Dry Bones: Why Religion Can’t Live without Mysticism

[Contarini]

But neither the Incarnation nor the Trinity is diminished if Christianity is viewed in light of perennial philosophy.

I would like to believe that, but I don’t think it makes sense. However, I’m only beginning to investigate “perennial philosophy,” and I may change my mind!

What is called into question is the insistence on the exclusivity of the Church’s truth claims.

Which claims, and exclusive in what sense?

Religion is the handmaid of the Truth. Since religion is a “thing” that we can more or less define and categorize (and of course practice) in time, and since a unitive mystical Truth would be eternal, and transcending all definitions and concepts, then we’re back to the notion that Christianity is “somewhat arbitrary” once this contrast is established—and my apologies if that phrase comes off as a put-down, since it isn’t intended as such.

I don’t care about whether it is a put-down or not. I care about understanding how this statement is compatible with your earlier claim that perennial philosophy doesn’t diminsh the Incarnation or the Trinity. Christian doctrine most basically *is *the Incarnation and the Trinity. If these things are arbitrary, they are diminished in comparison to the status orthodox Christianity gives them.

Well, but I don’t know that Eckhart is the voice of one crying out in the wilderness. That, for sure, would ruin the whole Christian scheme—it would make Eckhart a singular spiritual prodigy who managed to hop off of “a donkey burdened with relics, a Church reduced to pure exoterism” (which is Borella’s summation of Guénon’s harsh critique of Catholicism.) His theology is, perhaps, the finest expression of universal mystical religion within Christianity, but it is not the only instance.

We’re talking past each other. You start with something called “universal mystical religion” (which you first say isn’t religion and can’t be defined, and then refer to as a religion and talk about who is or isn’t an instance of it) and judge Christianity by that standard. As you just said, in your view if Eckhart were unique then Christianity would be “ruined,” because Eckhart’s teachings are in some sense the reality behind Christianity.

Calling Eckhart a heretic (I’m not at all sure that he is, and even if he is he’s still a very valuable and needed voice in the Christian tradition) does not constitute a rejection of the apophatic tradition, only of one extreme version thereof. That’s the point I was trying to make. There’s a form of apophaticism in Aquinas, for instance, and a lot more of it in some of the Eastern Christian theologians like Maximus the Confessor. From the perspective of someone whose primary allegiance is to the orthodox Christian tradition, that just means that apophaticism needs to be placed in the context of other aspects of Christian tradition. To you it means that the form of Christianity that condemns Eckhart has rejected apophaticism altogether, because Eckhart is the “gold standard.”

I don’t think it’s in dispute that Eckhart’s teachings on “absolute identity” (those which are most in harmony with Eastern ideas) were condemned by Pope John XXII.

Who appears to have been theologically clueless as well as a pompous, power-hungry caricature of a medieval Pope, though perhaps I’m too hard on him

Edwin

 

[Yggdrasil]

Which claims, and exclusive in what sense?

Specifically, the claim to exclusivity itself: the notion that Christianity is the one and only way to the truth. This is incompatible with the idea that there is a perennial truth underlying the various religions.

Even Christ’s seemingly most emphatic statement of exclusivity—“no one can come to the Father except through me”—speaks of His mystical body as the means and not the end. Whether or not the Christian religion is absolutely the only means to God is the question. Since you’ve previously indicated that you think “Sufis are in genuine contact with God,” you may’ve already answered it to your own satisfaction.

I don’t care about whether it is a put-down or not. I care about understanding how this statement is compatible with your earlier claim that perennial philosophy doesn’t diminsh the Incarnation or the Trinity. Christian doctrine most basically is the Incarnation and the Trinity. If these things are arbitrary, they are diminished in comparison to the status orthodox Christianity gives them.

You seem to want to equate “arbitrary” with “baloney.” Is one radius of a circle any less a line from the circumference to the center just because there are other radii?

Is the doctrine of the Trinity “diminished” in Eckhart’s theology (following Plotinus), wherein the Trinity is called “a revelation” of the Godhead? Since the Trinity is spoken of, in the orthodox fashion, by using concepts such as love, begetting, and proceeding, Eckhart naturally views the Trinity as the eternal activity of God. But because in the Godhead “both activity and forms are no more,” he affirms that Oneness is without distinction: “no one can strike his roots into eternity without being rid of the concept of number.” It is explicit in other of his writings that the mystical vision is to be rid of concepts altogether.

We’re talking past each other. You start with something called “universal mystical religion” (which you first say isn’t religion and can’t be defined, and then refer to as a religion and talk about who is or isn’t an instance of it) and judge Christianity by that standard. As you just said, in your view if Eckhart were unique then Christianity would be “ruined,” because Eckhart’s teachings are in some sense the reality behind Christianity.

We must be talking past each other. “Who is or isn’t an instance” of a universal mystical tradition can be determined, as I’ve already said, by noting common factors. Just because the heart of this tradition happens to transcend language doesn’t mean that you and I can’t discuss the fact that religion (and religious mysticism) is the means to this universal truth.

To you it means that the form of Christianity that condemns Eckhart has rejected apophaticism altogether, because Eckhart is the “gold standard.”

I never said it has “rejected apophaticism altogether.” I’m content to let Aquinas be Aquinas and Augustine be Augustine. All of the great Christian theologians have of course given due consideration to the “negative Divine.” Eckhart, however, is notable among them. Rather than scurrying to reconcile this notion with the conventional theology, he refuses the temptation to have his cake and eat it too—he is bold enough to plumb the full implication of God as “non-Being” and even “non-God.” His synthesis (to my reckoning) nevertheless retains the Christian faith, but it can hardly be denied that his vision is striking and original.

As for his being the “gold standard,” I suppose that’s one way to look at it. It might be more accurate to say that he is generally given the same prominence in the Perennialist view as St. Thomas is assigned in Roman Catholicism.

Who appears to have been theologically clueless as well as a pompous, power-hungry caricature of a medieval Pope, though perhaps I’m too hard on him

Or perhaps not. It wouldn’t change the fact that a papal condemnation carries serious historical weight, and that Eckhart’s reputation has suffered because of it. That his work has been arguably better appreciated by various Vedantists, Buddhists, Perennialists, and non-Christian philosophers is primarily a testament to his universality. It may also be an unintended consequence of the failure of the institutional Church to recognize the value of his contribution.