptual essence (essential quidditas) coming from the divine intelligence, but their existence (esse) being foreign to the divine being. Rather is the true being of the creatures immanent in the divine being. On the other hand, every peculiarity distinguishing, creatures from each other is something negative; and in this sense it is said that the creatures are a mere nothing. Should God withdraw from his creatures his being, they would disappear as the shadow on the wall disappears when the wall is removed (31, 2). This perishable being is the creature confined within the limits of space and time (87, 49). On the other hand, every creature, considered according to its true entity, is eternal. It is obvious that this necessarily involves a modification of the idea of creation. Even Augustine of Hippo and others like him felt this difficulty. While they did not, like Eckhart, connect the existence of the world with the being of God, they did consider it unallowable to attribute to God any temporary activity. Albert the Great, one of Eckhart’s masters, tried to avoid the difficulty with the sentence, "God created all things from eternity, but things were not created from eternity"; but this is more easily said than conceived. According to the bull of 1329 (p. 2), Eckhart asserted that "it may be conceded that the world was from eternity." It is impossible here to investigate this view further; but reference must be made to the close relation into which Eckhart brings the process of the Trinity and the genesis, or progress, of the world, both of the real and the ideal world (76, 52; 254, 16; 284, 12; cf. Com. in Genes., ALKG, ii. 553, 13-17).
Relation of the Soul to God
The unqualified Deity, the Trinity (birth of the Son or of the Eternal Word), and the creation of the world are to him three immediate moments, which follow each other in conceptual, not temporal sequence. All creatures have part in the divine essence; but this is true of the soul in a higher degree. In the irrational creature there is something of God; but in the soul, God is divine (230, 26; 2,31, 4). Though God speaks his word in all creatures, only rational creatures can preserve it (479, 19). In other words, in the soul, where he has his resting-place, God is subjective, while in the rest of creation he is merely objective. The soul is an image of God, in so far as its chief powers, memory, reason, and will, answer to the divine persons (319, 1). This accords with the view of Augustine. Just as there is the absolute Deity, which is superior to the persons of the Godhead, so in the soul there is something that is superior to its own powers. This is the innermost background of the soul, which Eckhart frequently calls a "spark," or "little spark." In its real nature this basis of the soul is one with the Deity (66, 2). When Eckhart sometimes speaks of it as uncreated (286, 16; 311, 6), and then again as created, this does not involve a contradiction. While, on the one hand, it rests eternally in the Deity, on the other it entered into the temporal existence of the soul, i.e. was made or created through grace. But it is not in this original unity with God that the soul finds its perfection and bliss. As it has a subjective being, it must turn to God, in order that the essential principle implanted in it may be truly realized. It is not enough that it was made by God; God must come and be in it. But this has taken place without hindrance only in the human soul of Christ (67, 12). For all other souls sin is an obstacle.
Sin and redemption
But wherein does sin consist? Not in the finiteness, which is never removed from the soul (3S7, 3; 500, 1 1), but in the direction of the will toward the finite and its pleasure therein (476, 19; 674, 17). The possibility of sin, however, is based in finiteness, taken together with the free will of the creature. If it is the destiny of the soul to be the resting-place of God, then the direction of the will toward the finite makes this impossible; and it is this that constitutes sin. Redemption, therefore, can take place only when the creature makes room in his soul for the work of God; and the condition for that is the turning away from the finite. For God is ever ready to work in the soul, provided he is not hindered and the soul is susceptible to his influence (27, 25; 283, 23; 33, 29; 479, 31). The inner separation from everything casual, sensual, earthly and the yielding to the work of God in the heart, that is the seclusion or tranquillity of which Eckhart speaks again and again. For him this is the basis of all piety. But what is it that God accomplishes in the soul? The birth of the Son. As the soul is an image of the Deity, if it is to fulfil its destiny, then that process by which the deity develops into the three persons must take place in it. The father procreates in the soul the son (44, 28; 175, 15-20; 479, 10; 13, 12). This takes place during the life of the soul in time; and, too, not merely at a particular moment, but rather continuously and repeatedly. This is not merely a copy or analogon of that inner divine process, but is in truth that very process itself, by which it becomes, through grace, what the Son of God is by nature (433, 32; 382, 7; 377, 17). From this view of Eckhart's follow a number of the most striking statements in which the soul is made to share in the attributes and works of God, including the creation (119, 28-40; 267, 4; 283, 37-284, 7). However, according to Eckhart, a complete fusion of the soul with the Deity never takes place (387, 3). He also opposes the doctrine of Apocatastasis (65, 20; 402, 34; 470, 22).
