Transcendence and Immanence: Common themes in Eckhart, Shankara and Ibn Arabi

Abstract

I would like begin this talk by stressing the orthodoxy was strictly observed and prescribed by Eckhart, Shankara and Ibn Arabi. This needs be stressed at the outset since so many of their pronouncements go beyond the boundaries of religion narrowly-conceived, and thus have been taken by some as pretexts for abandoning formal religion in the name of a supra-religious mystical essence. My reading of these great mystics, however, leads me the opposite conclusion: it is only through the faithful practice of religion the transcendence of its formal aspects and the realisation of its mystical essence can be attained. Ibn Arabi says his· perspectives do not go against religion, but simply render explicit what is already implicit within religion, I believe this can be applied also to' both' Eckhart and Shankara. Ibn Arabi poured scorn on those pseudo-Sufis who arrogated themselves the right abandon the Sharia; Shankara aggressively defended the tenets of Hindu orthodoxy against both Buddhist and atheist doctrines; and Eckhart, in addition abiding strictly by Catholicism, made it clear his teachings on silence' 'and unknowing are intended only for the good and perfected people in whom dwell the' worthy life and lofty teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. They must know the very best and noblest attainment in this life is be silent and let God work and speak within· (emphasis added). This having been said, one may make the following objection: -can all of Eckhart's pronouncements be regarded as orthodox? Without wishing enter into the charges of heresy levelled against Eckhart, I would argue, firstly, a clear understanding of the meaning of transcendence helps greatly in elucidating the intention behind Eckhart's apparently unorthodox statements; and, secondly, a comparative analysis such as the present one can in tum clarify the conceptual ellipses transcendence seems occasionally call for. For example, heaven is diidectically posited by Eckhart as the reward given'to asses who may have noble intentions and commit the most pious actions, but whose knowledge is defective. Shankara succinctly states a principle which greatly clarifies Eckhart's antinomian hyperbole: When the Self has once been known, everything else is seen as eviI.2 In' Eckhart it is the Birth or would be stressed rather than the Self', it being in this union that·is found ~'thesoul's whole -in light of which, alone, all lesser attainments are seen as evil. Shankara's principle also helps elucidate Eckhart's intention in saying to pray for this and for that is pray for evil, as well as numerous other at first sight scandalous pronouncements. It is only in the context of the supreme aspiration any lesser goal or action can be regarded as a kind of evil; it is not prayer as such is evil: rather, is evil which falls short of absolute good, the transcendent beatitude Eckhart wishes focus upon. In another sermon Eckhart offers an esoteric interpretation of the dismissal by Christ of the and the doves from the Temple. The merchants are those