Meister Eckhart: Detachment, the Godhead, the Soul's Spark, and the Mystical Breakthrough

🕑 16 min read

Life, Context, and the Dominican Milieu

Eckhart von Hochheim, known as Meister Eckhart (c.1260-1328), was born in Thuringia, in what is now central Germany, and entered the Dominican Order as a young man. The Dominicans were the preaching friars, the intellectuals of the medieval Church, and Eckhart's training took him to the most prestigious centers of scholastic learning: the Order's studium generale at Cologne, where he would have encountered the legacy of Albert the Great (Albertus Magnus), Albert's student Thomas Aquinas, and the synthesis of Christian theology with Aristotelian philosophy that was reshaping medieval thought.

Eckhart taught theology at the University of Paris, served as Prior of Erfurt, was appointed the first Provincial Prior of the Dominican Province of Saxony, and later served as Vicar General for Bohemia. His academic and administrative career placed him at the center of Dominican intellectual life for decades. The "Meister" in his name is an academic title, not an honorific: he held the rank of Master of Theology from the University of Paris, the highest academic qualification of the medieval university.

This context matters. Eckhart was not a marginal figure or an eccentric visionary operating outside the intellectual establishment. He was a trained and accomplished scholastic theologian who also happened to be a genuine mystic. His sermons, delivered in the vernacular German of his time, brought highly sophisticated philosophical concepts to non-specialist audiences: nuns, laypeople, beguines (the non-cloistered religious women of the Rhineland). He was translating the most demanding Latin scholastic theology into German for people who had never attended a university.

Gottheit vs. Gott: Beyond the Personal God

The most philosophically radical element of Eckhart's teaching is his distinction between God (Gott) and the Godhead (Gottheit). This distinction appears throughout his sermons and is the cornerstone of his mystical theology.

Gott, in Eckhart's usage, is the personal God of Christian theology: the creator, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the God who acts in history, who wills, who loves, who creates and judges. This is the God of the Bible, of the Creed, of Christian worship. Eckhart does not deny this God. He affirms it. But he insists that the personal God is not the deepest reality. Behind, beneath, and transcending the personal God is the Gottheit.

The Gottheit is the groundless ground of all being. Eckhart uses an extraordinary range of negative descriptions for it: a desert, a wilderness, a still silence, a darkness, a nothing that is more than all beings. The Gottheit is not a being, not even the highest being. It is the ground from which all beings, including the personal God, arise. It has no properties, no names, no characteristics. To describe it is to miss it.

This distinction has direct parallels in other traditions: in Neoplatonism, the One (Plotinus's Hen) transcends even Being; in Kabbalah, Ein Sof transcends the Sefirot; in Hindu Advaita Vedanta, nirguna Brahman (Brahman without qualities) transcends saguna Brahman (Brahman with qualities). Eckhart was likely familiar with some of these traditions through the scholastic texts available to him, and he was certainly developing his own position from within the Christian tradition rather than importing them from outside. But the structural parallel is genuine, and it suggests that the move beyond the personal God to the impersonal ground is not a peculiarity of one tradition but a recurring discovery in deep mystical exploration.

The Soul's Spark: Uncreated and Eternal

If the Gottheit distinction was philosophically radical, the doctrine of the soul's spark was theologically explosive. Eckhart's teaching that there is something in the soul that is uncreated, co-eternal with the Godhead, and has never been separated from the divine ground was the central charge in the heresy proceedings against him.

The term Seelenfunklein (little spark of the soul) or scintilla animae (soul's spark, in Latin) appears across his sermons. He also uses terms like "the citadel of the soul," "the little castle," "the ground of the soul," and "the little spark." He describes it as follows: "There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with him and not merely united with him. It is pure and simple, as God is pure and simple, without mode and without form."

The soul's spark is not produced by divine grace, as conventional theology would have it. It is not a created image of the divine that can be restored to likeness through moral and spiritual effort. It is, in Eckhart's account, the Godhead itself, present as the innermost core of the human soul: not united with God, but identical with the divine ground.

