the six enneads- 第122部分

ach；　some　form　or　idea　derived　from　that　source。　In　Number　the　participation　establishes　Quantity；　in　the　realm　of　Being；　the　trace　of　The　One　establishes　reality：　existence　is　a　trace　of　The　One…　our　word　for　entity　may　probably　be　connected　with　that　for　unity。　　　　　What　we　know　as　Being；　the　first　sequent　upon　The　One；　advanced　a　little　outward；　so　to　speak；　then　chose　to　go　no　further；　turned　inward　again　and　comes　to　rest　and　is　now　the　reality　and　hearth　＇ousia　and　hestia＇　of　the　universe。　Pressing　＇with　the　rough　breathing＇　on　the　word　for　Being　＇on＇　we　have　the　word　〃hen〃　＇one＇；　an　indication　that　in　our　very　form　of　speech　we　tell；　as　far　as　may　be；　that　Being　＇the　weaker＇　is　that　which　proceeds　from　＇the　stronger＇　The　One。　Thus　both　the　thing　that　comes　to　be　and　Being　itself　are　carriers　of　a　copy；　since　they　are　outflows　from　the　power　of　The　primal　One：　this　power　sees　and　in　its　emotion　tries　to　represent　what　it　sees　and　breaks　into　speech　〃On〃；　〃einai〃；　〃ousia；〃　〃hestia〃　＇Existent：　Existence：　Essence：　Hestia　or　Hearth＇；　sounds　which　labour　to　express　the　essential　nature　of　the　universe　produced　by　the　travail　of　the　utterer　and　so　to　represent；　as　far　as　sounds　may；　the　origin　of　reality。　　　　　6。　All　this；　however；　we　may　leave　to　individual　judgement：　to　proceed：　　　　　This　produced　reality　is　an　Ideal　form…　for　certainly　nothing　springing　from　the　Supreme　can　be　less…　and　it　is　not　a　particular　form　but　the　form　of　all；　beside　which　there　is　no　other；　it　follows　that　The　First　must　be　without　form；　and；　if　without　form；　then　it　is　no　Being；　Being　must　have　some　definition　and　therefore　be　limited；　but　the　First　cannot　be　thought　of　as　having　definition　and　limit；　for　thus　it　would　be　not　the　Source　but　the　particular　item　indicated　by　the　definition　assigned　to　it。　If　all　things　belong　to　the　produced；　which　of　them　can　be　thought　of　as　the　Supreme？　Not　included　among　them；　this　can　be　described　only　as　transcending　them：　but　they　are　Being　and　the　Beings；　it　therefore　transcends　Being。　　　　　Note　that　the　phrase　transcending　Being　assigns　no　character；　makes　no　assertion；　allots　no　name；　carries　only　the　denial　of　particular　being；　and　in　this　there　is　no　attempt　to　circumscribe　it：　to　seek　to　throw　a　line　about　that　illimitable　Nature　would　be　folly；　and　anyone　thinking　to　do　so　cuts　himself　off　from　any　slightest　and　most　momentary　approach　to　its　least　vestige。　　　　　As　one　wishing　to　contemplate　the　Intellectual　Nature　will　lay　aside　all　the　representations　of　sense　and　so　may　see　what　transcends　the　sense…realm；　in　the　same　way　one　wishing　to　contemplate　what　transcends　the　Intellectual　attains　by　putting　away　all　that　is　of　the　intellect；　taught　by　the　intellect；　no　doubt；　that　the　Transcendent　exists　but　never　seeking　to　define　it。　　　　　Its　definition；　in　fact；　could　be　only　〃the　indefinable〃：　what　is　not　a　thing　is　not　some　definite　thing。　We　are　in　agony　for　a　true　expression；　we　are　talking　of　the　untellable；　we　name；　only　to　indicate　for　our　own　use　as　best　we　may。　And　this　name；　The　One；　contains　really　no　more　than　the　negation　of　plurality：　under　the　same　pressure　the　Pythagoreans　found　their　indication　in　the　symbol　〃Apollo〃　＇a=　not；　pollon=　of　many＇　with　its　repudiation　of　the　multiple。　If　we　are　led　to　think　positively　of　The　One；　name　and　thing；　there　would　be　more　truth　in　silence：　the　designation；　a　mere　aid　to　enquiry；　was　never　intended　for　more　than　a　preliminary　affirmation　of　absolute　simplicity　to　be　followed　by　the　rejection　of　even　that　statement：　it　was　the　best　that　offered；　but　remains　inadequate　to　express　the　Nature　indicated。　For　this　is　a　principle　not　to　be　conveyed　by　any　sound；　it　cannot　be　known　on　any　hearing　but；　if　at　all；　by　vision；　and　to　hope　in　that　vision　to　see　a　form　is　to　fail　of　even　that。　　　　　7。　Consider　the　act　of　ocular　vision：　　　　　There　are　two　elements　here；　there　is　the　form　perceptible　to　the　sense　and　there　is　the　medium　by　which　the　eye　sees　that　form。　This　medium　is　itself　perceptible　to　the　eye；　distinct　from　the　form　to　be　seen；　but　the　cause　of　the　seeing；　it　is　perceived　at　the　one　stroke　in　that　form　and　on　it　and；　hence；　is　not　distinguished　from　it；　the　eye　being　held　entirely　by　the　illuminated　object。　When　on　the　contrary　this　medium　presents　itself　alone　it　is　seen　directly…　though　even　then　actual　sight　demands　some　solid　base；　there　must　be　something　besides　the　medium　which；　unless　embracing　some　object；　eludes　perception；　thus　the　light　inherent　to　the　sun　would　not　be　perceived　but　for　the　solidity　of　the　mass。　