No More Learning

This remark may, in the first place, explain the picture
which we drew in our first lecture of the True Life and the
Apparent Life. To the outward eye, these two opposite
modes of Life are very similar to each other; both proceed
upon the same common objects, which are perceived by both
in the same way;--inwardly, however, they are very differ-
ent. The True Life does not even believe in the reality of
this Manifold and Changeable; it believes only in its Un-
changeable and Eternal Original, in the Divine Essence;--
with all its thought, its love, its obedience, its self-enjoy-
ment, for ever lost in and blended with that Original:--the
Apparent Life, on the contrary, neither knows nor compre-
hends any Unity whatsoever, but even regards the Manifold
and Perishable as the True Being, and is satisfied with it
as such. In the second place, this remark imposes upon us
the task of setting forth the true ground why that which,
according to our doctrine, is in itself absolutely One, and
remains One in True Life and Thought, does nevertheless
in an appearance, which we must yet admit to be permanent
and indestructible, become transmuted into a Manifold and
Changeable;--the true ground of this transmutation, I say,
we must at least set forth, and distinctly announce to you,
although the clear demonstration of it may be inaccessible
Kb
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 434
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
to popular communication. The exposition of this ground
of the Manifold and Changeable, with the farther applica-
tion of what we have said to-day, shall form the subject of
our next discourse, to which I now respectfully invite you.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 435
LECTURE IV.
CONDITIONS OF THE BLESSED LIFE:--DOCTRINE OF
BEING:--MANIFESTATION OF THE ONE DIVINE
BEING IN CONSCIOUSNESS AS A MANIFOLD
EXISTENCE, OR WORLD.
Let us begin the business of to-day with a survey of our
purpose in these discourses, as well as of what has now
been accomplished for that purpose.
My position is this:--Man is not destined to misery, but
he may be a partaker in peace, tranquillity, and Blessedness,
here below, everywhere, and for ever, if he but will to be so.
This Blessedness however, cannot be superadded to him
by any outward power, nor by any miracle of an outward
power, but he must lay hold of it for himself, and with his
own hands. The source of all misery among men is their
vagrancy in the Manifold and Changeable;--the sole and
absolute condition of the Blessed Life is the apprehension of
the One Eternal with inward love and enjoyment; although
we indeed apprehend this Unity only in a picture or repre-
sentation, and cannot in reality ourselves attain to or trans-
form ourselves into it.
The proposition which we have thus laid down, I would
now, in the first place, bring home to your minds in clear
insight, and thoroughly convince you of its truth. We here
aim at instruction and enlightenment, which alone have en-
during value; not at a mere fugitive emotion or awakening
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 43G
THE DOCTRINK OF RELIGION.
of the fancy, which for the most part passes away without
leaving a trace behind it. For the attainment of this clear
insight, which we here strive to reach, the following steps
are indispensably requisite:--First, that we should conceive
of Being (Seyn) as absolutely by and through itself alone,
as One, invariable, and unchangeable. This conception of
Being is by no means an exclusive possession of the schools;
but every Christian who in his childhood has received a
sound religious education has even then, in the Christian
Doctrine of the Divine Nature, become acquainted with our
conception of being. Secondly, another requisite for this in-
sight is the conception that we, the thinking beings, with
respect to what we are in ourselves, are by no means this
Absolute Being; but that we are nevertheless, in the inner-
most root of our existence, inseparably connected with it,
since otherwise we should have no power to exist at alL
This latter conception may be more or less clear, particularly
in regard to the mode of this our relation to the Godhead.
We have set forth this relation in the greatest clearness
with which, in our opinion, it can be invested in a popu-
lar discourse, thus ij^Besides God, there is truly and in
the proper sense of the word no other Ex-istence what-
ever but--Knowledge; and this Knowledge is the Divine
Ex-istence (Daseyn) itself, absolutely and immediately; and,
in so far as we are this Knowledge, we are ourselves, in the
deepest root of our being, the Divine Ex-istence. All other
things that appear to us as Ex-istences--outward objects,
bodies, souls, we ourselves in so far as we ascribe to our-
selves a separate and independent Being--do not truly and
in themselves exist; but they exist only in Consciousness
and Thought, as that of which we are conscious or of which
we think, and in no other way whatever. This, I say, is the
clearest expression by which, in my opinion, this conception
can be popularly communicated to men. But should any
one be unable to understand even this expression,--yea,
should he even be unable to apprehend or conceive anything
whatever regarding the mode of this relation, yet would he
not thereby be excluded from the Blessed Life, nor even
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE IV.
