312、⑵人基于自己的谨慎会说服自己相信并在自己里面确认：一切良善和真理都来自他自己，并在他自己里面；一切邪恶和虚假同样如此。让我们尝试通过属世良善和真理与属灵良善和真理之间的类比来进行论证。先从提问在我们眼里，什么是真理，什么是良善开始。在我们眼里，真理不就是那被称为美丽的东西吗？良善不就是那被称为快乐的东西吗？因为快乐是在看见美丽的东西中被感觉到的。对我们的听觉来说，真理和良善是什么呢？真理不就是那被称为和谐的东西吗？良善不就是那被称为愉悦的东西吗？因为愉悦是在听见和声中被感觉到的；其它感觉也是如此。这清楚表明什么叫属世的真理和良善。现在考虑一下什么是属灵的真理和良善。属灵的真理不就是属灵事件和物体中的美丽、和谐之物吗？属灵的良善不就是源于对美丽、和谐的感觉的快乐、愉悦吗？
现在让我们看一下，能论及这一个的话能否不同于论及那一个的，也就是说，论及属灵之物的话能否不同于论及属世之物的。论到属世之物，我们会说，美丽与快乐从物体流入肉眼，和谐与愉悦从乐器流入耳朵。心智的器官物质有什么不同吗？或说，还有别的东西适用于心智的器官物质吗？论到心智的器官物质，我们会说，事情正在它们里面发生；论到肉体器官，我们会说，事物正在流入它们。但如果有人问，为什么说事物正在流入？唯一的答案是，因为它们之间有可感知到的距离。如果又问，为什么说事情正在里面发生？唯一的答案是，因为它们之间没有可感知到的距离。因此，正是距离的表象使得人们对自己所思想和感觉到的东西有一种相信，对所看见和听见的东西却有另一种相信。然而，一旦知道，属灵之物不像属世之物那样在距离中，这一切就会瓦解落空。请想想太阳和月亮，或罗马和君士坦丁堡，在思维中，它们之间有什么距离吗？只要这种思维不与视觉或听觉经验绑在一起，是没有距离的。那么为何说服自己相信，因为思维里面没有可感知到的距离，所以良善和真理，以及邪恶和虚假住在里面，而不是流入的？
对此，我补充一个在灵界司空见惯的经历。一个灵人能把他的思维和情感注入另一个灵人，而后者意识不到这不是他本人的思维和情感的一部分。在灵界，他们把这种情形称为在别人里面思考，或从别人思考。这种事我见过上千次，我都亲身经历过上百次，那时，距离的表象是显而易见的。然而，一旦知道这些思维和情感是别人注入的，他们就感到气愤，并转身离去；不过，他们仍承认内在视觉或思维里面没有距离的表象，或可感知到的距离，除非它被内在视觉，或外在视觉，就是肉眼察觉。这使得他们能认识到：有一种流注存在。
对此，我补充我自己的日常经历。恶灵经常将邪恶和虚假注入我的思维；这些邪恶和虚假在我看来，似乎就在我里面，来自我自己，也就是说，就好像是我自己想到了它们。但我知道它们是邪恶和虚假，所以就设法弄清是谁注入它们，然后查出做这事的人，并把他们赶走。这些人离我很远。这一切清楚表明，一切邪恶及其虚假都是从地狱流入的，一切良善及其真理都是从主流入的；两者都看似在人里面。
312. A person's own prudence leads him to persuade himself and affirm within him that all goodness and truth originate from him and in him, and likewise all evil and falsity. Let us make our argument using the analogy between natural goodness and truth and spiritual goodness and truth. What are truth and goodness, we ask, to the sight of the eye? Does the eye not see as true that which we call beautiful? And does it not see as good that which we call delightful? For it feels its delight in seeing beautiful sights.
What are truth and goodness to the ear? Does it not hear as true that which we call harmonious, and hear as good that which we call pleasing? For it feels its pleasure in hearing harmonies.
Likewise in the case of the other senses. It is apparent therefore what natural truth and goodness are.
Consider now what spiritual truth and goodness are. Is spiritual truth anything other than the beauty and harmony of spiritual matters and objects? And is spiritual goodness anything other than the delight and pleasure in perceiving their beauty and harmony?
[2] Let us see now whether something can be said of the one and not of the other, or of that which is spiritual and not of that which is natural. Of that which is natural we say that beauty and delight in the eye flow in from objects, and that harmony and pleasure in the ear flow in from musical instruments. Is it any different in the case of the organic substances of the mind? We say of the latter that these attributes are contained in them, and of the former that they flow in. But if you ask why we say that they flow in, the only possible answer is that it is because of the interval of space seen, whereas if you ask why we say in the other case that they are contained there, the only possible answer is that it is because no interval of space is seen - consequently that it is the appearance of an interval of space or lack of it which causes us to believe one thing in regard to what a person thinks and perceives, and another in regard to what he sees and hears.
