the six enneads-第107部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


n　that　content；　by　the　fact　of　participating　in　life；　is　a　One…many：　for　the　item　could　not　make　itself　manifest　as　a　One…and…all。　　　　　Only　the　Transcendent　can　be　that；　it　is　the　great　beginning；　and　the　beginning　must　be　a　really　existent　One；　wholly　and　truly　One；　while　its　sequent；　poured　down　in　some　way　from　the　One；　is　all；　a　total　which　has　participation　in　unity　and　whose　every　member　is　similarly　all　and　one。　　　　　What　then　is　the　All？　　　　　The　total　of　which　the　Transcendent　is　the　Source。　　　　　But　in　what　way　is　it　that　source？　In　the　sense；　perhaps；　of　sustaining　things　as　bestower　of　the　unity　of　each　single　item？　　　　　That　too；　but　also　as　having　established　them　in　being。　　　　　But　how？　As　having；　perhaps；　contained　them　previously？　　　　　We　have　indicated　that；　thus；　the　First　would　be　a　manifold。　　　　　May　we　think；　perhaps；　that　the　First　contained　the　universe　as　an　indistinct　total　whose　items　are　elaborated　to　distinct　existence　within　the　Second　by　the　Reason…Principle　there？　That　Second　is　certainly　an　Activity；　the　Transcendent　would　contain　only　the　potentiality　of　the　universe　to　come。　　　　　But　the　nature　of　this　contained　potentiality　would　have　to　be　explained：　it　cannot　be　that　of　Matter；　a　receptivity；　for　thus　the　Source　becomes　passive…　the　very　negation　of　production。　　　　　How　then　does　it　produce　what　it　does　not　contain？　Certainly　not　at　haphazard　and　certainly　not　by　selection。　How　then？　　　　　We　have　observed　that　anything　that　may　spring　from　the　One　must　be　different　from　it。　Differing；　it　is　not　One；　since　then　it　would　be　the　Source。　If　unity　has　given　place　to　duality；　from　that　moment　there　is　multiplicity；　for　here　is　variety　side　by　side　with　identity；　and　this　imports　quality　and　all　the　rest。　　　　　We　may　take　it　as　proved　that　the　emanation　of　the　Transcendent　must　be　a　Not…One　something　other　than　pure　unity；　but　that　it　is　a　multiplicity；　and　especially　that　it　is　such　a　multiplicity　as　is　exhibited　in　the　sequent　universe；　this　is　a　statement　worthy　of　deliberation：　some　further　enquiry　must　be　made；　also；　as　to　the　necessity　of　any　sequel　to　the　First。　　　　　16。　We　have；　of　course；　already　seen　that　a　secondary　must　follow　upon　the　First；　and　that　this　is　a　power　immeasurably　fruitful；　and　we　indicated　that　this　truth　is　confirmed　by　the　entire　order　of　things　since　there　is　nothing；　not　even　in　the　lowest　ranks；　void　of　the　power　of　generating。　We　have　now　to　add　that；　since　things　engendered　tend　downwards　and　not　upwards　and；　especially；　move　towards　multiplicity；　the　first　principle　of　all　must　be　less　a　manifold　than　any。　　　　　That　which　engenders　the　world　of　sense　cannot　itself　be　a　sense…world；　it　must　be　the　Intellect　and　the　Intellectual　world；　similarly；　the　prior　which　engenders　the　Intellectual…Principle　and　the　Intellectual　world　cannot　be　either；　but　must　be　something　of　less　multiplicity。　The　manifold　does　not　rise　from　the　manifold：　the　intellectual　multiplicity　has　its　source　in　what　is　not　manifold；　by　the　mere　fact　of　being　manifold；　the　thing　is　not　the　first　principle：　we　must　look　to　something　earlier。　　　　　All　must　be　grouped　under　a　unity　which；　as　standing　outside　of　all　multiplicity　and　outside　of　any　ordinary　simplicity；　is　the　veritably　and　essentially　simplex。　　　　　Still；　how　can　a　Reason…Principle　＇the　Intellectual＇；　characteristically　a　manifold；　a　total；　derive　from　what　is　obviously　no　Reason…Principle？　　　　　