Video

The old Germanic god Wotan was the god of knowledge and reason and mystical sorcery. Fast forward from German theologians like Eckhart to more modern German philosophers and liberal theologians who applied reason and knowledge to deconstruct the faith. As if reason was synonymous with truth, a very non-dualist perspective. But the world is dualistic, there is knowledge and love, and a harmonious interplay between the two is characteristic of God. Carl Jung saw Nazi Germany rising as Wotan rising from his slumber, and enticing pseudo Christians. But an important story of Wotan is he only possessed one eye. In his pursuit of ultimate knowledge, he forfeited an eye. Wotan sacrificed one form of perception (faith and love) to maximize the other form of perception (which was knowledge). Jung was most certainly a dualist, and a man of faith, he understood subservience to reason and pursuit of knowledge would ultimately bring about destruction. Wotan was the god of Meister Eckhart, just like it was the god of Heidegger and Nietzscke, and the Germans.

Thank you so much for these insights on 'The Grand Master' as I see him. If anybody wishes to see the outcome a persons life in our time of the teachings look no further the Jean Klein. Love and light

❣️

Many times in this video, the 'axial age' is mentioned. I know this refers to the apparent growth, or origin, of some of the deepest ideas and schools of thought, throughout the planet. As someone who is just learning about Philosophy (partly through this excellent channel), may I ask others whether there is any consensus as to why this age occurred? Is it generally seen as something which is purely coincidence, or is it thought that there may be more to this surge in intellectual/spiritual development?

I can't see the reason why you would let "the average person" in the street be the arbitor of whether Eckhart was a christian or not...? The defintions of "christian" are and have been legion. My uneducated guess in this case is the Meister himself would have certainly identified as such. My uneducated opinion is he certainly was one. Dogmas are of no use but story is. Tools are tools but need respect and looking after well to serve their purpose. A God encompassing all would have different ways of reaching all his sheep equally , litttle children, the" uneducated " etc. If the gospel are deemed as anything to go by, the examples in there are plentiful. And, hey, Eckhart himself would be a miraculous example of this. With his high education and the usual old risk involved there of intellectual pride getting in the way of deep spiritual insight😏 What experience isn't a spiritual experience? Which eventually leads to learning? None, says my own neo-platonist christian universalist etc. view, anyway😇🙏

A very powerful and well expressed teaching - thoroughly enjoyed it - especially the narcissistic comment 😄. However, and to slightly paraphrase another well known philosopher, we all accept that we cannot know what it is like to be a bat, can we really know what it is like to be another human, with their World View? Isn't this a problem created by the way, at least to start with, we have to impute our WV onto others in order to make sense of things? Surely, we have to start by assuming that other people see the world in a similar that way that we do? Then, maybe (?), if we really try hard enough, we can eventually empathise with their WV, but can we ever really 'know' it?

Vivekananda in his classic Raja Yoga also places direct knowing over faith. Faith for me right now is resting in the unknowing until knowledge is unveiled. This to me is what St. John of the Cross means when he says, over and over, “faith is the proximate means of union with God.” It’s a shedding of what I think I know in the cataphatic sense, and sitting in pure darkness and unknowing.

It’s really remarkable how eckhart came to those conclusions. I can’t think of any other way that could have happened unless he had his own mystical/non-dual experiences.

Great as usual. Interested to know a comparison between Heidegger's Truth as alêtheia (unconcealment) and Eckhart's Truth

Approx 11:00 - 'If you are still asking that question . . . . . . you are not there yet'. An excellent summary of a very impressive, interesting and inspiring talk. Thank you, Clint. As an aside, I once had the privilege of meeting Cyprian Smith when on a retreat at Ampleforth Abbey. Sadly, his health was rapidly deteriorating, and he was not able to enter any discussion about his book or his views. But he was most definitely one of those people whom you immediately sensed had seen beyond the words and whose very being was resting in a state of clarity and peace.

Very helpful. Thank you

Thanks for doing this man. It's really nice to be able to listen before bed without having to open up a book. It's unreal how awesome the sermons are.

A common village boy.

I've checked: One of Eckhart's theses condemned: nr 14, and 15. "The good man should so conform his will to the divine will that he wills everything that God wills. And since God in a certain sense wills that I should have sinned, I should not wish to have committed no sins. And that is true penitence. If a man had committed a thousand mortal sins, and if that man were in a proper state, he should not wish not to have committed them.". An example of logical and theological idiocy in not even knowing by him a divine Aristotle's definition of evil: the privation of good (i.e., being)

*Can u make a detailed video on Advaita Vedanta and what exactly is the reality according to Upanishads?*

A good reminder of the mystic on the internal life of a soul. U're wrong criticizing Eckhart for a claim that "Father" is both that of us and Jesus (ref."Our Father..., John 20:17). If I remember correctly he also just claimed (homily on Trinity) the classical (silly) explanation of Trinity as a paradox(i.e., 1=3- i.e. nonsense); he did not know the (present) Bible hermeneutics or symbolic logic since Frege (like all Father or of the Church) but he should see that Mk 10:18(@other Synoptics and the almost all the NT never claim (a few passages, one from a later time, 6th cent.CE-1J5:21 or St.Thomas's words in J20:28- it is a mockery on the Cesar Domitian claim; I discovered it by myself and not in any Commentary!) that the Son or Jesus from Nazareth, a man, was God!

