1  

Meister Eckhart’s Doctrine of Union with God

Thomistic Intellectual Primacy over Pseudo-Dionysius’s Will1

Yakuv Gurung

Introduction

Meister Eckhart (1260-1327/28), a Dominican preacher and a mystic was eclipsed by

the charge of heresy by Pope John XXII. But since the appearance of Franz Pfeiffer’s edition

of Meister Sermons and treatises in 1857, his influence regained its reputation and popularity

in the19th century and Meister Eckhart once again became a central figure in mystical studies.2

However, among the contemporary scholars, some view him a mere scholastic metaphysic or

philosopher and other a mystic.

Those who consider Meister Eckhart a scholastic metaphysic deny his mystical

teaching3 whereas those who consider him as a mystic claims that his teaching primarily can be

                                                                                                               1 Thesis of this paper is to clarify up to what extend Meister Eckhart follows Thomas Aquinas’s intellectualism. Though he was heavily influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius yet we find the primacy of Thomistic intellectual trend over Pseudo-Dionysius’s will therefore, any such critical reading whether Meister Eckhart is theologically sound or not doesn’t fall within the thesis of this paper.

2 For detail see, James M. Clark, Meister Eckhart: An Introduction to the Study of His Works with an Anthology of His Sermons (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1957), 3-126, Bernard McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001), 1-34, Oliver Davies, Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian (London: SPCK, 1991), 11-93, Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense, trans and ed. Edmund College and Bernard McGinn (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 5-23, Frank Tobin, Meister Eckhart: Thought and Language (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 3-29.

3 Scholars such as Heribert Fischer, C.F. Kelly, Kurt Flasch, Burkhard Mojsisch consider him as a philosopher or a metaphysic therefore denies Eckhart’s teaching as a mystical. According to Herbert Fischer, Eckhart didn’t write treatise on mystical theology therefore is not a theologian of mystics. C.F. Kelly considered him a pure metaphysics and Kurt Flasch considered him a philosopher. See, Bernard McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001), 20-21. See also, Frank Tobin, “Mysticism and Meister Eckhart.” Mystics Quarterly 10, no. 1 (Mr 1984). To understand briefly how different scholars viewed Eckhart differently in a different period, see Oliver Davies, Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian (London: SPCK, 1991), 11-19.

  2  

summed up under the teaching of “the union of soul with God.” These scholars claim that

Eckhart’s doctrine of union with God is either primarily on intellect or will. And that who

claims Eckhart being intellectualist however, fails to prove why Eckhart gives such priority of

the intellect over the will though he was deeply influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius. Here I

propose to delineate intellectual primacy over the will in Eckhart’s doctrine of ‘union with

God.’

On the one hand, various Eckhart’s contemporary scholars consider him being a mystic

who puts primacy of the intellect over the will however, fails to prove so. Scholars such as

Richard Kieckhefer asserts that Meister Eckhart ultimately talks about habitual and

nonabstractive union with God. In his article he well establishes that Eckhart’s teaching on

union with God is more habitual over against ecstatic union. However, Eckhart’s emphasis on

intellect over the will is simply dropped.4 Frank Tobin also considers Eckhart being a mystic

because Eckhart emphasizes on the union with God and creature. Tobin also finds a Thomistic

ring to Eckhart’s concept of union with God however he fails to show how Eckhart builds this

doctrine on Thomistic intellectual primacy.5

In a similar manner, Oliver Davies in his book “Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian”

claims that Eckhart is an unusual mystic in the sense that he claims to have a union with God

that is intellective not ecstatic. Oliver plainly says that for Eckhart “It is a union founded upon

the mind and upon the act of knowing which is intrinsic to mind.” Thus the experience which

underlines Eckhart’s system and which he is constantly seeking to convey is itself a form of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              4 Richard Kieckhefer, “Meister Eckhart’s conception of union with God.” Harvard Theological Review 71,

no. 3-4 (Jl-O 1978). 5 Frank Tobin, “Mysticism and Meister Eckhart.” Mystics Quarterly 10, no. 1 (Mr 1984): 22.

  3  

thought.6 Oliver also shows how Eckhart’s teaching on union with God serves metaphysical

and mystical theology7 however, he builds this entire argument without mentioning the

influence of St. Thomas and Pseudo-Dionysius.

Another scholar of Meister Eckhart, Bernard McGinn, argues that there are two pypes

of mystics; one type stresses a form of extraordinary experiences and unique moments of

conscious awareness of standing outside ourshelves in union with God. Second kind stresses

on the ordinary in order to reveal the extraordinary, and Eckhart falls within the second

category.8 For McGinn Eckhart’s mysticism is primarily based on the concept of the

consciousness of the ground, which is different from all other experiences.9 In this way

McGinn brings out the priority of intellect over the will or experience. However, there is less

emphasis as to why Eckhart puts intellect or consciousness over will and experience. As a

matter of fact McGinn tries to explain Eckhart’s teaching in its own terms rather than seeing

the connection between Eckhart and prior scholars such as Thomas Aquinas and Pseudo-

Dionysius.10 Similarly, C.F. Kelly also stresses St. Thomas’s influence on primacy of the

intellect over the will of which Kelly says, “Eckhart’s great indebtedness to Aquinas for his

                                                                                                               6 Oliver Davies, Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian (London: SPCK, 1991), 4-5. 7 Ibid., 99-175. 8 Bernard McGinn, “The God beyond God  : theology and mysticism in the thought of Meister Eckhart,”

Journal of Religion 61, no. 1 (Ja 1981): 18. 9 Bernard McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing (New

York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001). In terms of Eckhart’s type of mysticism, McGinn, though he accepts Eckhart being a speculative mystic therefore greater role of intellect, however, he also argues that it is risky to label him a mere speculative mystic. McGinn further argues that one should begin with the text of the mystics themselves in order to describe a particular mystic therefore he picks up the term grunt or ground as Eckhart’s fundamental theme word and seeks to explain how Eckhart differs from all other mystics. McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing, 36-38.

10 For Detail see, Bernard McGinn, “The God beyond God  : theology and mysticism in the thought of Meister Eckhart,” Journal of Religion 61, no. 1 (January 1981) and Bernard McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001).

  4  

understanding of the primacy of intellect over reason and will.”11 However, he sees Eckhart’s

entire teaching as a metaphysical sense rather than mystical.

On the other hand, some scholars consider Eckhart giving primacy of the will in his

doctrine of the ‘union with God. For instance, Benedict M. Ashely admits that Eckhart always

attempted to correlate his own thought with the characteristics of a Thomistic position. At the

same time, Eckhart took a Neo-Platonist, Pseudo-Dionysius path for scholastic analysis. In this

sense, Ashely says, “Eckhart found categories more convenient for dealing with the

subjectivity of mystical experience than Aristotle’s uncompromisingly objectivist

epistemology.”12 This way Ashley primarily considers Eckhart giving priority of the will over

against the intellect. Similarly, translator and editor of Eckhart’s Germen sermons M.O’C.

