the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...
the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...
the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
understood th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> mind cannot possibly acquire complete knowledge <strong>of</strong> God this way,<br />
nor can it ever “comprehend” <strong>the</strong> infinite object (comprehend in <strong>the</strong> sense “surround<br />
completely”).<br />
And whereas n<strong>at</strong>ural cognition was active, supern<strong>at</strong>ural cognition is passive<br />
(leidtlich, as he calls it), and <strong>the</strong> subject does not reach out for any object <strong>at</strong> all. In <strong>the</strong><br />
union <strong>of</strong> infinite God with finite cre<strong>at</strong>ure, it is not God who changes, but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
human, who becomes totally passive, as all cognitive activities cease completely. In this<br />
“Sabb<strong>at</strong>h,” all human intellectual effort ceases completely and <strong>the</strong> person waits in quiet<br />
Gelassenheit (“in stiller Gelassenheit” 317 ), giving himself completely to God in obedient<br />
faith. 318 As <strong>the</strong> soul achieves, through grace, a st<strong>at</strong>e <strong>of</strong> passive stillness, <strong>the</strong> multiplicity<br />
and fragmentariness <strong>of</strong> all cre<strong>at</strong>ion resolves into <strong>the</strong> harmony <strong>of</strong> God’s unity. In this<br />
sense, it is imper<strong>at</strong>ive th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> cognitive faculties, in particular, cease <strong>the</strong>ir work <strong>of</strong> Urteyl<br />
(judgment)—where <strong>the</strong> emphasis is on teyl, <strong>of</strong> reasoning which can know only through<br />
distinctions and differences.<br />
This overcoming <strong>of</strong> distinctions is taken so far as to collapse <strong>the</strong> components<br />
necessary for knowledge in supern<strong>at</strong>ural cognition into each o<strong>the</strong>r. Eye and object are<br />
identical—and <strong>the</strong>y are both God. Like Eckhart, Weigel insists th<strong>at</strong> God is always present<br />
in <strong>the</strong> inner ground <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soul, which is how inner knowledge is only possible <strong>of</strong> God,<br />
317 Weigel, Griff, 30.<br />
318 The passive st<strong>at</strong>e <strong>the</strong> soul must come to is not necessarily a pleasant or joyous one, but ra<strong>the</strong>r is “nothing<br />
less than dying,” as Weigel writes (“nit weniger als in den todt gehen und sterben”). It is as if one is cast<br />
into Hell or even seized with unbelief (“gantz im unglauben begriffen sein.” Ibid, 55. Being faithful even to<br />
<strong>the</strong> point <strong>of</strong> welcoming torment in Hell is a familiar trope. Biblical precedents include Paul, who declared<br />
himself willing to suffer damn<strong>at</strong>ion if it would cause <strong>the</strong> Jews to be saved, Moses volunteered to be erased<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Book <strong>of</strong> Life in exchange for God’s pardon for his idol-worshipping charges. Eckhart, likewise,<br />
argues th<strong>at</strong> a person should be so deeply embedded in God’s will th<strong>at</strong> anything th<strong>at</strong> happens, good or evil,<br />
is a blessing, even Hellfire (see above, n. 9). Or, to <strong>at</strong>tempt to bridge <strong>the</strong> gap between Eckhart’s vocabulary<br />
and Weigel’s, <strong>the</strong> n<strong>at</strong>ure <strong>of</strong> a thing is determined by <strong>the</strong> st<strong>at</strong>e <strong>of</strong> being <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject th<strong>at</strong> perceives or<br />
experiences it, or as Weigel would put it, knowledge stems from <strong>the</strong> knower and not <strong>the</strong> object.<br />
119