the six enneads-第63节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


constituent　parts；　in　the　new　combinations；　in　all　variation　from　the　original　structure；　the　affection　is　bodily；　the　Soul　or　Mind　having　no　more　than　an　accompanying　knowledge　of　the　more　drastic　changes；　or　perhaps　not　even　that。　＇Body　is　modified：　Mind　knows＇　but　the　Matter　concerned　remains　unaffected；　heat　enters；　cold　leaves　it；　and　it　is　unchanged　because　neither　Principle　is　associated　with　it　as　friend　or　enemy。　　　　　So　the　appellation　〃Recipient　and　Nurse〃　is　the　better　description：　Matter　is　the　mother　only　in　the　sense　indicated；　it　has　no　begetting　power。　But　probably　the　term　Mother　is　used　by　those　who　think　of　a　Mother　as　Matter　to　the　offspring；　as　a　container　only；　giving　nothing　to　them；　the　entire　bodily　frame　of　the　child　being　formed　out　of　food。　But　if　this　Mother　does　give　anything　to　the　offspring　it　does　so　not　in　its　quality　as　Matter　but　as　being　an　Ideal…Form；　for　only　the　Idea　is　generative；　the　contrary　Kind　is　sterile。　　　　　This；　I　think；　is　why　the　doctors　of　old；　teaching　through　symbols　and　mystic　representations；　exhibit　the　ancient　Hermes　with　the　generative　organ　always　in　active　posture；　this　is　to　convey　that　the　generator　of　things　of　sense　is　the　Intellectual　Reason　Principle：　the　sterility　of　Matter；　eternally　unmoved；　is　indicated　by　the　eunuchs　surrounding　it　in　its　representation　as　the　All…Mother。　　　　　This　too　exalting　title　is　conferred　upon　it　in　order　to　indicate　that　it　is　the　source　of　things　in　the　sense　of　being　their　underlie：　it　is　an　approximate　name　chosen　for　a　general　conception；　there　is　no　intention　of　suggesting　a　complete　parallel　with　motherhood　to　those　not　satisfied　with　a　surface　impression　but　needing　a　precisely　true　presentment；　by　a　remote　symbolism；　the　nearest　they　could　find；　they　indicate　that　Matter　is　sterile；　not　female　to　full　effect；　female　in　receptivity　only；　not　in　pregnancy：　this　they　accomplish　by　exhibiting　Matter　as　approached　by　what　is　neither　female　nor　effectively　male；　but　castrated　of　that　impregnating　power　which　belongs　only　to　the　unchangeably　masculine。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SEVENTH　TRACTATE。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　TIME　AND　ETERNITY。

　　　　1。　Eternity　and　Time；　two　entirely　separate　things；　we　explain　〃the　one　having　its　being　in　the　everlasting　Kind；　the　other　in　the　realm　of　Process；　in　our　own　Universe〃；　and；　by　continually　using　the　words　and　assigning　every　phenomenon　to　the　one　or　the　other　category；　we　come　to　think　that；　both　by　instinct　and　by　the　more　detailed　attack　of　thought；　we　hold　an　adequate　experience　of　them　in　our　minds　without　more　ado。　　　　　When；　perhaps；　we　make　the　effort　to　clarify　our　ideas　and　close　into　the　heart　of　the　matter　we　are　at　once　unsettled：　our　doubts　throw　us　back　upon　ancient　explanations；　we　choose　among　the　various　theories；　or　among　the　various　interpretations　of　some　one　theory；　and　so　we　come　to　rest；　satisfied；　if　only　we　can　counter　a　question　with　an　approved　answer；　and　glad　to　be　absolved　from　further　enquiry。　　　　　Now；　we　must　believe　that　some　of　the　venerable　philosophers　of　old　discovered　the　truth；　but　it　is　important　to　examine　which　of　them　really　hit　the　mark　and　by　what　guiding　principle　we　can　ourselves　attain　to　certitude。　　　　　What；　then；　does　Eternity　really　mean　to　those　who　describe　it　as　something　different　from　Time？　We　begin　with　Eternity；　since　when　the　standing　Exemplar　is　known；　its　representation　in　image…　which　Time　is　understood　to　be…　will　be　clearly　apprehended…　though　it　is　of　course　equally　true；　admitting　this　relationship　to　Time　as　image　to　Eternity　the　original；　that　if　we　chose　to　begin　by　identifying　Time　we　could　thence　proceed　upwards　by　Recognition　＇the　Platonic　Anamnesis＇　and　become　aware　of　the　Kind　which　it　images。　　　　　2。　What　definition　are　we　to　give　to　Eternity？　　　　　Can　it　be　identified　with　the　＇divine　or＇　Intellectual　Substance　itself？　　　　　This　would　be　like　identifying　Time　with　the　Universe　of　Heavens　and　Earth…　an　opinion；　it　is　true；　which　appears　to　have　had　its　adherents。　No　doubt　we　conceive；　we　know；　Eternity　as　something　most　august；　most　august；　too；　is　the　Intellectual　Kind；　and　there　is　no　possibility　of　saying　that　the　one　is　more　majestic　than　the　other；　since　no　such　degrees　can　be　asserted　in　the　Above…World；　there　is　therefore　a　certain　excuse　for　the　identification…　all　the　more　since　the　Intellectual　Substance　and　Eternity　have　the　one　scope　and　content。　　　　　