Walshe also argues on Eckhart primarily giving priority of the will over the intellect on ‘union

with God.’ Walshe argues about the use of the Greek word synteresis or synderesis or even

sinderesis. By pointing out Pseudo-Dionysius’s use of this word, Walshe interprets that the

word synteresis as the spark of the conscience, which is the higher, will. In this sense according

to Walshe, Eckhart’s teaching gives priority of the will over intellect.13

In a nutshell, scholars have viewed Eckhart’s writing either as philosophical,

metaphysical or mystical. Scholars who conceive him a mystic argue that Eckhart basically

talks about either the intellect or the will’s primacy on the doctrine of union with God. There

seem two different interpretations on the doctrine of ‘union with God’ in Meister Eckhart’s do

                                                                                                               11 C.F. Kelly, Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1977),

27-40. 12 Benedict M. Ashely, “Three Strands in the Thought of Eckhart, The Scholastic Theologian,” Thomist 42

(April:1978). Similarly, C.F. Kelly also asserts the influence of St. Thomas, St. Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius therefore rightly says, “…that we should turn to St. Thomas, St. Augustine, and the Pseudo-Dionysius in order to appreciate the major preparatory influence on the mind of Eckhart.” C.F. Kelly, Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1977), 28-29.

13 See at the introductory part of Meister Eckhart: Sermons & Treatises vol.I. ed. and trans. M.O’C. Walshe (Rockport: Element, 1991), xli-xlii.

  5  

teaching. In such context I argue that, Eckhart's teaching is both scholastic, with Thomistic

overtones, and mystical with the Pseudo-Dionysius’ concept of soul experiencing God.

However, the reason that his mysticism rests on intellect rather than will is that he accepts the

Thomistic sense of the priority of the intellect.

To achieve this goal, I will analyze the sermons of Eckhart that are available in English

and interact with Eckhart’s contemporary scholars simultaneously. Similarly, this entire paper

is divided into main two sections. In the first section, I will seek to disclose the doctrine of

Eckhart’s nature and the meaning of union with God. This section define and explain the

nature and meaning of union with God in Eckhart’s teaching. In section two, I will focus on the

influence of Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Thomas on Eckhart’s doctrine of union with God. First,

Pseudo-Dionysius’ mystical influence will be examined subsequently then Thomas’ scholastic

method of intellectual primacy will be examined. After such studies my conclusion will be

drawn.

1. The nature of mysticism in Eckhart’s doctrine

Those who consider Eckhart as a mystic view his doctrine of union with God as a habitual

union where there is no such distinction between God and man. Regarding the nature of

mysticism, Kieckhefer delineates three basic kinds of union, which is habitual, ecstatic form,

and unitive life. He further asserts that habitual union is a consciousness of God’s presence,

which a person carries out in his/her ordinary activities. Ecstatic union on the other hand, is

generally regarded as a special kind of experience, which occurs briefly and intermittently.

Unitive life is the highest form of mysticism where a mystic enters a permanent state of

  6  

mystical development.14 Similarly, McGinn classifies union into two basic categories, namely,

a perfect uniting between the wills of the divine and human lovers and a union where

indistinct identity is found between God and human. Eckhart advocates the second kind of

union.15 Thus we find both Kieckherfer and McGinn agree upon Eckhart’s advocation of a

habitual union with God.16

This habitual union with God can be further established by analyzing Eckhart’s various

sermons. When he talks about the contemplative union17, he sees that the fruition of such

contemplative union is habitual. At one point, referring to St. Thomas’ emphasis on action over

against contemplation, he says, “It is actually the same thing, for we take only from the same

ground of contemplation and make it fruitful in works.”18 He further argues that the fruition of

contemplation is indeed action. He says, “For God’s purpose in the union of contemplation is

fruitfulness in works: for in contemplation you serve yourself alone, but in works of charity

you serve the many.”19

An obvious sermon that highlights habitual union in Eckhart’s mysticism is from Luke

10:38.20 Traditionally this story of Martha and Mary is interpreted as Mary choosing a better

part and therefore she did the best thing. However, Eckhart interprets it as the other way round.

                                                                                                               14 Kieckhefer, “Meister Eckhart’s conception of union with God,” 203-204. Kiechhefer in the same articles

makes another distinction which he calls abstractive union and non-abstractive union. He also compares ecstatic union with abstractive and non-abstractive union with habitual union.

15 Bernard McGinn, “Love, Knowledge and Unio Mystica in the Western Christian Tradition,” Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: An Ecumenical Dialogue, eds. Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn (New York: Continuum, 1996), 75-28.

16 Here I am deliberately leaving out the issue of whether Eckhart talks about contemplative mysticism or not due to the nature of the paper and the lack of space.

17 While Eckhart didn’t at all condemn such practices, he was endowed with enough psychological insight to warn his audience about the ambivalent role these acts can play in the search of spiritual life. Frank Tobin, Meister Eckhart: Thought and Language (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 117.

18 Meister Eckhart: Sermon and Treatises, vol. I, Sermon 3, trans. and ed. M.O’C Walsh (Rockport: Element, 1991), 28. Hereafter citation from this book will be as: Walshe, Volume number and Sermon (Pr.).

19 Walshe, vol. 1, Pr. 3. 20 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 9.

  7  

Mary seeks to fulfill her soul’s satisfaction whereas, Martha is already fulfilled. Eckhart says

that, “Mary was filled with longing, longing she knew not why and wanting she knew not

what.” Thus Eckhart points out that Mary baring contemplative life is not complete yet. She

has to reach higher level.

Martha requested Jesus to ask Mary to help her. In response to Martha’s request, Christ

says, “Martha, Martha” twice, which according to Eckhart points out the complete union of

Martha with God. Eckhart interprets Jesus’s double reference to Martha, Martha as, “He meant

that every good thing, temporal and eternal, that a creature could possess was fully possessed

by Martha…she lacked nothing pertaining to eternal bliss”.21 Martha’s involvement with action

is understood as a mature action, and well grounded according to Eckhart. Regarding this,

Eckhart says, “Martha stood maturely and well grounded in virtue, with untroubled mind, not

hindered by things, and so she wished her sister to be equally established, for she saw that she

was not grounded in her being.”22 Here Eckhart sees the contemplative life as imperfect and

immature until it is blossomed forth in activity.23

Christ also says to Martha that she (Mary) has chosen the best part. Here Christ is not

reproaching Martha but showing that Mary will eventually be fully matured. Christ indeed

comforts her that her younger sister will outgrow of her contemplative life and she shall be

blessed like her.24 Thus from this sermon we notice that though Eckhart doesn’t condemn

contemplative life, he also doesn’t consider contemplative life as matured and a complete

union with God. Rather the contemplative life must lead to habitual union with God, as Martha

                                                                                                               21 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 9. 22 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 9. Richard Kieckhefer summarizes the interpretation of Dietmar Mieth on this sermon in

his article Miester Eckhart’s Conception of Union with God and proves Eckhart’s habitual union with God. 23 Kieckhefer, “Meister Eckhart’s conception of union with God,” 207. 24 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 9.

  8  

had already obtained and Mary was a working progress. Regarding this, Bernard McGinn says,

“…according to Eckhart, our union with God is a continuous state…this continuous union with

God is not “experience in any ordinary sense of term – it is coming to realize and live out of

the ground of experience, or better, of consciousness.”25 Now this leads us toward the question

of how is such a union achieved.

