In this essay, I place Buber’s thought in dialogue with Eckhart. Each understood that the theopoetic propensity to imagine the transcendent in images is no more than a projection of our will to impute form to the formless. The presence of God is made present through imaging the real, but imaging the real implies that the nonrepresentable presence can only be made present through the absence of representation. The goal of the journey is to venture beyond the Godhead in light of which all personalistic depictions of the divine person are rendered idolatrous. Perhaps this is the most important implication of Eckhart’s impact on Buber, an insight that may still have theopolitical implications in a world where too often personifications of the God beyond personification are worshipped at the expense of losing contact with an absolute person that cannot be personified absolutely.
Michael Löwy“Romantic Prophets of Utopia: Gustav Landauer and Martin Buber,” in Gustav Landauer: Anarchist and Jewed. Paul Mendes-Flohr and Anya Mali in collaboration with Hanna Delf von Wolzogen (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter2015) 65.
Raymond B. BlakneyMeister Eckhart: A Modern Translation (New York: Harper & Brothers1941) xiii. More contemporary with Buber we think for instance of Heidegger whose early study of Eckhart influenced his reflections on the nothing (das Nichts) and the notion of releasement (Gelassenheit). Previous works that have contributed to this discussion are John D. Caputo “Meister Eckhart and the Later Heidegger: The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought: Part One” Journal ofthe History of Philosophy 12 (1974): 479–494; idem “Meister Eckhart and the Later Heidegger: The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought: Part Two” Journal of the History of Philosophy 13 (1975): 61–80; idem The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought (Athens: Ohio University Press 1978); Holger Helting Heidegger und Meister Eckehart: Vorbereitende Überlegungen zu ihrem Gottesdenken (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1997); Sonya Sikka Forms of Transcendence: Heidegger and Medieval Mystical Theology (Albany: State University of New York Press 1997); Bret W. Davis Heidegger and the Will: On the Way to Gelassenheit (Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press 2007).
Martin Buber“Bücher, die jetzt und immer zu lessen sind,”Wiener Kunst- und Buchschau9–10 (1914): 7 cited in Martina Urban Aesthetics of Renewal: Martin Buber’s Early Representation of Hasidism as Kulturkritik (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2008) 18.
UrbanAesthetics of Renewal18–19. The use of the adjective “heretical” is not without complication both in Eckhart’s time and through the centuries up until the present. Eckhart was accused of heresy by the church authorities of his time since some of his ideas were deemed to be dangerous to orthodox dogma but that is not conclusive proof of their dissenting or sacrilegious nature. Closer to the bone as it were is the observation of Blakney: “Eckhart was a breaker of shells not as an iconoclast breaks them but as life breaks its shells by its own resurgent power.” Blakney Meister Eckhart xiv. See however p. xx where the author writes about Eckhart “moving toward heresy a heresy of degree if not of idea” and p. xxi where he writes that the “passionate radicalism of his application of the dogma of the God-man” was enough to make “him a heretic that is to say one dangerous to the church as an institution.” Invoking a distinction made by Wittgenstein we would say there is a world of difference between bending the branch and breaking it. See Ludwig Wittgenstein Culture and Value ed. Georg Henrik Von Wright in collaboration with Heikki Nyman trans. Peter Winch (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1980) 1 cited and discussed in Elliot R. Wolfson Venturing Beyond: Law and Ethics in Kabbalistic Mysticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006) 241. Availing myself of the Wittgensteinian language I would say that Eckhart was a master at bending the tree without allowing it to break. This might serve as a caution against the offensive use made of Eckhart as we discover in the hands of some exponents of National Socialism who saw in him the basis for their own nihilism and atheism. See Blakney Meister Eckhart xv.
UrbanAesthetics of Renewal18. See also Yossef Schwartz “The Politicization of the Mystical in Buber and His Contemporaries” in New Perspectives on Martin Buber ed. Michael Zank (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2006) 205–218.
Sarah K. Pinnock“Holocaust, Mysticism, and Liberation after the Death of God: The Significance of Dorothee Soelle,” in Resurrecting the Death of God: The Origins Influence and Return of Radical Theologyed. Daniel J. Peterson and G. Michael Zbaraschuk (Albany: State University of New York Press2014) 98.
LandauerSkepsis und Mystik6. The passage is translated into English by Mendes-Flohr in Buber Ecstatic Confessions xv. Compare the analysis of Mauthner’s view on language in Lunn Prophet of Community 155–157.
Dagmar Gottschall“Eckhart and the Vernacular Tradition: Pseudo-Eckhart and Eckhart Legends,” in A Companion to Meister Eckharted. Jeremiah M. Hackett (Leiden: Brill2012) 549–550. See also Franz-Josef Schweitzer Die Freiheitsbegriff der deutschen Mystik: Seine Beziehung zur Ketzerei der “Brüder und Schwestern vom Freien Geist” mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den pseudoeckartischen Traktat “Schwester Katrei” (Frankfurt am Main: Peter D. Lang 1981); Raoul Vaneigem The Movement of the Free Spirit trans. Randall Cherry and Ian Peterson (New York: Zone Books 1994) 149–152; Barbara Newman From Virile Woman to Woman Christ: Studies in Medieval Religion and Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 1995) 172–181; E. D. Sylla “Swester Katrei and Gregory of Rimini: Angels God and Mathematics in the Fourteenth Century” in Mathematics and the Divine: A Historical Study ed. Teun Koetsier and Luc Bergmans (Amsterdam: Elsevier 2005) 249–272.
Elliot R. WolfsonOpen Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menaḥem Mendel Schneerson (New York: Columbia University Press2009) 78 84 88–89 97–98 105–106 168 213. My perspective is encapsulated in the assertion that “apophatic panentheism” presumes “a reciprocal transcendence whereby God and world abide in the difference of their belonging-together indeed they belong together precisely in virtue of their difference” (91).
BuberI and Thou134; Ich und Du 104. See also idem Between Man and Man 59 and the German Die Frage an den Einzelnen in Martin Buber Das dialogische Prinzip (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 1986) 216.
Ibid.130–131. Compare Martin Buber Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant (Amherst NY: Humanity Books 1998) 51–53: “As reply to his question about the name Moses is told: Ehyeh asher ehyeh. This is usually understood to mean ‘I am that I am’ in the sense that Yhvh describes himself as the Being One or even the Everlasting One the one unalterably persisting in his being. . . . It means: happening coming into being being there being present being thus and thus; but not being in an abstract sense. . . . Yhvh indeed states that he will always be present but at any given moment as the one as whom he then in that given moment will be present. He who promises his steady presence his steady assistance refuses to restrict himself to definite forms of manifestation; how could the people even venture to conjure and limit him! . . . That Ehyeh is not a name; the God can never be named so; only on this one occasion in this sole moment of transmitting his work is Moses allowed and ordered to take the God’s self-comprehension in his mouth as a name.” See ibid. 117–118: “The saga of the Fathers . . . has something to tell of human figures in which Yhvh lets himself be seen. But there is nothing supernatural about them and they are not present otherwise than any other section of Nature in which the God manifests himself. What is actually meant by this letting-Himself-be-seen on the part of Yhvh has been shown in the story of the Burning Bush; in the fiery flame not as a form to be separated from it but in it and through it. . . . And it is in precisely such a fashion . . . that the representatives of Israel come to see Him on the heights of Sinai. . . . He allows them to see Him in the glory of His light becoming manifest yet remaining invisible.” See also Martin Buber Kingship of God 3rd ed. trans. Richard Scheimann (Amherst NY: Humanity Books 1990) 105–106.