Trys Eckharto "niekio" kategorijos

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama Eckharto "niekio" sąvokos problematika, aptariant tris pagrindines jos kategorijas: epistemologinę, pragmatinę ir kristocentrinę. Straipsnyje atskleidžiamas ryšys tarp teizmo ir "niekio", kuris aiškinamas dvigubos kenotinės metafizikos terminais, t. y. judėjimu nuo skirtybės (Unterschiedenheit) į neskirtyę (Ununterschiedenheit). Pagrindiniai žodžiai: niekis, skirtybė, neskirtybė, dykuma, Trejybė, Dievas, Dievybė, Vienis, siela, prasiveržimas, atsižadėjimas, metafizika, ontologija, teizmas, a-teizmas, kenozė.

ENEckhart’s exuberant mysticism has attracted wide attention from thinkers both within and outside religious traditions. In particular, his startling use of nothingness, with its seemin unconcern for traditional Cristian imagery, has generated a number of vital comparative studies. Primarily, these studies have dealt with the relationschip of Eckhart’s God beyond God to the Buddist nothingness, although comparisons with other traditions also have been made, most notably from Hindu advaita and postmodern philosophy. Interestingly, each of these studies focuses its point of comparison on the explicily trinitarian and theistic substructure that remains an integral and dynamic part of Eckhart's dialectical mysticism. This article has attempted to show that the relationship between theism and nothingness in Eckhart can be understood in terms of twofold kenotic metaphysics, or movement, from distinction to indistinction that takes place ad intra in the welling up of the three Persons and the generation of the Son and which has an ad extra expression in the death and resurrection of Crist. The desert for Eckhart is one pole of a dynamic soteriology that not only breaks through substancial metaphysics but also traces a path of transformation of the determinate divinity in its reditus as it reenters the abyss and its exitus from the womb of nothingness. His mystical perplexity, therefore, also must be seen in light of this dynamic process. From the side of return, as the soul undergoes a radical detachment and breaks through all “gods,” it is possible to interpret, along with Buddhist scholars, Eckhat’s dialectics as an antimetaphysical, a-theistic stace that is not fully complete. Here he follows the nothingness of ontology in the moment when the determinate divinity empties into the naked Godhead.The radicalness of Eckhart’s thought can be followed to the flowing back of the Trinity into the One, which is exemplifield historically in the utter and absolute abandonment of distinction on the cross. However, after reentering the abyss, in the moment of pure self-giving, thesoul encounters an ontological nothingness – nothingness itself, that occurs for Eckhart because of the intradivine movement from distinction to indistinction. Theism is essential for ultimate openness, according to the Meister, because precontained in the mystery of Person –and hence time, space, history, metaphysics, and the like –is the existential “letting go” or intradivine kenosis. Thus in Eckhart’s mystical logic these two categories – theism and a-theism, Trinity and nothingness – must remain in intimate relationship. It is because of the very openness of theism, which arises from its simultaneous birth out of nothingness, that the human person can return to the ground of divinity and salvation occurs. Key words: nothingness, distinction, indistinction, desert, Trinity, God, Godhead, One, soul, breakthrough, detachment, metaphysic, ontology, theism, a-theism, kenosis.