We
have said:--It is the living and efficient Ex-istence of the
Absolute itself which alone has power to be and to exist, and
?
have said:--It is the living and efficient Ex-istence of the
Absolute itself which alone has power to be and to exist, and
?
Fichte - Nature of the Scholar
net/2027/wu.
89090378035 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www.
hathitrust.
org/access_use#pd-google
? 418
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
which I have thought it advisable to communicate to you
to day. Eight days hence I shall endeavour to set forth, in
a new light and upon a new side, the foundation-principles
of these lectures, which are at the same time the foundation-
principles of all knowledge ;--and to this I respectfully in-
vite 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
? 419
LECTURE III.
DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM THE COMMON MODE OF
THOUGHT :--DEFINITION OF BEING (SEYN)
AND SX-ISTENCE (DASEYN. )
In the first of these lectures we maintained that not every-
thing which seems to be living does really and truly live;
and in the second we said that a large portion of mankind,
throughout their whole Life, never attain to true and proper
Thought, but remain within the circle of mere Opinion. It
might well be, and indeed it has already become obvious
from other remarks which we made on that occasion, that
the phrases Thought and Life--Thought-lessness and Death,
mean precisely one and the same thing; we have already
shown that Thought is the element of Life, and consequent-
ly the absence of Thought must be the source of Death.
An important difficulty stands in the way of this asser-
tion, to which I must now direct your attention, namely the
following :--If Life be an organic whole, determined by one
universally efficient law, then it seems at first sight impos-
sible that any one part appertaining to Life should be ab-
sent where the others are present; or that any one indivi-
dual part should exist without all the parts proper to Life,
and consequently without Life itself as a whole, in its com-
plete organic unity. In solving this difficulty, we shall also
be able to exhibit to you clearly the distinction between
true Thought and mere Opinion, which was the first busi-
? ? 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
? 420
THE DOCTHINE OF RELIGION.
ncss announced for to-day in our last discourse, before we
proceed to the fulfilment of our other purpose in this lec-
ture, namely, to begin the application of pure Thought it-
self to the elements of all Knowledge.
The supposed difficulty is thus solved :--Wherever spiri-
tual Life is to be found, everything, without exception, that
belongs to this Life, follows wholly and unreservedly, accord-
ing to the established law of its being :--but all this, which
follows with absolute mechanical necessity, does not neces-
sarily enter into consciousness; it is there indeed a Life
according to the law, but not our Life, not the Life which is
properly and peculiarly ours. Our Life is only that part of
the Life according to the law which we embrace in clear
consciousness, and, in this clear consciousness, love and en-
joy. "Where Love is, there is individual Life," we said
once;--Love, however, exists only where there is clear con-
sciousness.
The development of this conscious Life--which in these
lectures is all to which we shall give the name of Life--
within the whole mass of Life which has an existence ac-
cording to the law, proceeds precisely like that of physical
death. As this, in its natural progress, begins at first in the
remoter members, those farthest removed from the central
seat of life, and from them spreads itself gradually to the
inward parts, until at last it reaches the heart; so does the
spiritual Life, filled with consciousness, love, and enjoyment
of itself, begin at first in the extremities and remoter out-
works of Life, until it also, with God's good pleasure, reaches
the true foundation and central point of alL An ancient
philosopher maintained that the animals had arisen from
the earth; "as happens," he added, "even to the present
day in miniature, since every spring, particularly after a
warm rain, we may observe frogs, for example, in whom
some particular part, perhaps the fore-feet, may be quite
perfectly developed, while the other members still remain a
rude and undeveloped clod of earth. " The half-animals of
this philosopher, although they scarcely afford sufficient
evidence of what they were designed to prove, yet present a
? ? 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 III.
421
very striking illustration of the spiritual Life of ordinary
men. The outward members of this Life are in themselves
perfectly formed, and warm blood flows through the ex-
tremities; but when we look to the heart, and the other
nobler organs of life,--which, in themselves and according
to the law, are indeed there, and must necessarily be there,
since otherwise even the outward members themselves could
not have been,--in these organs, I say, they are found to be
still unsentient clods--frozen rocks.
I shall, first of all, convince you of this by a striking
example; to which, although I shall express myself with
strict precision, I must yet require your particular attention,
on account of the novelty of the observation. We see, hear,
feel--outward objects; and along with this seeing, &c. , we
also think these objects, and are conscious of them by means
of our inward sense; just as we are conscious, by the same
inward sense, of our seeing, hearing, and feeling of these ob-
jects. I hope that no one who is possessed even of the com-
monest power of reflexion will maintain that he can see,
hear, or feel an object without being at the same time in-
wardly conscious both of the object itself, and of his seeing,
hearing, or feeling of it;--that he can see, hear, or feel any-
thing definite without consciousness. This co-existence, this
inseparability of the outward, sensible perception and the in-
ward thought or conception,--this co-existence, I say, and
nothing more than this, lies in practical self-observation, or
the fact of Consciousness; but this fact of consciousness does
by no means contain,--and I beg you to note this well,--
this fact of consciousness does by no means contain any re-
lation between these two elements,--the outward Sense and
the inward Thought,--a relation of the one to the other,--
it may be as Cause and Effect, or as Essential and Acci-
dental . If any such relation between the two be assumed,
this is not done in consequence of practical self-observation,
and it does not lie in the fact of consciousness :--this is the
first thing that I beg of you to understand and keep in
mind.
Now, in the second place, should such a relation be as-
? ? 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
? 422
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
sumed upon some other ground than that of self-observa-
tion,--which other possible ground we put in the place of
consciousness,--should such a relation between the two
elements be, upon such a ground, supposed and accepted,--
then it appears, at first sight, that the two elements, as co-
existent and inseparable from each other, must be held to
be of equal rank; and thus the inward thought may as well
be regarded as the foundation, the essential,--and the out-
ward perception as the superstructure, the accident,--as the
reverse; and in this way an insoluble doubt would neces-
sarily arise between the two suppositions, which would for
ever prevent any final decision respecting the assumed re-
lation. Thus, I say, it is at first sight;--but should any
one look deeper into the matter, then,--inasmuch as the
inward consciousness embraces even the outward sense it-
self,--since we are conscious of the seeing, hearing, or feel-
ing, but can by no means, on the other hand, see, hear, or
feel our consciousness,--and thus, even in the immediate
fact, consciousness assumes the higher place:--then, I say,
such an one would find it much more natural to make the
internal Consciousness the chief thing, and the external
Sense the subordinate thing; to explain the latter by the
former; to control and try the latter by the former;--and
not the reverse.
