241# 内义（14-19节）
上古之人是属天的人，他们看到世上或地上任何事物时，眼睛的确见到，但心思所想的却是这些事物所象征或代表的属天和神性的事物。他们的视觉仅作为一种工具，说话也因此就这样了。如今我们每个人都能从自己的经验中体会它是怎样的：当我们专注于说话者所说的词汇意义，我们确实听到了话语，但似乎并没有真的听进去，只是捕捉了它的意思。而对于那些更加深入挖掘的人来说，他们并不太关注于词语的意思，而是更关注于言语背后的普遍性。
我们现在讨论的这些后代与他们的先辈有所不同。当他们观察世俗和地上的事物时，喜爱上这些东西，用心去思考它们，甚至从这些事物中思索关于天堂和神的事情。于是，他们开始将感官看作首要的，而与他们的祖先不同，对于祖先来说感官只是一种手段。当世俗和地上的事物变得至关重要时，他们便开始基于这些事物来推测关于天堂的事情，从而导致自己的迷惑和盲目。现今我们每个人都可以通过自己的经验来了解这种情况。对于那些不专注说话者话语的深层意义，而只专注于话语字句的人，他们往往很难完全理解其真正的意思。有时，他们甚至可能仅凭一个词或一个语法细节来判断某人所说的全部内容。
241、上古之人因是属天人，故天性是这样：他们的确用肉眼看见了他们在世界和地面上所看到的一切物体，但他们的思维却专注于这些物体所表示或代表的天上和神性事物。他们的肉体视觉仅仅是工具，因此他们的言语也是工具。谁都能从亲身经验知道这是怎么回事，因为一个人若把注意力转向说话者话里的意思，虽然听见了他的话，但也可以说没有听见。他只理解这些话的意思。思考得更深刻的人甚至都不关注话里的意思，只关注它们更全面的意思。然而，此处所论述的上古教会的这一代后裔不像他们的祖先，因为他们看见世界和地面上的物体就喜欢，因此，他们的心智专注在它们上面。他们思想这些物体，并从它们思想天上和神性的事物。就这样，感官之物在他们那里开始成了主要的，而不是像在他们的祖先那里一样只是工具。当属世界和大地之物成了主要的时，人们就由此推理天堂的事物，从而变瞎。谁都能从亲身经验知道这一切是怎么回事；因为一个不关注说话者话里的意思，而是关注这些话本身的人几乎不明白这些话的意思，更不用说更全面的意思了；有时他单凭一句话，甚至一个语法的使用就判定一个人所说的一切话。
New Century Edition
Cooper(2008,2013)
[NCE]241. Inner Meaning
THE earliest people, who were heavenly, did actually see everything they looked at on earth and in the world around them, but their thoughts were devoted to the heavenly or divine attribute it symbolized or represented.{*1} Vision was just a means. So their manner of speaking reflected the same trait.
We can all see what that trait was like from our own experience. When we pay close attention to the meaning of a speaker's words, we hear the words, but it is as if we do not. We seem to catch only the meaning. One who thinks more profoundly does not even notice the meaning of the words but something more universal within.
Ensuing generations of the earliest church, however — the ones discussed in the present verses — were not like their forebears. They loved the worldly and earthly realm, so when they looked at it, their minds clung to it. Their thoughts about this realm were the starting point for their thoughts about the things of heaven and of God. In this way the sensory experience came to be the primary force, not the mere tool it was for their predecessors. And when the worldly and earthly realm becomes the primary force, people base their reasoning about heavenly matters on it and blind themselves.
Our own experience can again show us what this method was like. When we fail to pay attention to the meaning of a speaker's words but concentrate on the words themselves, we gather little of the meaning and still less of any universal significance within the meaning. Sometimes from a single word, or even from a single point of grammar, we leap to judgment about the whole of a speaker's message.
Footnotes:
{*1} On the difference between "symbolism" and "representation" in Swedenborg's theology, see note 3 in 4. [LHC]
Potts(1905-1910) 241
241. THE INTERNAL SENSE The most ancient people, being celestial men, were so constituted that every object they beheld in the world or upon the face of the earth, they indeed saw, but they thought about the heavenly and Divine things the objects signified or represented. Their sight was merely an instrumental agency, and so consequently was their speech. Anyone may know how this was from his own experience, for if he attends closely to the meaning of a speaker's words, he does indeed hear the words, but is as if he did not hear them, taking in only the sense; and one who thinks more deeply does not attend even to the sense of the words, but to a more universal sense. But the posterities that are here treated of were not like their fathers, for when they beheld the objects in the world and on the face of the earth, as they loved them, their minds cleaved to them, and they thought about them, and from them about things heavenly and Divine. Thus with them what is sensuous began to be the principal, and not as with their fathers the instrumental. And when that which is of the world and of the earth becomes the principal, then men reason from this about the things of heaven, and so blind themselves. How this is may also be known by anyone from his own experience; for he who attends to the words of a speaker, and not to the sense of the words, takes in but little of the sense, and still less of the universal import of the sense, and sometimes judges of all that a man says from a single word, or even from a grammatical peculiarity.
Elliott(1983-1999) 241
241. The most ancient people, who were celestial, were by nature such that they did actually see with their eyes whatever objects they beheld in the world or on earth, but their thoughts were focused on the heavenly and Divine things which those objects meant and represented. Their physical sight was only something instrumental, and so consequently was their speech. Anyone may recognize the nature of this from his own experience, for a person who directs his attention to the sense of the words a speaker uses does indeed hear his words, but so to speak does not hear them. He grasps only the sense of them. And anyone who thinks more profoundly does not pay attention even to the sense of the words, only to their fuller implications. This generation of the descendants of the Most Ancient Church, however, who are the subject now, were not like their forefathers when they beheld worldly and earthly objects. Because they loved these objects, their minds were fixed on them. They thought about them, and from them thought about heavenly and Divine things. In this way the sensory part began to be the principal, and not, as it had been with their forefathers, the instrumental. And when the worldly and the earthly become the principal, people reason about heavenly things and blind themselves. The nature of this also anyone can recognize from his own experience; for a person who pays no attention to the sense of the speaker's words but to the words themselves grasps very little of their sense, still less any fuller implications; and sometimes he relies on a single expression or even one grammatical usage to determine the whole of what somebody is saying.
Latin(1748-1756) 241
241. SENSUS INTERNUSAntiquissimi; qui caelestes, tales erant ut quicquid usquam vidissent in mundo et in terra, quidem videbant, sed cogitabant de caelestibus et Divinis quae significarent vel repraesentarent; visus eorum erat solum instrumentale quid, inde loquela eorum talis: quisque ex propria experientia scire potest quale fuerit; qui enim ad sensum vocum loquentis attente advertit, is voces quidem audit sed quasi non audit, sensum modo capit; et qui altius cogitat, ne quidem ad sensum vocum attendit sed ad universaliora sensus. Hae autem posteritates de quibus nunc agitur, non erant sicut patres eorum cum videbant mundana et terrestria; quia ea amabant, inhaerebant mente et de iis cogitabant et ex iis de caelestibus et Divinis; sic iis sensuale coepit esse principale, non ut patribus eorum, instrumentale; cumque mundanum et terrestre fit principale, tunc ex iis ratiocinantur de caelestibus, et se occaecant. Quisque quoque ex propria experientia scire potest quale sit; qui enim non ad sensum vocum loquentis attendit sed ad voces, is parum de sensu capit, minus de universali sensus, et judicat quandoque ex una voce, immo ex uno grammaticali, de omnibus iis quae quis loquitur.