# Ancient Mysteries and Christianity

## GA 87 — 26 April 1902, Berlin

### 24. On Scotus Eriugena

Highly Esteemed Attendees!

Of course, this can only be a kind of artificial, provisional conclusion, brought about by the fact that I still have to deal with the theosophical-mystical view of Scotus Eriugena.

I have undertaken to deal with this personality because this personality forms a conclusion to the Christian research that lies ahead of him on the one hand and on the other hand the starting point of what is actually called the Christian Middle Ages.

Scotus Eriugena shows us clearly that what is called the Christian view was by no means as fixed until the ninth century as it was later regarded. What was meant by genuine, true Christianity was not so fixed that it would not have been possible for such a mind to have views on the Christian teachings of the Church that differed from the majority of others.

However, this is already the great battle that the centralized Catholic Church is waging against such views. Christian doctrine is [still] fluid on all sides. Debates are still taking place as to how the various dogmas should be interpreted. With Scotus Eriugena you can clearly see that at that time it was still possible to have a free interpretation of the Bible. He is a completely theosophical interpreter of the Bible. He cites the sentences of the Old and New Testaments as symbols for spiritual processes alongside the historical side. He chooses those symbols and interpretations which correspond better to his own views. This free custom dwindled [in the course of time] in the Catholic Church, dwindled more and more. The faith established by the administration is asserting itself more and more. However, it had been preserved as a tradition that only those who had reached a certain high level of life were called to interpret the Bible and the teachings of the Church. I don't think it would be easy to prove that almost lay interpretations of Scripture could have asserted themselves; I don't think anyone would have dared to criticize the dogma who had not already attempted to do so through their pursuit of wisdom. Belief in authority was taken for granted. What St. Augustine, for example, had written and said was not regarded as the opinion of a single person, but as a teaching given to us through the indwelling of the power of wisdom in such a person. These views must be understood according to their intention.

Those who were later condemned, who were heretized, grew out of the material that the Church preserved and which first had to permeate those who became involved in such things in the first place, who believed they were called to approach an interpretation of the Church and the Church's teachings.

It would be wrong to compare the philosophy of Scotus Eriugena with any other. It can only be understood in and within Christianity. It must also be viewed in this way and not in the same way as Giordano Bruno. I have already mentioned a person who lived in the first century and left behind writings. [I am referring to the works of the "false" Dionysius, whose author is said to have lived in Athens with the Apostle Paul.] We know that these writings represent a mystical deepening. At the end of the fifth century, we realize that we are dealing with ancient teachings. They must also be understood as such. The teachings can be traced back to the time when the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse were written. They were probably [given] by the one who founded the [Athenian] school.

Finally, we come to the point where wisdom ceases to be wisdom, where it must pass over into life. This is a view that underlies gnosis. It endeavors to turn wisdom into immediate life. The practical meaning of gnosis lies in bringing the spirit down into the material. This view in turn has as its equivalent the view that wisdom cannot be attained through the mere pursuit of wisdom, but only the prospect of it.

There are two different views: "positive theology" and "negative theology". The primary source of the former is sensory perception. One sees, hears, feels this being, this thing; this thing has these and those properties. Negative theology, however, says that behind what we see, hear and so on lies the original source of existence. Nothing can lead us to penetrate it completely; it is only the [inner] life that leads us on the path to penetrating that primordial existence.

This is the path to the heights of mystical knowledge as opposed to external scientific knowledge. Positive theology, which therefore really says something for man, is only a down payment. This knowledge only becomes negative theology because man is forced to say to himself that there is something hidden in the primal grounds of existence. So where, above all, the realization of inadequacy emerges, where the right to doubt awakens, where the feeling awakens that knowledge is only a support in the effort to advance towards divinity - this is where negative theology arises.