1.1. Concept of union with God

It is obvious from Eckhart’s writings and sermons that he puts priority on the soul in

regard to union with God. Eckhart finds God and Soul resting in each other. For him, “God

rests in the soul as much as the soul rests in God.”26 In this sense, union is found in the soul not

elsewhere.

One of the apparent and basic ways to understand Eckhart’s understanding of union

with God is the birth of the Son in the soul. According to Eckhart, the human soul is the place

where the Son takes birth. This birth takes place in the ground27 of the soul.28 While answering

the question, “How does God the Father give birth to His Son in the soul?” Eckhart teaches

that “God the Father gives birth to His son in the true unity of the divine nature….that the

Father gives birth to the Son in the ground and essence of the soul, and thus unites Himself

                                                                                                               25 McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing, 149. 26 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 36. Besides God resting in Soul, Eckhart also compares “Soul with field where God

sows the good seed (Matt. 13:24), the root of all wisdom, all arts, all virtues, all goodness, the seed of divine nature and this divine nature is God’s son, God’s Word.” Meister Eckhart, “The Noble Man” Meister Eckhart: Sermon and Treatises, vol. III. ed. and trans. M.O’C. Walshe ((Rockport: Element, 1991), 106.

27 Here the concept ground or grunt refers to “uncreated something is the soul”, a term often linked with metaphors such as the “little spark”, or the “little castle.” Grunt therefore, should be understood not as a state or condition, but as the activity of grounding – the event or action of being in a fused relation. McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing, 45, 48.

28 Davies, Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian, 117. Ontologically God is present everywhere in every creatures whereas His moral presence or the birth of the Son is found only in the soul. Kieckhefer, “Meister Eckhart’s conception of union with God”, 210.

  9  

with her.”29 He further says, “that this eternal birth occurs in the soul precisely as it does in

eternity, no more and no less, for it is one birth, and this birth occurs in the essence and ground

of the soul.”30

The reason why Eckhart emphasizes the Soul being the place where the Son takes birth

is that she is a vestige of God; the soul is the natural image of God. Not only that other than

soul, no creature can receive God.31 The Soul is able to receive God because she is made in

every way like God. She is more than a mere image. God “made her like Himself, in fact like

everything that He is – like His nature, His essence and His emanating-immanent activity, and

like the ground wherein He subsists in Himself.”32As a matter of fact, Eckhart does not see the

Soul merely like God and image of God rather he sees the source of the soul and the Son as the

same. For him the soul draws the same source as to the Son.33 Along with these, the soul also is

free inwardly and encumbered of all mediations and of all images.34 When the son takes birth

in the soul, there will not be many sons, but one son. There will be the single natural outlet of

the Son: not two but one.35 But how does this happen? Eckhart says we will be one with God

in essence and nature, as the Son is one with the Father in essence and nature. We will have the

very essence and nature of the Father.36

But the prerequisite to take such birth in the soul is the soul must be free and empty

from all kinds of attachment. When the soul becomes completely empty and free of all images

                                                                                                               29 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 1. 30 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 2. 31 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 2. 32 Walshe, vol. 2. Pr. 92. 33 Walshe, vol. 2. Pr. 95. 34 Matthew Fox, Breakthrough: Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation (New York:

Doubleday & Company, 1980), 295-296. 35 Walshe, vol. 2. Pr. 47. 36 Walshe, vol. 2. Pr. 47.

  10  

through detachment37, there the Son of God takes birth. Such a pure and empty soul hears the

Word of God.38 Such detachment also compels God to love us. Putting detachment above love,

Eckhart says, “love constrains me to love God, but detachment compels God to love me.39”

However, such notion of God being compelled to love me is that any external agent does not

force God but rather only follows his own nature. In a sense, God and humans are alike in

detachment. It is the very nature of God and humans. Thus in detachment God becomes one

with humans in accordance with his nature, that is naturally.40 Such detachment draws a man

into purity and from purity, into simplicity, and from simplicity into unchangeability, and these

things produce an equality between God and man. Such person leads a life of active

contemplation, following the path of Martha.41

Eckhart illustrates this concept of detachment with the virgin wife. One needs to be a

virgin in terms of all kinds of attachments. According to him, virgin doesn’t mean not doing

works, but rather, free from the hindrances from all such works to the highest Truth.42 Such

virgin wife is free and unfettered by attachments; she is always as near to God as to herself

however, she should not remain virgin all the time. She should bear fruits.43 In commenting on

this sermon, Schurmann explains that God will withdraw when the image is entered. This is                                                                                                                

37 Regarding the true detachment Eckhart says, “True detachment is nothing else but a mind that stands unmoved by all accidents of joy or sorrows, honor, shame or disgrace, as mountain of lead stands unmoved by a breadth of wind.” In this sense, detachment means according to Eckhart not being possessed by the worldly things. Meister Eckhart, “The Noble Man” Meister Eckhart: Sermon and Treatises, vol. III. ed. and trans. M.O’C. Walshe ((Rockport: Element, 1991), 120-121.

38 Hee-Sung Keel, Meister Eckhart: An Asian Perspective (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2007), 209. 39 Meister Eckhart, “The Noble Man” Meister Eckhart: Sermon and Treatises, vol. III. 117. 40 Keel, Meister Eckhart: An Asian Perspective, 169. 41 Beverly J. Lanzetta, “Three Categories of Nothingness in Eckhart,” The Journal of Religion 72, No. 2

(April 1992): 263. 42 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 8. German word Gelassenheit or detachment can be translated as “infinite resignation”

and “serenity.” These two translations imply breaking the habit of possessing things and also oneself. Lassen, signifies “to let” or “to let be,” hence to restore freedom, to untie. It is only secondarily that the word mean “to abandon,” “to reject,” or even “to ignore.” Thus the very word detachment itself doesn’t advocate a renunciation of one’s work. See, Reiner Schurmann, Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1978), 16.

43 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 8.

  11  

why the intellect must be entirely empty, in a state of pure receptivity, to completely

accommodate the whole Jesus.44 Here we clearly see the condition upon which the Son takes

birth in the human soul is detachment from all those works that hinders from such birth. At the

same time such detachment doesn't mean not doing works rather involves not being absorbed

by it.

This detachment alone is not sufficient for union with God. For perfect union with God,

there should be the return of the Soul as much as the birth of the Son in the Soul. Such union is

a reformation, recreation, and a remarking of man back into the simple ground of God. It is

also the nobility that the soul never loses, an intellectual conversion to the noble part of the

soul that Eckhart calls “grunt” or “ground”.45 This return or breakthrough of the soul and the

birth of the Son in the soul are seen as indispensable and complementary to each other.

Regarding this J. Caputo says, “In the one, the breakthrough to Godhead is more radical than

the birth of the Son and indeed the ground and basis of it. In the other, the birth of the Son

crowns and perfects the unity with the Godhead as fruitfulness perfect virginity.”46

Now, this all leads us to another question to which part or where does this union exactly

talks place? Regarding this, Eckhart makes it clear that it is in the intellect that this union takes

place. Here Eckhart understands intellect as a part of the soul.

1.2. Intellect as the ground of the soul

                                                                                                               44 Reiner Schurmann, Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1978), 10-

11. 45 McGinn, “The God beyond God  : theology and mysticism in the thought of Meister Eckhart,” 5. 46 J. Caputo, “Fundamental Themes of Meister Eckhart’s Mysticism,” Thomist 42. no.2 (1978):224.

