1999. Abram fell upon his faces. ¹ That this signifies adoration, is evident without explication. To fall upon the face was a rite of adoration in the Most Ancient Church, and thence in that of the Ancients, for the reason that the face signified the interiors, and the state of their humiliation was represented by falling upon the face; hence in the Jewish representative church it became a customary ceremonial. True adoration, or humiliation of heart, carries with it prostration to the earth upon the face before the Lord, as a gesture naturally flowing from it. For in humiliation of heart there is the acknowledgment of self as being nothing but filthiness, and at the same time the acknowledgment of the Lord’s infinite mercy toward that which is such; and when the mind is kept in these two acknowledgments, the very mind droops in lowliness toward hell, and prostrates the body; nor does it uplift itself until it is uplifted by the Lord. This takes place in all true humiliation, with a perception of being uplifted by the Lord’s mercy. Such was the humiliation of the men of the Most Ancient Church; but very different is the case with that adoration which comes not from humiliation of the heart. (See n. 1153.)

[2] That the Lord adored and prayed to Jehovah His Father, is known from the Word of the Gospels; and also that He did so as if to one different from Himself, although Jehovah was in Him. But the state in which the Lord was at these times was His state of humiliation, the nature of which has been stated in Part First, namely, that He was then in the infirm human that was from the mother; but insofar as He put this off, and put on the Divine, He was in another state, which is called His state of glorification. In the former state He adored Jehovah as one different from Himself, although in Himself; for, as has been said, His internal was Jehovah; but in the latter, that is, in His state of glorification, He spoke with Jehovah as with Himself, for He was Jehovah Himself.

[3] But how the case is with these matters cannot be apprehended unless it is known what the internal is, and how the internal acts into the external; and further, in what manner the internal and the external are distinct from each other, and yet are conjoined. This, however, may be illustrated by something that is similar, namely, by the internal in man, and by its influx and operation into the external. That man has an internal, an interior or rational, and an external, may be seen above (n. 1889, 1940). Man’s internal is that from which he is man, and by which he is distinguished from brute animals. By means of this internal he lives after death, and to eternity a man, and by means of it he can be uplifted by the Lord among the angels. This internal is the very first form from which a man becomes and is man, and by means of it the Lord is united to man. The very heaven that is nearest the Lord is composed of these human internals; but this is above even the inmost angelic heaven, and therefore these internals belong to the Lord Himself. By this means the whole human race is most present under the Lord’s eyes, for there is no distance in heaven, such as appears in the sublunary world, and still less is there any distance above heaven. (See what is said from experience, n. 1275, 1277.)

[4] These internals of men have no life in themselves, but are forms recipient of the Lord’s life. Insofar therefore as a man is in evil, whether actual or hereditary, so far has he been as it were separated from this internal which is the Lord’s and with the Lord, and thereby so far has he been separated from the Lord; for although this internal has been adjoined to man, and is inseparable from him, nevertheless insofar as he recedes from the Lord, so far he as it were separates himself from it. (See n. 1594.) But the separation is not an absolute sundering from it, for then the man could no longer live after death; but it is a dissent and disagreement on the part of those faculties of his which are below, that is, of his rational and of his external man. Insofar as there is dissent and disagreement, there is disjunction from the Lord; but insofar as there is not dissent and disagreement, the man is conjoined with the Lord through the internal, which takes place insofar as the man is in love and charity, for love and charity conjoin. Such is the case with man.

[5] But the Lord’s internal was Jehovah Himself, because He was conceived from Jehovah, who cannot be divided and become another’s, as is the case with a son who is conceived from a human father; for the Divine is not divisible, like the human, but is and remains one and the same. To this internal the Lord united the Human Essence; and because the Lord’s internal was Jehovah, it was not a form recipient of life, like the internal of man, but was life itself. His Human Essence also in like manner was made life by the unition, on which account the Lord so often said that He is Life, as in John:

As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26); besides other passages in the same gospel (John 1:4; 5:21; 6:33, 35, 48; 11:25).

Insofar therefore as the Lord was in the human which He received by inheritance from the mother, so far did He appear distinct from Jehovah and adore Jehovah as one different from Himself. But insofar as the Lord put off this human, He was not distinct from Jehovah, but was one with Him. The former state, as before said, was the Lord’s state of humiliation; but the latter was His state of glorification.