But　how；　failing　such　origin　in　the　simplex；　could　we　escape　＇what　cannot　be　accepted＇　the　derivation　of　a　Reason…Principle　from　a　Reason…Principle？　　　　　And　how　does　the　secondarily　good　＇the　imaged　Good＇　derive　from　The　Good；　the　Absolute？　What　does　it　hold　from　the　Absolute　Good　to　entitle　it　to　the　name？　　　　　Similarity　to　the　prior　is　not　enough；　it　does　not　help　towards　goodness；　we　demand　similarity　only　to　an　actually　existent　Good：　the　goodness　must　depend　upon　derivation　from　a　Prior　of　such　a　nature　that　the　similarity　is　desirable　because　that　Prior　is　good；　just　as　the　similarity　would　be　undesirable　if　the　Prior　were　not　good。　　　　　Does　the　similarity　with　the　Prior　consist；　then；　in　a　voluntary　resting　upon　it？　　　　　It　is　rather　that；　finding　its　condition　satisfying；　it　seeks　nothing：　the　similarity　depends　upon　the　all…sufficiency　of　what　it　possesses；　its　existence　is　agreeable　because　all　is　present　to　it；　and　present　in　such　a　way　as　not　to　be　even　different　from　it　＇Intellectual…Principle　is　Being＇。　　　　　All　life　belongs　to　it；　life　brilliant　and　perfect；　thus　all　in　it　is　at　once　life…principle　and　Intellectual…Principle；　nothing　in　it　aloof　from　either　life　or　intellect：　it　is　therefore　self…sufficing　and　seeks　nothing：　and　if　it　seeks　nothing　this　is　because　it　has　in　itself　what；　lacking；　it　must　seek。　It　has；　therefore；　its　Good　within　itself；　either　by　being　of　that　order…　in　what　we　have　called　its　life　and　intellect…　or　in　some　other　quality　or　character　going　to　produce　these。　　　　　If　this　＇secondary　principle＇　were　The　Good　＇The　Absolute＇；　nothing　could　transcend　these　things；　life　and　intellect：　but；　given　the　existence　of　something　higher；　this　Intellectual…Principle　must　possess　a　life　directed　towards　that　Transcendent；　dependent　upon　it；　deriving　its　being　from　it；　living　towards　it　as　towards　its　source。　The　First；　then；　must　transcend　this　principle　of　life　and　intellect　which　directs　thither　both　the　life　in　itself；　a　copy　of　the　Reality　of　the　First；　and　the　intellect　in　itself　which　is　again　a　copy；　though　of　what　original　there　we　cannot　know。　　　　　17。　But　what　can　it　be　which　is　loftier　than　that　existence…　a　life　compact　of　wisdom；　untouched　by　struggle　and　error；　or　than　this　Intellect　which　holds　the　Universe　with　all　there　is　of　life　and　intellect？　　　　　If　we　answer　〃The　Making　Principle；〃　there　comes　the　question；　〃making　by　what　virtue？〃　and　unless　we　can　indicate　something　higher　there　than　in　the　made；　our　reasoning　has　made　no　advance：　we　rest　where　we　were。　　　　　We　must　go　higher…　if　it　were　only　for　the　reason　that　the　maker　of　all　must　have　a　self…sufficing　existence　outside　of　all　things…　since　all　the　rest　is　patently　indigent…　and　that　everything　has　participated　in　The　One　and；　as　drawing　on　unity；　is　itself　not　unity。　　　　　What　then　is　this　in　which　each　particular　entity　participates；　the　author　of　being　to　the　universe　and　to　each　item　of　the　total？　　　　　Since　it　is　the　author　of　all　that　exists；　and　since　the　multiplicity　in　each　thing　is　converted　into　a　self…sufficing　existence　by　this　presence　of　The　One；　so　that　even　the　particular　itself　becomes　self…sufficing；　then　clearly　this　principle；　author　at　once　of　Being　and　of　self…sufficingness；　is　not　itself　a　Being　but　is　above　Being　and　above　even　self…sufficing。　　　　　May　we　stop；　content；　with　that？　No：　the　Soul　is　yet；　and　even　more；　in　pain。　Is　she　ripe；　perhaps；　to　bring　forth；　now　that　in　her　pangs　she　has　come　so　close　to　what　she　seeks？　