A letter by Sri Aurobindo to a fanatic Muslim (which could equally have been written to a fanatic Christian, Jew, or Hindu). Plus: remembering Janina Stroka and Heinz Kappes
“[The third form] continues to receive all things, and never itself takes a permanent impress from any of the things that enter it; it is a kind of neutral plastic material on which changing impressions are stamped by the things which enter it, making it appear different at different times. [..]
We may indeed use the metaphor of birth and compare the receptacle to the mother, the model to the father, and what they produce between them to their offspring; and we may notice that, if an imprint is to present a very complex appearance, the material on which it is to be stamped will not have been properly prepared unless it is devoid of all the characters which it is to receive. For if it were like any of the things that enter it, it would badly distort any impression of a contrary or entirely different nature when it received it, as its own features would shine through. So anything that is to receive in itself every kind of character must be devoid of all character.”
Thanks, Adrian. Who translated this? I have so far used the translations by Francis M. Cornford. In his translation of the Timaeus (Routledge 1935), this passage (the second part) reads:
Indeed we may fittingly compare the Recipient to a mother, the model to a father, and the nature that arises between them to their offspring. Further we must observe that, if there is to be an impress presenting all diversities of aspect, the thing itself in which the impress comes to be situated, cannot have been duly prepared unless it is free from all those characters which it is to receive from elsewhere. For if it were like anyone of the things that come in upon it, then, when things of contrary or entirely different nature came, in receiving them it would reproduce them badly, intruding its own features alongside. Hence that which is to receive in itself all kinds must be free from all characters...
It is indeed a most fascinating text. Sri Aurobindo once wrote in a letter: “[Plato] was trying to express in a mental way the One containing the multiplicity which is brought out (created) from the One — that is the Overmind realisation. Plato had these ideas not as realisations but as intuitions which he expressed in his own mental form.”
He also wrote that “Plato was a great writer as well as a philosopher — no more perfect prose has been written by any man. In some of his books his prose carries in it the qualities of poetry and his thought has poetic vision.”
However, he also wrote: “I read more than once Plato’s Republic and Symposium, but only extracts from his other writings” — and this mostly during his student days in England.
Thank you (more than) as always for this.
“[The third form] continues to receive all things, and never itself takes a permanent impress from any of the things that enter it; it is a kind of neutral plastic material on which changing impressions are stamped by the things which enter it, making it appear different at different times. [..]
We may indeed use the metaphor of birth and compare the receptacle to the mother, the model to the father, and what they produce between them to their offspring; and we may notice that, if an imprint is to present a very complex appearance, the material on which it is to be stamped will not have been properly prepared unless it is devoid of all the characters which it is to receive. For if it were like any of the things that enter it, it would badly distort any impression of a contrary or entirely different nature when it received it, as its own features would shine through. So anything that is to receive in itself every kind of character must be devoid of all character.”
(Plato, Timaeus, 18/50-51, p.69, 340BC. Read yesterday.)
Thanks, Adrian. Who translated this? I have so far used the translations by Francis M. Cornford. In his translation of the Timaeus (Routledge 1935), this passage (the second part) reads:
Indeed we may fittingly compare the Recipient to a mother, the model to a father, and the nature that arises between them to their offspring. Further we must observe that, if there is to be an impress presenting all diversities of aspect, the thing itself in which the impress comes to be situated, cannot have been duly prepared unless it is free from all those characters which it is to receive from elsewhere. For if it were like anyone of the things that come in upon it, then, when things of contrary or entirely different nature came, in receiving them it would reproduce them badly, intruding its own features alongside. Hence that which is to receive in itself all kinds must be free from all characters...
It is indeed a most fascinating text. Sri Aurobindo once wrote in a letter: “[Plato] was trying to express in a mental way the One containing the multiplicity which is brought out (created) from the One — that is the Overmind realisation. Plato had these ideas not as realisations but as intuitions which he expressed in his own mental form.”
He also wrote that “Plato was a great writer as well as a philosopher — no more perfect prose has been written by any man. In some of his books his prose carries in it the qualities of poetry and his thought has poetic vision.”
However, he also wrote: “I read more than once Plato’s Republic and Symposium, but only extracts from his other writings” — and this mostly during his student days in England.