  12  

According to Eckhart, the birth of God in the soul results essentially from two factors;

namely the nature of God and the nature of the ground that is the image of God.47 Eckhart

makes it clear that God is intelligence or understanding48 and therefore resides in intellect.

Because God is the intellect, the place where God dwells in the soul is also in the intellect of

the soul. Intellect is the temple of God where He dwells.49 This is the reason why Eckhart calls

the power of soul is intellect.

Similarly Eckhart also speaks of two powers within the soul that constitutes the image:

the intellect and the will.50 It is in this intellect of the soul that this union is found. It is intellect

according to Eckhart, that shares in common with God.51 Not only this, the relationship

between God and intellect is above an analogical relationship. For Eckhart, God and the soul

stand in an univocal relationship.52

For Eckhart a man has and an active and a passive intellect. An active intellect acts in

itself raising itself, to the honor and glory of God. But according Eckhart, when God

undertakes the work (takes birth) the mind must remain passive. The reason why active

intellect cannot have a union with God is it is active for its own natural man.53 Whereas, when

                                                                                                               47 Davies, Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian, 149. 48 Eckhart Meister, “Latin Sermon XXIV” Meister Eckhart: Teacher and Preacher, trans. Bernard McGinn

(New York/Mahawah/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1986), 225. Eckhart’s claim of God being understanding or intellect is seems based on his argument on the simplicity of God. “If it has some existence other than understanding, it is already composed and not simply One. It is very clear than that God is properly alone and that he is intellect or understanding and that he is purely and simply understanding with no other understanding.” However this is not to deny that Eckhart denies God as being. For Eckhart, His whole being is intellect or understanding. See, Frank Tobin, Meister Eckhart: Thought and Language (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 131. Eckhart claims “in saying that God is not a being and is above being, I have not denied being to God; rather, I have elevated it in him.” Meister Eckhart, “German Sermon 9,” trans. Frank Tobin, Meister Eckhart: Teacher and Preacher (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 256.

49 Meister Eckhart, “German Sermon 9,” trans. Frank Tobin, Meister Eckhart: Teacher and Preacher (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 257.

50 Davies, Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian, 134. 51 Keel, Meister Eckhart: An Asian Perspective, 111. 52 Ibid., 53 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 3.

  13  

intellect is passive, God dominates and begets Himself in the passive intellect.54 This passive

intellect however should not be interpreted as an ecstatic experience rather a habitual

consciousness of God’s presence. God is present everywhere and in everything such as a stone,

or a block of wood, but they are not aware of His presence. He further says that it is knowledge

of His presence, rather than this presence itself that constitutes the beatitude and the degree of

blessedness.55 However, this consciousness as Kieckhefer summarizes is more of a habitual

disposition of the soul. It is an explicit, reflective act of cognition; it is an inner insight at the

same time not a constant, regular thinking about him.56 As we have clearly delineated

Eckhart’s nature of mysticism (union with God), we will further detail how Eckhart puts the

primacy of intellect over the will.

2. The primacy of intellect in union with God

During the period of Eckhart, there was the question whether, among the powers of the

soul, the higher dignity belongs to the will or to the intellect.57 In this section we will

particularly explore Pseudo-Dionysius’ understanding of the will and Thomas Aquinas

primacy of the intellect, and prove how Eckhart employs both ideas yet puts the primacy of the

intellect over the will.

2.1. Pseudo-Dionysius’s Influence on Eckhart

The Dominican preacher, Meister Eckhart, borrows the various concepts from Pseudo-

Dionysius lavishly. Even though Dionysius is usually known for his apophatic theology, he too

uses cataphatic theology while describing God. However, for Dionysius, theological

                                                                                                               54 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 3. 55 Fox, Breakthrough: Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation, 302. 56 Kieckhefer, “Meister Eckhart’s conception of union with God”, 211-212. 57 Wilhelm Windelband, History of Philosophy (New York: Harper, 1958), 328.

  14  

knowledge is a limited but necessary human achievement enabled by divine grace. There

seems no possible knowledge of God’s self. Here Dionysius emphasizes the radical

transcendence of God. For him, affirmative theology must be corrected by negative theology,

which ultimately leads to contemplation and mysticism.58 In a sense, cataphatic theology is not

enough in knowing God. As a matter of fact, in Dionysius’ theology it is apophatic theology

that dominates and culminates cataphatic theology. For Dionysius, “theology in all its forms

must be conscious always of the unknowability of God, and driving purpose of all theological

activity should be mystical union. Mystical theology is the goal and ground of the other stages

of theology.”59 Thus we can say, theology begins from cataphatic to apophatic and ends in

mystical union.

2.1.1. Pseudo Dionysius: Apophatic and Cataphatic Theology:

The reason why Dionysius uses apophatic language is that he considers that God is

beyond-being. God is from all, separated.60 Regarding this he says, “Since the unknowing of

what is beyond being is something above and beyond speech, mind or being itself, one should

ascribe to it an understanding beyond being.”61 Not only that, this God’s being is nameless

because human intellect cannot grasp the infinite and ultimate meaning of His name.62 This he

describes as “Nor can any words come up to the inexpressible Good, this One, this Source of

all unity, this supra-existing Being. Mind beyond mind, word beyond speech…”

                                                                                                               58 Seely J. Beggiani, “Theology at the Service of Mysticism: Method in Pseudo-Dionysius,” Theological

Studies, 57 (1996): 204. 59 Beggiani, “Theology at the Service of Mysticism: Method in Pseudo-Dionysius,” 201. 60 William, Riordan. Divine Light: The theology of Denys the Areopagite (San Francisco: Ignatius Press,

2008), 171. 61 Psuedo-Dionysius, “The Divine Names, I, 588A” Pseueo-Dionysius The Complete Works, ed. John Farina

(New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 49. 62 Wayne Teasdale, Essay in Mysticism: Exploring into Contemplative Experience (Lake Worth: Sunday

Publication, 1996), 109.

  15  

However, this is not to deny that Dionysius all together rejects all the revelation found

in the scripture regarding God. What Dionysius means is that, we can use only what scripture

has disclosed regarding God. Though God actually surpasses being and is incomprehensible,

God is not absolutely incommunicable to everything. God generously reveals himself in

scripture through which we know to some extent.63 This revealed that an unsearchable and

inscrutable God according to Pseudo-Dionysius can be known via four ways. They are:

symbolic, affirmative, negative and mystical. The first two ways (symbolic and affirmative) are

knowing God as He is manifesting Himself in and through His cosmos. The third and fourth

(negative and mystical) are to know Him in his transcendence.64 Eckhart shares this view of

mysticism, especially the third and fourth ways of Pseduo-Dionysius.

Dionysius basically rejects the notion of God as being. For him it is an erroneous

perception about God.65 Dionysius argues that we should negate all the affirmations about God

because God surpasses all being and knowledge. That is to claim that God as a being should

also be negated.66 This very concept of God as a non-being is found in Meister Eckhart’s

teaching. At one point Eckhart denies God as a being and considers Him intellect or

understanding and that He is purely and simply an understanding with no other understanding.