You do not reach divinity through concepts, not through the mind. If you imagine divinity as personality, you see divinity in the superpersonality, as essence in the superessential, as perfection in the superperfect! It is most remarkable that the Western world could be surprised by the word "superman", which we encounter so often today. In Dionysius we see a word that takes us much higher, in that he speaks not only of the superman, but of the "supergod". This is in contrast to the God who is human-like, in contrast to what was then called "positive theology", the vital theology that was behind the negative one. Nicholas Cusanus said - after he had acquired all the knowledge that science could give him, after the realization had dawned on him during a voyage across the great sea of how the spiritual eye must become clear at a glance - that these are not expressions for something that exists, but only for symbols that can awaken a perspective in us.

These writings by Dionysius Areopagita were given to Louis the Pious by the Greek owners and have been in Paris ever since. When Scotus Eriugena was favorably received by Charles the Bald, he was commissioned - he was one of the few who knew Greek - to translate these writings. In this way he immersed himself in the spirit of the first Christian centuries, and so we see a Christian tinged theosophy emerging in his works. The writings of Augustine supported him in this. They became a great help for monks and priests, and for the Church in general.

What was probably still present in the Gnostics of the first centuries and what the Christian Church has not preserved is completely missing in [Augustine]: the awareness of a pervasive individuality and any mention of transmigration. Nothing is interposed between personality and divinity. Augustine had to attribute every human peculiarity to the will of the Godhead, so to speak. He could say nothing [else], since he knew nothing of a pervasive individuality. That which appears in me as my own personality is the result of that which reaches out backwards and forwards. But [Augustine] must trace this back to the will of the Godhead. Thus we create a boundary between the Godhead and the will of the individual. And this is how the [so-called predestination] controversy arises. On the one hand, we have those who are saved, and on the other, those who are not allowed to enter divinity: despite the immense love, the realization of the terrible. In other words, dualism.

With such a doctrine, it was extremely difficult to work within the church. One can only imagine that this doctrine could only be presented to a generous mind; it was not possible to present it to the congregations. Nevertheless, it was clear to the church that the wisdom of Augustine set the tone. This [drastic] doctrine of predestination could not be maintained, so they tried to conceal and weaken this hard, cruel doctrine. It was said: "It is quite undoubted that from the very beginning sinners were predestined to eternal damnation, the righteous to bliss; but then the possibility was introduced that a crossing over [to the other side] could take place. In short, they tried to get out of the dilemma. The only way out, which is given in the transmigration of souls, was now sought to be bridged by the half-measure of the Augustinian doctrine. A French monk, [Gottschalk], stood up against this half-measure of Augustine's teaching at the court of Charles the Bald in France. Although he did not name Augustine, he represented him completely and he taught the entire Augustinian doctrine [of absolute predestination] again.

Scotus Eriugena was then presented with the question [of the correctness of this doctrine], first by the Church and then by his master, Charles the Bald. Gottschalk had been publicly flogged. He was flogged in [Mainz at the synod of 848 AD and in Quierzy at the synod of 849 AD]. A treatise had been written against him on predestination. It said that Gottschalk should have been burned, that he should have been dealt with by fire and sword - the heretic judgments began much later. So the only options were condemnation or public flogging.

Scotus Eriugena contrasted himself with Gottschalk. Nevertheless, he emphasized that the doctrine that prevailed in the church was not the right one either. He himself also stated that the theosophical-mystical element always and repeatedly breaks through in large-scale natures. He said that Augustine could only be misunderstood in a view that places divinity beyond the world and where the divine [does not] permeate the whole world, i.e. only in such a teaching. From such a deepening we see the meaningful writing of Scotus Eriugena "On the Division of Nature" emerge. The stream of the divine runs through the world. But the divine must be sought in the world in various stages. He advocates a kind of pantheism of which Boehme would say that he does not mix the world with the divine, but rather evaluates it by saying: The things of the world are indeed the divine, but not in such a way that it can be found in the individual things. They only lead to it, they are the guides [to the divine]. Thus we also see in Scotus Eriugena's objection to Augustine's doctrine that he says: "If one part of the world were indeed to be regarded as bad, as an apostasy against the original good and the original beauty, if it were a dualism between good and evil, then it would be impossible for the divine to permeate the world, for the divine would then also have to be present in the bad. But then the bad would be a manifestation of the divine - or one would have to speak of an impotence of the divine.

