DISCUSSION 221 



is inseparably connected with them. I emphasised 

 this point in my second lecture (p. 35). This 

 immanent directive principle is not some vague, 

 mystical thing, hovering at some remote height, 

 nor is it something supernatural we ought to have 

 advanced beyond preconceived ideas of this kind 

 but it is something quite natural, it is the original 

 constitution of the germ in question. If we require 

 a formal principle for it, it is united with the same 

 material substance so as to constitute one single ens, 

 it is not anything supernatural such expressions 

 are merely phrases that ought to be set aside. 



On one point I must acknowledge Professor 

 Plate to be quite right. He called the world a vale 

 of tears, and I agree with him that it is so, but I 

 think it is the fault, not of Almighty God, but 

 chiefly of mankind ! (Laughter.) 



I must now refer to another topic, viz. to the con 

 flicting principles of Theism and Monism. Here, too, 

 misunderstandings have arisen which led to serious 

 results in the case of my first opponent, as well as 

 in that of subsequent speakers. I thought that I 

 had expressed myself in the plainest language 

 possible in my second lecture, but the old misunder 

 standings constantly recur. I wish that I could 

 succeed in removing them once for all. Theism 

 does not represent Almighty God as being con 

 stantly employed in keeping the machinery of the 

 universe in motion. We regard God simply as the 

 origin of the natural order, as the Creator of the world, 