He also affirms God as a being and His whole being is intellect or understanding.67 As a matter

of fact, Eckhart extols God above being.68 Along with this, God is beyond any comparability or

                                                                                                               63 Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names, I, 588C-589A. 64 Riordan. Divine Light: The theology of Denys the Areopagite, 175-176. 65 Pseudo-Dionysius, Mystical Theology 1.1000a-b. 66 Ibid., 67 Tobin, Meister Eckhart: Thought and Language, 131. Beverly J. Lanzetta states that for Eckhart, God

being a “intellect and being are in reciprocal relationship depending on where on stands – sometimes intellect is assigned priority over being, at other times being is higher than intellect.” Beverly J. Lanzetta, “Three Categories of Nothingness in Eckhart,” The Journal of Religion, Vol.72, No. 2, (April, 1992), 251.

68 Walshe, Vol. 2, Pr. 67, Pg. 150-151.

  16  

analogy. Both Pseudo-Dionysius and Eckhart affirm that there is no kind of thing, which is

God. Therefore there is nothing we can say which describes what God is.69

According to Pseudo-Dionysius, the way to God is ultimately by negation since the

soul must move beyond its own nature.70 It is through the negative that the soul is led into that

‘Unknowing’ in which the Divine Darkness71, God’s brilliance and glory are resided.72 Eckhart

shares the same concept that God is beyond the capture of our intelligence and words. For

Eckhart, God is nameless because no human being can grasp God or understand Him. In this

sense when we say God is good, He is not. When we say God is wise, it is not true. When we

say He is a being, He is not. However this is not to deny God is good, wise or being but rather

God is beyond all these things. God is beyond our grasp or understanding.73 Thus Eckhart’s

theology is leans towards Dionysius’ apophatic theology.

2.1.2. Pseudo-Dionysius: Primacy of the Will in Union with God

The way we describe or know God is by His names, as He himself has revealed in the

scripture. But this unsearchable God is beyond any being, words, or languages and therefore

can be reached only through negation. This negative approach leads to mystical union.

According to Dionysius, “Unknowing” or “via negative” is an exercise in freeing the intellect

from all finite conceptions and objects in order that the soul may be prepared to receive a

                                                                                                               69 Turner, Denys. “The Art of Unknowing  : Negative Theology in Late Medieval Mysticism,” Modern

Theology 14, no. 4 (October 1998): 481. 70 Pseudo-Dionysius, Divine Names, 981B. 71 For Dionysius, the divine darkness is not an absence of light but “unapproachable light.” It is light beyond

light. It is invisible because of its superabundant clarity and transcendent. Seely J. Beggini, “Theology At The Service of Mysticism: Method in Pseudo-Dionysius,” Theological Studies, 57 (19996): 222.

72 Teasdale, Essays in Mysticism: Exploring into Contemporary Experience, 128. 73 Meister Eckhart, Sermon 82, Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and

Defense, eds. Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 206-207.

  17  

Divine Impulse and then return to Him.74 As the soul continues to climb up, she arrives at the

point where thought itself is left behind and she reaches in pure unity in God. In this point, the

soul foretastes the beatitude.75 In this way Pseudo-Dionysius subsides the idea of intellect and

emphasizes a mystical vision that is perceived in the soul through the will. At this point even

Eckhart sounds like he emphasizes on the will. After stating we cannot know God or

understand God, he postulates ways to reach God, “You ought to sink down out of all your

your-ness, and flow into his his-ness, and your your and his his-ness ought to become one mine,

so completely that you with him perceive forever his uncreated is-ness, and his nothingness,

for which there is no name.”76 Similarly, in Pseudo-Dionysius’ mysticism, contemplation plays

the highest part therefore it is the most important activity. In this contemplation, union with

God is not reached by any of our usual means of knowing, such as sensation, imagination, or

conceptualization in the discursive mode of thought. Thus intellect doesn’t take us to the union

with God or knowledge of God. Instead, To be united with God and to have the knowledge of

God, the soul has to be God and the way to this state of consciousness is through a rejection of

sense perception, form, imagination, thought, and sin all together, and pass into the ‘Darkness’

of the Divine.77

2.1.3. Pseudo-Dionysius: In Union Intellect Vanishes Away

According to Pseudo-Dionysius, we are called to respond to God’s offer of love, light

and divinization. However, humans are extremely limited in knowledge and ability. While

responding to God, on the level of sense perception, we use words, phrases, and symbols such

                                                                                                               74 Wayne Teasdale, Essays in Mysticism: Exploring into Contemporary Experience (Florida: Sunday

Publication, 1982), 129. 75 Ibid., 129-130. 76 Meister Eckhart, Sermon 82, Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and

Defense, 207. 77 Teasdale, Essays in Mysticism: Exploring into Contemporary Experience,127.

  18  

as names etc. Once we reach the level of intellect, our senses and all that go with them are no

longer needed. Finally, when our soul becomes divinized and our minds enter an unknowing

union with unapproachable light, our intellectual knowledge is left behind.78 In this union, our

minds will be struck by his blazing light.79 Similarly, “Dionysius claims that the union of

divinized mind with the Light beyond all deity occurs in the cessation of all intellective

activity.”80 Therefore, for Dionysius such union means to completely renounce the intellect and

to merge into contemplation. Here Pseudo-Dionysius clearly puts primacy of the will over the

intellect.

On the other hand though Eckhart talks about mystical union with God by breakthrough

or returning into ground and letting God give birth the Son in the ground of the soul, he

consistently talks about intellect where such birth takes place. Though we detach from all

attachments or images, we are in constant consciousness of God but not possessed by it.

Dionysius views the fruition of all approaches (Symbolic, affirmative and negative) is

the mystical union with God as a cessation of the intellect whereas for Eckhart the fruition of

contemplation is an active and habitual union with God. The will seeks merely the goodness of

God, whereas intellect seeks God himself according to Eckhart. Conversely Dionysius

emphasizes contemplation. He basically argues for contemplative theology. He even states

“that theology itself is at the service of contemplation and mysticism, and that the offer of

                                                                                                               78 Beggini, “Theology At The Service of Mysticism: Method in Pseudo-Dionysius,” 213. 79 Ibid., 220. Regarding such union, Pseudo-Dionysius provides an example of Moses plunging into the

mysterious darkness of unknowing. He says, “Here, renouncing all that mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he (Moses) belongs completely to him who is beyond everything. Here…one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing.” Pseudo-Dionysius, “The Mystical Theology, I, 1001 A,” Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, ed. John Farina (New York: Paulist Press), 137.

80 Beggini, “Theology At The Service of Mysticism: Method in Pseudo-Dionysius,” 221.

  19  

divine grace has divinization as its goal.”81 Besides these, Eckhart even claims that it is in the

passive intellect where union takes place. God doesn’t reject or overthrow human intellect but

rather uses it. Thus we see that though Eckhart employs the concept of apophatic theology of

Pseudo-Dionysius, as he uses almost the same language of mystical union with God, he differs

significantly by emphasizing on intellect in union with God. The reason for primacy of the

intellect in union with God, in Eckhart teachings, is due to the influence of the scholastic

method (primacy of intellect) found in Aquinas and Dominican order, which we will explore

under the next heading.