But this notion collapses when it is known that something spiritual does not exist in an interval of space as something natural does. Think of the sun or moon, or of Rome or Constantinople. Are they not present in your thought without an interval of space, provided that the thought is not connected with an experience of them formed by sight or hearing? Why do you persuade yourself therefore that because an interval of space is not apparent in your thought, goodness and truth - and likewise evil and falsity - are contained there and do not flow in?
[3] Let me add to this an experience which is a common one in the spiritual world. One spirit can infuse his thoughts and affections into another spirit without the latter knowing that they are not the product of his own thought and affection. This is called in that world thinking from another and thinking in another. I have witnessed it a thousand times and also done it a hundred times. And yet the appearance of an interval of space was considerable. However, as soon as the spirits realized that it was someone else who injected those thoughts and affections, they became angry and turned away, yet acknowledging that no interval of space is apparent to their internal sight or thought, as it is to their outer sight or eye, unless it is disclosed, and for that reason is believed to flow in.
[4] To this experience I will add my own daily one. Evil spirits have often injected evils and falsities into my thought, and these evils and falsities have appeared to me to be in me and to be produced by me, as though I myself were thinking them. But because I realized that they were evils and falsities, I looked to see what spirits had injected them, and having discovered them drove them away, and they were at a considerable distance from me.
It can be seen from this that every evil with its accompanying falsity flows in from hell, while every good with its accompanying truth flows in from the Lord, and that both appear to be contained in the person.
312. 2. On the basis of our own prudence, we adopt and justify the conviction that we are the source and the locus of everything that is good and true as well as of everything that is evil and false. Let us try an argument by analogy, an analogy between what is good and true on the physical level and what is good and true on the spiritual level. We begin by asking what is true and good to our eyesight. To our eyes, is not something true when we call it beautiful, and good when we call it pleasing? We do feel pleasure at beautiful sights. What is true and good to our hearing? Is not something true when we call it harmonious and good when we call it sweet? We feel soothed by harmonious sounds; and it is much the same with our other senses. This shows what truth and goodness are on the physical level.
Now think about what is true and good on the spiritual level. Is spiritual truth anything but what is beautiful and harmonious in spiritual events and objects? Is spiritual good anything but what is pleasing and sweet in our sense of that beauty and harmony?
[2] Let us see, then, whether we can say anything about one that we cannot say about the other, anything about the spiritual that we cannot say about the physical. We say of what is physical that the beauty and pleasure in the eye are flowing in from the objects of vision, and that the harmony and sweetness in the ear are flowing in from the instruments. What else is true of the organic substances of our minds? We say that things are happening within these mental substances but that things are flowing into our physical organs; but if we ask, "Why are we saying that things are flowing in?" the only answer is that there seems to be a distance involved. Then if we ask, "Why are we saying that things are happening inside?" the only answer is that there is no perceptible distance involved. That is, it is the appearance of distance that inclines us to believe one thing about what we think and feel, and something else about what we see and hear.
All this collapses, though, when we realize that spirit is not involved in distance the way the material world is. Think of the sun and the moon or of Rome and Constantinople. Is there any distance between them in your thought? There is none as long as the thought is not tied to the experiences we have through sight and hearing. Then why do you convince yourself that what is good and true and what is evil and false are within you, not flowing in, simply because there is no perceptible distance involved in your thinking?
[3] I may add here an experience that is quite common in the spiritual world. One spirit can instill her or his own thoughts and desires into another spirit, and the other spirit is totally unaware that the thought and desire are not arising spontaneously. In the spiritual world they call this thinking in someone else or thinking from someone else. I have seen this a thousand times, and even in the hundreds of times I have done it the appearance of distance was clearly evident. However, as soon as people realized that someone else was instilling these thoughts and feelings, they became resentful and turned away, recognizing still that the distance would not have been perceptible in their inner sight or thought unless it had been unveiled to their inner sight or eye, so to speak. This enabled them to recognize that it was flowing in.
[4] I may append to this experience something that happens to me every day. Evil spirits are often inserting evil and false elements into my thoughts, things that seem to me to be within and from myself, as though I myself were thinking them. However, since I have realized that they were evil and false, I have asked who was inserting them. They have been unmasked and driven away, and they were at a considerable distance from me.
This shows that everything evil is flowing in with its falsity from hell, and that everything good is flowing in with its truth from the Lord, and that both seem to be within us.
