Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and othersSteiner, Rudolf
Religion
Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and others
Steiner, Rudolf
Mysticism
Meister Eckhart, too, leaves no doubt that he puts aside the view which
seeks to be spiritual in bodily-spacial forms, in appearances which one
can perceive by any senses. Minds of the type of Suso and Eckhart are
thus opponents of such a view, as that which finds expression in the
spiritualism which has developed during the nineteenth century.
* * * * *
JOHANNES RUYSBROEK, the Belgian mystic, trod the same path as Suso. His
spiritual way found an active opponent in Johannes Gerson (born 1363),
who was for some time Chancellor of the University of Paris and played
a momentous rôle at the Council of Constance. Some light is thrown upon
the nature of the mysticism which was practised by Tauler, Suso and
Ruysbroek, if one compares it with the mystic endeavours of Gerson, who
had his predecessors in Richard de St. Victor, Bonaventura, and others.
Ruysbroek himself fought against those whom he reckoned among the
heretical mystics. As such he considered all those who, through an
easy-going judgment of the understanding, hold that all things proceed
from one Root-Being, who therefore see in the world only a manifoldness
and in God the unity of this manifoldness. Ruysbroek does not count
himself among these, for he knew that one cannot attain to the
Root-Being by the contemplation of things, but only by raising oneself
from this lower mode of contemplation to a higher one.
Similarly, he turned against those who seek to see without further
ado, in the individual man, in his separated existence (in his
creature-being), his higher nature also. He deplored not a little the
error which confuses all differences in the sense-world, and asserts
light-mindedly that things are different only in appearance, but that
in their being they are all alike. This would amount, for a way of
thinking like Ruysbroek’s, to the same thing as saying: That the fact
that the trees in an avenue seem to our seeing to come together does
not concern us. In reality they are everywhere equally far apart,
therefore our eyes ought to accustom themselves to see correctly.
But our eyes see aright. That the trees run together depends upon a
necessary law of nature; and we have nothing to reproach our seeing
with, but on the contrary to recognise in spirit why we see them thus.
Moreover, the mystic does not turn away from the things of the senses.
As things of the senses, he accepts them as they are, and it is
clear to him that through no judgment of the understanding can they
become otherwise. But in spirit he passes beyond both senses and
understanding, and then only does he find the unity. His faith is
unshakable that he can develop himself to the beholding of this unity.
Therefore does he ascribe to the nature of man the divine spark which
can be brought to shine in him, to shine by its own light.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account