Place of Christ
According to Eckhart, sin is not the real cause of the incarnation (591, 34). God wished rather to receive the nature of things through grace in time just as he had them by nature in eternity in himself (574, 34). Just as a man occupies a central position in the world, since he leads all creatures back to God, so Christ stands in the center of humanity (180, 7; 390, 37.) The same thought is found in Maximus the Confessor and Johanes Scotus Eriugena, but whence did Eckhart get it? Even at the creation of the first man Christ was already the end in view (250, 23); and now after the fact of sin, Christ stands likewise in the center of redemption. After the fall, all creatures worked together to produce a man who should restore harmony (497, 11). This took place when Mary resigned herself so completely to the divine word that the eternal word could assume human nature in her. However, this temporal birth of the son is again included in his eternal birth as a moment of the same (391, 20). And now God is to be born in us. In his human life Jesus becomes a pattern for man; and in all that he did and experienced, above all in his passion and death there is an overwhelming power that draws man to God (218-219) and brings about in us that which first took place in Christ, who alone is the way to the father (241, 17).
Ethics
Whatever one may think of Eckhart's philosophical and dogmatic speculations, his ethical view, at any rate, is of rare purity and sublimity. The inner position of man, the disposition of the heart, is for him the main thing (56, 39; 297, 11; 444, S; 560, 43) and with him this is not a result of reflection. One feels that it comes from the core of his personality; and no doubt this was the principal reason for the deep impression his sermons made. He speaks little of church ceremonies. For him outward penances have only a limited value. That man inwardly turn to God and be led by him seems to be the main purpose of Eckhart's exhortations. To let no one think because this or that great saint has done and suffered many things, that he should imitate him. God gives to each his task, and leaves every one on his way (560 sqq. 177, 26-35). No one can express the fact more definitely than does Eckhart, that it is not works that justify man, but that man must first be righteous in order to do righteous works. Nor does he recommend that one flee from the world, but flee from oneself, from selfishness, and self-will. Otherwise one finds as little peace in the cell as outside of it. Though he sees in suffering the most effective and most valuable means of inner purification, still it does not mean that one should seek sufferings of his own choosing, but only bear patiently whatever God imposes. He recognizes that it is natural for one to be affected either pleasantly or unpleasantly by the various sense-impressions; but in the innermost depths of the soul one must hold fast to God and allow himself to be moved by nothing (52, 1; 427, 22). It need hardly be added that he regards highly works of charity. Even supreme rapture should not prevent one from rendering a service to the poor.
Future investigations will presumably make possible a more accurate estimate of the importance of Eckhart; but it is hardly possible that they will overthrow the verdict of Henry Suso and Tauler concerning him.
Psychology
Eckhart's psychology and pneumatology are original and seminal. He distinguished, as did early Gnostics like Valentinus, between psyche and spiritual element in human being. Valentinian spiritual seed can be compared to Eckhart's fuenklein, scintilla animae, ground of the soul or soul-spark, which he identifies with "Imago Dei" from the Bible. This indestructible and divine element in the human being is for Eckhart (and for the major Christian mystical theology, including the concept of "synteresis" in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) only a potentiality, a latent function that needs to be nourished by vituous living and spiritual vigilance in order to grow and expand, unlike perfect Buddha nature from Mahayana Buddhism or Atman from Hindu Vedanta. The "Imago Dei" is sometimes compared to the fallen Adam, exiled from Paradise, and the new Adam, potentially the final destination of soul-spark if it, through classic Christian spiritual stages of purificative, contemplative and illuminative life, comes to the unitive life where soul-spark is self-transformed into Logos.
Eckhart today
Eckhart's status in the contemporary Church is uncertain. The Dominican Order has pressed in the last decade of the 20th century for his full rehabilitation and confirmation of his theological orthodoxy; the late Pope John Paul II voiced favorable opinion on this initiative, but the affair is still confined to the corridors of the Vatican.
As early as 1891 Karl Eugen Neumann, who translated large parts of the Tipitaka, found parallels between Eckhart and Buddhism. In the 20th century Eckhart's thoughts have been compared to Eastern mystics by both Rudolf Otto and D.T. Suzuki, among other scholars.
More recently, although most scholars accept that Eckhart's work is divided into philosophical and theological, Kurt Flasch and other interpreters see Eckhart strictly as a philosopher. Flasch argues that the opposition between "mystic" and "scholastic" is not relevant because this mysticism (in Eckhart's context) is penetrated by the spirit of the University, in which it occurred.
This article includes content derived from the public domain Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1914.
=====
这个西方宗教上的重要人物,中文世界好象没听说过。
维基百科也没有中文条。
Metaphor for him is like Irony to Socrates, Like spiritual midwives, these techniques help with the birth of ideas of the infusion of God into the soul
The best metaphor, for example, he says that God has never spoken to him but he has heard him clear his throat.
his famous sentence as ‘Love has no why’ and his non-scholastic comments to Thomas Aquinas etc. as ‘logic chopping’.