This was the first sermon I ever read of Eckhart's, it blew me away and resonated so deeply. It radically changed my perspectives on Christ's story and I have been reading him ever since. Thanks for the analysis, it helped see even more in it.

Another great breakdown! Thank you :)

thank you

LETS GO

Thank You👌

I've experienced the hell scene in a dream of mine. All the people I passed by in a dungeness garage had the signs of how they died (broken glass cuts on face) as I'm looking up seemingly strapped to a gurney shadow figures look down on me as a woman's voice says he's not ready yet send him back and when I awoke I had some slight body pains also heart was racing and It felt so jarring.

14:33 is a play between Kant and Hegel in the sense of Epistemology Vs Ontology. If the humans always fail to comprehend the Logos, then it is a measurement problem, our faculties fail. But if the Logos in itself is incomprehensible then the problem is Ontological: reality itself is incomplete. It seems like we can link Heraclitus to Quantum physics uncertainty principle, where Heisenberg makes the point that it's not that we don't have the proper measurement technique to record both Velocity and Position of a particle, but that this information doesn't exist in reality in itself! What do you think

Is there a self to be sought if all is one and detachment and nirvana is the name of the game? Is that the self? Did Nietzsche ever achieve nirvana?

What is prayer ? It is the practice of pure Being , and glorying there in - … ‘ the minds ascent to God ‘ ❤ I will never hear such sentiments expressed elsewhere . Thanks !

Very nicely put. As someone who has trodden an essentially Buddhist path for some 50 years, I still stumble when I am asked, 'So what is Buddhism?'. I feel I either want to drop into cliché and talk about the Four Noble truths, the Eightfold path, etc., or I want to explain my practise of Shikantaza - but neither approach seems satisfactory. In the end, I usually try and avoid answering.

beyond, beyond completely and utterly gone oh, I see

This is one of the most underrated channels on CZcams. Thank you Dr. Johnson for making this content free and palatable for the people. Will we be seeing more content on Buddhism?

1:18:40 not only did we not need to hear that, Eckert didn't need to say it.

Great lecture! What do you think of Meister Eckhart vs Heraclitus lecture?

A wonderful presentation of a continuum of deeply profound philosophy / theology / worldview that is woven through the history of Western metaphysics - correctly identified , I believe , as “ Paradox at Play” . Well said !

👋👋👋👋

👋👋👋👋

Always been a fan of Pyrrho of Elis, myself. Ataraxia is the goal of philosophy. Can't get much more "Buddhist" than that, methinks!

Merci

❤

A few years ago, when I started reading Eckhart's sermons, it was this passage which really my heart sing. In the edition of Eckhart that I was reading (B. McGinn), it is right at the front of the sermons, and so was the first that I ever read. What it said to me was that Eckhart wasn't simply giving me a hopeful message about something that occurred 2,000 years ago - he was telling me that this event is something that MUST happen to me, right now, if it is to have any meaning at all. Not only that, he goes on to tell me how it will happen. The Word will be born inside of me, in Silence. As someone wo practises Silent meditation, I was totally hooked!

When you practise Silent meditation, Eckhart's expressions such as being free from images, at rest, non attachment, etc., all make perfect sense. As you watch the mind settle down and become quiet, you see the images and attachments fade away. In fact, everything fades until there is just Awareness. At this point, even the sense of 'I' being aware fades until there is just Awareness alone. There is no need for any analysis of his words - just experience them.

😊

Just a point of information: we DO use all of our neurons in our brain. If a neuron is not used for any length of time, it will undergo apoptosis, it will die. We may not use all neurons, the time, but it is essential for the health of a neuron that it fires at some point. The concept that we only use a small percentage, or indeed anything less than 100%, of our brain, is a myth and is not supported by any modern brain imaging technique.

He talks about christ all the time. His book is called what?

I love him but your not being truthfull.

He does talk about christ i mean the book is called......

Your rock bottom is also called foundational.

His theology does have a hell, and a Personal God and a Historical Christ Thats why he made a distinction between the Christ now and the Christ then, boohoo!

Now that I finished the video. I think Peace Pilgrim would be very helpful to you as you are working on putting the pieces together At least it would be worth checking out. Don't be fooled by her name she really was a profound mystic.