Still；　by　the　fact　of　representing　the　one　as　contained　within　the　other；　by　making　Eternity　a　predicate　to　the　Intellectual　Existents…　〃the　Nature　of　the　Exemplar；〃　we　read；　〃is　eternal〃…　we　cancel　the　identification；　Eternity　becomes　a　separate　thing；　something　surrounding　that　Nature　or　lying　within　it　or　present　to　it。　And　the　majestic　quality　of　both　does　not　prove　them　identical：　it　might　be　transmitted　from　the　one　to　the　other。　So；　too；　Eternity　and　the　Divine　Nature　envelop　the　same　entities；　yes；　but　not　in　the　same　way：　the　Divine　may　be　thought　of　as　enveloping　parts；　Eternity　as　embracing　its　content　in　an　unbroken　whole；　with　no　implication　of　part；　but　merely　from　the　fact　that　all　eternal　things　are　so　by　conforming　to　it。　　　　　May　we；　perhaps；　identify　Eternity　with　Repose…There　as　Time　has　been　identified　with　Movement…Here？　　　　　This　would　bring　on　the　counter…question　whether　Eternity　is　presented　to　us　as　Repose　in　the　general　sense　or　as　the　Repose　that　envelops　the　Intellectual　Essence。　　　　　On　the　first　supposition　we　can　no　more　talk　of　Repose　being　eternal　than　of　Eternity　being　eternal：　to　be　eternal　is　to　participate　in　an　outside　thing；　Eternity。　　　　　Further；　if　Eternity　is　Repose；　what　becomes　of　Eternal　Movement；　which；　by　this　identification；　would　become　a　thing　of　Repose？　　　　　Again；　the　conception　of　Repose　scarcely　seems　to　include　that　of　perpetuity…　I　am　speaking　of　course　not　of　perpetuity　in　the　time…order　（which　might　follow　on　absence　of　movement）　but　of　that　which　we　have　in　mind　when　we　speak　of　Eternity。　　　　　If；　on　the　other　hand；　Eternity　is　identified　with　the　Repose　of　the　divine　Essence；　all　species　outside　of　the　divine　are　put　outside　of　Eternity。　　　　　Besides；　the　conception　of　Eternity　requires　not　merely　Repose　but　also　unity…　and；　in　order　to　keep　it　distinct　from　Time；　a　unity　including　interval…　but　neither　that　unity　nor　that　absence　of　interval　enters　into　the　conception　of　Repose　as　such。　　　　　Lastly；　this　unchangeable　Repose　in　unity　is　a　predicate　asserted　of　Eternity；　which；　therefore；　is　not　itself　Repose；　the　absolute；　but　a　participant　in　Repose。　　　　　3。　What；　then；　can　this　be；　this　something　in　virtue　of　which　we　declare　the　entire　divine　Realm　to　be　Eternal；　everlasting？　We　must　come　to　some　understanding　of　this　perpetuity　with　which　Eternity　is　either　identical　or　in　conformity。　　　　　It　must　at　once；　be　at　once　something　in　the　nature　of　unity　and　yet　a　notion　compact　of　diversity；　or　a　Kind；　a　Nature；　that　waits　upon　the　Existents　of　that　Other　World；　either　associated　with　them　or　known　in　and　upon　them；　they　collectively　being　this　Nature　which；　with　all　its　unity；　is　yet　diverse　in　power　and　essence。　Considering　this　multifarious　power；　we　declare　it　to　be　Essence　in　its　relation　to　this　sphere　which　is　substratum　or　underlie　to　it；　where　we　see　life　we　think　of　it　as　Movement；　where　all　is　unvaried　self…identity　we　call　it　Repose；　and　we　know　it　as；　at　once；　Difference　and　Identity　when　we　recognize　that　all　is　unity　with　variety。　　　　　Then　we　reconstruct；　we　sum　all　into　a　collected　unity　once　more；　a　sole　Life　in　the　Supreme；　we　concentrate　Diversity　and　all　the　endless　production　of　act：　thus　we　know　Identity；　a　concept　or；　rather；　a　Life　never　varying；　not　becoming　what　previously　it　was　not；　the　thing　immutably　itself；　broken　by　no　interval；　and　knowing　this；　we　know　Eternity。　　　　　We　know　it　as　a　Life　changelessly　motionless　and　ever　holding　the　Universal　content　＇time；　space；　and　phenomena＇　in　actual　presence；　not　this　now　and　now　that　other；　but　always　all；　not　existing　now　in　one　mode　and　now　in　another；　but　a　consummation　without　part　or　interval。　All　its　content　is　in　immediate　concentration　as　at　one　point；　nothing　in　it　ever　knows　development：　all　remains　identical　within　itself；　knowing　nothing　of　change；　for　ever　in　a　Now　since　nothing　of　it　has　passed　away　or　will　come　into　being；　but　what　it　is　now；　that　it　is　ever。　　　　　Eternity；　therefore…　while　not　the　Substratum　＇not　the　essential　foundation　of　the　Divine　or　Intellectual　Principle＇…　may　be　considered　as　the　radiation　of　this　Substratum：　it　exists　as　the　announcement　of　the　Identity　in　the　Divine；　of　that　state…　of　being　thus　and　not　otherwise…　which　characterizes　what　has　no　futurity　but　eternally　is。　　　　　What　future；　in　fact；　could　bring　to　that　Being　anything　which　it　now　does　not　possess；　and　could　it　come　to　be　anything　which　it　is　not　once　for　all？　　　　　There　exists　no　source　or　ground　from　which　anything　could　make　its　way　into　that　standing　present；　any　imagined　entrant　will　prove　to　be　not　alien　but　already　integral。　And　as　it　can　never　come　to　be　anything　at　present　outside　it；　so；　necessarily；　it　cannot　include　any　past；　what　can　there　be　that　once　was　in　it　and　now　is　gone？　Futurity；　similarly；　is　banned；　nothing　could　be　yet　t