2.2. Aquinas’ influence on Eckhart82

As C.F. Kelly tells us, Eckhart as a Dominican, in the direct line of St. Albert the Great

and St. Thomas Aquinas, was directly influenced by them. He is also a chief upholder of the

teaching on “the primacy of intellect,”83 which was the distinguishing mark of the order.84 In

identifying the intellect as the power in which human being is informed by God, Eckhart

emphasizes the centrality of intellect in his mystical theology which is very much in

Dominican order, especially St. Thomas’s primacy of the intellect over the will. With such

Thomistic intellectual primacy in theology, Eckhart too builds his mystical theology of “union

                                                                                                               81 Ibid., 204. 82 Besides these Thomistic influences on Eckhart, there is another indirect influence from the Dominican

order itself. As a Dominican order and rivalry to the Franciscans, a Dominican preacher or teacher always needed to emphasize on the primacy of the intellect over the will. In fact, it was compulsory to a Dominican friar. All Dominicans were required to promote Thomistic positions or doctrines. Such external environment of Dominican order and rivalry against the Franciscan itself must have influenced Eckhart some extent to prioritize the intellect over the will. See, William A. Hinnebusch, The History of the Dominican Order, vol.2 (New York: Alba House, 1973), 155.

83 This must be understood, not his use of the intellect method, for that had become common to all the schools of the time, but rather his affirmation of the primacy of the intellect over the will. See, Louis Bouyer et al., A History of Christian Spirituality: The Spirituality of the middle ages, vol. II (London: Burns & Oates, 1968), 331. Scholars such as Norman Kretzman, Eleonore Stump and David Gallagher argue Thomas being a voluntarist. See, Jeffrey Hause, “Thomas Aquinas and the Voluntarists,” Medieval Philosophy and Theology 6, (1997): 167-182.

84 Kelly, Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge, 27.

  20  

with God.”85 Therefore, in this section we will basically concentrate on how Aquinas

influenced Meister Eckhart on mystical thinking while prioritizing the intellect rather than

expounding on the whole methods of Thomas Aquinas.

2.2.1. Thomas as a Mystic

Before pinpointing the influence of Aquinas on Meister’s doctrine of union with God, it

is worthwhile to explore the mystical teaching of Thomas Aquinas. We certainly cannot claim

Thomas Aquinas to be a mystic and therefore claim his writings as mystical in the sense of a

modern understanding of a mystic as a person who has a peculiar and ecstatic vision for eriting

such things. However Aquinas can be considered as mystical in a the sense of union with God,

through the intellectual light we receive from God.86

A.N. Williams argues that in medieval theology, especially in Thomas Aquinas

theology we don’t find two separate and distinct sets of theology; the so called “mystical” and

“pure theological.” He finds out that in Aquinas’ great writing Summa Theologiae, there lies a

mystical writing of “union with God.” He argues that in Thomistic theology or methodology,

theology is ultimately concern about God. Theology itself is a form of reflection deriving from

a kind of active participation in God’s self knowledge, which is no less than God’s own self. In

                                                                                                               85 Scholars such as Bernard McGinn, Thomas F. O’Merar and Edmund Colledge consider that Eckahrt’s

teaching on faith and reason is more close to Christian Platonism than Thomas Aquinas. See, Meister Eckhart: The Essential Semons, Commentaries, Treatises and Defense, translated and edited by Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 25. Thomas F. O’Meara, “Introduction: The Presence of Meister Eckhart,” Thomist, vol. 42 (April 1978), 171. Edmund Colledge, “Meister Eckhart: His Times and His Writings,” Thomist 42 (April 1978): 241-242.

86 A.N. Williams, “Argument to Bliss: The Epistemology of The Summa Theologiae,” Modern Theology 20:4 (October 2004): 509-511.

  21  

this sense, mysticism is not just having an ecstatic vision and merely a solipsistic personal

fulfillment rather an active engagement in contemplation that leads to union with God.87

We should not be misled by the term contemplation used by Aquinas. Here the meaning

of contemplation is not merely an action of the will, rather Aquinas affirms such contemplation

is “a light, a superhuman mode of knowledge; it is intuitive and it is experimental like sensible

knowledge.”88 “It is impregnated with love, it is a wisdom a knowledge full of delight by

which we attain to God and taste Him.”89 In this sense, contemplation is intellectual in nature.

Contemplation is a matter of the mind rather than the heart. Not only that, Aquinas believes our

highest activity must be done to engage our highest power with the highest object. Since

intelligence is our highest power and God our highest object of activities, contemplation is

therefore necessarily intellectual.90 Such contemplation leads to love and such knowledge and

love leads to union with God. Though Aquinas doesn't talk directly about the soul merging into

God, yet he definitely talks about the intellect having union with God, which we find in

Meister Eckhart’s teaching too, in a different fashion. Now let us examine the Thomistic

primacy of the intellect in Eckhart’s doctrine of union with God.

2.2.2. Direct Influence on Meister Eckhart

Thomas influenced Eckhart’s very concept of God. While Eckhart inherits the

Thomistic priority of the intellect, he even takes this notion of primacy of the intellect to its

apex. Eckhart not only asks, “whether the intellect or the will is superior” he even asks,

“whether in God Being (esse) and Thought (intelligere) are the same” Regarding this question,

                                                                                                               87 A.N. Williams, “Mystical Theology Redux: The Pattern of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae,” Modern

Theology 13:1(January 1997): 56-66. 88 Ibid., 89 Ibid., 90 Williams, “Mystical Theology Redux: The Pattern of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae,” 61-62.

  22  

Thomas had taught that while esse and intelligere are identical in God, ultimately we

understand God as an absolute Being. Eckhart however, reverses this order to claim that the

most proper name of the unnamed God is “Thought.” God is called “Being” only because as

pure Thought he is also creator of all other things to which He gives being.91 In this regard

Eckhart says, “I will show that no longer seems to me that God understands because he is, but

rather that he is because he understands; so that God is intellect and the act of intellection, and

the act of intellection is the foundation of his being.”92 This of course proves that Eckhart was

in line with Thomistic intellectualism, and even more radical in he that teaches the superiority

of the intellect over the being itself.

Similarly, another influence of Thomas Aquinas on Eckhart’s teaching is the concept

of ‘the ground of the soul.’ According to Aquinas, the soul in its substance doesn’t do anything.

It is the faculties of the soul that does what it does. It is within the soul that the faculties of

intellect are found, and thus the will thus enables the soul to carry out its natural destiny to

know, love, or choose. Influenced by this notion, Eckhart saw the substance of the soul as a

hidden chamber, a little castle, a little spark, which he calls the inner ground of the soul in

which an event takes place.93 For Eckhart, this inner ground is beyond sense and untouched by

the body and time. The highest thing one could say about the ground of the soul is that it is free

from all names and all forms. In such ground, only God can enter because He is pure and

simple, as this soul is pure and simple. Eckhart often calls this hidden ground of the soul,

                                                                                                               91 Ashely, “Three Strands in the Thought of Eckhart, The Scholastic Theologian,” 231. “While naming God

as Thought Eckhart builds his Trinitarian theology on it. He names the Father as the Thought, who by the very fact that He is pure Thought is the One, the plenitude of Being. The Son is the Word expressing the plenitude of this Thought, and the Spirit is the Love (ardor) by which Thought and Expression return to perfect Unity.” Thus Eckhart seeks to build his theology within the premises of intellect. Benedict M. Ashely, “Three Strands in the Thought of Eckhart, The Scholastic Theologian,” 232.