- Re: Meister Eckhart(1260-1328)posted on 11/04/2005
how interesting! would like to know more about him.
Metaphor for him is like Irony to Socrates, Like spiritual midwives, these techniques help with the birth of ideas of the infusion of God into the soul
The best metaphor, for example, he says that God has never spoken to him but he has heard him clear his throat.
his famous sentence as ‘Love has no why’ and his non-scholastic comments to Thomas Aquinas etc. as ‘logic chopping’.
- posted on 11/04/2005
在书店看到过这本书:
《埃克哈特大师文集》
【作 者】: (德)埃克哈特著 荣震华译
【丛书名】:
【页 数】: 537页
【尺 寸】: 20cm
【DU 号】: 000003119408
【出版社】: 商务印书馆
【主题词】: 神学(学科: 哲学思想地点: 德国)
【ISBN号】: 7-100-03849-9
【出版日期】: 2003
【原书定价】: CNY27.00
【中图法分类号】: B503.31
【参考文献格式】: (德)埃克哈特著 荣震华译; 埃克哈特大师文集 ; 商务印书馆, 2003.
内容提要 : 本书根据瑞士苏黎世第欧根尼出版社1979年版《埃克哈特大师德语和论说集》、马内斯出版社,1999年版《埃克哈特大师德语讲道录》并参考美国Kessinger Publishing Company《埃克哈特大师著作集》英文译出。:封面有德文题名。:本书包括:教诲录;论属神安慰;论贵人;讲道录等内容。 - posted on 11/04/2005
要不然就是从没听说过。要不然就是到处都见。今天在文学城瞎转,碰到一个网友的“见证”,特别提到 Eckhart,顺便转贴过来。
========
也来见证一回:从信到无所谓信与不信
文章来源: d.g.l 于 2005-08-30 14:36:07
早就想写几笔,把这件事了了,但是心里一直有些世俗的顾虑。看近来坛上讲述自己见证的不少,就来了兴趣,不妨也见证一回,这事儿就算了了。
坦诚地说,接触基督教的最初动机不纯。首先是受了韦伯社会学的启示,以为要救国就必须引入所谓的新教伦理。度过了八十年代末的风波,萌生了比较文化批判的冲动,更认为应该利用基督教文化的冲击改变中国文化,于是立志要学神学,准备回国当传教士。因为一些特殊的因缘,在准备学神学的阶段结识了一批教会人士,其中不乏神学世家的传人。当时的女友正在牧师班学习(前两天久别重逢,她回忆说我帮她写过布道词,毕业时的哲学考试也是我帮她作的,而我自己早已将此事忘得一干二净),其祖父因诠释旧约闻名,而指导我德语写作的密友是现代神学大师Karl Barth的再传弟子。可以说,我是未信上帝而先学神学。
受了这些朋友的影响,学习神学的动机逐渐发生了变化,救国热情转变成了对终极真理的追求。走上这条路的原因很简单,就是走进了现代基督教徒的思维定式:不管信什么,人总是要有一个信仰的。而一旦认为自己总要有一个信仰,那就要开始追求终极的神。按照开明基督教徒的说法,不论是佛还是道还是阿拉,实际上都是那个无可名状、不可言说的、三位一体的最高存在。这样,很快就成了没有受洗的基督信徒。说实话,当时没有受洗,还因为讨厌一切组织形式。
通过教会史的学习,很快就接触到了中世纪的基督教秘学(Mystik),Eckehart大师的布道词马上成了通往道门、佛学的敲门砖(基督教在这方面能那得出手的还就只有这么一位大师,后来他的文字还成了天主教会的禁书,基督教秘学就成了绝唱,现在许多人想令其复苏,苦于无路,只能跟日本禅去学,可怜)。教义(Dogmatik)的学习成了最枯燥也是最有趣的事。看不懂的时候,那文字就如同是迷宫或杂碎,枯燥得晕头转向,要看懂了,那就是一场精神杂技,赏心悦目,同时又如同冒险一样让人心惊胆颤,因为那种弯绕得实在是够玄的。正在绕来绕去地对信仰发生了动摇的时候,一个夜深人静的时刻有了一个令所有的朋友吃惊的经历,虽然没有瞎眼三天,但震撼力不亚于扫罗在大马色城外的见闻(请别问具体是什么经历,说出来没有任何人会相信;当时的密友中有两位是先学神学而后改学心理学的,他们马上进行了一番心理测试,结果没发现有什么问题)。幸亏早已经接触了Eckehart大师的学说,这个经历没有导致惊慌失措,也没有导致欣喜若狂,更没有导致狂热的传教欲望,但是对上帝的信得到了加强,毕竟不是每个人都会有类似的经历。问朋友如何经历那个存在,除了说是受家庭的影响外,多说不出个所以然,最多也就是在教堂祈祷时的那种群体感受。我还能有理由怀疑那个存在吗?如果确确实实地直接用身心经历了这个存在,那就只能坚信这个存在,如同在炎热的夏日跳进冰凉的水就不能再说水是热的一样。