Abgeschiedenheit: Detachment as the Highest Virtue

The treatise On Detachment opens with a statement that would have startled any medieval reader: "I have read many writings of both pagan teachers and prophets, of the Old and the New Testament, and I have earnestly and with all diligence sought to find what is the best and highest virtue by which one can best and most closely unite himself with God... and I find that it is nothing other than pure detachment from all creatures."

Eckhart places detachment (Abgeschiedenheit) above love, above humility, and above compassion. This is a carefully argued position, not a dismissal of the other virtues. His argument is that love cannot remain pure if the lover is attached to the beloved: love that depends on its object is conditional and therefore not fully free. Humility that is valued as a virtue is already a subtle form of self-attachment. Detachment, by contrast, leaves no residue: it is a quality of complete freedom in which neither attachment nor self-interest modifies the soul's relationship to God.

His image for detachment is striking: "A person should be as immovable toward whatever may chance to them of joy and sorrow, honor and shame and disgrace, as a great mountain of lead stands before a little breath of wind." This is not an invitation to emotional numbness. Eckhart elsewhere writes with great warmth about joy, beauty, and the generosity of God. What must be immovable is not the capacity for experience but the soul's orientation: its deepest standing must not be disturbed by the vicissitudes of outer and inner life.

The theological rationale is direct: God can only enter a vessel that is empty. A soul filled with its own preferences, reactions, and self-concern leaves no room for the divine influx. Detachment is the practice of making room.

Gelassenheit: The Art of Letting Be

Closely related to detachment is Gelassenheit, a term that is more difficult to translate precisely. Common renderings include releasement, letting-be, surrender, and yielding. The German root lassen has two main senses: verlassen (to leave behind, to abandon) and uberlassen (to hand over, to defer to). Eckhart's Gelassenheit carries both senses simultaneously.

The leaving-behind aspect is the negative movement: releasing one's grip on creatures, outcomes, self-concepts, and even one's concept of God. This is the Abgeschiedenheit dimension of Gelassenheit. But the handing-over aspect is the positive movement: not empty resignation but an active opening toward the divine will, a deferring of one's own will to the deeper movement of the Godhead. This is why Gelassenheit is not passive. It is a quality of active spiritual freedom in which the will neither grasps nor resists but remains perpetually open.

Eckhart's analysis of the will is central to his account of Gelassenheit. He identifies three states of willing: ordinary willing (the grasping, preferring, fearing ego-will), not-willing (the attempt to have no will at all, which is still a form of willing), and deferred-willing (the state in which the will has been fully handed over to the divine will and no longer operates from its own center). Only the third state is genuine Gelassenheit. The second state, the attempt to simply stop willing, produces a subtle spiritual pride rather than genuine freedom.

The Birth of the Word in the Soul

One of Eckhart's most consistent and most beautiful images for mystical union is the birth of the Word (the Logos, the divine Son) in the soul. Drawing on the opening of John's Gospel, where the Word is said to be with God and to be God, and on the eternal generation of the Son from the Father within the Trinity, Eckhart argues that this eternal birth is not a past event that happened once. It is a present event that happens continuously in the soul of every person.

The Father speaks the eternal Word continuously, in eternity and in time simultaneously. In the soul that has prepared itself through detachment and Gelassenheit, this speaking happens as a direct interior event: the Father speaks the Word in the soul's ground, and the soul participates in the eternal divine self-expression. This is not a metaphor or a symbol for something else. Eckhart means it literally: the Father begets the Son in the ground of the detached soul, and this begetting is the same eternal act by which the Son is generated within the Trinity.

The Breakthrough: Beyond the Trinity

The Durchbruch is Eckhart's term for the most complete form of mystical union: the soul's return to the groundless ground of the Godhead, beyond the personal God, beyond the Trinity, beyond even the distinction between creator and creature. It is the soul's recovery of its original, pre-creation unity with the divine ground.

Eckhart prefers the term "breakthrough" to the more common mystical term "union" because union implies that two things come together: it still implies a duality. The breakthrough, in his account, reveals that there was never a genuine separation. The soul's apparent existence as a separate creature is real at one level but not at the deepest level. At the deepest level, the soul's ground and the Godhead are one ground, and the breakthrough is the direct recognition of this identity.