92 John D. Caputo, “The Nothingness of the Intellect in Meister Eckhart’s Parisian Questions,” Thomist vol. 1. No.39 (January 1975): 90.

93 Caputo, “Fundamental Themes in Meister Eckhart’s Mysticism,” 206.

  23  

“reason or intellect.” Here Eckhart employs the idea of Thomas’ distinction between rational

faculty and rational soul. It is because the soul is rational in its being that it is equipped with

rational faculty. Therefore, now when Eckhart speaks to the ground of the soul as reason or

intellect he is referring to the rational being of the soul that is, spiritually and immateriality,

which is the root of its intellectual power.94

Thomas’ understanding of the two operations of the intellect must have influenced

Eckhart. Thomas Aquinas, giving priority to intellect, boldly claims, “the intellect cannot be

false.”95 What he means is that intellect operates in two ways. The first operation of the

intellect is that which grasps the essences, or quiddities of things. In this stage intellect do not

make any judgment. The second operation of the intellect is that by which it makes judgment

upon the received essences or quiddities. Such judgment can be negative or positive.

According to Aquinas, in the first operation of the intellect, intellect cannot be false because it

doesn’t make judgments. Truth and falsity only enter in the second operation of the intellect.96

What we see here is that the intellect is pure in this stage. This high view of intellect we see in

Eckhart’s teachings labels God as intellect or understanding, which is beyond being or the

whole being of God, is understanding.

Aquinas understanding of the two faculty of intellect, namely the agent intellect and the

receptive intellect, also influenced Eckhart to build his mystic doctrine based on the intellect.

Aquinas believed that intellect was not one faculty, but two, or rather a single faculty with two

powers, the agent intellect and the receptive intellect. It was the agent intellect that was the

human capacity to abstract universal ideas from particular sense-experience; it was the                                                                                                                

94 Ibid., 207-208. 95 John Jenkins, “Aquinas on the Veracity of the Intellect,” The Journal of Philosophy vol. 88, no. 11 (Nov.

1991): 623. 96 Jenkins, “Aquinas on the Veracity of the Intellect,” 624-625.

  24  

receptive intellect which was the storehouse of those ideas once abstracted.97 This very idea is

adopted by Eckhart however with his own interpretations and modifications. Eckhart teaches

about two kinds of intellect, namely active and passive. Active intellect acts in itself, raising

itself, to the honor and glory of God. But according Eckhart, when God undertakes the work

(takes birth) the mind must remain passive. The reason why active intellect cannot have union

with God is it is active for its own natural man.98 Whereas when intellect is passive, God

dominates and begets Himself in the passive intellect.99

Thomas also puts primacy of the intellect by showing that intellect directs the will.100

Thomas believed that intellect apprehends both the general idea of good and discerns what is

good, therefore determines the will. The will always strives for that which is known to be good,

it is therefore dependent upon the intellect.101 Regarding the divine intellect and will, Thomas

also regards the reality of the divine will, but he regards it as the necessary consequences of the

divine intellect and as determined by the intellect. While emphasizing wisdom (intellect) over

the will, Thomas asserts that God commands the good, because it is good and is recognized as

good by His wisdom.102

Similarly, Aquinas considers will to be not a neutral faculty, but an inclination. He

refers to this will is as a hunger, an appetite for goodness. The will always inclines to or

chooses what is good. According to Thomas, the will by itself doesn't choose the good but is

                                                                                                               97 Anthony Kenny, “Body, Soul and Intellect in Aquinas,” From Soul to Self, ed. M. James C. Crabbe (New

York: Routledge, 1999), 35. 98 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 3. 99 Walshe, vol. 1. Pr. 3. 100 There is ongoing controversy and interpretation whether Thomas Aquinas teaches intellectualism or

voluntarism. To understand why some of the scholars such as Eleonore Stump, Norman Kretzman and David Gallagher advocate Thomas being a voluntarist and how to defend against their teaching, see Jeffrey Hause, “Thomas Aquinas and the Voluntarists,” Medieval Philosophy and Theology 6, (1997).

101 Windelband, History of Philosophy, 330. 102 Ibid., 332.

  25  

upon the judgment of the intellect. 103 This very concept is found in Eckhart’s teachings too.

Eckhart plainly says that the will always chooses the goodness of God and therefore, is inferior

to intellect, because intellect always grasps God as He is. Eckhart also says that ‘rationality’ is

the head of the soul and that even romantic love clings only to knowledge.104 Accepting

Thomistic intellectual primacy over the will, Eckhart asserts that beneath the garment of

“goodness,” the essential nature of God is veiled; that is intellect.105

Thomas method of rational deduction or the use of intellect in deduction of the truth is

also found in Eckhart’s teachings. Thomas Aquinas understands the need for philosophy or the

use of rationale, in terms of explaining natural truths. Aquinas understands that natural and

scriptural truths were necessary for salvation but that not all human beings are able to

understand it therefore, in order to explain such natural truths philosophy or rationale is needed.

But supernatural truths such as the Trinity cannot be deducted with our reason. Thus, though

Aquinas gave the primacy of the intellect in reasoning, he yet distinguished two kinds of truths,

that are reasonably achievable and not achievable. Meister Eckhart, despite respect for Thomas

Aquinas, rejected such distinction and saw no essential difference between philosophy and

theology.106 He used intellect or reason and surpassed Aquinas in terms of prioritizing intellect

over the will.

                                                                                                               103 Eleonore Stump, “Aquinas’s Account of Freedom: Intellect and Will,” The Monist, vol.80, No.4. (October

1997): 577. 104 Windelband, History of Philosophy, 330. 105 Windelband, History of Philosophy, 332. 106 McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing, 22. At this

point, Aquinas teaching can be summed up as, “The human intellect is not able to reach a comprehension of the divine substance through its natural power. Since the intellect depends on the sense for the origin of knowledge, and these things that do not fall under the sense cannot be grasped by the human intellect…Yet, beginning with sensible things, our intellect is led to the point of knowing about God that He exists, and other such characteristics that must be attributed to the First Principle. There are, consequently, some intelligible truths about God that are open to the human reason, but there are others that absolutely surpass its power such as Trinity.” ED. L. Millder,

  26  

Another aspect of Aquinas’ influence on Eckhart is the superiority of active life over

contemplative life. At one point Eckhart says in order to have the birth of Son in the soul, the

mind must be free from the images and works. It seems that Eckhart is denying the mind and

advocating contemplative life. That is not so. In this case Eckhart cites Thomas Aquinas who

says, “the active life is better than contemplative insofar as in action one pours out for love that

which one has gained in contemplation.”107 The reason why Eckhart makes intellect higher

than will is that intellect takes God as He is, whereas the will seeks God’s goodness first, than

God Himself. In this sense, the will runs after the clothes, whereas the intellect seeks person

himself. In fact, Eckhart refutes the idea of the Franciscan’s primacy of the will. He goes unto

say ‘…a master of another school said will was nobler than intellect…But I say that intellect is

nobler than Will. Will takes God under the cloak of goodness. Intellect takes God bare, when

He is stripped of goodness and being.”108

Conclusion

It is evident from the given evidences above that there is a strong influence of Pseudo-

Dionysius and Thomas Aquinas in Eckhart’s mystical doctrine of “union with God.” His

language follows the accent of Dionysius concept of apophatic theology and negative approach

in knowing and having union with God yet differs significantly from Pseudo-Dionysius.