Mga talababa:

1594. And they were separated, a man from his brother. That this signifies that those things cause the separation, follows from what has been said. What “a man, a brother” signifies was stated above at verse 8, namely, union; and therefore “to be separated, a man from his brother,” signifies disunion. What disunites the external man from the internal, man knows not, and this for many reasons. It is partly owing to his not knowing, or if told, to his not believing, that there is any internal man; and partly to his not knowing, or if told, to his not believing, that the love of self and its cupidities are what cause the disunion; and also the love of the world and its cupidities, but not so much as the love of self.

[2] The reason why man does not know, and if told, does not believe, that there is an internal man, is that he lives in corporeal and sensuous things, which cannot possibly see what is interior. Interior things can see what is exterior, but never exterior things what is interior. Take the case of sight: the internal sight can see what the external sight is; but the external sight cannot see what the internal sight is; or again, the intellectual and the rational can perceive what the faculty of memory-knowledge is, but not the reverse. A further cause is that man does not believe that there is a spirit which is separated from the body at death; and scarcely that there is an internal life which is called the soul; for when the sensuous and corporeal man thinks about the separation of the spirit from the body, it strikes him as an impossible thing, because he places life in the body, and confirms himself in this idea from the fact that brute animals also live, but still do not live after death; besides many other things. All this is a consequence of his living in corporeal and sensuous things; which kind of life, viewed in itself, scarcely differs from the life of brute animals, with the single exception that a man has ability to think and reason about the things he meets with; but upon this faculty, which brute animals have not, he does not then reflect.

[3] This cause, however, is not what most disunites the external man from the internal, for a very great part of mankind are in such unbelief, and the most learned more than the simple. But what disunites is principally the love of self; the love of the world, also, but not so much as the love of self. The reason why man does not know this is that he lives in no charity, and when he is living in no charity it cannot be apparent to him that a life of the love of self and its cupidities is so contrary to heavenly love. There is also in the love of self and its cupidities something glowing, and consequently delightful, which so affects the life that the man hardly knows otherwise than that therein consists eternal happiness itself; and therefore many place eternal happiness in becoming great after the life of the body, and in being served by others, even by angels; while they themselves desire to serve no one, except for the sake of self, with a hidden view to being served themselves. Their saying that they desire to serve the Lord alone is false, for they who are in the love of self desire to have even the Lord serve them, and so far as this is not done they fall back. Thus they carry in their heart the desire to become lords themselves, and to reign over the universe. It is easy to conceive what kind of government this would be, when many, nay, when all, were like this. Is not that government infernal in which everyone loves himself more than any other? This lies hidden in the love of self. From this we can see the nature of the love of self, and we can see it also from the fact that there is concealed within it hatred against all who do not subject themselves to it as slaves; and because there is hatred, there are also revenge, cruelties, deceits, and many other wicked things.

[4] But mutual love, which alone is heavenly, consists in a man’s not only saying of himself, but acknowledging and believing, that he is utterly unworthy, and that he is something vile and filthy, which the Lord from His infinite mercy continually withdraws and holds back from hell, into which the man continually strives, nay longs, to precipitate himself. His acknowledging and believing this, is because it is true; not that the Lord, or any angel, desires him to acknowledge and believe it for the sake of his submission; but that he may not exalt himself, seeing that he is even such; for this would be as if excrement should call itself pure gold, or a fly of the dunghill should say that it is a bird of paradise. So far therefore as a man acknowledges and believes himself to be such as he really is, he recedes from the love of self and its cupidities, and abhors himself. So far as he does this, he receives heavenly love from the Lord, that is, mutual love, which consists in the desire to serve all. These are they who are meant by “the least,” who become in the Lord’s kingdom the greatest (see Matthew 20:26-28; Luke 9:46-48).

[5] From what has been said we can see that what principally disjoins the external man from the internal is the love of self; and that what principally unites them is mutual love, which love is never possible until the love of self recedes, for these are altogether contrary to each other. The internal man is nothing else than mutual love. Man’s very spirit or soul is the interior man that lives after death; and it is organic, for it is adjoined to the body while the man is living in this world. This interior man, that is, the soul or spirit, is not the internal man; but the internal man is in it when mutual love is in it. The things that are of the internal man are the Lord’s; so that it may be said that the internal man is the Lord. But because to an angel or a man while he lives in mutual love, the Lord gives a heavenly Own, so that it appears no otherwise than that he does what is good of himself, the internal man is predicated of man, as if it were his. But he who is in mutual love acknowledges and believes that all that is good and true is not his, but the Lord’s; and his ability to love another as himself-and what is more, if he is like the angels, his ability to love another more than himself-he acknowledges and believes to be the Lord’s gift; from which gift and its happiness he recedes, so far as he recedes from the acknowledgment that it is the Lord’s.