The second arises from the contrary will, and is necessarily the contrary to the first. Boehme calls it "Attraction," meaning that restless flux, ever seeking new combinations, which is the principle of all variety, and the cause of differences and of evolution.
These two being now face to face with each other, at once the contrariety between them produces the third form, which Boehme calls " Bitterness"; meaning thereby the strife of the two first, the one to resist change, the other to produce it.
These first three will perhaps be better understood if we call them (in modern terminology) homogeneity, heterogeneity, and strain. These three, he says, are the bases of all manifested things. Apart from difference there had been no possibility of different things coming into being; and difference involves opposition, a conflict of forces, and out of the conflict arises first the difference in essence, then the difference in the particular manifestation. For the essence is spiritual, and spirit always at once puts on a form which is its manifestation, and the smallest difference in. the essence result is a corresponding difference in the form.
Thus in the attainment of the third form of Nature, the process reaches the point at which the particular manifestation is practically determined as to its first and earliest degree and quality. This is the fourth form, which Boehme calls Fire, and the term may stand; for all Being is a fire; from God, the fire of love, down to the most brutal and degraded creatures, a fire of hate and malice.
Here, then, in the fourth form, arises the first personality. Here begins the idea of "self," and I am conscious that I am I. But in this stage of the process — which is, ex hypothesi, incomplete — the personality stands in this "fire," in its unmodified aspect of a raging, consuming element. For the basis of it is as yet the contrariety of the two first forms, represented in the third and personified in the fourth. "We can easily see the fire in characters yet unregenerated; where the whole spirit is to get; and lust, avarice and pride rule unmodified by any light of true knowledge of what real good is. Probably, no actual man stands in the fire alone; in some the light is so minute as to be practically darkness; but it is the rarest thing to find any character with absolutely no smallest, faintest trace of some generous emotion at odd times and in particular directions. But Boehme uses Lucifer as an example of what a character would be if it stood all and only in the might of the fire. It does not concern us practically to know whether there is actually such a character. Boehme seems to assert that there is, and that he will abide for ever in the fire, as this is his sole and entire element, in which only he can live. That is as it may be. Perceptions have dawned on men since Boehme's time which suggest to a different conclusion; and — great and wonderful as is Boehme's illumination — we need not suppose that he knew everything. His knowledge was purely intuitive. He himself often laments that he had not more learning. If he had had this, he might have been able to distinguish between "no evidence that it is not so " and " evidence that it is so." It ought to be easy for us now to distinguish between his positive affirmations and what in his teaching is positively asserted in form, but is (to logic) practically negative, and based on what had not been revealed
The second arises from the contrary will, and is necessarily the contrary to the first. Boehme calls it "Attraction," meaning that restless flux, ever seeking new combinations, which is the principle of all variety, and the cause of differences and of evolution.
These two being now face to face with each other, at once the contrariety between them produces the third form, which Boehme calls " Bitterness"; meaning thereby the strife of the two first, the one to resist change, the other to produce it.
These first three will perhaps be better understood if we call them (in modern terminology) homogeneity, heterogeneity, and strain. These three, he says, are the bases of all manifested things. Apart from difference there had been no possibility of different things coming into being; and difference involves opposition, a conflict of forces, and out of the conflict arises first the difference in essence, then the difference in the particular manifestation. For the essence is spiritual, and spirit always at once puts on a form which is its manifestation, and the smallest difference in. the essence result is a corresponding difference in the form.
Thus in the attainment of the third form of Nature, the process reaches the point at which the particular manifestation is practically determined as to its first and earliest degree and quality. This is the fourth form, which Boehme calls Fire, and the term may stand; for all Being is a fire; from God, the fire of love, down to the most brutal and degraded creatures, a fire of hate and malice.
Here, then, in the fourth form, arises the first personality. Here begins the idea of "self," and I am conscious that I am I. But in this stage of the process — which is, ex hypothesi, incomplete — the personality stands in this "fire," in its unmodified aspect of a raging, consuming element. For the basis of it is as yet the contrariety of the two first forms, represented in the third and personified in the fourth. "We can easily see the fire in characters yet unregenerated; where the whole spirit is to get; and lust, avarice and pride rule unmodified by any light of true knowledge of what real good is. Probably, no actual man stands in the fire alone; in some the light is so minute as to be practically darkness; but it is the rarest thing to find any character with absolutely no smallest, faintest trace of some generous emotion at odd times and in particular directions. But Boehme uses Lucifer as an example of what a character would be if it stood all and only in the might of the fire. It does not concern us practically to know whether there is actually such a character. Boehme seems to assert that there is, and that he will abide for ever in the fire, as this is his sole and entire element, in which only he can live. That is as it may be. Perceptions have dawned on men since Boehme's time which suggest to a different conclusion; and — great and wonderful as is Boehme's illumination — we need not suppose that he knew everything. His knowledge was purely intuitive. He himself often laments that he had not more learning. If he had had this, he might have been able to distinguish between "no evidence that it is not so " and " evidence that it is so." It ought to be easy for us now to distinguish between his positive affirmations and what in his teaching is positively asserted in form, but is (to logic) practically negative, and based on what had not been revealed
No commentary for this page.
There is commentary on page 1.