Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
which takes on different forms. The movement of the struggle leads to the individual, the movement of
love leads to God. This point needs more elaboration.
Struggle and love are nothing other than yearning. The multiplicity of things, which begets both, is
there for the sake of the yearning and the movement; Boehme says, "for if this would not be so, there
would be no nature, rather an eternal stillness and no will; for the Aversion [wider wille, opposing will]
makes mobility and the primitive state of seeking, so that the repugnant anguish seeks peace and in that
search only uplifts itself, and becomes more inflamed." The struggle unfolds the individual thing into a
personality. "In nature one thing has always been set against another, so that one is the enemy of the
other, and yet not to that end that it is it's enemy, but rather that one moves the other in struggle, and
reveals the other in itself. For if there was only one will, then all beings would only do one thing, but in
the opposition to each other, each one in itself rises to its own victory and enhancement; and all life and
growing stands within this struggle." Love, however, leads the individual thing to the rebirth of the
unity of power. "Every Being longs for the other, the higher for the lower and the lower for the higher,
for they are differentiated from each other, and in such Hunger they receive each other in desire."
[Indiv., p. 43, Clavis 110] But this is, according to Boehme, the right way to the new God, which we
create, to the new unity of the powers. This understanding has been affirmed and mentioned in a
passage of Ludwig Feuerbach ". . .Man in himself is man (in the conventional sense); Man with Man -the unity of I and Thou -- is God." Feuerbach wants to protect the unity of which he speaks, for the
"reality of the difference between I and Thou". However today we are closer to Boehme than we are to
the teachings of Feuerbach, the ideas of St. Francis of Assisi, who called the trees, birds, and stars his
brothers and sisters, and nearer yet to the Vedanta.
For Boehme struggle and love reconciliations and the conquering of schisms are bridges between the I
and the world; struggle, because in it and through it, the I and another I are unfolded and revealed in its
beauty, and love because in it the essences unite themselves to God. Life originates when the essences
mutually reach into each other, in that the things do not exist in total seclusion, but also do not totally
fuse with one another, rather they mutually cause each other. This mutual causation is for Boehme
related to the existence of the individual. He says, "But now form is not able to reveal itself, only in the
eternal birth, for one is a member of the other, and one would be nothing without the other."
The unity of all individual beings and their individuality is united with each other. The world is for
Boehme a harmony of individuals, in their uniqueness full of unfolded tones, but who are born of one
movement; "just as an organ of many voices is driven by one uniform current of air, so that each voice,
each pipe even, produces its sound, and yet it is just one kind of air in all voices, which sounds in each
voice, after the instrument or organ has been made." [Indiv., p. 38, SR 16:63]
But Boehme is not satisfied with this bridge, and this is how he is nearest to us. He desires a deeper
unity. It is not enough that the I unites itself with the world. The I is the world. But that is not in the
sense which Berkeley meant it, for whom the world was a series of perceptions of the I, nor in the sense
of Fichte, for whom not the individual, but rather the "Ego" especially "the identity of the one who is
conscious and that which the one is conscious of" composes the world and allows it to expose itself to
itself, but rather in the sense of the great Renaissance teachings of the microcosm, which Leibnitz and
Goethe brought across to us. This teaching was only alluded to in antiquity and haunted scholastics in a
schematic and lifeless form. Cusa, Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Weigel developed it, and Boehme carried it
through to the most enchanting and most sensitive extent: "God is not divisible, but rather is completely
whole, and where he reveals himself there he is completely revealed." And since God is the unity of all
powers, each individual thing carries the characteristics of all things in itself, and that which we call its
individuality is only the greater degree of development of one or the other quality. "When I lift up a
stone or a clod and take a look at it I see the top and the bottom, the whole world even in it, only that in
each thing one characteristic is most dominant, after which it is named. The other properties are also
contained altogether, only in different degrees and centres." [Indiv., p. 40, MM 2:6] But since the
essence of this view for Boehme was in its application to the I, he repeatedly relates it to man, and
repeats "that in Man all of creation lies; heaven and earth with all essences including God himself lies
in man." This wonderful view of the world has become too unique for us. We have woven it into our
own inner experience. When I take a piece of fruit to my mouth, I feel that it is my body, when I take
wine to my lips, I feel that it is my blood. And sometimes we feel the desire to throw our arms around a
young tree and to feel the same surge of life [as in ourselves] or to read our innermost secrets in the
eyes of a dumb animal. We experience the waxing and waning of the most distant stars as something
that happens to us. And there are moments in which our organism is a totally different piece of nature.
But if for Boehme everything is within man, then for him its development can only be an unfolding.
Everything grows from within. We know the world because we have it within us. Even Weigel had said
"It may be things which one would suppose, the outer attacks (that is, the objects of our perception)
would allow man to carry every knowledge, yet it is still only an awakening through the same; that
which man is and should be by nature and through grace, he must have that within himself". Boehme
adds "God does not send a foreign spirit into us, rather with his spirit he opens up our spirit." From all
of this we feel that in spite of all the changes in theoretical knowledge, this one thing remains, that
nothing is carried into us and everything can be obliterated, because we have the world within us.
Because for Boehme everything is within everything, therefore he does not recognize any differing
value of things. Because for him everything is within everything, therefore for him the giving of a
natural characteristic is a necessary prerequisite of self unfolding. Therefore he says "The sun gives of
its power without distinction, it loves every fruit and growing thing and does not withdraw itself from
anything; it wants nothing other than that every plant, or whatever there may be, should produce a good
fruit; it accepts all whether they are good or bad and gives them its love-will; for it cannot do
otherwise, it is no other essence than that which it is." -- "All words which the mouth has spoken,
which the air has taken on itself and the words which have served the speaker must be brought back
again by the air."2
1. Compare with Schopenauer: Presuppose the objects of the sentence with sufficient reason.
2. By "air" is here understood the idea of astral material.
Originally: Martin Buber, "Ueber Jakob Boehme", Wiener Rundschau V, 12 (June 15, 1901), pp. 251253.
Translation: Bruce Janz & Eve Sommerfeld.
References in parentheses are as follows:
Clavis = Boehme, Clavis, or Key.
Gnad. = Boehme, Von der Gnadenwahl.
Indiv. = Zur Geschichte des Individuationsproblem (Nicolaus von Cusa und Jacob Boehme). Buber's
Doctoral Dissertation for University of Vienna, 1904. Currently in the Martin Buber Archives, Tel Aviv,
Israel.
MM. = Boehme, Mysterium Magnum.
SR. = Boehme, Signature Rerum, or The Signature of All Things