The Hermetic Teachings are to the effect that the all is Imminent in ("remaining within; inherent; abiding within”) its Universe, and in every part, particle, unit, or combination, within the Universe.  This statement is usually illustrated by the Teachers by a reference to the Principle of Correspondence.  The Teacher instructs the student to form a Mental Image of something, a person, an idea, something having a mental form, the favorite example being that of the author or dramatist forming an idea of his characters; or a painter or sculptor forming an image of an ideal that he wishes to express by his art.  In each case, the student will find that while the image has its existence, and being, solely within his own mind, yet he, the student, author, dramatist, painter, or sculptor, is, in a sense, immanent in; remaining within; or abiding within, the mental image also.  In other words, the entire virtue, life, spirit, of reality in the mental image is derived from the “immanent mind” of the thinker.  Consider this for a moment, until the idea is grasped.

To take a modern example, let us say that Othello, Iago, Hamlet, Lear, Richard III, existed merely in the mind of Shakespeare, at the time of their conception or creation.  And yet, Shakespeare also existed within each of these characters, giving them their vitality, spirit, and action.  Whose is the “spirit” of the characters that we know as Micawber, Oliver Twist, Uriah Heep—­is it Dickens, or have each of these characters a personal spirit, independent of their creator?  Have the Venus of Medici, the Sistine Madonna, the Apollo Belvidere, spirits and reality of their own, or do they represent the spiritual and mental power of their creators?  The Law of Paradox explains that both propositions are true, viewed from the proper viewpoints.  Micawber is both Micawber, and yet Dickens.  And, again, while Micawber may be said to be Dickens, yet Dickens is not identical with Micawber.  Man, like Micawber, may exclaim:  “The Spirit of my Creator is inherent within me—­ and yet I am not he!” How different this from the shocking half-truth so vociferously announced by certain of the half-wise, who fill the air with their raucous cries of:  “I am God!” Imagine poor Micawber, or the sneaky Uriah Heep, crying:  “I Am Dickens”; or some of the lowly clods in one of Shakespeare’s plays, eloquently announcing that:  “I Am Shakespeare!” The all is in the earthworm, and yet the earth-worm is far from being the all.  And still the wonder remains, that though the earth-worm exists merely as a lowly thing, created and having its being solely within the Mind of the all—­yet the all is immanent in the earthworm, and in the particles that go to make up the earth-worm.  Can there be any greater mystery than this of “All in the all; and the all in All?”