437
hindered in any way from entering upon it. But on the
other hand, according to my absolute conviction, the follow-
ing are indispensable requisites to the attainment of the
Blessed Life:--(1. ) That we should have fixed principles
and convictions respecting God and our relation to him,
which do not merely float in our memory, without our par-
taking of them, as something we have learned from others;
but which are really true to us, living and active in our-
selves. For even in this does Religion consist:--and he
who does not possess such principles, in such a way, has no
Religion, and therefore no Being, nor Ex-istence, nor true
Self at all; but he passes away, like a shadow, amid the
Manifold and Perishable. (2. ) Another requisite to the
Blessed Life is that this living Religion within us should
at least go so far as to convince us entirely of our own
Nothingness in ourselves, and of our Being only in God
and through God; that we should at least feel this rela-
tionship continually and without interruption; and that,
even although it should not be distinctly expressed either
in thought or language, it should yet be the secret spring,
the hidden principle, of all our thoughts, feelings, emotions,
and desires. That these things are indispensable requisites
to a Blessed Life, is, I say, my absolute conviction; and
this conviction is here set forth for the benefit of those who
already assume the possibility of a Blessed Life, who stand
in need of it or of confirmation in it, and who therefore de-
sire to receive guidance in the way towards it. Notwith-
standing this, we can not only frankly admit that a man
may make shift without Religion, without True Ex-istence,
without inward peace and Blessedness, and assure himself
of coming off well enough without these, as indeed may
be true; but we are also ready freely to concede to such a
man all possible honour and merit which, without Religion,
he may be able to acquire. We embrace this opportunity
frankly to confess that, neither in the speculative nor in the
popular form of our doctrine, can we compel any man, or
force our convictions upon him; nor would we wish to do so
even if we could.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 438
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
The definitive result of our former lecture, which we in-
tend to follow out to-day, was this:--God not only is, in
himself and contained within himself, but he also ex-ists,
and manifests himself; and this his immediate Ex-istence
(Daseyn) is necessarily Knowledge:--this latter necessity
being seen and apprehended in Knowledge itself. In this
his Existence (Daseyn) he ex-ists,--as is also necessary and
may in like manner be seen to be necessary,--he ex-ists, I
say, as he is absolutely in himself, in his own Being (Seyn),
without changing in aught by his passage from Being (Seyn)
to Ex-istence (Daseyn), without any intervening division
or other separation between these two states. God is in
himself One and not Many; he is in himself identical,
the same, without change or variation; he ex-ists precisely
as he is in himself, and therefore he necessarily ex-ists as
One, without change or variation;--and as Knowledge, or
we ourselves, are this Divine Ex-istence, so also in us, in so
far as we are this Divine Ex-istence, there can be no varia-
tion or change, neither multiplicity nor variety, neither di-
vision, difference, nor opposition. --So must it be, and other-
wise it cannot be:--therefore it is so.
But in Reality we nevertheless find this multiplicity and
variety, these divisions, differences, and oppositions of Being,
and in Being,--which in Thought are clearly seen to be ab-
solutely impossible; and hence arises the task of reconciling
this contradiction between our perceptions of Reality and
pure Thought; of showing how these opposing judgments
may consist with each other, and so both prove true; and,
in particular, of so solving this problem that it may become
obvious whence, and from what principles, this Multiplicity
arises in the simple Unity of Being.
In the first place, and before everything else, let us ask:
--Who is it that raises the question as to the source of the
Manifold, and seeks such an insight into this source as may
enable him to see the Manifold in its first outgoings, and
thus obtain a knowledge of the mode of the transition? It
is not firm and unwavering Faith. Faith briefly disposes
of the matter thus:--" There is absolutely but the One,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE IV.
Unchangeable and Eternal, and nothing besides Him; hence
all that is fleeting and changeable full surely is not, and its
seeming appearance is but an empty show;--this I know,
whether I can explain this appearance or not; my assurance
is neither strengthened in the one case, nor weakened in the
other. " This Faith reposes immovably in the fact of its in-
sight, without feeling the want of the mode ;--it is content
with the "That" without asking for the "How. " Thus, for
example, in the Gospel of John, Christianity does not an-
swer this question at all; it does not even once touch it,
or only wonders at the presence of the Perishable, having
this firm Faith and assurance that only the One is, and that
the Perishable is not. And thus any one amongst us who
is a partaker in this Faith does not raise the question;
hence he does not need our answer to it, and it may even
be a matter of indifference to him, as regards the Blessed
Life, whether he comprehend our answer to it or not.
But this question is raised by those who have hitherto
either believed only in the Manifold and have never risen
even to a presentiment of the One, or else have wandered
to and fro between both views, uncertain in which of the
two they should establish themselves and which reject al-
together; and these can only by means of an answer to this
question attain the insight which is necessary to the devel-
opment of the Blessed Life. For such I must answer the
question, and for them it is necessary that they should com-
prehend my answer.
Thus then stands the matter:--In so far as the Divine
Ex-istence (Daseyn) is itself its own immediate, living, and
efficient Ex-isting (daseyen),--ex-isting, I say, indicating
thereby an act of Ex-istence,--it is wholly like to the in-
ward essential Being (Seyri), and is therefore an invariable,
unchanging Unity, altogether incapable of Multiplicity.