I would like to mention the person down below because she talked about passion as a calling and backs up what is talked about in this video. Peace Pilgrim, a modern day mystic spoke about one having a calling(s) (something(s) passionate) that could be used to serve people offering us the possibility of coming closer to what she called God as well as a way to get out of our heads, selfish desires, etc…She is one that really did seem to have died to self. She is worth checking out on CZcams. There is a documentary on her called “Peace Pilgrim, an American Sage". I should add that Peace Pilgrim taught people certain steps they could use to be in the world that would help with their maturity and thereby prepare for the psychological growing up that would lead us,, in my words to die to self.and find inner peace.

Errors of Eckart (The Son of God, etc.) * [Examined and condenined in the edict "In agro dominico," Mar. 27, 1329] 501 (1) And when asked why God did not create the world first, he answered that God was not able to create the world first, * because He cannot make things before He is; therefore, as soon as God was, He immediately created the world. 502 (2) Likewise it can be granted that the world existed from eternity. 503 (3) Likewise at the same time and once, when God was, when He begot the Son coeternal with Himself, through all things coequal God, He also created the world. 504 (4) Likewise in every work, even evil, evil I say, as of punishment and of sin, the glory of God is manifested and reflects equally. 505 (5) Likewise he who blames anyone, in the blame itself by the sin of blaming praises God, and the more he blames and the more gravely he sins, the more he praises God. 506 (6) Likewise anyone by blaspheming God Himself, praises God. 507 (7) Also he seeking anything here or there seeks evil and badly be cause he seeks the denial of good and the denial of God, and he prays God to be denied to him. 508 (8) In those men who do not seek after wealth, or honors, or utility, or interior devotion, or sanctity or reward, or the kingdom of heaven, but renounce all these things even that which is theirs, God is honored. 509 (9) Recently I have considered whether I would wish to receive or to wish for anything from God; I wish to deliberate exceedingly well about this, because when I was receiving from God, then I was under Him or below Him, as a servant or slave, and He [was] as a master in giving, and thus we ought not to be in eternal life. 510 (10) We are transformed entirely in God, and we are changed into Him; in a similar manner as in the sacrament the bread is changed into the body of Christ; so I am changed into Him because He Himself makes me to be one with Him, not like (to Him); through the living God it is true that there is no distinction there. 511 (11) Whatever God the Father gave to His only begotten Son in human nature, all this He has given to me; here I except nothing, neither union, nor sanctity, but He has given all to me as to Himself. 512 (12) Whatever Sacred Scripture says about Christ, all this also is verified with respect to every good and divine man. 513 (13) Whatever is proper to divine nature, all this is proper to the just and divine man; because of this that man operates whatever God operates, and together with God he created heaven and earth, and he is the generator of the eternal Word, and God without such a man does not know how to do anything. 514 (14) A good man ought so to conform his will to the divine will that he himself wishes whatever God wishes; because God wishes me to have sinned in some way, I would not wish that I had not committed sins, and this is true repentance. 515 (15) If man had committed a thousand mortal sins, if such a man were rightly disposed, he ought not to wish that he had not committed them. 516 (16) God properly does not prescribe an exterior act. 517 (17) An exterior act is not properly good or divine, neither does God properly operate it or produce it. 518 (18) We bring forth the fruit not of exterior actions which do not make us good, but of interior actions which the Father abiding in us does and operates. 519 (19) God loves souls, not works outside. 520 (20) A good man is the only begotten Son of God. 521 (21) A noble man is that only begotten Son of God whom the Father has begotten from eternity. 522 (22) The Father begot me His son and the same Son. Whatever God does, this is one; because of this He Himself begot me His Son without any distinction. 523 (23) God is one in all ways and according to every reason, so that in Himself He cannot find any multitude in intellect or outside intellect; for he who sees two, or sees a distinction, does not see God, for God is one beyond the above number, neither is He counted one [read: number I with anyone. It follows, therefore, that no distinction can exist or be understood in God Himself. 524 (24) Every distinction is foreign to God, either in nature or in person; it is proved that nature itself is one and this oneness, and any person is one and the oneness which is nature. 525 (25) When it is said: "Simon, do you love me more than these?" [John 21:15 f.], the sense is: That is, more than those and indeed well but not perfectly. For in thefirst and the second and more and less thereis both a degree and a rank; in oneness, however, there is no degree nor rank. Therefore, he who loves God more than his neighbor, (loves) indeed well but not yet perfectly. 526 (26) All creatures are one pure nothing; I do not say that they are something ordinary or anything, but that they are one pure nothing. In addition there is an objection against the above said Eckart, because he preached two other articles under these words: 527 (1) Something is in the soul which is uncreated and incapable of creation; if the entire soul were such, it would be uncreated and incapable of creation, and this is the intellect. 528 (2) That God is not good nor better nor best; so I speak badly whenever I call God good, as if I should call white black. 529 . . . We condemn and expressly disapprove the first fifteen articles and also the two last ones as "heretical," but the eleven others already mentioned as "evil-sounding, rash, and suspected of heresy," and no less any books or works of this Eckart containing the above mentioned articles or any one of them. patristica.net/denzinger/#n500