No：　we　must　call　upon　yet　another　spell　if　anywhere　the　assuagement　is　to　be　found。　Perhaps　in　what　has　already　been　uttered；　there　lies　the　charm　if　only　we　tell　it　over　often？　No：　we　need　a　new；　a　further；　incantation。　All　our　effort　may　well　skim　over　every　truth　and　through　all　the　verities　in　which　we　have　part；　and　yet　the　reality　escape　us　when　we　hope　to　affirm；　to　understand：　for　the　understanding；　in　order　to　its　affirmation　must　possess　itself　of　item　after　item；　only　so　does　it　traverse　all　the　field：　but　how　can　there　be　any　such　peregrination　of　that　in　which　there　is　no　variety？　　　　　All　the　need　is　met　by　a　contact　purely　intellective。　At　the　moment　of　touch　there　is　no　power　whatever　to　make　any　affirmation；　there　is　no　leisure；　reasoning　upon　the　vision　is　for　afterwards。　We　may　know　we　have　had　the　vision　when　the　Soul　has　suddenly　taken　light。　This　light　is　from　the　Supreme　and　is　the　Supreme；　we　may　believe　in　the　Presence　when；　like　that　other　God　on　the　call　of　a　certain　man；　He　comes　bringing　light：　the　light　is　the　proof　of　the　advent。　Thus；　the　Soul　unlit　remains　without　that　vision；　lit；　it　possesses　what　it　sought。　And　this　is　the　true　end　set　before　the　Soul；　to　take　that　light；　to　see　the　Supreme　by　the　Supreme　and　not　by　the　light　of　any　other　principle…　to　see　the　Supreme　which　is　also　the　means　to　the　vision；　for　that　which　illumines　the　Soul　is　that　which　it　is　to　see　just　as　it　is　by　the　sun's　own　light　that　we　see　the　sun。　　　　　But　how　is　this　to　be　accomplished？　　　　　Cut　away　everything。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　FOURTH　TRACTATE。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　HOW　THE　SECONDARIES　RISE　FROM　THE　FIRST：　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　AND　ON　THE　ONE。

　　　　1。　Anything　existing　after　The　First　must　necessarily　arise　from　that　First；　whether　immediately　or　as　tracing　back　to　it　through　intervenients；　there　must　be　an　order　of　secondaries　and　tertiaries；　in　which　any　second　is　to　be　referred　to　The　First；　any　third　to　the　second。　　　　　Standing　before　all　things；　there　must　exist　a　Simplex；　differing　from　all　its　sequel；　self…gathered　not　inter…blended　with　the　forms　that　rise　from　it；　and　yet　able　in　some　mode　of　its　own　to　be　present　to　those　others：　it　must　be　authentically　a　unity；　not　merely　something　elaborated　into　unity　and　so　in　reality　no　more　than　unity's　counterfeit；　it　will　debar　all　telling　and　knowing　except　that　it　may　be　described　as　transcending　Being…　for　if　there　were　nothing　outside　all　alliance　and　compromise；　nothing　authentically　one；　there　would　be　no　Source。　Untouched　by　multiplicity；　it　will　be　wholly　self…sufficing；　an　absolute　First；　whereas　any　not…first　demands　its　earlier；　and　any　non…simplex　needs　the　simplicities　within　itself　as　the　very　foundations　of　its　composite　existence。　　　　　There　can　be　only　one　such　being：　if　there　were　another；　the　two　＇as　indiscernible＇　would　resolve　into　one；　for　we　are　not　dealing　with　two　corporal　entities。　　　　　Our　One…First　is　not　a　body：　a　body　is　not　simplex　and；　as　a　thing　of　process　cannot　be　a　First；　the　Source　cannot　be　a　thing　of　generation：　only　a　principle　outside　of　body；　and　utterly　untouched　by　multiplicity；　could　be　The　First。　　　　　Any　unity；　then；　later　than　The　First　must　be　no　longer　simplex；　it　can　be　no　more　than　a　unity　in　diversity。　　　　　Whence　must　such　a　sequent　arise？　　　　　It　must　be　an　offspring　of　The　First；　for　suppose　it　the　product　of　chance；