Hence the principle of opposition cannot (I have here,
be it remembered, a double purpose: partly to present to
some of you, for the first time and in a popular way, the
Knowledge in question; partly, for others among you who
have already acquired this Knowledge in the scientific way,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 440
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
to combine into one single beam and centre of light that
which they have formerly seen in separate individual rays;
and I therefore now express myself with the strictest pre-
cision), the principle of opposition, I say, cannot fall im-
mediately within this act of the Divine Ex-istence, but must
lie beyond it; but this, however, in such wise that the out-
ward opposition shall be evident as immediately connected
with the living act and necessarily flowing from it; but by
no means as establishing an interval between God and us,
and so irreversibly excluding us from him. I conduct you
to an insight into this principle of Multiplicity thus:--
1. Whatever the Absolute Being (Seyn) or God is, that
he is wholly and immediately by and through himself;-- among other things, he ex-ists, manifests and reveals him-
self;--this Ex-istence (Daseyn),--and here is the important
point,--this Ex-istence is thus also by and through himself,
and only in his immediate and self-subsistent Being,--that
is, in immediate Life and Vitality,--does he ex-ist . In this
his act of Ex-istence he is present with his whole power of
ex-isting; and only in this, his efficient and living act, does
his immediate Ex-istence consist:--and in this respect it is
complete, one and unchangeable.
2. Being (Seyn) and Ex-istence (Daseyn) are here wholly
blended together and lost in each other; for to his Being,
by and through himself, his Ex-istence belongs, and can
have no other foundation or source whatever; while, on the
other hand, to his Ex-istence belongs everything that ap-
pertains to his inward and essential Being or Nature. The
whole distinction, set forth in our former lecture, between
,j Being (Seyn) and Ex-istence (Daseyn), and their indepen-
dence of each other, is thus seen to be only for us, and only
a result of our limitation; and by no means to have any
place, immediately and of itself, in the Divine Ex-istence.
3. I said further, in the preceding lecture, that in and to
mere Ex-istence itself, Being (Seyn) cannot be blended with
Ex-istence (Daseyn), but that they must be distinguished
from each other; so that Being may be apprehended as Be-
ing, and the Absolute as Absolute. This distinction,--this
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE IV.
441
"as,"--this characterisation of the elements distinguished,
is in itself an absolute division, and the principle of all sub-
sequent division and multiplicity, as may be shortly made
evident to you in the following way:--
(a. ) In the first place, the "as," or characterization of
the two elements, does not immediately give their Being
(Seyri);--it gives only what they are, i e. their descrip-
tion and character;--it gives them in representation,
and indeed gives a mixed picture or representation of
both, in which they reciprocally interpenetrate and de-
termine each other, since the one can be apprehended
and characterized only by means of the other, as not
being that which the other is;--the other again being
distinguished as not being that which the former is.
In this distinction we have the genesis of Knowledge
and Consciousness; or, what is the same thing, repre-
sentation, description, and characterization, mediate per-
ception and recognition by means of character and sign;
and in this distinction lies the peculiar and fundamen-
tal principle of Knowledge. It is purely a relation:--
a relation of two things, however, does not lie wholly
either in the one or the other but between the two; it
is a third element, as is shown in the peculiar nature of
Knowledge as something wholly distinct from Being.
(b. ) This distinction occurs in Ex-istence (Daseyn)
itself and proceeds from it; and as the distinction does
not embrace its object immediately, but only the form
and character of the object, so Ex-istence does not ap-
prehend itself immediately in this distinction,--that is,
in Consciousness,-- but only a picture or representation
of itself. It does not conceive of itself immediately as
it is; but it conceives of itself only within the limita-
tions which are set to conception by the absolute nature
of conception itself. Popularly expressed, this is the
following:--We conceive of ourselves only in part, and
that not as we really are in ourselves; and the cause
that we do not conceive of the Absolute does not lie in
the Absolute itself, but in the conception which cannot
Lb
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
even conceive of itself. Were it able to conceive of it-
self, then would it be able to conceive of the Absolute,
for in its own Being, beyond the limitations of concep-
tion, it is itself the Absolute.
(<<. ) Thus it is in Consciousness, as a distinction, that
the primitive essence of the Divine Being and Ex-
istence suffers a change. What then is the one abso-
lute and invariable character of this change 1
Consider the following:--Knowledge, as a distinc-
tion, is a characterization of the thing distinguished;
every characterization, however, is in itself an assump-
tion of the fixed and abiding Being and Presence of
that which is characterized. Thus, by the act of con-
ception, that which in itself is the immediate living
Divine Life, and which we have previously so de-
scribed, becomes a definite and abiding substance:--
the schools would add, an objective substance, but this
arises from the other and not the reverse. Thus, it is
the living Divine Life that is changed; and a definite
and abiding substance is the form which it assumes in
that change;--in other words, the change of immedi-
ate Life into a definite dead substance is the funda-
mental character of that change which is imposed upon
Ex-istence by Consciousness. This abiding Presence
is the characteristic of that which we call the World;
hence conception is the true World-creator, by means of
the change of the Divine Life into a definite substance
which is involved in its essential character;--and only
to conception and in conception is there a World, as
the necessary form of Life in Consciousness;--but be-
yond conception,--that is, truly and in itself,--there
is nothing, and in all Eternity there can be nothing,
but the Living God in his own fulness of Life.
(d. ) The World is thus manifest, in its fundamen-
tal character, as proceeding from conception; and this
conception again is nothing but the "as,"--the charac-
terization of the Divine Being and Ex-istence. But
does not this World in conception, and the conception
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE IV.
443
of it, assume again a new form ? --I mean necessarily
so, and with a necessity that may be made manifest?
