I And Thou

from I, or that this being is merged in God; by the
second, that the being takes its stand directly in itself
as though it were in the divine One. That is, by the
first way, in a supreme moment the saying of the Thou
ceases, for there is no more twofold being, and by the
second the saying of the Thou does not in truth exist at
all, for there is in truth no twofold being : the first way
believes in the unification, the second in the identification
of the human with the divine. Both assert a state that
is beyond I and Thou, the first—as in ecstasy—one that
becomes, the second—as in the self-observation of the
tKnkhig subject—one that is and that reveals itself.
Both abolish relation, the first as it were dynamically,
through the swallowing up of the I by the Thou—
which is, however, no longer 3Lhou, but that which alone
is—and the second as it were statically through the self-
- recognition of the 7, which has been freed andhas become
the Self, as that which alone is. If the doctrine of depend-
ence considers the / that bears the span of pure relation
in the world to be so weak and empty that its ability
to bear it is no longer credible, the one doctrine of
absorption causes the span of relation to disappear at
its consummation, the other treats it as a delusion to be
overcome.
The doctrines of absorption appeal to the great
sayings of identification, the one above all to the Johan-
nine " I and the Father are one ", the other to the teaching
of Sandilya : " The all-embracing, this is my Self in
my very heart".
The ways these sayings lead are opposed to one another.
The first arises (after a subterranean course) in the life
of a person of mythical proportions and advances to
84