Whoever has gained an insight into the depths of the world as a whole cannot possibly recognize two world powers in this way or think of the world as constructed in this way. He must think of the world as constructed in a unified way, so that what we regard as error must be founded in a [unified] way. He cannot suppose that the divine has determined a part to be unattractive, he can only suppose that the divine has determined the aim and purpose of the world; he can only suppose that the beautiful and the ugly only appear, that the world is not divinity itself, is not the entity existing in unfathomable divinity, but that the divine has poured itself out in the world. Evil arises through diversity, through multiplicity. It only has an existence if we express it in earthly terms, it only appears to us as evil [if we do not see through the world as maya, not as illusion]

Jakob Böhme has an idea that is very similar to this. He compares the world to an organism. Every single limb is alive. The hand is just as necessary to the whole of the organism as the foot or any other part of it. It is what it is only in the context of the organism. When the hand is separated from the organism, when it dies, it is no longer a hand; as a hand it must be permeated by the organic. Thus the manifold is only good because it is connected with the original source. Can this prevent one hand from injuring the other? Because the organism is made up of parts, it is possible for parts to come into conflict with each other. Thus disharmony is not rooted [in the organism]. But it can arise if the organism appears to us as a manifold. When the parts of the manifold have returned to unity, then disharmony can no longer come about, then the forces can no longer be turned against each other. As long as the world is a manifold, parts of it will continue to turn against each other. Although the whole is good and in harmony, disharmony is still possible. If we could see through time and space at a glance, then every single thing that seems bad to us would turn out to be good, every disharmony would cancel itself out in the harmony of the whole. We only see a part because we ourselves are a member of the manifold. Thus, for Scotus Eriugena, this doubt is resolved by the fact that he does not assume God's dominion, but God's integration into the world. Thus evil must also have only an illusory nature, and necessarily so, because God assumed matter.

In four parts, in four forms of existence, Scotus Eriugena breaks down nature by treating Augustine's teaching:

First, into that which cannot be attained, the uncreated, creating nature, which we only have in truth if we say to ourselves: all concepts are not sufficient to attain that which underlies everything.

The second is the development out of the [un]created: the created and creating nature. For him, these were the primordial spiritual forces. They are creating and created. That which Plato calls the world of ideas, that which symbolizes unity for us, has separated into multiplicity. This world-spirit, this all-soul, this world-pervading spirituality, which is manifold, which is divided into intelligence and unintelligence - but in a spiritual way - in short, this whole Platonic world of ideas, which as a spiritual world underlies our world, these primal reasons of existence, those thoughts which lived in the Godhead as model images, the eternal primal thoughts of the Godhead - we form the ideas, but they have lived themselves out in the Godhead - they are the "Worb. The things of nature are created according to the patterns of this word. He equates them with the eternal Son of the Godhead. The infinite wisdom, the spirit full of wisdom: This to him is the Son, the second entity, which, as he expresses it, is to the first entity as in the relation of the Son to the Father. This relationship then reached a historical personality - Jesus: Jesus Christ. This Christ is an existence free of desire, an existence beyond the world of desires and senses, he can be wisdom without will and once came into the world, says Scotus Eriugena.

Then comes the third stage of the forms of existence of nature: the created, but non-creating nature. Man, who has assumed matter, is not created and not creating, but existing.

The fourth stage is nature that is neither created nor creating. The divine nature is its goal, to which all beings return in their eternal bliss, resting in themselves. A return of the Godhead to itself is for him the world process in the most eminent sense of the word. All beings are permeated by the Godhead, where they rest in bliss within themselves. They should regard this as their goal.

