Divine "Nothingness" and Buddhist "Emptiness"

Annihilation of Ego-Attachment and Breakthrough to Ultimate Truth

The profound resonance between Meister Eckhart and Eastern Buddhism—especially Zen—is a theme deeply explored by philosophers of religion such as D. T. Suzuki and Shizuteru Ueda. The fact that the renowned linguist Maurice O'C. Walshe, translator of Eckhart's complete mystical works into English, himself later ordained as a Theravāda Buddhist monk powerfully symbolizes this kinship.

At the twin summits of dismantling ego-attachment and realizing Ultimate Truth, the two traditions exhibit an astonishingly congruent inner architecture:

• Deconstruction of Ego-Attachment: "Detachment" (abegescheidenheit / Gelassenheit) and Zen "Dropping Off All" (Hōgejaku)
  The extinction of ego-grasping (ātma-grāha)—held paramount in Buddhism—corresponds precisely to the process of "Detachment" taught by Eckhart. Eckhart declares that for the soul to receive God, she must become a "virgin"—as utterly empty and free of all concepts and self-images as she was "when she was not yet" prior to her created existence. This radical effacement of egoic agency ("poverty of spirit") echoes the zenith of Zen's "not a single thing" (muichibutsu) and "drop it all!" (hōgejaku).
• Ultimate Truth: The "Nothingness of the Godhead" (Gottheit) and "Emptiness" (Śūnyatā)
  In Mahāyāna Buddhism and Zen, Ultimate Truth is Śūnyatā (Emptiness), which negates every reified concept of fixed substance. Likewise, breaking through (Durchbruch) beyond the personal Christian "God" (Creator), Eckhart discovered in the abyssal ground a nameless, attribute-less, silent "Godhead" (Gottheit). He calls this a "superessential nothingness" that repels all conceptual grasp of the human intellect. When the human soul reduces itself wholly to "nothing" and encounters the Godhead likewise as "nothing," the boundary between God and the soul—the duality of subject and object—dissolves completely.

Eliminating "Calculated Bartering" and the Spontaneous Flowering of Virtue

Eckhart does not reject spiritual discipline or outward good works out of hand. Rather, he teaches that depending on the inner disposition (the ground of the heart) from which those practices arise, they can serve either as preliminary preparation leading toward God, or as the greatest obstacle—a mercantile transaction—keeping one estranged from God.

1. The "True Purpose" of External Asceticism and the Trap of the "Barterers"

Fasting, all-night vigils of contemplation, and regular prayers are originally nothing more than provisional "instruments" (expedient means) intended to discipline the "outer man" (the physical body and sensory impulses) and cultivate an inward stillness wherein God may work.

Yet many practitioners secretly harbor the expectation: "Because I have performed this much asceticism, God will surely reward me with heaven or inner peace." Eckhart incisively condemns this attitude as the way of "calculating merchants (barterers)" who must be driven out of the Temple. Spiritual practice performed in pursuit of a reward—a "Why"—ends only in fortifying attachment to one's own ego.

2. Living "Without Why" as the Consummation of Virtue

When the soul has wholly stepped out of ego-centeredness and united with God, one's daily actions come to be performed "without Why" (sunder warumbe). Eckhart likens this to "Life" itself: if you ask Life over a thousand years, "Why do you live?" Life could only answer, "I live simply in order to live!"

Similarly, the proof that spiritual practice has reached perfection lies in whether virtuous action wells up spontaneously and effortlessly—"without any why or wherefore"—purely out of love for goodness itself, requiring neither ulterior motive nor strained exertion of willpower. One lives without a reason, just like a rose blooming simply because it blooms.

3. "Bold Detachment" from Spiritual Exercises Once the Inner Ground Is Established

Eckhart teaches that if a particular devotional custom or rule of prayer begins to hinder direct, free communion with God within the heart—turning into a rigid spiritual attachment—one may "boldly give it up." For one's inward mode of Being is infinitely more precious than any outward doing.

Surrender to Substance (Receptivity) vs. Total Dissolution of Subject and Object

As lived processes of casting off egoic contrivance, the two appear remarkably alike; yet beneath the surface, in their philosophical and ontological foundations, lies a decisive distinction.

1. The Aim of Letting Go: Direct Divine Action (Receptivity) vs. Total Dissolution of Subject and Object

• Eckhart's Relinquishing of Practice: When the soul has become utterly empty, God flows directly into the "ground of the soul" (Seelengrund) and works Himself in place of human agency. Relinquishing one's own exercises means halting human self-activity and transitioning into "utter receptivity" (passivity / divine suffering, lîden) toward God's action.
• Zen's "Letting Go" (Hōge): In Zen, letting go is not a process of handing the baton from human agency over to Divine agency. Rather, Zen demands laying down the very dualistic opposition between the practicing subject (the self) and the object of practice (Buddha or enlightenment)—in other words, the radical deconstruction of ego-delusion at its root.

2. The Meaning of "Nothing": Entrusting the Soul to Divine Substance vs. Negating the Question Itself

• "Nothing" in Eckhart: Eckhart teaches that when the soul annihilates its self-will and becomes "nothing," the uncreated God directly upholds that "nothingness." Even when Eckhart says "God is Nothing (no-thing)," he still attributes ultimate substance (wesen) to the Godhead. Consequently, Eckhart's abandonment of outward practice is ultimately a methodology for entrusting the soul to the absolute foothold of "God (the Godhead) as Ultimate Reality" and uniting with Him there.
• "Nothing" (Mu) in Zen: In Zen, Mu ("Nothing!") is the total negation of the question itself—shattering from the ground up the very inquiry "What is God (or Buddha)?" From the outset there is no presupposition of a transcendent Entity waiting to rescue the practitioner who drops asceticism; there is only the uncompromising awakening to radical Emptiness (Śūnyatā).

