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
Agrippa von Nettesheim led a much varied life. He sprang from a noble
family and was born in Cologne. He early studied medicine and law, and
sought to obtain clear insight into the processes of Nature in the
way which was then customary within certain circles and societies, or
even among isolated investigators, who studiously kept secret whatever
of the knowledge of Nature they discovered. For these purposes he
went repeatedly to Paris, to Italy, and to England, and also visited
the famous Abbot Trithemius of Sponheim in Würzburg. He taught at
various times in learned institutions, and here and there entered the
service of rich and distinguished people, at whose disposal he placed
his abilities as a statesman and a man of science. If the services
that he rendered are not always described by his biographers as
unobjectionable, if it is said that he made money under the pretence of
understanding secret arts and conferring benefits on people thereby,
there stands against this his unmistakable, unresting impulse to
acquire honestly the entire knowledge of his age, and to deepen this
knowledge in the direction of a higher cognition of the world.
We may see in him very plainly the endeavour to attain to a clear and
definite attitude towards natural science on the one hand, and to
the higher knowledge on the other. But he only can attain to such an
attitude who is possessed of a clear insight as to the respective roads
which lead to one and to the other kind of knowledge. As true as it is
on the one hand that natural science must eventually be raised into the
region of the spirit, if it is to pass over into higher knowledge; so,
also, it is true on the other, that this natural science must, to begin
with, remain upon its own special ground, if it is to yield the right
basis for the attainment of a higher level. The “spirit in Nature”
exists only for spirit. So surely as Nature in this sense is spiritual,
so surely too is there _nothing_ in Nature, of all that is perceived by
my bodily organs, which is immediately spiritual. There exists nothing
spiritual which can appear to my eye as spiritual.
Therefore, I must not seek for the spirit as such in Nature; but that
is what I am doing when I interpret any occurrence in the external
world immediately as spiritual; when, for instance, I ascribe to a
plant a soul which is supposed to be only remotely analogous to that of
man. Further, I again do the same when I ascribe to spirit itself an
existence in space and time; as, for instance, when I assert of the
human soul that it continues to exist in time without the body, but
yet after the manner of a body; or again, when I even go so far as to
believe that, under any sort of conditions or arrangements perceivable
by the senses, the spirit of a dead person can show itself.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account