[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 94 KB, 1280x887, indfex.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7049925 No.7049925 [Reply] [Original]

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me;
my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love."

Eckhart, Meister. The Sermons of Meister Eckhart. Paulist Press. 1981.


I don't get it

>> No.7049930
File: 440 KB, 484x404, 1437940039127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7049930

>"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me;
my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love."

>> No.7049958

Basically omnipresence of God

>> No.7050093

>>7049958

but what about omniscience

>> No.7050143

>>7049925

IT MEANS THAT VIA CONSCIOUSNESS BEINGS ARE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPREHENDING GOD, AND CONVERSELY, VIA CONSCIOUS BEINGS GOD IS CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPREHENDING ITSELF.

>> No.7050156

>>7050143

so God doesn't understand himself and is not omniscient?

>> No.7050175

>>7050156
It means the totality of existence can only be conprehended by a conscious being, but for there to be consciousness there needs to be an existence in the first place, so it's like a very profound divine chicken or the egg scenario

>> No.7050189

>>7050175

so you're saying God isn't a conscious being?

>> No.7050206

>>7049925
Not many people do.

>> No.7050207

>>7049925
>my eye and God's eye are one eye
Seems like he's an avatar?
>>7050189
Maybe god is being and every now and then we might be as well.

>> No.7050246

>>7050207

so the statement would only apply in a state of mystical union?

>> No.7050247

>In Eckhart's vision, God is primarily fecund. Out of overabundance of love the fertile God gives birth to the Son, the Word in all of us. Clearly,[note 4] this is rooted in the Neoplatonic notion of "ebullience; boiling over" of the One that cannot hold back its abundance of Being. Eckhart had imagined the creation not as a "compulsory" overflowing (a metaphor based on a common hydrodynamic picture), but as the free act of will of the triune nature of Deity (refer Trinitarianism).

Another bold assertion is Eckhart's distinction between God and Godhead (Gottheit in German, meaning Godhood or Godliness, state of being God). These notions had been present in Pseudo-Dionysius's writings and John the Scot's De divisione naturae, but Eckhart, with characteristic vigor and audacity, reshaped the germinal metaphors into profound images of polarity between the Unmanifest and Manifest Absolute.

Based.

>> No.7050259

>>7050247
>fedorafags thinking they can step to such a nuanced conception of the Ultimate

Niggas please

>> No.7050613

still don't get it though

>> No.7050763

Maybe God should be understood here as God manifested through the active intellect/logos/prime mover?

>> No.7050796

>>7049925
Perhaps he's referring to God as the source of consciousness. Though not in a temporally removed way (like the watch maker idea), but in a fundamentally immediate one. Almost as if God is the substance of awareness.

>> No.7050812

God doesn't exist you stupid Christians