He writes in Sermon 52 (Beati pauperes spiritu): "When I flowed out from God, all things declared, 'There is a God!' But this cannot make me blessed, for with this I acknowledge myself a creature. But in the breaking-through, when I stand empty of my own will and of God's will and of all God's works and of God himself, then I am above all created things and I am neither God nor creature but I am what I was and what I shall remain now and forever more."

This is the most radical of all Eckhart's formulations and the one most likely to attract the charge of heresy. He is not claiming that the soul becomes God in some derivative or participatory sense. He is claiming that the soul, in the breakthrough, realizes what it always already was: neither God nor creature but the groundless ground itself, which has no name and cannot be described.

The Four Stages of Mystical Development

Reiner Schurmann, in his authoritative study of Eckhart's mystical thought, identifies four stages that can be traced through the sermons:

The Rhineland Mystical School

Eckhart was the founding figure of the Rhineland mystical school, the most significant cluster of Christian mystical thought in medieval Germany. His students and successors include three major figures, each of whom took different aspects of his teaching and developed them further.

Johannes Tauler (c.1300-1361) was a Dominican friar who attended Eckhart's preaching and knew his work closely. Tauler's mysticism is more practically oriented than Eckhart's: less interested in speculative metaphysics, more focused on the path of spiritual purification and the guidance of souls through the stages of the inner life. His sermons were widely read in the 15th and 16th centuries and influenced Luther.

Heinrich Suso (c.1295-1366) was the most personally ardent of the Rhineland mystics, known for the lyrical beauty of his writing and for an intense personal devotion to Eternal Wisdom. His Little Book of Eternal Wisdom became one of the most widely read mystical texts of the late medieval period. Suso's mysticism is more relational and more affective than Eckhart's, though he shares the fundamental framework.

Jan van Ruusbroec (1293-1381), the Flemish mystic, was deeply influenced by the Rhineland tradition and developed its insights in a direction that was both more systematically organized and more explicitly Trinitarian. His Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage is one of the great works of medieval mystical theology and influenced the later Devotio Moderna movement.

The Heresy Trial and the Bull In Agro Dominico

In 1326, two years before his death, Eckhart was accused of heresy by Nicholas of Strassburg, who submitted 49 propositions from his writings to the Franciscan-led inquisition at Cologne. Eckhart responded with a formal defense, arguing that his statements had been taken out of context and that properly understood, they were consistent with orthodox theology. He also made a statement that is frequently cited: he acknowledged that he had been wrong in whatever he might have said, while insisting he could not err in his intention because his intention was always to submit to the judgment of the Church.

The case was referred to Avignon, where Pope John XXII was resident. Eckhart died, probably in late 1327 or early 1328, before the proceedings concluded. The papal bull In Agro Dominico was issued in March 1329, condemning 17 propositions as heretical and 11 as rash or suspect of heresy. The condemned propositions include the key formulations about the soul's spark being uncreated, about the identity of the soul's ground with the Godhead, and about the equality of the soul with God before creation.

Modern scholarship has largely rehabilitated Eckhart. Bernard McGinn, the leading contemporary scholar of Christian mysticism, argues that the condemnation rested on decontextualized readings and that Eckhart's claims, properly understood within his complete theological framework, are not straightforwardly heretical. In 1992, Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) was asked about Eckhart's rehabilitation: he confirmed that the Dominican Order's case for rehabilitation had been received positively but that no formal reversal of the condemnation had been issued. The current status is that Eckhart is widely studied, cited, and quoted in Catholic spiritual writing, but the 1329 bull has never been officially retracted.

Eckhart and Zen: D.T. Suzuki's Recognition

D.T. Suzuki (1870-1966), who more than any other single figure introduced Zen Buddhism to Western audiences, identified Meister Eckhart as the closest Western parallel to Zen in a series of lectures and writings from the 1950s onward. The claim generated significant academic discussion and remains a point of debate.