Now how does the common mode of thought proceed in
this matter? To it, the outward Sense is, without further
inquiry, the first thing, the immediate touchstone of truth:
--whatever is seen, heard, or felt, that is, just because it is
seen, heard, or felt. The Thought, or inward consciousness
of the object, comes afterwards, as an empty addition which
is scarcely to be noticed at all, and is quite willingly dis-
pensed with if it do not force itself upon our observation;
and a thing is never seen or heard because it is thought, but
it is thought because it is seen or heard, and that under the
guidance and control of this seeing and hearing. The per-
verse and absurd modern philosophy referred to in our last
lecture, as the peculiar organ and voice of common opinion,
comes forward and unblushingly declares:--" Outward sense
? ? 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 III.
423
is the only source of reality, and all our knowledge is found-
ed upon experience alone;"--as if this were an axiom to
which no one could adduce a single objection. How is it
that this common mode of thought, and its guardians, have
so easily got over the causes of doubt which we have just
noticed, and even the positive grounds for the adoption of
the opposite view, as if they had not even an existence?
Why does the opposite view, which, even at the first glance,
and as yet without any deeper investigation, recommends
itself as much more natural and probable,--that the whole
outward Sense, and all its objects, are founded upon univer-
sal Thought, and that a sensible perception is possible only
in Thought, and as something thought, as a determination
of the general consciousness, but by no means in itself and
separated from consciousness,--I mean, the view that it is
not true that we see, hear, and feel absolutely, but only
that we are conscious of seeing, hearing, feeling,--why does
this view which we profess, and which we recognise with
absolute certainty to be the only right one, while we also
clearly perceive its opposite to be a palpable absurdity,--
why does this view, or even the possibility of it, remain
wholly concealed from the common mode of thought? It
may easily be explained:--The judgment of this mode of
thought is the necessary expression of its actual degree of
life. For those who cannot go beyond this mode of thought,
Life dwells, in the meantime, only in outward Sense, the re-
motest extremity of the nascent spiritual Life; in outward
Sense they have their whole round of being, their most vital
existence; in it alone they feel, love, and enjoy; and, of ne-
cessity, where their heart is, there is their faith also:--in
Thought, on the contrary, Life does not spring forth before
them directly as living flesh and blood but seems rather an
inchoate mass; and therefore Thought appears to them to
be a heterogeneous mist, belonging neither to themselves
nor to the matter in hand. Should they ever come so far
as to attain a more intense existence in Thought than in
seeing or hearing, and to feel and enjoy in it more keenly
than in Sense, then would their judgment also be different
from what it 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
? 424
THE DOCTRINE OF HKLIUION.
Thus is Thought, even in its lowest manifestation, degraded and made of no account by the common view of
things, because this common view does not place the seat of
its Life in Thought,--has not even extended its spiritual
feelers thus far. Thought in its lowest manifestation, I said;
--for that, and nothing more, is this thought of an external
object, which has an antitype, a competitor for truth, in an
outward sensible perception. Thought, in its high and
proper form, is that which creates its own purely spiritual
object absolutely from itself, without the aid of outward
sense, and without any reference whatever to outward sense.
In ordinary life this mode of thought presents itself when,
for example, the question arises with regard to the origin of
the World, or of the Human Race; or regarding the inter-
nal laws of Nature; where, in the first case, it is clear that
at the creation of the world, and before the appearance of
the human race, there was no observer present whose expe-
rience could be cited; and, in the second case, the question
is not regarding specific phenomena, but regarding that in
which all individual phenomena coincide; and that which is
to be evolved is not any visible event, but a mental neces-
sity, which not only is, but is thus, and cannot be otherwise:--
that is, an object proceeding entirely from Thought itself:--
which first point I beg of you thoroughly to understand and
recognise.
In matters pertaining to this higher Thought, the adher-
ents of the common view proceed after this wise:--they let
others invent, or, where they are possessed of greater power,
they invent for themselves, by means of vagrant and law-
less thought, or, as it is called, fancy, one out of many
possible ways in which the actual fact in question may have
arisen ;--in the language of the schools they make an hypo-
thesis :--they then consult their desire, fear, hope, or what-
ever may be their ruling passion for the time, and, should it
assent, the fiction becomes established as a firm and unal-
terable truth. One of the many possible ways, I said; and
this is the leading characteristic of the proceeding we have
described :--but it is necessary that this expression should
? ? 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 III.
425
be correctly understood. For, in itself, it is not true that
anything whatever is possible in many different ways; but
everything that is, is possible, actual, and necessary, at the
same time only in one perfectly fixed and definite way:--
and herein, indeed, lies the fundamental error of this pro-
ceeding, that it assumes many different possibilities, from
which it proceeds to select one for adoption, without being
able to verify this one by anything but its own caprice.
This proceeding is what we call Opinion, in opposition
to true Thought. Opinion, like Thought itself, possesses,
as its domain, the whole region lying beyond sensuous
experience; this region it fills with the productions of fan-
cy, either that of others or its own, to which desire alone
gives substance and duration; and all this happens simply
and solely because the seat of its spiritual Life is as yet no
higher than in the extremities of blind desire or aversion.
True Thought proceeds in a different way in filling up
this super-sensual region. It does not invent, but spon-
taneously perceives,--not one possibility among many,--but
the one and only possible, actual, and necessary mode; and
this does not seek its confirmation in a proof lying beyond
itself, but it contains within itself its own confirmation;
and, as soon as it is conceived, becomes evident to Thought
itself as the only possible and absolutely certain Truth,
establishing itself in the soul with an immoveable certainty
and evidence that completely destroys even the possibility
of doubt. Since this certainty, as we have said, attaches it-
self at once to the living act of Thought in its immediate
vitality, and to this only, it follows that every one who
would become a partaker in this certainty, must himself,
and in his own person, think the Truth, and cannot commit
to any other the accomplishment of this business in his
stead. Only this preliminary remark I desired to make be-
fore proceeding, as I now do, to our mutual realization of
true Thought in the highest elements of Knowledge.
The first task of such Thought is to conceive of Being in
itself with strict exactitude. I approach this conception thus;
I say:--Being (Seyn), proper and true Being, does not arise,
ib
? ? 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
? 426
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
does not proceed, does not come forth out of nothingness.
For everything which thus arises, you are compelled to as-
sume a previous causal being, by virtue of which the other
at first arose. If you hold that at some earlier period this
second being has itself arisen in its turn, then you are again
compelled to assume a third being by virtue of which the
second arose; and should you attribute a beginning to the
third then you are compelled to assume a fourth,--and so on
for ever. You must, in every case, at last arrive at a Being
that has not thus arisen, and which therefore requires no
other thing to account for its being, but which is absolutely
through itself, by itself, and from itself. On this Being, to
which you must at last ascend from out the series of created
things, you must now and henceforward fix your attention;
and then it will become evident to you, if you have entered
fully with me into the preceding thoughts, that you can
only conceive of the true Being as a Being by itself, from it-
self, and through itself.
In the second place I add:--that within this Being no-
thing new can arise, nothing can alter its shape, nor shift
nor change; but that as it is now, so has it been from all
eternity, and so it endures unchangeably in all eternity.
For, since it is through itself alone, so is it,--completely,
without division, and without abatement,--all that, through
itself, it can be and must be. Were it in time to become
something new, then must it either have been previously
hindered, by some being foreign to itself, from becoming
this something; or it must become this something new
through the power of a being foreign to itself, which now
for the first time begins to exert an influence upon it:--
both of which suppositions stand in direct contradiction to
its absolute independence and self-sufficiency. And thus it
will become evident to you, if you have thoroughly compre-
hended these thoughts, that Being can be conceived of only
as absolutely One, not as Many; only as a self-comprehen-
sive, self-sufficient, and absolutely unchangeable Unity.
By this course of thought--and this is my third point
--you arrive only at a Being (Seyn) shut up, concealed,
? ? 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 III. 427
wholly comprehended in itself;--you do not, by any means,
arrive at an Ex-istence (Daseyn;*)--I say to an Ex-istence,
manifestation, or revelation of this Being. I am most anx-
ious that you should understand this at once; and you will
undoubtedly do so, when you have strictly considered this
idea of Being, now for the first time set forth, and have so
become conscious in yourselves of what is contained in this
thought, and what is not contained in it. The natural il-
lusion which may obscure your minds against the desired
insight, I shall very soon examine.
To explain this more fully:--You perceive that I dis-
tinguish Being (Seyn)--essential, self-comprehended Being
--from Ex-istence (Daseyn), and represent these two ideas
as entirely opposed to each other,--as not even indirectly
connected with each other. This distinction is of the weigh-
tiest importance; and only through it can clearness and cer-
tainty be attained in the highest elements of Knowledge.
What Ex-istence (Daseyn) really is, will best be made evi-
dent by actual contemplation of this Ex-istence. I say,
therefore:--Essentially and at the root, the Ex-istence of
Being is the consciousness or conception of Being; as may
be made clear at once in the use of the word "is" when ap-
plied to any particular object,--for example, to this wall.
For, what is this "is" in the proposition, "The wall isV
It is obviously not the wall itself and identical with it; it
does not even assume that character, but it distinguishes
the wall, by the third person, as independent; it thus only
assumes to be an outward characteristic of essential Being,
an image or picture of such Being,--or, as we have ex-
pressed it above, and as it is most distinctly expressed, the
immediate, outward Ex-istence of the wall,--as its Being out
of its Being. (It is admitted that the whole of this experi-
* The English language does not contain terms by which the opposition of
the German "Heyn" and "Daseyn" can be expressed with the distinctness
of the original. "Being" and "ii'x-istence" are here adopted as the nearest
approach to a correct translation that our language admits of, although the
awkwardness of the expression is obvious, and the strict philosophical mean-
ing here attached to those terms is unknown in their common use. -- 7V.
? ? 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
? 428
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
ment demands the most subtle abstraction and the keenest
inward observation; and it may be added, as the proof, that
no one has thoroughly performed the task, to whom it has
not become evident that the whole, and particularly the last
expression, is perfectly exact. )
The common mode of thought, it is true, is not wont to
remark this distinction; and it may well be that what I
have now said may seem to many something wholly new
and unheard of. The reason of which is, that their love and
affection are attracted directly to the object itself, interested
with it exclusively, and wholly occupied with it; and that
thus they have no time to tarry by the "is," or to consider
its significance, so that to them it is wholly lost . Hence it
usually happens that, leaping over the Ex-istence (Daseyn),
we believe that we have arrived at Being (Seyn) itself;
while nevertheless we forever remain in the fore-court, in
the Ex-istence:--and this common delusion may render the
proposition which we have submitted to you above, at first
sight, dark and unintelligible. In our present inquiry, how-
ever, everything depends on our comprehending this pro-
position at once, and henceforth giving it due attention.
We said that the Consciousness of Being, the "is" to the
Being, is itself the Ex-istence (Daseyn):--leaving out of
sight, in the mean time, the supposition that Consciousness
may be only one among other possible forms, modes, and
kinds of Ex-istence, and that there may be many other, per-
haps an infinite variety of, such forms, modes, and kinds of
Ex-istence. This supposition, however, must be dismissed:
--in the first place, because we here desire not to accumu-
late mere opinions, but truly to think; and secondly, with
reference to its consequences,--for with such a possibility
remaining, our union with the Absolute, as the only source
of Blessedness, could never be attained; but there would
rather be placed, between the Absolute and us, an immea-
surable chasm, as the true source of all Unblessedness.
We have therefore to make it manifest to you in thought,
--which is our fourth point--that the Consciousness of
Being is the only possible form and mode of the Ex-istence
? ? 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 III.
429
{Daseyri) of Being; and, consequently, is itself immediately
and absolutely this Ex-istence of Being. We conduct you
to this insight in the following way:--Being (Seyn)--as
such, as Being, as abiding, unchangeable Being, without in
any respect laying aside its absolute character and inter-
mingling or blending itself with Ex-istence--must ex-ist.
Hence it must, in itself, be distinct from Ex-istence, and op-
posed to it; and indeed--since besides the absolute Being
(Seyn) itself there is nothing else whatever but its Ex-
istence (Daseyn)--this distinction and opposition must be
manifest in the Ex-istence (Daseyn) itself; and this, more
clearly expressed, is equivalent to the following:--Ex-ist-
ence (Daseyn) must apprehend, recognise, and image forth
itself as mere Ex-istence: and, opposed to itself, it must as-
sume and image forth an absolute Being (Seyn), whose mere
Ex-istence it is; it must thus, by its own nature, as opposed
to another and an absolute existence, annihilate itself:--
which is precisely the character of mere representation, con-
ception, or Consciousness of Being, as you have already seen
in our exposition of the "is. " And thus it is clear, if we
have succeeded in making these ideas thoroughly intelligible
to you, that the Ex-istence of Being must necessarily be--
cannot be other than--a Consciousness of itself--of Ex-
istence--as a mere image or representation of Absolute,
Self-existent Being.
That such is the case, and that Knowledge* or Conscious-
ness is the absolute Ex-istence (Daseyn),--or, as you may
now rather wish to say,--the manifestation and revelation
of Being (Seyn), in its only possible form:--this may be
distinctly understood and seen by Knowledge itself, as we
have now seen it. But--and this is our fifth point--this
Knowledge can, by no means, in itself, understand or see
how itself arises, and how from out the inward, self-compre-
hensive Being (Seyn) an Ex-istence (Daseyri), manifestation
* The reader will observe that in this and the succeeding lectures the word
"Wissen,"" which is here rendered by " Knowledge," is used in the sense of
"Cognition," to express the conscious act of Knowing, and not either the object or the result of that act. -- Tr.
? ? 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
? 430
THE DOCTRINE OF KELIGION.
or revelation of itself can proceed;--as indeed we may dis-
tinctly perceive, by reference to our third point, that such
a sequential evolution is wholly beyond our power. The
reason of this is, that Ex-istence, as we have already shown,
cannot be without apprehending, recognising, and assuming
itself, because such self-conception is inseparable from its
nature; and thus Knowledge, by the very absoluteness of
its Ex-istence and its dependence on that Ex-istence, is cut
off from all possibility of passing beyond it, or of conceiving
and tracing itself prior to that Ex-istence. It is, for itself
and in itself, and so far well;--but wherever it is, it finds
itself already there in a certain determinate mode, which it
must accept just as it is presented to it, but which it can
by no means explain, nor declare how and whereby it has
become so. This unchangeably determined mode of the
Ex-istence of Knowledge, which can be apprehended only
by immediate comprehension and perception, is the essen-
tial and truly real Life of Knowledge.
But notwithstanding that this true and real Life of Know-
ledge cannot explain the definite mode in which it has a-
risen, it is yet susceptible of a general interpretation; and
we may understand and perceive with absolute certainty
what it is according to its essential inward nature;--which is
our sixth point. I lead you to this insight thus :--What we
set forth above, as our fourth point,--that Ex-istence is
necessarily Consciousness, and all that is involved in this
principle, follows from mere Ex-istence as such, and the con-
ception of such Ex-istence. Now, this Ex-istence (Daseyn)
itself is, resting and reposing on itself alone;--prior to any
conception of itself, and inseparable from every such con-
ception, as we have just proved;--and this its being, its
reality, which can only be immediately perceived, we have
called its Life. Whence has it then this being, so com-
pletely independent of its conception of itself, and of the
being which arises from that conception,--nay, rather pre-
ceding these, and first rendering them even possible?
We
have said:--It is the living and efficient Ex-istence of the
Absolute itself which alone has power to be and to exist, and
? ? 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 III.
431
beside which nothing is, nor truly exists. Now as the Ab-
solute can be only through itself, so also can it exist only
through itself; and as it, in its very self, and nothing else
in its stead, must be,--since indeed nothing out of it has
power either to be or to exist,--so does it exist even as it is
in itself, complete, undivided, without diminution, without
variableness or change, as Absolute Unity, as it is in its own
inward and essential nature. Thus the actual Life of Know-
ledge is, at bottom, the essential Being of the Absolute it-
self and nothing else; and between the Absolute or God,
and Knowledge in its deepest roots, there is no separation
or distinction, but both merge completely into one.
And thus we have already attained a point from which
our previous propositions become clearer, and light spreads
over our future way. That any living Ex-istence should be
wholly cut off from God,--all living Ex-istence, as we have
seen, being necessarily Life and Consciousness, and the dead
and unconscious having no place in Ex-istence,--that any
living Ex-istence should be wholly cut off from God, is ab-
solutely impossible; for only through the Ex-istence of God
in it is it maintained in Ex-istence, and were it possible
that God should disappear from within it, then would it
thereby itself disappear from Ex-istence. In the lower
grades of spiritual life, this Divine Ex-istence is seen only
through obscure coverings, and amid confused phantasma-
goria, which have their origin in the organs of the spiritual
sense through which man looks upon himself and upon Be-
ing; but to gaze upon it bright and unveiled, as indeed the
Divine Life and Ex-istence, and to bathe our whole being
in this Life with full enjoyment and love,--this is the True,
the unspeakably Blessed Life.
It is ever, we said, the Ex-istence (Daseyn) of the Abso-
lute and Divine Being {Seyri) that "is" (ex-ists) in all Life;--
by which expression " all Life," we here mean the universal
Life, according to the law, spoken of at the beginning of this
lecture, which in this respect cannot be otherwise than as it
is. In the lower grades of the spiritual life of man, how-
ever, that Divine Being, (Seyn) as such, does not reveal
? ? 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
? 432
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
itself to Consciousness; but in the true central-point of spi-
ritual life, that Divine Being, in its own express nature,
does reveal itself to Consciousness; as, for example, I as-
sume that it has revealed itself to us. But, that it reveals
itself as such to Consciousness, can mean nothing else than
that it assumes the form which we have already seen to be
the necessary form of Ex-istence and Consciousness,--that,
namely, of an image, representation, or conception, which
gives itself out only as a conception, and not by any means
as the thing itself. Immediately, in its true essential na-
ture, and without any image or representation, it is at all
times present in the actual life of man, only unperceived;
and it continues there present as before, after it has been
perceived; only it is then, besides, recognised in an image
or representation. This representative form is the essential
nature of Thought;--and in particular the Thought we are
here considering bears, in its sufficiency for its own support
and confirmation, the character of Absoluteness; and there-
by approves itself as pure, true, and absolute Thought. --
And thus it is made evident on all sides, that only in pure
Thought can our union with God be recognised.
We have already said, but must yet again expressly in-
culcate it upon you, and commend it to your earnest atten-
tion, that as Being (Seyn) is One and not Manifold, and as
it is at once complete in itself, without variation or change,
and thus an essential and absolute Unity,--so also is Ex-
istence (Daseyn) or Consciousness--since it only exists
through Being and is only the Ex-istence of Being,--like-
wise an absolute, eternal, invariable, and unchanging Unity.
So it is, with absolute necessity, in itself;--and so it remains
in pure Thought. There is nothing whatever in Ex-istence
but immediate and living Thought:-- Thought, I say, but
by no means a thinking substance, a dead body in which
thought inheres,--with which no-thought indeed a no-think-
er is full surely at hand:--Thought, I say, and also the real
Life of this Thought, which at bottom is the Divine Life;
both of which--Thought and this its real Life--are molten
together into one inward organic Unity; like as, outwardly.
? ? 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 III.
433
they are one simple, identical, eternal, unchangeable Unity.
Nevertheless, opposed to this latter outward Unity, there
arises in Thought the Appearance of a Manifold, partly be-
cause there are many thinking subjects, and partly on ac-
count of the infinite series of objects upon which the
thought of these subjects must eternally proceed. This Ap-
pearance arises even before pure Thought and the Blessed
Life in it, and Thought itself cannot forbid the presence of
this Appearance; but in no way does pure Thought believe
in this Appearance, nor love it, nor attempt to find enjoy-
ment in it. On the other hand, the lower life, in all its in-
ferior grades, believes in every appearance of this Manifold
and in the Manifold itself,--runs forth in vagrant dissipation
upon this Manifold and seeks in it for peace and enjoyment
of itself, which nevertheless it will never find in that way.
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.
? 418
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
which I have thought it advisable to communicate to you
to day. Eight days hence I shall endeavour to set forth, in
a new light and upon a new side, the foundation-principles
of these lectures, which are at the same time the foundation-
principles of all knowledge ;--and to this I respectfully in-
vite 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
? 419
LECTURE III.
DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM THE COMMON MODE OF
THOUGHT :--DEFINITION OF BEING (SEYN)
AND SX-ISTENCE (DASEYN. )
In the first of these lectures we maintained that not every-
thing which seems to be living does really and truly live;
and in the second we said that a large portion of mankind,
throughout their whole Life, never attain to true and proper
Thought, but remain within the circle of mere Opinion. It
might well be, and indeed it has already become obvious
from other remarks which we made on that occasion, that
the phrases Thought and Life--Thought-lessness and Death,
mean precisely one and the same thing; we have already
shown that Thought is the element of Life, and consequent-
ly the absence of Thought must be the source of Death.
An important difficulty stands in the way of this asser-
tion, to which I must now direct your attention, namely the
following :--If Life be an organic whole, determined by one
universally efficient law, then it seems at first sight impos-
sible that any one part appertaining to Life should be ab-
sent where the others are present; or that any one indivi-
dual part should exist without all the parts proper to Life,
and consequently without Life itself as a whole, in its com-
plete organic unity. In solving this difficulty, we shall also
be able to exhibit to you clearly the distinction between
true Thought and mere Opinion, which was the first busi-
? ? 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
? 420
THE DOCTHINE OF RELIGION.
ncss announced for to-day in our last discourse, before we
proceed to the fulfilment of our other purpose in this lec-
ture, namely, to begin the application of pure Thought it-
self to the elements of all Knowledge.
The supposed difficulty is thus solved :--Wherever spiri-
tual Life is to be found, everything, without exception, that
belongs to this Life, follows wholly and unreservedly, accord-
ing to the established law of its being :--but all this, which
follows with absolute mechanical necessity, does not neces-
sarily enter into consciousness; it is there indeed a Life
according to the law, but not our Life, not the Life which is
properly and peculiarly ours. Our Life is only that part of
the Life according to the law which we embrace in clear
consciousness, and, in this clear consciousness, love and en-
joy. "Where Love is, there is individual Life," we said
once;--Love, however, exists only where there is clear con-
sciousness.
The development of this conscious Life--which in these
lectures is all to which we shall give the name of Life--
within the whole mass of Life which has an existence ac-
cording to the law, proceeds precisely like that of physical
death. As this, in its natural progress, begins at first in the
remoter members, those farthest removed from the central
seat of life, and from them spreads itself gradually to the
inward parts, until at last it reaches the heart; so does the
spiritual Life, filled with consciousness, love, and enjoyment
of itself, begin at first in the extremities and remoter out-
works of Life, until it also, with God's good pleasure, reaches
the true foundation and central point of alL An ancient
philosopher maintained that the animals had arisen from
the earth; "as happens," he added, "even to the present
day in miniature, since every spring, particularly after a
warm rain, we may observe frogs, for example, in whom
some particular part, perhaps the fore-feet, may be quite
perfectly developed, while the other members still remain a
rude and undeveloped clod of earth. " The half-animals of
this philosopher, although they scarcely afford sufficient
evidence of what they were designed to prove, yet present a
? ? 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 III.
421
very striking illustration of the spiritual Life of ordinary
men. The outward members of this Life are in themselves
perfectly formed, and warm blood flows through the ex-
tremities; but when we look to the heart, and the other
nobler organs of life,--which, in themselves and according
to the law, are indeed there, and must necessarily be there,
since otherwise even the outward members themselves could
not have been,--in these organs, I say, they are found to be
still unsentient clods--frozen rocks.
I shall, first of all, convince you of this by a striking
example; to which, although I shall express myself with
strict precision, I must yet require your particular attention,
on account of the novelty of the observation. We see, hear,
feel--outward objects; and along with this seeing, &c. , we
also think these objects, and are conscious of them by means
of our inward sense; just as we are conscious, by the same
inward sense, of our seeing, hearing, and feeling of these ob-
jects. I hope that no one who is possessed even of the com-
monest power of reflexion will maintain that he can see,
hear, or feel an object without being at the same time in-
wardly conscious both of the object itself, and of his seeing,
hearing, or feeling of it;--that he can see, hear, or feel any-
thing definite without consciousness. This co-existence, this
inseparability of the outward, sensible perception and the in-
ward thought or conception,--this co-existence, I say, and
nothing more than this, lies in practical self-observation, or
the fact of Consciousness; but this fact of consciousness does
by no means contain,--and I beg you to note this well,--
this fact of consciousness does by no means contain any re-
lation between these two elements,--the outward Sense and
the inward Thought,--a relation of the one to the other,--
it may be as Cause and Effect, or as Essential and Acci-
dental . If any such relation between the two be assumed,
this is not done in consequence of practical self-observation,
and it does not lie in the fact of consciousness :--this is the
first thing that I beg of you to understand and keep in
mind.
Now, in the second place, should such a relation be as-
? ? 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
? 422
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
sumed upon some other ground than that of self-observa-
tion,--which other possible ground we put in the place of
consciousness,--should such a relation between the two
elements be, upon such a ground, supposed and accepted,--
then it appears, at first sight, that the two elements, as co-
existent and inseparable from each other, must be held to
be of equal rank; and thus the inward thought may as well
be regarded as the foundation, the essential,--and the out-
ward perception as the superstructure, the accident,--as the
reverse; and in this way an insoluble doubt would neces-
sarily arise between the two suppositions, which would for
ever prevent any final decision respecting the assumed re-
lation. Thus, I say, it is at first sight;--but should any
one look deeper into the matter, then,--inasmuch as the
inward consciousness embraces even the outward sense it-
self,--since we are conscious of the seeing, hearing, or feel-
ing, but can by no means, on the other hand, see, hear, or
feel our consciousness,--and thus, even in the immediate
fact, consciousness assumes the higher place:--then, I say,
such an one would find it much more natural to make the
internal Consciousness the chief thing, and the external
Sense the subordinate thing; to explain the latter by the
former; to control and try the latter by the former;--and
not the reverse.
Now how does the common mode of thought proceed in
this matter? To it, the outward Sense is, without further
inquiry, the first thing, the immediate touchstone of truth:
--whatever is seen, heard, or felt, that is, just because it is
seen, heard, or felt. The Thought, or inward consciousness
of the object, comes afterwards, as an empty addition which
is scarcely to be noticed at all, and is quite willingly dis-
pensed with if it do not force itself upon our observation;
and a thing is never seen or heard because it is thought, but
it is thought because it is seen or heard, and that under the
guidance and control of this seeing and hearing. The per-
verse and absurd modern philosophy referred to in our last
lecture, as the peculiar organ and voice of common opinion,
comes forward and unblushingly declares:--" Outward sense
? ? 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 III.
423
is the only source of reality, and all our knowledge is found-
ed upon experience alone;"--as if this were an axiom to
which no one could adduce a single objection. How is it
that this common mode of thought, and its guardians, have
so easily got over the causes of doubt which we have just
noticed, and even the positive grounds for the adoption of
the opposite view, as if they had not even an existence?
Why does the opposite view, which, even at the first glance,
and as yet without any deeper investigation, recommends
itself as much more natural and probable,--that the whole
outward Sense, and all its objects, are founded upon univer-
sal Thought, and that a sensible perception is possible only
in Thought, and as something thought, as a determination
of the general consciousness, but by no means in itself and
separated from consciousness,--I mean, the view that it is
not true that we see, hear, and feel absolutely, but only
that we are conscious of seeing, hearing, feeling,--why does
this view which we profess, and which we recognise with
absolute certainty to be the only right one, while we also
clearly perceive its opposite to be a palpable absurdity,--
why does this view, or even the possibility of it, remain
wholly concealed from the common mode of thought? It
may easily be explained:--The judgment of this mode of
thought is the necessary expression of its actual degree of
life. For those who cannot go beyond this mode of thought,
Life dwells, in the meantime, only in outward Sense, the re-
motest extremity of the nascent spiritual Life; in outward
Sense they have their whole round of being, their most vital
existence; in it alone they feel, love, and enjoy; and, of ne-
cessity, where their heart is, there is their faith also:--in
Thought, on the contrary, Life does not spring forth before
them directly as living flesh and blood but seems rather an
inchoate mass; and therefore Thought appears to them to
be a heterogeneous mist, belonging neither to themselves
nor to the matter in hand. Should they ever come so far
as to attain a more intense existence in Thought than in
seeing or hearing, and to feel and enjoy in it more keenly
than in Sense, then would their judgment also be different
from what it 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
? 424
THE DOCTRINE OF HKLIUION.
Thus is Thought, even in its lowest manifestation, degraded and made of no account by the common view of
things, because this common view does not place the seat of
its Life in Thought,--has not even extended its spiritual
feelers thus far. Thought in its lowest manifestation, I said;
--for that, and nothing more, is this thought of an external
object, which has an antitype, a competitor for truth, in an
outward sensible perception. Thought, in its high and
proper form, is that which creates its own purely spiritual
object absolutely from itself, without the aid of outward
sense, and without any reference whatever to outward sense.
In ordinary life this mode of thought presents itself when,
for example, the question arises with regard to the origin of
the World, or of the Human Race; or regarding the inter-
nal laws of Nature; where, in the first case, it is clear that
at the creation of the world, and before the appearance of
the human race, there was no observer present whose expe-
rience could be cited; and, in the second case, the question
is not regarding specific phenomena, but regarding that in
which all individual phenomena coincide; and that which is
to be evolved is not any visible event, but a mental neces-
sity, which not only is, but is thus, and cannot be otherwise:--
that is, an object proceeding entirely from Thought itself:--
which first point I beg of you thoroughly to understand and
recognise.
In matters pertaining to this higher Thought, the adher-
ents of the common view proceed after this wise:--they let
others invent, or, where they are possessed of greater power,
they invent for themselves, by means of vagrant and law-
less thought, or, as it is called, fancy, one out of many
possible ways in which the actual fact in question may have
arisen ;--in the language of the schools they make an hypo-
thesis :--they then consult their desire, fear, hope, or what-
ever may be their ruling passion for the time, and, should it
assent, the fiction becomes established as a firm and unal-
terable truth. One of the many possible ways, I said; and
this is the leading characteristic of the proceeding we have
described :--but it is necessary that this expression should
? ? 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 III.
425
be correctly understood. For, in itself, it is not true that
anything whatever is possible in many different ways; but
everything that is, is possible, actual, and necessary, at the
same time only in one perfectly fixed and definite way:--
and herein, indeed, lies the fundamental error of this pro-
ceeding, that it assumes many different possibilities, from
which it proceeds to select one for adoption, without being
able to verify this one by anything but its own caprice.
This proceeding is what we call Opinion, in opposition
to true Thought. Opinion, like Thought itself, possesses,
as its domain, the whole region lying beyond sensuous
experience; this region it fills with the productions of fan-
cy, either that of others or its own, to which desire alone
gives substance and duration; and all this happens simply
and solely because the seat of its spiritual Life is as yet no
higher than in the extremities of blind desire or aversion.
True Thought proceeds in a different way in filling up
this super-sensual region. It does not invent, but spon-
taneously perceives,--not one possibility among many,--but
the one and only possible, actual, and necessary mode; and
this does not seek its confirmation in a proof lying beyond
itself, but it contains within itself its own confirmation;
and, as soon as it is conceived, becomes evident to Thought
itself as the only possible and absolutely certain Truth,
establishing itself in the soul with an immoveable certainty
and evidence that completely destroys even the possibility
of doubt. Since this certainty, as we have said, attaches it-
self at once to the living act of Thought in its immediate
vitality, and to this only, it follows that every one who
would become a partaker in this certainty, must himself,
and in his own person, think the Truth, and cannot commit
to any other the accomplishment of this business in his
stead. Only this preliminary remark I desired to make be-
fore proceeding, as I now do, to our mutual realization of
true Thought in the highest elements of Knowledge.
The first task of such Thought is to conceive of Being in
itself with strict exactitude. I approach this conception thus;
I say:--Being (Seyn), proper and true Being, does not arise,
ib
? ? 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
? 426
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
does not proceed, does not come forth out of nothingness.
For everything which thus arises, you are compelled to as-
sume a previous causal being, by virtue of which the other
at first arose. If you hold that at some earlier period this
second being has itself arisen in its turn, then you are again
compelled to assume a third being by virtue of which the
second arose; and should you attribute a beginning to the
third then you are compelled to assume a fourth,--and so on
for ever. You must, in every case, at last arrive at a Being
that has not thus arisen, and which therefore requires no
other thing to account for its being, but which is absolutely
through itself, by itself, and from itself. On this Being, to
which you must at last ascend from out the series of created
things, you must now and henceforward fix your attention;
and then it will become evident to you, if you have entered
fully with me into the preceding thoughts, that you can
only conceive of the true Being as a Being by itself, from it-
self, and through itself.
In the second place I add:--that within this Being no-
thing new can arise, nothing can alter its shape, nor shift
nor change; but that as it is now, so has it been from all
eternity, and so it endures unchangeably in all eternity.
For, since it is through itself alone, so is it,--completely,
without division, and without abatement,--all that, through
itself, it can be and must be. Were it in time to become
something new, then must it either have been previously
hindered, by some being foreign to itself, from becoming
this something; or it must become this something new
through the power of a being foreign to itself, which now
for the first time begins to exert an influence upon it:--
both of which suppositions stand in direct contradiction to
its absolute independence and self-sufficiency. And thus it
will become evident to you, if you have thoroughly compre-
hended these thoughts, that Being can be conceived of only
as absolutely One, not as Many; only as a self-comprehen-
sive, self-sufficient, and absolutely unchangeable Unity.
By this course of thought--and this is my third point
--you arrive only at a Being (Seyn) shut up, concealed,
? ? 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 III. 427
wholly comprehended in itself;--you do not, by any means,
arrive at an Ex-istence (Daseyn;*)--I say to an Ex-istence,
manifestation, or revelation of this Being. I am most anx-
ious that you should understand this at once; and you will
undoubtedly do so, when you have strictly considered this
idea of Being, now for the first time set forth, and have so
become conscious in yourselves of what is contained in this
thought, and what is not contained in it. The natural il-
lusion which may obscure your minds against the desired
insight, I shall very soon examine.
To explain this more fully:--You perceive that I dis-
tinguish Being (Seyn)--essential, self-comprehended Being
--from Ex-istence (Daseyn), and represent these two ideas
as entirely opposed to each other,--as not even indirectly
connected with each other. This distinction is of the weigh-
tiest importance; and only through it can clearness and cer-
tainty be attained in the highest elements of Knowledge.
What Ex-istence (Daseyn) really is, will best be made evi-
dent by actual contemplation of this Ex-istence. I say,
therefore:--Essentially and at the root, the Ex-istence of
Being is the consciousness or conception of Being; as may
be made clear at once in the use of the word "is" when ap-
plied to any particular object,--for example, to this wall.
For, what is this "is" in the proposition, "The wall isV
It is obviously not the wall itself and identical with it; it
does not even assume that character, but it distinguishes
the wall, by the third person, as independent; it thus only
assumes to be an outward characteristic of essential Being,
an image or picture of such Being,--or, as we have ex-
pressed it above, and as it is most distinctly expressed, the
immediate, outward Ex-istence of the wall,--as its Being out
of its Being. (It is admitted that the whole of this experi-
* The English language does not contain terms by which the opposition of
the German "Heyn" and "Daseyn" can be expressed with the distinctness
of the original. "Being" and "ii'x-istence" are here adopted as the nearest
approach to a correct translation that our language admits of, although the
awkwardness of the expression is obvious, and the strict philosophical mean-
ing here attached to those terms is unknown in their common use. -- 7V.
? ? 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
? 428
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
ment demands the most subtle abstraction and the keenest
inward observation; and it may be added, as the proof, that
no one has thoroughly performed the task, to whom it has
not become evident that the whole, and particularly the last
expression, is perfectly exact. )
The common mode of thought, it is true, is not wont to
remark this distinction; and it may well be that what I
have now said may seem to many something wholly new
and unheard of. The reason of which is, that their love and
affection are attracted directly to the object itself, interested
with it exclusively, and wholly occupied with it; and that
thus they have no time to tarry by the "is," or to consider
its significance, so that to them it is wholly lost . Hence it
usually happens that, leaping over the Ex-istence (Daseyn),
we believe that we have arrived at Being (Seyn) itself;
while nevertheless we forever remain in the fore-court, in
the Ex-istence:--and this common delusion may render the
proposition which we have submitted to you above, at first
sight, dark and unintelligible. In our present inquiry, how-
ever, everything depends on our comprehending this pro-
position at once, and henceforth giving it due attention.
We said that the Consciousness of Being, the "is" to the
Being, is itself the Ex-istence (Daseyn):--leaving out of
sight, in the mean time, the supposition that Consciousness
may be only one among other possible forms, modes, and
kinds of Ex-istence, and that there may be many other, per-
haps an infinite variety of, such forms, modes, and kinds of
Ex-istence. This supposition, however, must be dismissed:
--in the first place, because we here desire not to accumu-
late mere opinions, but truly to think; and secondly, with
reference to its consequences,--for with such a possibility
remaining, our union with the Absolute, as the only source
of Blessedness, could never be attained; but there would
rather be placed, between the Absolute and us, an immea-
surable chasm, as the true source of all Unblessedness.
We have therefore to make it manifest to you in thought,
--which is our fourth point--that the Consciousness of
Being is the only possible form and mode of the Ex-istence
? ? 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 III.
429
{Daseyri) of Being; and, consequently, is itself immediately
and absolutely this Ex-istence of Being. We conduct you
to this insight in the following way:--Being (Seyn)--as
such, as Being, as abiding, unchangeable Being, without in
any respect laying aside its absolute character and inter-
mingling or blending itself with Ex-istence--must ex-ist.
Hence it must, in itself, be distinct from Ex-istence, and op-
posed to it; and indeed--since besides the absolute Being
(Seyn) itself there is nothing else whatever but its Ex-
istence (Daseyn)--this distinction and opposition must be
manifest in the Ex-istence (Daseyn) itself; and this, more
clearly expressed, is equivalent to the following:--Ex-ist-
ence (Daseyn) must apprehend, recognise, and image forth
itself as mere Ex-istence: and, opposed to itself, it must as-
sume and image forth an absolute Being (Seyn), whose mere
Ex-istence it is; it must thus, by its own nature, as opposed
to another and an absolute existence, annihilate itself:--
which is precisely the character of mere representation, con-
ception, or Consciousness of Being, as you have already seen
in our exposition of the "is. " And thus it is clear, if we
have succeeded in making these ideas thoroughly intelligible
to you, that the Ex-istence of Being must necessarily be--
cannot be other than--a Consciousness of itself--of Ex-
istence--as a mere image or representation of Absolute,
Self-existent Being.
That such is the case, and that Knowledge* or Conscious-
ness is the absolute Ex-istence (Daseyn),--or, as you may
now rather wish to say,--the manifestation and revelation
of Being (Seyn), in its only possible form:--this may be
distinctly understood and seen by Knowledge itself, as we
have now seen it. But--and this is our fifth point--this
Knowledge can, by no means, in itself, understand or see
how itself arises, and how from out the inward, self-compre-
hensive Being (Seyn) an Ex-istence (Daseyri), manifestation
* The reader will observe that in this and the succeeding lectures the word
"Wissen,"" which is here rendered by " Knowledge," is used in the sense of
"Cognition," to express the conscious act of Knowing, and not either the object or the result of that act. -- Tr.
? ? 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
? 430
THE DOCTRINE OF KELIGION.
or revelation of itself can proceed;--as indeed we may dis-
tinctly perceive, by reference to our third point, that such
a sequential evolution is wholly beyond our power. The
reason of this is, that Ex-istence, as we have already shown,
cannot be without apprehending, recognising, and assuming
itself, because such self-conception is inseparable from its
nature; and thus Knowledge, by the very absoluteness of
its Ex-istence and its dependence on that Ex-istence, is cut
off from all possibility of passing beyond it, or of conceiving
and tracing itself prior to that Ex-istence. It is, for itself
and in itself, and so far well;--but wherever it is, it finds
itself already there in a certain determinate mode, which it
must accept just as it is presented to it, but which it can
by no means explain, nor declare how and whereby it has
become so. This unchangeably determined mode of the
Ex-istence of Knowledge, which can be apprehended only
by immediate comprehension and perception, is the essen-
tial and truly real Life of Knowledge.
But notwithstanding that this true and real Life of Know-
ledge cannot explain the definite mode in which it has a-
risen, it is yet susceptible of a general interpretation; and
we may understand and perceive with absolute certainty
what it is according to its essential inward nature;--which is
our sixth point. I lead you to this insight thus :--What we
set forth above, as our fourth point,--that Ex-istence is
necessarily Consciousness, and all that is involved in this
principle, follows from mere Ex-istence as such, and the con-
ception of such Ex-istence. Now, this Ex-istence (Daseyn)
itself is, resting and reposing on itself alone;--prior to any
conception of itself, and inseparable from every such con-
ception, as we have just proved;--and this its being, its
reality, which can only be immediately perceived, we have
called its Life. Whence has it then this being, so com-
pletely independent of its conception of itself, and of the
being which arises from that conception,--nay, rather pre-
ceding these, and first rendering them even possible?
We
have said:--It is the living and efficient Ex-istence of the
Absolute itself which alone has power to be and to exist, and
? ? 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 III.
431
beside which nothing is, nor truly exists. Now as the Ab-
solute can be only through itself, so also can it exist only
through itself; and as it, in its very self, and nothing else
in its stead, must be,--since indeed nothing out of it has
power either to be or to exist,--so does it exist even as it is
in itself, complete, undivided, without diminution, without
variableness or change, as Absolute Unity, as it is in its own
inward and essential nature. Thus the actual Life of Know-
ledge is, at bottom, the essential Being of the Absolute it-
self and nothing else; and between the Absolute or God,
and Knowledge in its deepest roots, there is no separation
or distinction, but both merge completely into one.
And thus we have already attained a point from which
our previous propositions become clearer, and light spreads
over our future way. That any living Ex-istence should be
wholly cut off from God,--all living Ex-istence, as we have
seen, being necessarily Life and Consciousness, and the dead
and unconscious having no place in Ex-istence,--that any
living Ex-istence should be wholly cut off from God, is ab-
solutely impossible; for only through the Ex-istence of God
in it is it maintained in Ex-istence, and were it possible
that God should disappear from within it, then would it
thereby itself disappear from Ex-istence. In the lower
grades of spiritual life, this Divine Ex-istence is seen only
through obscure coverings, and amid confused phantasma-
goria, which have their origin in the organs of the spiritual
sense through which man looks upon himself and upon Be-
ing; but to gaze upon it bright and unveiled, as indeed the
Divine Life and Ex-istence, and to bathe our whole being
in this Life with full enjoyment and love,--this is the True,
the unspeakably Blessed Life.
It is ever, we said, the Ex-istence (Daseyn) of the Abso-
lute and Divine Being {Seyri) that "is" (ex-ists) in all Life;--
by which expression " all Life," we here mean the universal
Life, according to the law, spoken of at the beginning of this
lecture, which in this respect cannot be otherwise than as it
is. In the lower grades of the spiritual life of man, how-
ever, that Divine Being, (Seyn) as such, does not reveal
? ? 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
? 432
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION.
itself to Consciousness; but in the true central-point of spi-
ritual life, that Divine Being, in its own express nature,
does reveal itself to Consciousness; as, for example, I as-
sume that it has revealed itself to us. But, that it reveals
itself as such to Consciousness, can mean nothing else than
that it assumes the form which we have already seen to be
the necessary form of Ex-istence and Consciousness,--that,
namely, of an image, representation, or conception, which
gives itself out only as a conception, and not by any means
as the thing itself. Immediately, in its true essential na-
ture, and without any image or representation, it is at all
times present in the actual life of man, only unperceived;
and it continues there present as before, after it has been
perceived; only it is then, besides, recognised in an image
or representation. This representative form is the essential
nature of Thought;--and in particular the Thought we are
here considering bears, in its sufficiency for its own support
and confirmation, the character of Absoluteness; and there-
by approves itself as pure, true, and absolute Thought. --
And thus it is made evident on all sides, that only in pure
Thought can our union with God be recognised.
We have already said, but must yet again expressly in-
culcate it upon you, and commend it to your earnest atten-
tion, that as Being (Seyn) is One and not Manifold, and as
it is at once complete in itself, without variation or change,
and thus an essential and absolute Unity,--so also is Ex-
istence (Daseyn) or Consciousness--since it only exists
through Being and is only the Ex-istence of Being,--like-
wise an absolute, eternal, invariable, and unchanging Unity.
So it is, with absolute necessity, in itself;--and so it remains
in pure Thought. There is nothing whatever in Ex-istence
but immediate and living Thought:-- Thought, I say, but
by no means a thinking substance, a dead body in which
thought inheres,--with which no-thought indeed a no-think-
er is full surely at hand:--Thought, I say, and also the real
Life of this Thought, which at bottom is the Divine Life;
both of which--Thought and this its real Life--are molten
together into one inward organic Unity; like as, outwardly.
? ? 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 III.
433
they are one simple, identical, eternal, unchangeable Unity.
Nevertheless, opposed to this latter outward Unity, there
arises in Thought the Appearance of a Manifold, partly be-
cause there are many thinking subjects, and partly on ac-
count of the infinite series of objects upon which the
thought of these subjects must eternally proceed. This Ap-
pearance arises even before pure Thought and the Blessed
Life in it, and Thought itself cannot forbid the presence of
this Appearance; but in no way does pure Thought believe
in this Appearance, nor love it, nor attempt to find enjoy-
ment in it. On the other hand, the lower life, in all its in-
ferior grades, believes in every appearance of this Manifold
and in the Manifold itself,--runs forth in vagrant dissipation
upon this Manifold and seeks in it for peace and enjoyment
of itself, which nevertheless it will never find in that way.
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.