312. II. MAN FROM HIS OWN PRUDENCE PERSUADES HIMSELF AND CONFIRMS THAT ALL GOOD AND TRUTH ORIGINATE FROM HIMSELF AND ARE IN HIMSELF AND IN LIKE MANNER ALL EVIL AND FALSITY. Suppose an argument instituted from the analogy between natural good and truth and spiritual good and truth. The question is asked: What are truth and good in the sight of the eye? Is not the truth there what is called beautiful and the good there what is called delightful? - for delight is felt in seeing beautiful things. Again, what are truth and good in the sense of hearing? Is not the truth there what is called harmonious, and the good there what is called pleasing? - for pleasure is felt in hearing harmonious sounds. It is the same with the other senses. Hence it is evident what natural truth and good are. Consider now what spiritual truth and good are. Is spiritual truth anything but the beauty and harmony of spiritual things and objects? Is spiritual good anything but the delight and pleasure derived from the perception of their beauty or their harmony?
[2] See now whether anything can be said of the one different from what may be said of the other, that is, of the spiritual different from what may be said of the natural. Of the natural it is said that the beauty and delight in the eye flow in from objects and that harmony and pleasure in the ear flow in from musical instruments. What is there different in the organic substances of the mind? It is said of the organic substances of the mind that beauty and delight are in them, but of the organs of the body that they flow into them; and if it is asked why it is said that they flow in, no other answer can be given than that there appears to be a distance between them, i.e., between the organs and what flows in. In the other case, if it is asked why it is said that they are in them, no other answer can be given than that there does not appear to be any distance between them. Consequently it is the appearance of distance that causes one kind of belief about what man thinks and perceives and another about what he sees and hears. This falls to the ground, however, when it is known that distance does not exist in the spiritual as it does in the natural. Think of the sun and moon, or of Rome and Constantinople: are they not in thought without distance between them, provided the thought is not united with experience acquired by sight or by hearing? Why then do you persuade yourself because distance does not appear in thought that good and truth, likewise evil and falsity, are there and do not flow in?
[3] To this I will add an experience common in the spiritual world. One spirit can infuse his thoughts and affections into another who is not aware that this is not an activity of his own thought and affection. This is called in that world thinking from and in another. I have seen it a thousand times and have also practised it a hundred times myself, and yet there was an appearance of considerable distance. As soon, however, as they learned that it was another who introduced those thoughts and affections they were angry and turned themselves away, thus confirming nevertheless that there is no appearance of distance in the internal thought or sight unless it is made manifest as it is to the external sight or the eye; 1and consequently it is believed that there is influx.
[4] To this I will add my own daily experience. Evil spirits have often introduced into my thoughts evils and falsities which seemed to me as if they were in myself and originating from myself, or as if I myself thought them. But knowing them to be evils and falsities I endeavoured to find out who had introduced them, and when these spirits were detected they were driven away; and they were at a considerable distance from me. Hence it may be evident that all evil with its falsity flows in from hell and that all good with its truth flows in from the Lord, and that they both appear as if they were in man.
Footnotes:
1. Original Edition and Tafel Latin edition (1855) have "visu interno." Worcester Latin edition (1899) changes to "externo," and is followed by translators generally.
312. (2) Man from his own prudence persuades himself and corroborates in himself that all good and truth are from himself and in himself; likewise all evil and falsity. Let an argument be drawn from the analogy between natural good and truth and spiritual good and truth. It is asked what the true and the good are in the sight of the eye? Is not the true there that which is called beautiful, and good there that which is called delightful? For delight is felt in seeing what is beautiful. What are the true and the good in the hearing? Is not the true there that which is called harmonious, and the good that which is called pleasing? for pleasure is felt in hearing harmonious sounds. So of the other senses. This makes clear what natural truth and good are. Consider now what spiritual truth and good are. Is spiritual truth any thing except the beautiful and harmonious in spiritual things and objects? And is spiritual good any thing except the delight and pleasure that are derived from what is perceived of their beauty or harmony?
[2] And now observe whether anything can be said of the one different from what may be said of the other, that is, of the spiritual different from what may be said of the natural. Of the natural it is said that beauty and delight flow from objects into the eye, and that what is harmonious and pleasing flows from musical instruments into the ear. What is there different in the organic substances of the mind? Of these it is said that their contents reside in them, of natural organs that they flow in. But if it is asked why they are said to flow in, there can be no other answer than that it is because there is a manifest distance between them. But why in the other case are they said to be contained in them? There can be no other answer than that it is because there is no manifest distance between them. Consequently it is the appearance of distance that causes one kind of belief about what man thinks and perceives and another about what he sees and hears. But this falls to the ground as soon as it is known that the spiritual is not in distance as the natural is. Think of the sun and the moon, or of Rome and Constantinople-in the thought is there any distance between them, provided this thought is not joined with experience acquired through sight or hearing? Why then persuade yourself that because there is no manifest distance in the thought, good and truth and also evil and falsity reside within and do not flow in?