The genuine parallels are significant. Eckhart's Gottheit as the groundless ground of being resembles the Zen Buddhist concept of sunyata (emptiness): both are described by negation, both transcend all conceptual categories, and both are described as the ground from which all phenomena arise. Eckhart's insistence that intellectual knowledge of God is inadequate to genuine mystical experience parallels the Zen rejection of merely intellectual understanding of dharma. His soul's spark that is uncreated and eternal resembles the Zen notion of Buddha-nature (tathagatagarbha), the enlightened nature that was never absent from any being.

The Durchbruch, in particular, resembles the Zen description of satori or kensho: a direct recognition of one's original nature that dissolves the apparent separation between self and reality. Suzuki quoted Eckhart's sermons as if they were Zen texts, and the resemblance is often striking.

The differences are also real. Eckhart's framework is inescapably Trinitarian: even the Gottheit is understood as the ground of the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His spirituality is directed toward a divine reality that is not simply identical with the natural world. And his mysticism is embedded in a Christian practice of scripture, sacrament, and prayer that has no parallel in Zen. Suzuki's comparison, valuable as it is, should not flatten these differences into a false universalism.

Heidegger's Gelassenheit and Eckhart's Legacy

Martin Heidegger acknowledged that his concept of Gelassenheit, which he developed in his later work as an alternative to the technological will-to-mastery, was inspired directly by Eckhart. In his essay "Memorial Address" (1955) and the companion text "Conversation on a Country Path" (both collected in Gelassenheit, 1959), Heidegger uses the term in a sense that is both indebted to and distinct from Eckhart.

For Heidegger, Gelassenheit is the attitude of letting-beings-be: a mode of relationship to the world and to being in which the will-to-mastery and the drive to impose human projects on reality is released in favor of a more receptive, responsive, waiting quality of attention. This contrasts with what he calls the enframing (Gestell) of modern technology, in which everything is reduced to a resource to be exploited according to human purposes.

The connection to Eckhart is real: Heidegger's Gelassenheit is explicitly spiritual, in the sense of requiring a fundamental transformation of the human being's relationship to being, and it preserves Eckhart's sense that the deepest movement is a releasing rather than a grasping. But Heidegger's Gelassenheit has been largely secularized: it is oriented toward Being rather than toward the Christian Godhead. Whether this secularization does justice to or distorts Eckhart's original insight is a question that philosophers and theologians continue to debate.

Rudolf Steiner on Eckhart: GA 7 Analysis

Rudolf Steiner devoted substantial attention to Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics in Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age (GA 7, originally published as Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens, 1901). This is one of Steiner's earliest major works, written before he had fully developed his anthroposophical system, and it presents a genuinely insightful analysis of the German medieval mystics that still rewards reading.

Steiner's central assessment is that the German mystics, with Eckhart at their peak, were genuine spiritual investigators who accessed real supersensible realities through the intensity of their inner development. He did not dismiss them as confused thinkers or as merely metaphorical. He took their accounts of the soul's experience as descriptions of actual spiritual events.

His critique is not of their spiritual authenticity but of their method. The medieval mystics, in Steiner's view, worked through an intensification of the inner life that was not cognitively systematic. Eckhart's experience of the Godhead was genuine, but the form in which he expressed it, through theological concepts absorbed from his scholastic training, did not give him the conceptual tools to articulate fully what he had experienced. The result was a series of formulations that were spiritually true but philosophically imprecise, and that therefore appeared to contradict Christian orthodoxy in ways that Eckhart himself did not fully intend.

Steiner saw the German mystical stream as a necessary preparation for the development of anthroposophy. The path from Eckhart through Paracelsus, Jakob Bohme, and the 18th-century German Naturphilosophen to Goethe and then to Steiner's own work is, in his account, a single spiritual-intellectual development in which the immediate, pre-conceptual mystical experience of the medieval period was gradually elaborated into the cognitively rigorous spiritual science of the modern era. Eckhart represents the first and highest point of the medieval stream, but also its limit: the point at which genuine spiritual experience has been reached but the cognitive method for fully communicating and developing it has not yet been developed.

The Detachment Contemplation Practice

The following practice draws directly from Eckhart's teaching on Abgeschiedenheit. It is not a technique for producing mystical states but a practice of noticing and releasing the specific forms of attachment that prevent the soul from resting in its own ground.

Frequently Asked Questions