In order to answer this question, consider with me
the following:--Ex-istence (Daseyn) apprehends itself,
as I said above, only in representation, and with a cha-
racter distinguishing it from Being (Seyn). This it
does solely of and through itself and by its own power;
and this power of self-observation is manifest in all
concentration, attention, and direction of thought to a
particular object;--in the language of science this in-
dependent self-apprehension of conception is named
reflexion, and thus we shall in future name it. This
direction of the power of Ex-istence and Consciousness
arises from the necessity for an "as,"--a characteriza-
tion of Ex-istence; and this necessity rests immediate-
ly on God's living act of Ex-istence. The foundation
of the independence and freedom of Consciousness is
indeed in God; but even on that account, because it is
in God, do that independence and freedom truly exist,
and are not an empty show. Through his own Ex-ist-
ence, and by its essential nature, God throws out from
him a part of his Ex-istence,--that is, such part of it
as becomes self-consciousness,--and establishes it in
true independence and freedom :--which point, as that
which solves the latest and deepest error of speculation,
I would not here pass over.
Ex-istence apprehends itself by its own independent
power:--this was the first thing to which I wished to
draw your attention here. What then arises in this
apprehension? This is the second thing to which I
now desire to direct your thoughts. As soon as it
distinctly looks upon itself, in its own present exist-
ence, there arises immediately, in thus turning its at-
tention forcibly upon itself, the perception that it is
this or that,--that it bears this or that character;--and
thus--here is the general expression of the result
which I entreat you to notice--thus, in reflexion upon
itself, does Knowledge, by itself and in virtue of its
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
own nature, give birth to a division in itself; since in
this act there is apparent not only Knowledge itself,
which would be one, but, at the same time, Knowledge
as this or that, with this or that character or attribute,
which adds a second element to the first, and that one
arising from the first;--so that the very foundation of
reflexion is thus divided into two separate parts. This
is the essential and fundamental law of reflexion.
(e. ) Now the first and immediate object of absolute
reflexion is Ex-istence itself; which, according to the
necessary form of Knowledge, as before explained, has
been changed from a living Life into a definite sub-
stance or World:--thus the first object of absolute
reflexion is the World. By reason of the essential
form of reflexion which we have just set forth, this
World must separate and divide itself in reflexion; so
that the World, or the abiding Ex-istence in the ab-
stract, may assume a definite character, and the ab-
stract World reproduce itself in reflexion under a par-
ticular shape. This, as we said, lies in reflexion it-
self as such;--reflexion, however, as we have also said,
is in itself absolutely free and independent . Hence,
were this reflexion inactive, were there nothing re-
flected,--as in consequence of this freedom might be
the case,--then there would be nothing apparent; but
were reflexion infinitely active, were there an endless
series of its acts--reflexion upon reflexion,--as through
this freedom might as well be the case,--then to every
new reflexion the World would appear in a new shape,
and thus proceed throughout an Infinite Time, which
is likewise created only by the absolute freedom of re-
flexion, in an endless course of change and transmuta-
tion, as an Infinite Manifold. As conception in the
abstract was seen to be the World-creator; so here,
the free act of reflexion is seen to be the creator of
Multiplicity, and indeed of an infinite Multiplicity, in
the World; while the World nevertheless, notwith-
standing this Multiplicity, remains the same, because
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE IV.
445
the abstract conception, in its fundamental character,
remains One and the same.
(f. ) And now to combine what we have said into
one view;--Consciousness,--that is we ourselves,--is
the Divine Ex-istence (Daseyn) itself, and absolutely
one with it. This Divine Ex-istence apprehends it-
self and thereby becomes Consciousness; and its own
Being (Seyn) -- the true Divine Being--becomes a
World to it. In this position what does this Con-
sciousness contain? I think each of you will answer:
--" The World and nothing but the World. " Or does
this Consciousness also contain the immediate Divine
Life?
I think each of you will answer:--" No;--for
Consciousness must necessarily change this immediate
Divine Life into a World; and thus, Consciousness be-
ing supposed, this change is also supposed as accom-
plished; and Consciousness itself is, by its very nature,
and therefore without being again conscious of it, the
completion of this change. But now, where is that
immediate Divine Life which, in its immediateness, is
itself Consciousness;--where has it vanished, since, ac-
cording to our own admissions rendered clearly neces-
sary by our previous conclusions, in this its immediate-
ness it is irreversibly effaced from Consciousness? We
reply:--It has not vanished, but it is and abides there,
where alone it can be, in the hidden and inaccessible
Being of Consciousness, which no conception can reach;
--in that which alone supports Consciousness, main-
tains it in Ex-istence, and even makes its Ex-istence
possible. In Consciousness the Divine Life is inevit-
ably changed into an actual and abiding World:--
further, every actual Consciousness is an act of re-
flexion; the act of reflexion, however, inevitably di-
vides the One World into an infinite variety of shapes,
the comprehension of which can never be completed,
and of which therefore only a finite series enters into
Consciousness. I ask:--Where then abides the One
World, in itself perfect and complete, as the efficient
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
antitype of the likewise perfect and complete Divine
Life ? --I answer:--It abides there, where alone it is,--
not in any individual act of reflexion, but in the one,
absolute, fundamental form of conception; which thou
canst never reproduce in actual, immediate Conscious-
ness, but only in Thought raising itself above Con-
sciousness;--just as thou canst likewise reproduce in
the same Thought the still farther removed, and more
deeply hidden, Divine Life. Where then,--in this stream
of actual reflexion, and its world-creation, flowing on
for ever through ceaseless changes,--where then abides
the One, Eternal and Unchangeable Being (Seyn) of Con-
sciousness manifested in the Divine Ex-istence (Da-
seyn)? It does not enter into this stream of change, but
only its type, image, or representation, enters therein.
