1nCnVqgFI

direction of their metaphysical dimension.
SPINOZA AND LEIBNITZ. 689
After having lost sight of them in the
world of space, the mind has, as it were, to dive into a metaphysical world to find
and grasp the real essence of what appears in space merely as a mathematical point.
. . . As a cone stands on its point, or a perpendicular straight line cuts a horizontal
plane only in one mathematical point, but may extend infinitely in height
and depth, so the essences of things real have only a punctual existence in this
physical world of space;
world of thought.*
but have an infinite depth of inner life in the metaphysical
This is the spirit, the very root of Occult doctrine and thought.
The "Spirit-Matter" and "Matter-Spirit" extend infinitely in depth,
and like the "essence of things" of Leibnitz, our essence of things real
is at the seventh depth ; while the unreal and gross matter of Science
and the external world, is at the lowest extreme of our perceptive
senses. The Occultist knows the worth or worthlessness of the
latter.
The student must now be shown the fundamental distinction between
the sj'stem of Leibnitz f and that of Occult Philosophj^ on the question
of the Monads, and this ma}- be done with his Monadologie before us.
It may be correctly stated that were Leibnitz' and Spinoza's systems
reconciled, the essence and spirit of Esoteric Philosophy would be
made to appear. From the shock of the two—as opposed to the
Cartesian system—emerge the truths of the Archaic Doctrine. Both
oppose the Metaphysics of Descartes. His idea of the contrast of
two Substances—Extension and Thought—radically differing from
each other and mutually irreducible, is too arbitrary and too unphilosophical
for them. Thus Leibnitz made of the two Cartesian
Substances two attributes of one universal Unit)^ in which he saw
God. Spinoza recognized but one universal indivisible Substance, an
absolute All, like Parabrahman. Leibnitz, on the contrary, perceived
the existence of a plurality of Substances. There was but
One for Spinoza; for Leibnitz an infinitude of Beings, from, and in,
the One. Hence, though both admitted but Oiie Real Ejility, while
Spinoza made it impersonal and indivisible, Leibnitz divided his
personal Deity into a number of divine and semi-divine Beings.
Spinoza was a siibjective, Leibnitz an objective Pantheist, yet both
were great Philosophers in their intuitive perceptions.
Now, if these two teachings were blended together and each cor-
• Ibid., p. 144.
+ The orthography of the name— as spelt by himself—is Leibniz. He was of Slavonian descent
though born in Germany.
43