On the other hand, in terms of approach to truth deduction in theology Eckhart is more

inclined towards Thomistic approach of intellectual primacy over the will, which he applies in

union with God as well. In fact he even goes further than Aquinas himself in the use of the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ed. “St. Thomas Aquinas: Reason, Revelation, Analogy,” Classical Statements on Faith and Reason (New York: Random House, 1970), 41.

107 McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing, 22. 108 Walshe, vol. 2. Pr. 67.

  27  

reason and the intellect in theology and preaching. Aquinas restricts the reason on knowledge

for certain metaphysics and mystery such as the “Trinity,” whereas Eckhart penetrates all the

metaphysics and mystery with the reason and the intellect. Which is totally absent in the

theology of Pseud-Dionysius.

Dionysius emphasizes on a mystical vision as the goal of the theology, which is

perceived in the soul through the will. In this vision the intellect vanishes away whereas

Eckhart following the Thomistic intellectualism advocated intellect as the ground of union.

Eckhart asserts, intellect doesn’t vanishes away rather it is used by God during the ‘union with

God.’ Similarly, though Eckhart talks about negative and detachment approach yet again he

emphasizes such detachment not as denouncing all the things and God rather not being

possessed by these things and being in constant consciousness of God.

Thus we can sum up Eckhart’s theological teaching is in conformity with the Thomist

tradition in that it proceeds from a very marked intellectualism. From this Eckhart derives the

intellectual perspective in which he claims there is no other being exists except God. (Eckhart

considers God beyond being therefore understanding). This very God takes birth in the intellect

of the soul and soul too returns to God. Thus there happens union between God and the Soul.

Eckhart envisioning God as the intellect or the understanding therefore seeks to have union in

the intellect through the intellect. 109 There is a rich language use of Pseudo-Dionysius in

Eckhart’s doctrine of ‘Union with God’ yet he emphatically employs the Thomistic methods of

                                                                                                               109 Besides the influence of St. Thomas on Eckhart on the use of intellect over against the will, there lies the

German Dominican Schools and various predecessors who influenced Eckhart significantly. Within the line of the Albertian school, Hugh Ripelin’s works on God as Being and on the Unity of God influenced Eckhart much. More than Hugh, it was Meister Dietrich of Freiberg who influenced Eckhart. According to Davis, Eckhart inherited a number of important philosophical ideas from him. The first is that the nature of God himself is intellect. The second is that we in our own essence are intellect and the third is the principle of ascent, from the lower levels of cognition (i.e. of create things) to the highest level of cognition, which is the knowledge of God himself and the primacy of knowing over being. See, Davies, Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian, 88-92.

  28  

the primacy of the intellect over the will. However, Eckhart uses Thomistic tone of the

intellectual primacy over the will with his own interpretation and modification which makes

him his own kind of a mystic and a theologian rather than mere a upholder of Thomistic

doctrine.

  29  

Bibliography

Primary Resources (Meister Eckhart’s translated sermons and treatises)

Eckhart, Meister. Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense. Translated by Edmund Colledge, O.S.SA. and Bernard McGinn. New York: Paulist Press, 1981.

________. Treatises and Sermons of Meister Eckhart. Translated by James M. Clark and John V. Skinner. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958.

________. The Best of Meister Eckhart. Edited by Halcyon Backhouse. New York: Crossroad,

1993. ________. Meister Eckhart: Sermon & Treatises. Vol. I. Translated and Edited by M.O’C.

Walshe. Dorset: Element, 1979. ________. Meister Eckhart: Sermon & Treatises. Vol. II. Translated and Edited by M.O’C.

Walshe. London: Watkins, 1981. ________. Meister Eckhart: Sermon & Treatises. Vol. III. Translated and Edited by M.O’C.

Walshe. Dorest: Element, 1991. ________. Meister Eckhart: Teacher and Preacher, Translated by Bernard McGinn. New

York/Mahawah/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1986.

Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. Translated by Colm Luibheind and Edited by John Farina. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.

Secondary Resources

Ashely, Benedict M. “Three Strands in the Thought of Eckhart, The Scholastic Theologian.” Thomist, 42 (April 1978):226-239.

Beggiani, Seely J. “Theology at the Service of Mysticism: Method in Pseudo-Dionysius,” Theological Studies, 57 (1996): 201-223.

Caputo, J. “Fundamental Themes of Meister Eckhart’s Mysticism,” Thomist, 42. no.2 (January 1978): 198-225.

Clark, James M. Meister Eckhart: An Introduction to the Study of His Works with an Anthology

of His Sermon. Edinburg, New York and Toronto: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1957.

Davies, Oliver. Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian. London: SPCK, 1991.

Fox, Matthew. Breakthrough: Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1980.

Gilson, Etienne. The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. London: B. Herder Book, 1937.

  30  

Hinnebusch, William A. The History of the Dominican Order: Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, Vol.II. New York: ALBA House, 1973.

Jenkins, John. “Aquinas on the Veracity of the Intellect,” The Journal of Philosophy Vol. 88, no. 11 (November 1991): 623-632.

Keel, Hee-Sung. Meister Eckhart: An Asian Perspective. Louvain: Peeters Press, 2007.

Kelly, C.F. Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1977.

Kenny, Anthony. “Body, Soul and Intellect in Aquinas,” From Soul to Self. Edited by M. James C. Crabbe. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Kieckhefer, Richard. “Meister Eckhart’s conception of union with God.” Harvard Theological Review 71, no. 3-4 (Jl-O 1978): 203-225.

Lanzetta, Beverly J. “Three Categories of Nothingness in Eckhart,” The Journal of Religion, Vol.72, no. 2, (April 1992): 248-268.

McGinn, Bernard. The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from whom God hid nothing. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001.

_________.“The God beyond God  : theology and mysticism in the thought of Meister Eckhart.” Journal of Religion 61, no. 1 (January 1981): 1-19.

_________.“Love, Knowledge and Unio Mystica in the Western Christian Tradition,” Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: An Ecumenical Dialogue. Edited by Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn. New York: Continuum, 1996.

Schurmann, Reiner. Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1978.

Stump, Eleonore.“Aquinas’s Account of Freedom: Intellect and Will,” The Monist Vol.80, no.4.

(October 1997): 576-597.

Teasdale, Wayne. Essay in Mysticism: Exploring into Contemplative Experience. Lake Worth: Sunday Publication, 1996.

Tobin, Frank. “Mysticism and Meister Eckhart.” Mystics Quarterly 10, no. 1 (Mr 1984): 17-24.

Turner, Denys. “The Art of Unknowing  : Negative Theology in Late Medieval Mysticism.” Modern Theology 14, no. 4 (October 1998): 473-488.

Windelband, Wilhelm. History of Philosophy. New York: Harper, 1958.

Williams, A.N. “Argument to Bliss: The Epistemology of The Summa Theologiae,” Modern

Theology 20:4 (October 2004): 505-526.

________. “Mystical Theology Redux: The Pattern of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae,” Modern Theology 13:1(January 1997): 53-74.