As thy physical eye is a prism in which the light of
the sensuous world, which in itself is pure, simple and
colourless, breaks itself upon the surfaces of things in-
to many hues,--while nevertheless thou wilt not main-
tain on that account that the light is in itself coloured,
but only that, to thy eye, and while standing with thy
eye in this state of reciprocal influence, it separates
itself into colours,--although thou still canst not see
the light colourless, but canst only think it colourless,
to which thought thou givest credence only when the
nature of thy seeing eye becomes known to thee:--so
also proceed in the things of the spiritual world and
with the vision of thy spiritual eye. What thou seest,
that thou art: but thou art it not as thou seest it, nor
dost thou see it as thou art it . Thou art it, unchange-
able and pure, without colour and without shape. Only
reflexion,--which likewise thou thyself art, and which
therefore thou canst never put away from thee,--only
this causes it to separate before thee into innumerable
rays and shapes. Know therefore that it is not in it-
self thus broken up, and formed, and invested with a
multiplicity of shapes, but that it only seems so in this
thy reflexion, thy spiritual eye, by which alone thou
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE IV.
447
canst see,-- and in reciprocal influence with this re-
flexion. -- Raise thyself above this Appearance, which in
Reality can as little be obliterated as the colours from
before thy physical eye,--raise thyself above this Ap-
pearance to true Thought, let thyself be penetrated by
it, and thou wilt henceforward have faith in it alone.
So much as has now been said may, in my opinion, be
contributed through the medium of a popular discourse
to the solution of the question :--Whence,--since Being in
itself must be absolutely One, without change or varia-
tion, and is evident to Thought as such,--whence arises the
mutability and change which is nevertheless encountered
by actual Consciousness? Being, in itself, is indeed One,
the One Divine Being; and this alone is the true Reality in
all Ex-istence, and so remains in all Eternity. By reflex-
ion, which in actual Consciousness is indissolubly united with
Being, this One Being is broken up into an infinite variety
of forms. This separation, as we said, is absolutely original,
and in actual Consciousness can never be abolished nor
superseded by anything else; and therefore the visible
forms which by this separation are imposed upon absolute
Reality are discernible only in actual Consciousness, and so
that in the act of observing them we assign to them life
and endurance;--and they are by no means discoverable a
priori to pure Thought. They are simple and absolute Ex-
perience, which is nothing but Experience; which no Spec-
ulation that understands itself will ever attempt or desire to
lay hold of; and indeed the substance of this Experience,
with respect to each particular thing, is that which abso-
lutely belongs to it alone and is its individual character-
istic,--that which in the whole infinite course of Time can
never be repeated, and which can never before have oc-
curred. But the general properties or attributes of these
forms which are thus imposed upon the One Reality by its
separation in Consciousness,--with reference to their agree-
ment with which attributes, classes and species arise,--these
may be discovered by a priori investigation of the different
laws of reflexion, as we have already set forth its one fun-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 448
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
damental law;--and a systematic philosophy ought to do
this, and must do it, in a complete and exhaustive manner.
Thus may Matter in Space,--Time,--a fixed system of
Worlds,--how the substance of Consciousness, which in it-
self can be but One, divides itself into a system of separate
and apparently independent individuals,--thus, I say, may
these and all things of this kind, be deduced with perfect
clearness from the laws of reflexion. But these'investiga-
tions are more needful to the attainment of a fundamental
insight into particular Sciences than to the development
of a Blessed Life. They belong to the scientific teaching of
Philosophy as its exclusive property; and they are neither
susceptible of popular exposition nor do they stand in need
of it. Here, therefore, at this indicated point, lies the boun-
dary line which divides strict Science from popular teaching.
We have, as you see, arrived at that limit; and it may
therefore be anticipated that our inquiry shall now gradual-
ly descend to those regions which, at least with respect to
their objects, are familiar to us, and which we have even
sometimes touched upon already.
Besides the division, which we have set forth in to-day's
lecture, of the World which arises in Consciousness from out
the Divine Life, into a World of infinite variety and change,
with reference to its form, by means of the fundamental
law of reflexion; there is yet another division, inseparably
bound up with the first, of the same World, not into an In-
finite but into a Five-fold form, with reference to the pos-
sible modes of viewing it. We must set forth this second
division, at least historically, and make you acquainted with
it, which shall be done in our next lecture. It is only after
these preparatory investigations that we shall be capable of
of comprehending for the first time the essential nature, as
well as the outward manifestations, of the truly Blessed
Life; and, after we have so comprehended it, of seeing
clearly that there is indeed true Blessedness within it, and
what that Blessedness is.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 4*9
LECTURE V.