However, this is how Scotus Eriugena appears to us as a theosophical interpreter of Christianity in the West. It also seems theosophical to us that, in a seven-fold ascent, he outlines the path for people to strive for union with the Godhead.

He therefore distinguishes between four natural powers. Under the first he understands God as the reason for creation, under the second the Platonic world of ideas, under the third the world of bodies, under the fourth God as the final purpose of creation. This is why he calls the process return, "reversio", "deificatio. To him, the whole process is the return of unity to unity, which only transforms from a creative to a non-creative one.

The beings who undergo the process of development go through it in seven stages. The people who have theosophical aspirations and are engaged in theosophical studies always come to seven stages.

The first stage is the body. The second stage is that which animates the body, the life force that flows through it. On the third level, the sense is animated. From this arises the animal soul. Fourthly, the spirit awakens within the sense. The higher stages, which are no longer bound to the elements, no longer bound to the senses, are contained therein, thus fifthly: the receptivity for the spiritual hovering above the senses. Then, sixthly, bliss, spirituality, develops. The spirit is [...] turned towards the senses, thus still permeated by the body of desire, which chains it to material existence; at the seventh stage this ceases, there the spirit steps before itself in its pure existence. [This makes it possible to embark on the path to return to God, to the divine. The divine would then be the [highest] level.

Then we also see a view in Scotus Eriugena that cannot be integrated into his other teachings. He cannot logically explain the contrast between the elect and those who do not attain beatitude. He cannot bridge this contrast. But this contrast does not exist at all in Christianity: it has only been possible for those minds in the West to find the ideas and truths unconsciously slumbering in Christianity, [which had clarity about the idea] that the essence [of man] is rooted in eternity. If we explore Christianity in and according to its depths, we will find that these ideas lie dormant in Christianity.

It is therefore a matter of awakening the depths of religion. Christianity only needs to be grasped deeply enough to awaken its content. We must therefore reach the point where we can find out what unites them all in the great religious systems, to see how one spirit is expressed in all of them.

It must therefore fill us with great satisfaction to see how in Theosophy we encounter the common spirit in all religions. As we ponder and penetrate the ancient wisdom of Buddhism and see the infinite deepening of spiritual life in these oriental teachings, we will also notice that this spirit has emerged in our scientific endeavors and also in Christianity. In the teachings of natural science, the core also rests in the same way as in the world religions. But it is not from the best core of the same. It is basically the same whether we open the great book of nature or pick up a religious book and look it up. Both lead to the great theosophical convictions. I believe that even the wing of natural science that is [not] on the side of Christianity is fighting in this direction: even the battles that are being waged against the Church are Christian ways of fighting. Those who see the deeper context see this direction in the way modern researchers fight Christianity. What Christianity and the Church have forged is being used against them.

A direct balance cannot be found between two such powers. But that which can lead us to believe that reconciliation must be possible is shown to us by spirits such as Scotus Eriugena. They do not yet recognize the sharp distinction between the two wings: Natural science on the one hand and religion on the other. Scotus Eriugena could still be a good Christian, and he could still describe the whole world as nature in a Christian world view. It seems that this is no longer possible for the minds of people today. It seems to me that the only salvation lies in continuing along the path that has been followed in the West for decades. We must draw new courage from the sources of light in the Orient, from the two rivers that flowed together back then, and create reconciliation.

If we immerse ourselves in oriental wisdom, reconciliation will still be possible. For me, it is proof of this that the light that came from the Orient still lived in Scotus Eriugena in a more or less unconscious way in undivided unity. What has carried people for so long will continue to carry them in such a way that they must find the path through this light. And what has brought the spirit into harmony will continue to do so. But for this we need to delve deeper into the theosophical teachings. If we find the path that reunites the two, then it will mean the reconciliation of natural science with Western religions, then it will become clear that they are seeking the same thing on different paths.