[3] To this I will add this experience, which is common in the spiritual world. One spirit can infuse his thoughts and affections into another spirit, and the latter be unaware that it is not a part of his own thought and affection. This is there called thinking from another and thinking in another. I have seen this a thousand times, and I have myself done it a hundred times, even when there was an appearance of considerable distance. But as soon as they knew that another had introduced these thoughts and affections they were indignant and turned themselves away, acknowledging, however, that in the internal sight or the thought there is no appearance of distance, except when it is detected, as it may be by the external sight or the eye; and from that it may be believed that there is an inflowing.
[4] To this I will add my own daily experience. Evil spirits have often infused into my thoughts evils and falsities which appeared to me to be in me and from me, that is, as if I myself thought them; but as I knew them to be evils and falsities I tried to discover who had infused them, and they who did so were detected and driven away. These had been at a very great distance from me. All this makes clear that all evil with its falsity flows in from hell, and that all good with its truth flows in from the Lord, and that they both appear to be in man.
312. II. Quod homo ex prudentia propria persuadeat 1sibi, et confirmet apud se, quod omne bonum et verum sit a se et in se, similiter omne malum et falsum. Fiat argumentatio per analogiam inter bonum et verum naturale, ac bonum et verum spirituale: quaeritur, quid verum et bonum in visu oculi; annon id ibi est verum quod vocatur pulchrum, et ibi bonum quod vocatur jucundum, sentitur enim jucundum ex visis pulchris: quid verum et bonum in auditu; annon id ibi est verum quod vocatur harmonicum, et id ibi est bonum quod vocatur amaenum, sentitur enim amaenum ex auditis harmonicis; similiter in aliis sensibus; inde patet quid verum et bonum naturale: expendatur nunc quid verum et bonum spirituale; num verum spirituale est aliud quam pulchrum et harmonicum rerum et objectorum spiritualium; et num bonum spirituale est aliud quam jucundum et amaenum ex percepta illorum pulchritudine aut harmonia.
[2] Videatur nunc, num aliud dici possit de uno quam de altero, seu de spirituali quam de naturali; de naturali dicitur, quod pulchrum et jucundum in oculo influant ex objectis, et quod harmonicum et amaenum in aure influant ex instrumentis; quid aliud est in substantiis organicis mentis; dicitur de his quod illa insint, et de illis quod influant; sed si quaeritur, cur dicitur quod influant, non aliud responderi potest quam quia distantia apparet; at cur dicitur quod insint, non aliud responderi potest quam quia distantia non apparet; consequenter, quod apparentia [vel non apparentia] distantiae sit quae facit, quod credatur aliud de illis quae homo cogitat et percipit, quam de illis quae videt et audit: sed hoc cadit, dum scitur quod spirituale non sit in distantia sicut est naturale; cogita de sole et luna, aut de Roma et Constantinopoli; annon sunt in cogitatione absque distantia, modo cogitatio illa non conjungitur cum experientia facta per visum aut per auditum; cur itaque persuades tibi, quod quia distantia in cogitatione non apparet, bonum et verum, ut et malum et falsum sint ibi, et non influant.
[3] Addam his experientiam, quae in Mundo spirituali communis est; potest unus spiritus infundere suas cogitationes et affectiones in alterum spiritum, et hic non scit aliter, quam quod id sit suae propriae cogitationis et affectionis; hoc vocatur ibi cogitare ex alio et cogitare in alio; hoc millies vidi, et quoque centies ego feci; et tamen apparentia distantiae fuit insignis; ast ut primum sciverunt, quod alius esset qui intulit cogitationes et affectiones illas, indignati sunt, et se averterunt, agnoscentes tamen quod distans non appareat in visu interno seu cogitatione, nisi detegatur, sicut in visu externo 2seu oculo, et quod inde credatur quod influat.
[4] Huic experientiae quotidianam meam adjiciam; spiritus mali saepius in meam cogitationem injecerunt mala et falsa, quae apud me apparuerunt sicut in me et a me essent, seu quod ipse cogitarem illa, sed quia novi quod mala et falsa essent, inquisivi quinam illa injecerunt, ac detecti et abacti sunt, et erant in eximia a me distantia. Ex his constare potest, quod omne malum cum ejus falso influat ab inferno, ac omne bonum cum ejus vero influat a Domino, et quod utrumque appareat sicut in homine.
Footnotes:
1 Prima editio: persvadeat
2 Prima editio: interno