FIVE-FOLD DIVISION IN THE POSSIBLE VIEW OF THE
WORLD:--THE STANDPOINTS OF SENSE,--OF
LEGALITY,--OF THE HIGHER MORALITY,
--OF RELIGION,-- OF SCIENCE.
According to what we have now seen, Blessedness consists
in union with God, as the One and Absolute. We, however,
in our unalterable nature, are but Knowledge, Representa-
tion, Conception; and even in our union with the Infinite
One, this, the essential form of our Being, cannot be ob-
literated. Even in our union with him he does not become
our own Being; but he floats before us as something for-
eign to ourselves, something present there before us, to
which we can only devote ourselves, clinging to him with
earnest love;--He floats before us, as in himself without
form or substance, without definite conception or know-
ledge on our part of his inward essential nature, but only as
that through which alone we can think or comprehend
either ourselves or our World . /^Neither after our union
with God is the World lost to us; it only assumes a new
significance, and, instead of an independent existence such
as it seemed to us before, it becomes only the Appearance
and Manifestation, in Knowledge, of the Divine Life that
lies hidden within itself. Conprehend this once more as a
whole:--The Divine Ex-istence (Daseyn),--his Ex-istence,
Mb
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 450
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
I say, which, according to the distinction already laid down,
is his Manifestation and Revelation of himself,--is absolute-
ly through itself, and of necessity, Light :--namely, inward
and spiritual Light. This Light, left to itself, separates and
divides itself into an infinite multiplicity of individual rays;
and in this way, in these individual rays, becomes estranged
from itself and its original source. But this same Light
may also again concentrate itself from out this separation,
and conceive and comprehend itself as One, as that which
it is in itself,--the Ex-istence and Revelation of God; re-
maining indeed, even in this conception, that which it is in
its form,--Light; but yet in this conception, and even by
means of this very conception, announcing itself as having
no real Being in itself, but as only the Ex-istence and Self-
Manifestation of God.
In our last two lectures, and more especially in the last
of all, we made it our especial business to investigate this
passage of the One, only possible, and unchangeable Being
into another, and that other a manifold and changeable Be-
ing: so that we might be enabled to penetrate to the very
transition-point of this change, and see its outgoing with
our own eyes. We found the following:--In the first place,
by the essential character of Knowledge in the abstract, as
a mere picture or representation, Being, which subsists alto-
gether independently of that Knowledge, and which in itself
and in God is pure activity and Life, is changed into a de-
terminate and abiding being, or into a World. In the se-
cond place, besides this distinction, the World which, to
mere abstract Knowledge, is simple and indivisible, is, by
the fundamental law of reflexion, further characterized,
formed, and moulded into a particular World, and indeed
into an infinitely varied World, flowing onward in a never-
ending stream of new and changing forms. The insight
thus to be attained was, in our opinion, indispensably ne-
cessary not only to Philosophy but also to Blessedness; since
the latter dwells in man not as a mere instinct or obscure
faith, but desires to be able to render an account to itself of
its own origin and foundation.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE V.
451
Thus far we had proceeded in our last lecture; and we
intimated at its conclusion, that with this division of the
World into an infinite multiplicity of forms, founded on a
fundamental law of all reflexion, there was inseparably con-
nected another division which we should, at this time, if
not critically educe, at least historically set forth and de-
scribe. I do not here approach this new and second division,
in its general character, more deeply than thus. In the
first place, in its essential nature, it is different from the
division which we set forth in our last lecture and have
now again described, in so far as the latter immediately se-
parates and divides the very World itself which, in virtue of
the mere abstract form of Knowledge, arises from out the
Divine Life; while, on the contrary, that which we have
now to consider does not immediately separate and divide
the object itself, but only separates and divides reflexion
on the object. The one is a separation and division in the
object itself; the other is but a separation and division in
the view taken of the object,--not as in the former case, re-
vealing to us objects different in themselves, but only dif-
ferent modes of viewing, apprehending, and understanding
the One abiding World. In the second place, it is not to
be forgotten that neither of these two divisions can assume
the place of the other, and that therefore they cannot sup-
plant or supersede each other; but that they are insepar-
able, and are therefore to be found together wherever re-
flexion, whose unchangeable forms they are, is to be found;
--and that therefore the results of both inseparably accom-
pany each other and always proceed hand in hand. The
result of the first division is, as we have shown in our pre-
vious lecture,--Infinitude;--the result of the second is, as
we also stated,--a Quintitude;--and therefore the result of
the inseparability of these two divisions is this,--that this
Infinity, which in itself remains entire and cannot be super-
seded, may yet be regarded in a Five-fold manner; and on
the other hand, that each of the five possible views so taken
of the World again divides the One World into an Infinite
multiplicity of forms. And thus you may comprehend
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:11 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
what we have now said in a single glance:--To the spiritu-
Val vision, that which in itself is the Divine Life becomes a
thing seen,--that is, a complete and present Ex-istence, or a
World:--which was the first point. This vision is always
an act, named reflexion; and by means of this act, partly
as relating to its object the World, and partly as relating to
itself, that World is divided into an infinite Quintentity, or,
what is the same thing, into a five-fold Infinity:--which
was the second point. In order that we may, in the next
place, proceed to the consideration of the second of these
divisions, which is the proper object of to-day's lecture, let
us now make, with regard to it, the following general re-
marks :--
This division, as we have said, presents no distinction in
the object itself, but only a distinction, difference, and varie-
ty, in the view taken of the object. It seems to force it-
self upon the mind that this difference, not in the object
itself but only in the view taken of the object--the object
itself meanwhile remaining the same--can arise only from
the obscurity or clearness, the depth or shallowness, the
completeness or incompleteness of the view thus taken of
the One unchanging World. And this is certainly the case:
or,--to connect this with something that I said before, il-
lustrating the one expression by the other and thus render-
ing both more intelligible,--the five modes of viewing the
World, now spoken of, are the same as those progressions
which, in the third lecture, I named the various possible
stages and grades of development of the inward Spiritual
Life,--when I said that the progress of this free and con-
scious Spiritual Life, which in a peculiar sense belongs to
us, follows the same course as the progress of Physical
Death, and that the former as well as the latter begins in
the remotest members, and thence only gradually advances
to the central-point of the system. What I named the out-
works of the Spiritual Life, in the figure which I then em-
ployed, are, in our present representation of the matter, the
lowest, darkest, and shallowest of the five possible modes of
viewing the World; what I then named the nobler parts,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:12 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE V.
453
and the heart, are here the higher and clearer, and the
highest and clearest, of these modes.
But notwithstanding that, according to our former simile
as well as our present representation, Man, after he has
rested for a time in a low view of the World and its signifi-
cance, does, even in the ordinary course of life and accord-
ing to established law, raise himself to a higher; yet, in the
first place, it is not on that account to be denied, but on
the contrary to be expressly held and maintained, that this
manifold view of the World is a true and original distinc-
tion, at least in the capacities possessed by men of compre-
hending the World. Understand me thus :--those higher
views of the World have not their origin in Time, nor so
that they are first engendered and made possible by views
wholly opposed to them; but they are from all Eternity in
the unity of the Divine Existence as necessary determina-
tions of the One Consciousness even although no man
should comprehend them; and no one who does comprehend
them can invent them, or produce them by mere thought,
but he can only perceive them, and appropriate them to
himself. In the second place, this gradual progress is only
the ordinary course of things, and only the established law,
which however is by no means without exception. Some
favoured and inspired men find themselves, as it were by
miracle, without their own knowledge and through mere
birth and instinct, placed at once on a higher standpoint
from which to survey the World; and these are as little
understood by those around them, as they, on their part, are
able to understand their contemporaries. Thus it has been,
since the beginning of the world, with all Religious Teachers,
Sages, Heroes, and Poets; and through these everything
great and good in the world has arisen. On the other hand,
there are individuals, and, where the contagion has become
very dangerous, whole ages with few exceptions, that by
the same inexplicable instinct of nature are so imprisoned
and rooted in the lowest view of things, that even the clear-
est and most evident instruction cannot induce them to
raise their eyes even for a moment from the earth, and to
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:12 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 454
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
apprehend anything whatever but that which they can di-
rectly lay hold of with their hands.
So much in general as to the distinction we have indica-
ted in the modes of viewing the World; and now to set
forth the separate sections of this distinction.
The First, lowest, shallowest, and most confused mode of
viewing the World, is that wherein that only which is per-
<;ceptible to outward Sense is regarded as the World and the
actual existence therein,--as the highest, true, and self-suffi-
cient existence. This view has been already sufficiently de-
picted in these lectures, particularly in the third, and, as it
seems to me, clearly enough characterized; and on that oc-
casion its worthlessness and superficiality were made abun-
dantly evident, although only by a glance at its surface.
We admitted that this view was nevertheless that of our
philosophers, and of the age that is formed in their schools;
but we showed at the same time that this view by no means
proceeds from their logic--since the very nature and possi-
bility of logic directly gives the lie to such a view--but
from their love. We cannot pause any longer at this point,
for in these lectures we must proceed far beyond this, and
therefore we must leave some things behind us as for ever
abolished. Should any one, persisting in the testimony of
his senses, continue to say:--" But these things are obvi-
ously there, really and truly, for I see them there, and hear
them,"--then let such an one know that we are not even
disturbed by his confident assurance and inflexible faith;
but that we abide by our categorical, invincible, and abso-
lutely literal:--" No, these things are not, precisely because
they may be seen and heard,"--and that we can have no-
thing more to say to such a person, as one wholly incapable
of understanding or instruction.
The Second view, proceeding from the original division
in the modes of viewing the World, is that wherein the
v^World is regarded as a Law of Order and of equal rights in
a system of reasonable beings. Let this be understood ex-
actly as I have said it. A Law, and indeed an ordering and
equalizing Law addressed to the freedom of many, is to
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:12 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE V.
455
this view the peculiar, self-subsistent Reality;--that by
which the World arose, and in which it has its root. Should
any one here wonder how a Law, which indeed, as such an
one would say, is only a relation--a mere abstract concep-
tion,--can be regarded as an independent existence, the
wonder of such an one can proceed only from his inability
to comprehend anything as real except visible and palpable
matter; and thus he also belongs to that class to whom we
have nothing to say. A Law, I say, is to this view of the
World the first thing; --that which alone truly is, and through which everything else that exists first comes into
existence. Freedom and a Human Race is to it the sec-
ond thing;--which exists only because a Law that is ad-
dressed to freedom necessarily assumes the existence of
freedom and of free beings; and in this system the only
foundation and proof of the independence of man is the Mo-
ral Law that reveals itself within him. A Sensible World,
finally, is to it the third thing;--and this is only the sphere
of the free action of man, and only exists because free ac-
tion necessarily assumes the existence of objects of such
action. As to the sciences that arise out of this view,--it
may lay claim not only to Jurisprudence, as setting forth
the legal relations of men, but also to the common doctrine
of Morals, which merely goes the length of forbidding in-
justice between man and man, and merely rejects whatever
is opposed to Duty whether forbidden by an express law of
the State or not. Examples of this view of the World can-
not be adduced from common life, which, rooted in matter,
does not raise itself even thus far; but, in philosophical
literature, Kant is the most striking and consequential ex-
ample of this view, if we do not follow his philosophical
career farther than the Critique of Practical Reason;--the
peculiar character of this mode of thought, as we have ex-
pressed it above,--namely, that the reality and indepen-
dence of man are evidenced only by the Moral Law that
rules within him, and that only thereby does he become
anything in himself,--being expressed by Kant in the same
words. We ourselves, too, have pointed out and investi-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:12 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 456
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
gated this view of the world, never indeed as the highest,
but as the foundation of a Doctrine of Jurisprudence and a
Doctrine of Morals in our treatment of these subjects; and
have there, as we are conscious, set it forth not without
energy:--and there can therefore be no lack of examples,
in our own age, of this second view of the World, for those
who take a closer interest in what has now been said. For
the rest, the purely moral inward sentiment -- that man
ought to act only in obedience to, and for the sake of, the
Law--which also enters into the sphere of this Lower Mo-
rality, and the inculcation of which has not been forgotten
either by Kant or by us, does not belong to our present
subject, where we have to do only with objective beliefs.
One general remark, which is of importance for all our
subsequent points of view, I shall adduce here as the place
where it may be made with the greatest distinctness. This,
namely:--In order to have a firm standpoint for any view
of the World, it is necessary that we should place the real
and independent being and root of the World in one definite
and unchangeable principle, from which we may be able to
educe the others as only partaking in the reality of the first,
and only assumed by reason of it; just as we have already,
when speaking of the second view of the World, educed the
Human Race as a second element, and the Sensible World
as a third, from the law of Moral Order as the first . But it
is by no means allowable to mix and intermingle realities;
and, it may be, to ascribe to the Sensible World what is
supposed to belong to it, at the same time not denying to
to the Moral World any of its rights;--as is sometimes at-
tempted by those who would get rid of these questions al-
together. Such persons have no settled view whatever, and
no fixed direction of their spiritual eye, but they continually
turn aside amid the Manifold. Far better than they, is he
who holds firmly by the World of Sense, and denies the re-
ality of everything else but it; for although he may be as
short-sighted as the others, yet he is not at the same time
so timid and spiritless. In a word :--a higher view of the
World does not tolerate the lower beside it; but each high-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:12 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/wu. 89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LECTURE V.
457
er step abolishes the lower as an absolute and highest stand-
point, and subordinates it to itself. ^
The Third view of the World is that from the stand-
point of the True and Higher Morality. It is necessary
that we should render a very distinct account of this stand-
point, which is almost wholly unknown to the present
age. To it also, as well as to the second of the views we
have now described, a Law of the Spiritual World is the
first, highest, and absolute reality; and herein these two
views coincide. But the Law of the third view is not, like
that of the second, merely a Law of Order, regulating pre-
sent existence; but rather a Creative Law, producing the
new and hitherto non-existent, even within the circle of that
which already exists. The former is merely negative,--
abolishing the opposition between diverse free powers, and
establishing equilibrium and peace in its stead; the latter
desires to inform the powers, thus lulled to rest, with a new
life. We may say that it strives, not like the former after
the mere form of the Idea but, after the qualitative and real
Idea itself. Its object may be briefly stated thus;--it seeks,
in those whom it inspires, and through them in others, to
make Humanity in deed, what it is in its original intention,
--the express image, copy, and revelation of the inward and
essential Divine Nature. The process of deduction, by which
this third view of the World arrives at reality, is therefore
the following:--To it, the only truly real and independent
being is the Holy, the Good, the Beautiful;--the second is
Humanity, as destined to be the manifestation of the first;--
the ordering Law in Humanity, as the third, is but the means
of bringing it into internal and external peace for the fulfil-
ment of this its true vocation; -- and finally, the World of
Sense, as the fourth, is only the sphere both of the outward
and inward, the lower and higher, Freedom and Morality;
--only the sphere of Freedom, I say,--that which it is to all
the higher points of view, and thus remains, and can never
assume to itself any other reality.
Examples of this view in human history can be seen only
by him who has an eye to discover them. Through the
Nb
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-11-27 00:12 GMT / http://hdl.