We men know very little a priori, and have our senses to thank for nearly all our knowledge. Through experience we know only appearances ..., but not the modum noumenon ..., not things as they are in themselves.... God knows all things as they are in themselves a priori and immediately through an intuitive understanding.... If we were to flatter ourselves so much as to claim that we know the modum noumenon, then we would have to be in community with God so as to participate immediately in the divine ideas. To expect this in the present life is the business of mystics and theosophists. Thus arises the mystical self- annihilation of China, Tibet, and India, in which one is under the delusion that he will finally be dissolved in the Godhead. Fundamentally Spinozism could just as well be called a great fanaticism as a form of atheism. For of God, the one substance, Spinoza affirms two predicates: extension and thought. Every soul, he says, is only a modification of God's thought, and every body is a modification of his extension. Thus Spinoza assumed that everything existing could be found in God. But by making this assumption he fell into crude contradictions. For if only a single substance exists, then either I must be this substance, and consequently I must be God (but this contradicts my dependency); or else I am an accident (but this contradicts the concept of my ego, in which I think myself as an ultimate subject which is not the predicate of any other being).
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), German philosopher. Lectures on Philosophical Theology, First Part, Second Section (Cosmotheology), p. 86, trans. by Allen W. Wood and Gertrude M. Clark, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press (1978).
This passage shows that like his contemporaries, Kant adopted Bayle's over-generalization of all oriental religions. He also accepted Bayle's distortion of Spinoza's philosophy as well as its identification with oriental mysticism.