3. Practice and Realization: Sequential Transition vs. Unity of Practice and Realization

• Eckhart: Positions external spiritual exercises as "preliminary preparation," structured around a temporal, developmental transition in which—after direct inward union with God has been established—one detaches from (lets go of) practice as an outgrown instrument.
• Zen: As epitomized by Zen Master Dōgen's principle of the "Unity of Practice and Realization" (shushō ittō), practice is never an instrumental means toward a future enlightenment; rather, the lived reality of practicing right "here and now" is itself the full manifestation of realization. In Zen, letting go (hōge) does not mean quitting practice, but dropping the calculating ambition to "practice in order to attain satori" and dropping the self-conscious pride of "I am practicing."

Beyond the Sweetness of Ecstasy: Ordinary Mind Returning to Everyday Compassionate Action

Eckhart's reversal of traditional Christian exegesis in his famous homily on Mary and Martha (Sermon 9 in Walshe's edition / Quint Pr. 86, Intravit Jesus in quoddam castellum)—tracing the maturation from Mary to Martha—is a revolutionary, life-affirming teaching that overlaps with breathtaking vividness onto the Tenth and final stage of Zen's Ten Ox-Herding Pictures: "Entering the Marketplace with Helping Hands" (Jittensuishu).

1. Breaking Free from the Sweetness of Ecstasy (Meditative Quietude)

In the Ten Ox-Herding Pictures, the Eighth Picture ("Both Ox and Self Forgotten") and Ninth Picture ("Returning to the Origin, Back to the Source") depict absorption into pure Emptiness and primordial Nothingness where subject and object have vanished. Yet lingering in that solitary stillness of absolute Nothingness is not consummate awakening. Eckhart likewise warns sternly against resting complacently in the "sweet ecstatic union with God."

In Eckhart's reading, Mary sitting blissfully at Jesus's feet was still like a "child just set to school," dallying in spiritual delight for her own inward consolation. Mature Martha feared that her sister might get stuck in that sweet spiritual pleasure and cease progressing any further, and thus pleaded with Christ: "Tell her to get up (Surge) and help!" This mirrors the exact Zen dynamism urging the contemplative down from the solitary mountain summit: "Descend into the marketplace!"

2. Being "With Things, Yet Not in Them" (Ordinary Mind)

The Zen practitioner who reaches Entering the Marketplace with Helping Hands walks straight into the bustling town square, mingling freely with ordinary people amidst worldly dust while bestowing compassion out of effortless No-Mind (non-abiding). Eckhart portrays Martha's lived comportment in the unforgettable phrase: she stood "with things, yet not in them" (bî den dingen und niht in den dingen).

Surrounded by household cares and immersed in practical responsibilities, the innermost ground of Martha's soul remained seamlessly united with eternal Light, so that outward activity never disturbed her unshakeable interior stillness. As Eckhart puts it, we draw from the one same ground of contemplation and make it bear fruit in active works.

3. The Leap from Self-Benefit to Benefiting Others (Compassion)

"Helping hands" (suishu—literally letting one's hands hang down freely to aid beings) signifies the lived embodiment of boundless compassion. Eckhart likewise boldly places active love in daily life above isolated contemplation, declaring that "in contemplation you serve yourself alone, whereas in works of charity you serve many."

The figure of Martha laboring purely out of love without a trace of calculation ("without Why") aligns with striking structural beauty alongside the penniless Zen sage Budai (Hotei) moving empty-handed through the marketplace, effortlessly extending compassion among ordinary men and women.

Dynamic Integration of "Non-Abiding" and the "Vibrant Activity of Life"

The dynamic synthesis of eliminating every fixed dwelling-place or attachment ("abiding nowhere" — mushojū) while simultaneously actualizing the living movement of mind ("awakening that mind" — shō goshin) lies at the very heart of Eckhart's mystical theology. This resonance unfolds across three dimensions:

1. "Abiding Nowhere": Poverty of Spirit That Renounces Even an Inner "Place (Vessel)"

"Non-abiding" means never letting the mind cling to or settle inside any object or egoic framework. In his sermon on Blessed are the poor in spirit, Eckhart proclaims that a truly poor person is so utterly empty that "he does not even retain a place within himself in which God can work." Why? Because preserving an inner "place" or "vessel" still maintains a dualistic separation between God and oneself—which is a subtle form of "abiding."

Just as the eye must itself be completely colorless and transparent in order to perceive all colors, only when the soul becomes wholly empty of every creaturely image—virginally void—and flings its egoic selfhood into "Nothing" can it embrace the Infinite without boundary.

2. "Awakening That Mind": The Life-Dynamism Welling Up "Without Why"

Having "nowhere to abide" does not mean the mind perishes into inert, lifeless nihilism. Precisely because it has been liberated from clinging, the mind initiates its primordial, free, creative activity (shō goshin).

Eckhart illustrates this through Life's living act, which answers only "I live in order to live," and through the blooming rose. Free of every ulterior motive such as wanting to enter heaven or earn spiritual merit (the mental "dwelling-place" of a "Why"), one acts out of pure love simply for the sake of acting, as naturally as a rose blooms. This is none other than the unconditionally free activity of Buddhist "No-Mind" (Mushin) manifesting without any egoic foothold.

3. Ultimate Freedom: "I Pray to God to Make Me Free of God"

When Eckhart utters his most audacious paradox—"I pray to God to make me free of God"—he gives voice to the absolute freedom that dismantles the entire subject-object frame of reference itself.

This converges at the deepest level with the Zen kōan dynamic—"What is God (or Buddha)? — Mu (Nothing)!"—which shatters and dissolves from the root the conceptual premise behind the seeker's very question.