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 world, outside of and independent of us, exists for us by
communicating itself to our consciousness. What is thus made known must
needs be expressed in the language peculiar to ourselves. A book, the
contents of which were offered in a language unknown to us, would for
us be without meaning. Similarly, the world would be meaningless for us
did it not speak to us in our own tongue; and the same language which
reaches us from things, we also hear from within ourselves. But in that
case, it is we ourselves who speak. The really important point is that
we should correctly apprehend the transposition which occurs when we
close our perception against external things and listen only to that
which then speaks from within. But to do this needs this new sense. If
it has not been awakened, we believe that in what is thus told us about
ourselves we are hearing only about something external to us; we fancy
that somewhere there is hidden something which is speaking to us in the
same way as external things speak. But if we possess this new sense,
then we know that these perceptions differ essentially from those
relating to external things. Then we realise that this new sense does
not leave what it perceives outside of itself, as the eye leaves the
object it sees; but that it can take up its object wholly into itself,
leaving no remainder. If I see a thing, that thing remains outside
of me; if I perceive myself, then I myself enter into my perception.
Whoever seeks for something more of himself than what is perceived,
shows thereby that for him the real content in the perception has not
come to light. Johannes Tauler (1300-1361), has expressed this truth
in the apt words: “If I were a king and knew it not, then should I be
no king. If I do not shine forth for myself in my own self-perception,
then for myself I do not exist. But if for myself I do shine out,
then I possess myself also in my perception, in my own most deeply
original being. There remains no residue of myself left outside of my
perception.”
J. G. Fichte, in the following words, vigorously points to the
difference between self-perception and every other kind of perception:
“The majority of men could be more easily brought to believe themselves
a lump of lava in the moon than an ‘ego.’ Whoever is not at one with
himself as to this, understands no thorough-going philosophy and
has need of none. Nature, whose machine he is, will guide him in all
the things he has to do without any sort of added help from him. For
philosophising, self-reliance is needed, and this one can only give to
oneself. We ought not to want to see without the eye; but also we ought
not to maintain that it is the eye which sees.”
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