随后,经过文友的推荐,突然开始喜欢Herbert Rosendorf的作品。这老兄是一个怪物,职业是法官,出名靠写作,对西方音乐和哲学的研究都很深入。听一位律师讲,这老兄作为法官“糟糕透顶”,因为他作出的判决律师们基本上不懂,想反驳都不知道何从入手。除了“写往中国古代的信”,老兄还有一部名为“黄铜心”的小说,写的是间谍机构的荒唐事,其中有一个细节,是主人公拜访一位耶酥教士。天主教耶酥教团的成员历来以学识渊博、善于思辩著称,小说中的老教士也是一位喜欢哲学思考的,说是把西方哲学横着竖着研究了三遍,最后得出一个结论:“法西斯的本质就是坚持终极真理只在自己的手中。”这句话给我来了一个醍醐灌顶,甘露洒心,教义问题上的许多个弯突然就明白了:那些弯我转不过来,根本原因就是,我可以信一个被称为造物主的上帝,但没法信教会的上帝,不论是“基督教”(新教)还是天主教的上帝,也难以信圣经里的上帝,尤其难信新约里的上帝。与指导写作的好友讨论了几个星期,他也认为,接着学教义已经没什么信仰上的意义,剩下的只是知识和哲学思考的意义。所以,教义还在学,但是已经成了批判的对象,而上帝也不再是和基督挂在一起的上帝,也与圣经脱离了关系。上帝终于失去了名字。
2001或2002年的时候,专心于禅学和道门已经有些年头,上帝早已经被遗忘在了脑后,而且因为特殊的原因,早已经避免进教堂。有一天与道友在一家咖啡馆,边喝边讨论,话题当然是道与禅。咖啡馆边上的教堂曾经是东德和平革命的起源地,人气很旺。短短半个小时间,居然又发生了两件“不可思议”的怪事。几个道友都是基督教家庭出来的,知道我信上帝的经历,于是和我开起了玩笑:老人家那么看重你,你却背叛他,他能不生气吗?而回想起那次深夜的经历,感觉到那个存在不是那个自称为犹太王的人物,更不是Eckehart大师的上帝,而似乎就是旧约各种神话所描述的那个,就是古代以色列人的复仇神。
离开咖啡馆的时候,天色已暗,抬头看教堂的尖顶,隐隐约约看到了什么,但是这个“什么”却是那么微弱,那么恼怒却那么无能为力。这时,脑海突现黄帝的名言:“道无鬼神,独往独来。”这句话明白了:是鬼神,非鬼神,是名鬼神。于是悄声对那个“什么”说:“再见了,老人家!这缘,到头了,不论是报复还是护佑,你的威力,对我已经微不足道。你不再是我的需要,我也不能再供养你。保重吧。”从此,那个“什么”便不再存在,我也不再怕进教堂。
神学界当年的那些朋友,如今或从政,或寻常就业,当然也有在教会当牧师的,现在依旧是朋友,只是都不再多谈上帝的信仰,即使当牧师的朋友也比以往多了些宽容,也知道了智慧与真理不仅仅在圣经之中。而我自己因为有过这样的经历,虽然不满教会的说教,但理解真正虔信的教徒对上帝的信仰,而且不赞同用科学的实证方法论证上帝的存在与否,因为上帝这个“什么”至少到目前为止无法用科学方法证实或证伪,所以这许多年能和基督教的朋友相安无事。只是碰上原教旨主义的新教极端教派的信徒,尤其是狂热传教的信徒,就免不了回敬一句:越是宣称信仰坚定,越是传教狂热的,心里对自己的信仰疑虑越多,传教的基础就是自己的信仰不足。自使徒保罗以降,基督教早期那么多信徒热衷于传教,不就是因为末日审判随时会到来的预言迟迟没有兑现吗? - Re: Meister Eckhart(1260-1328)posted on 11/04/2005
传教的基础就是自己的信仰不足。
这句话是有很强的佛学与心理学的根基的。
不想到随便一贴,倒见识这么多信息,是我见识不足,谢谢!
谢谢! - Re: Meister Eckhart(1260-1328)posted on 11/04/2005
Now I think belief is relevant or meaningful only on personal level - human existence as a mere accident of comic evolution is itself purposeless, looking for meaning in life is really a task for individual only, thus we have all kinds of interpretations and explainations of what meaning is. God is indeed a concept for those who need it. How strong your belief is depends on how well you can make yourself believe.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation