Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and others — John Shaqi
Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and othersSteiner, Rudolf
Religion
Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and others
Steiner, Rudolf
Mysticism
“The activity of merging ourselves in something else, is what we
call ‘thinking’; in thinking, the ego has fulfilled its concept, it
has given itself up as a single thing; therefore, in thinking do we
find ourselves in a sphere which is alike for all, for the principle
of separateness which is involved in the relation of our ‘self’ to
that which is other than itself has vanished in the activity of the
self-cancelling of the single ‘self,’ and there remains then only the
‘Self-hood’ common to all.”
Spinoza has exactly the same thing in view when he describes, as the
highest activity of knowing, that which “advances from an adequate
conception of the real nature of some of the attributes of God to an
adequate knowledge of the nature of things.” This advancing is no other
than the illumination of things with the light of inner experience.
Spinoza describes in glowing colours the life in this inner experience:
“The highest virtue of the soul is to know God, or to obtain insight
into things in the third--the highest--mode of knowing. This virtue
is the greater, the more the soul knows things by this method of
knowing; thus he who can grasp things in this mode of knowing attains
the highest human perfection and consequently becomes filled with the
highest joy, accompanied, moreover, by the conceptions of himself and
of virtue. Thus there arises from this mode of knowing the highest
peace of soul that is possible.”
He who knows things in this way, transforms himself within himself;
for his single separated “self” becomes at such moments absorbed
by the universal “Self”; all beings appear not to a single limited
individual in subordinated importance, they appear to “themselves.”
On this level there remains no difference between Plato and me; what
separated us belongs to a lower level of cognition. We are separated
only as individuals; the individual which works within us is one and
the same. But about this fact it is impossible to argue with one who
has no experience of it. He will everlastingly emphasise: Plato and you
are two. That this duality, that all multiplicity, is reborn as unity
in the outbursting life of the highest level of knowledge: that cannot
be proved, that must be experienced. Paradoxical as it may sound, it
is the truth: the idea which Plato conceived and the like idea which
I conceive are not two ideas. It is one and the same idea. And there
are not two ideas: one in Plato’s head and one in mine; but in the
higher sense Plato’s head and mine interpenetrate each other; all heads
interpenetrate which grasp one and the same idea; and this idea is only
once there as a single idea. It is there; and the heads all go to one
and the same place in order to have this idea in them.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account