If　it　is　objected　that　the　sun　is　light　entire；　this　would　only　be　a　proof　of　our　assertion：　no　other　visible　form　will　contain　light　which　must；　then；　have　no　other　property　than　that　of　visibility；　and　in　fact　all　other　visible　objects　are　something　more　than　light　alone。　　　　　So　it　is　with　the　act　of　vision　in　the　Intellectual　Principle。　　　　　This　vision　sees；　by　another　light；　the　objects　illuminated　by　the　First　Principle：　setting　itself　among　them；　it　sees　veritably；　declining　towards　the　lower　Nature；　that　upon　which　the　light　from　above　rests；　it　has　less　of　that　vision。　Passing　over　the　visible　and　looking　to　the　medium　by　which　it　sees；　then　it　holds　the　Light　and　the　source　of　Light。　　　　　But　since　the　Intellectual…Principle　is　not　to　see　this　light　as　something　external　we　return　to　our　analogy；　the　eye　is　not　wholly　dependent　upon　an　outside　and　alien　light；　there　is　an　earlier　light　within　itself；　a　more　brilliant；　which　it　sees　sometimes　in　a　momentary　flash。　At　night　in　the　darkness　a　gleam　leaps　from　within　the　eye：　or　again　we　make　no　effort　to　see　anything；　the　eyelids　close；　yet　a　light　flashes　before　us；　or　we　rub　the　eye　and　it　sees　the　light　it　contains。　This　is　sight　without　the　act；　but　it　is　the　truest　seeing；　for　it　sees　light　whereas　its　other　objects　were　the　lit　not　the　light。　　　　　It　is　certainly　thus　that　the　Intellectual…Principle；　hiding　itself　from　all　the　outer；　withdrawing　to　the　inmost；　seeing　nothing；　must　have　its　vision…　not　of　some　other　light　in　some　other　thing　but　of　the　light　within　itself；　unmingled；　pure；　suddenly　gleaming　before　it；　　　　　8。　So　that　we　are　left　wondering　whence　it　came；　from　within　or　without；　and　when　it　has　gone；　we　say；　〃It　was　here。　Yet　no；　it　was　beyond！〃　But　we　ought　not　to　question　whence；　there　is　no　whence；　no　coming　or　going　in　place；　now　it　is　seen　and　now　not　seen。　We　must　not　run　after　it；　but　fit　ourselves　for　the　vision　and　then　wait　tranquilly　for　its　appearance；　as　the　eye　waits　on　the　rising　of　the　sun；　which　in　its　own　time　appears　above　the　horizon…　out　of　the　ocean；　as　the　poets　say…　and　gives　itself　to　our　sight。　　　　　This　Principle；　of　which　the　sun　is　an　image；　where　has　it　its　dawning；　what　horizon　does　it　surmount　to　appear？　　　　　It　stands　immediately　above　the　contemplating　Intellect　which　has　held　itself　at　rest　towards　the　vision；　looking　to　nothing　else　than　the　good　and　beautiful；　setting　its　entire　being　to　that　in　a　perfect　surrender；　and　now　tranquilly　filled　with　power　and　taking　a　new　beauty　to　itself；　gleaming　in　the　light　of　that　presence。　　　　　This　advent；　still；　is　not　by　expectation：　it　is　a　coming　without　approach；　the　vision　is　not　of　something　that　must　enter　but　of　something　present　before　all　else；　before　the　Intellect　itself　made　any　movement。　Yet　it　is　the　Intellect　that　must　move；　to　come　and　to　go…　going　because　it　has　not　known　where　it　should　stay　and　where　that　presence　stays；　the　nowhere　contained。　　　　　And　if　the　Intellect；　too；　could　hold　itself　in　that　nowhere…　not　that　it　is　ever　in　place；　it　too　is　uncontained；　utterly　unplaced…　it　would　remain　for　ever　in　the　vision　of　its　prior；　or；　indeed；　not　in　vision　but　in　identity；　all　duality　annulled。　But　it　is　Intellect　＇having　a　sphere　of　its　own＇　and；　when　it　is　to　see；　it　must　see　by　that　in　it　which　is　not　Intellect　＇by　its　divinest　power＇。　　　　　No　doubt　it　is　wonderful　that　The　First　should　thus　be　present　without　any　coming；　and　that；　while　it　is　nowhere；　nowhere　is　it　not；　but　wonderful　though　this　be　in　itself；　the　contrary　would　be　more　wonderful　to　those　who　know。　Of　course　neither　this　contrary　nor　the　wonder　at　it　can　be　entertained。　But　we　must　explain：　　　　　9。　Everything　brought　into　being　under　some　principle　not　itself　is　contained　either　within　its　maker　or；　if　there　is　any　intermediate；　within　that：　having　a　prior　essential　to　its　being；　it　needs　that　prior　always；　otherwise　it　would　not　be　contained　at　all。　It　is　the　order　of　nature：　The　last　in　the　immediately　preceding　lasts；　things　of　the　order　of　the　Firsts　within　their　prior…firsts；　and　so　thing　within　thing　up　to　the　very　pinnacle　of　source。　　　　　That　Source；　having　no　prior；　cannot　be　contained：　uncontained　by　any　of　those　other　forms　of　being；　each　held　within　the　series　of　priors；　it　is　orbed　round　all；　but　so　as　not　to　be　pointed　off　to　hold　them　part　for　part；　it　possesses　but　is　not　possessed。　Holding　all…　though　itself　nowhere　held…　it　is　omnipresent；　for　where　its　presence　failed　something　would　elude　its　hold。　At　the　same　time；　in　the　sense　that　it　is　nowhere　held；　it　is　not　present：　thus　it　is　both　present　and　not　present；　not　present　as　not　being　circumscribed　by　anything；　yet；　as　being　utterly　unattached；