理性与宗教
本译文由人工智能辅助工具生成，可能存在不准确之处。如需查阅权威文本，请参考英文原文。
AI-translated. May contain errors. For accurate text, refer to the original English.
中文
1→理性与宗教 2→ 3→（在英国演讲） 4→ 5→有一位名叫那罗陀（Nârada）的圣贤，前往另一位名叫萨纳特库玛拉（Sanatkumâra）的圣贤处求学真理。萨纳特库玛拉询问他此前已学习了哪些知识，那罗陀答曰：他已研习了吠陀（Vedas）、天文学及种种其他学问，然而尚未得到满足。于是两人之间展开了一番对话，其间萨纳特库玛拉指出：一切关于吠陀、天文学及哲学的知识，不过是次要的知识；诸般科学皆属次要。唯有能使我们证悟梵（Brahman）的知识，方为至高、最崇的知识。这一观念在每一种宗教中都可以找到，这正是为何宗教始终自称为最高知识的缘由。科学知识涵盖的，可以说不过是我们生命的一部分，而宗教带给我们的知识，却如同它所宣扬的真理那般，是永恒的、无限的。正因自诩这种优越性，宗教多次不幸地俯视一切世俗知识，不仅如此，而且往往拒绝接受世俗知识的验证与辩护。由此，世界各地均爆发了世俗知识与宗教知识之间的冲突：一方手持无误权威作为向导，拒绝倾听世俗知识就此发表的任何言论；另一方则挥舞着理性这件锋利的器械，意图将宗教所能提出的一切化为碎片。这场争斗在每一个国家都曾上演，且仍在持续。宗教一次又一次地落败，几近被铲除殆尽。法国大革命期间对理性女神的崇拜，并非人类历史上这一现象的第一次显现，而是古代事件的重演，只不过在现代呈现出更大的规模。如今，自然科学的装备远比从前精良，而宗教的装备则日益简陋。根基已被彻底动摇，现代人无论在公开场合说些什么，都在内心深处清楚地知道，他再也无法"信仰"了。相信某些事情，仅仅因为一个有组织的祭司团体告诉他去相信；相信，仅仅因为书中这样写着；相信，仅仅因为他的族人希望他相信——现代人知道，这对他而言已不再可能。当然，有不少人似乎默许所谓的大众信仰，但我们同样可以确知：他们根本没有在思考。他们对信仰的态度，或许更准确地应被译为"不加思考的漫不经心"。这场争斗若不能及早得到妥善解决，必将把一切宗教的建筑撞击得粉碎。 6→ 7→问题在于：是否有一条出路？将其表述得更具体一些：宗教是否应当以理性的发现来为自身辩护，就像其他一切科学以此方式为自身辩护那样？那些用于探究外部科学与知识的同一方法，是否也应被运用于宗教科学？依我之见，答案是肯定的，而且我认为，越早付诸实践越好。若一种宗教在这样的探究下被摧毁，那它此前一直不过是无益的、不值一提的迷信；越早消亡越好。我深信，其消亡将是可能发生的最好之事。一切糟粕无疑将被剔除，但宗教的本质部分将从这番探究中胜利浮现。它不仅将变得科学——至少与物理学或化学的任何结论同样科学——而且将拥有更大的力量，因为物理学或化学没有内在的凭证来担保其真理，而宗教却有。 7→ 7→那些否认理性探究之于宗教有效性的人们，在我看来，似乎有某种自相矛盾之处。例如，基督徒声称其宗教是唯一真实的，因为它被启示给了某某人。穆斯林对其宗教提出同样的主张：他的宗教是唯一真实的，因为它被启示给了某某人。但基督徒对穆斯林说："你们的伦理中有某些部分似乎并不正确。例如，你们的书中说，我的穆斯林朋友，异教徒可以被强制改宗穆罕默德的宗教，若他不肯接受，便可被杀害；任何穆斯林杀死这样的异教徒，无论他曾有何种罪过，都将稳获进入天堂的资格。"穆斯林则反驳说："我这样做是正当的，因为我的书如此命令。若我不这样做，才是错误的。"基督徒说："但我的书不是这样说的。"穆斯林答道："我不知道；我不受你的书的权威约束；我的书说，'杀死所有异教徒'。你怎么知道哪个是对的，哪个是错的？我的书中所写的当然是对的，而你的书所说的'不可杀人'是错的。你也是这样说的，我的基督徒朋友；你说耶和华命令犹太人去做的事是对的，他禁止他们做的事是错的。我也这样说：安拉在我的书中宣示某些事应当做，某些事不应当做，这便是一切善恶是非的判准。"尽管如此，基督徒仍不满足；他坚持要比较《山上宝训》的道德标准与《古兰经》的道德标准。这如何裁断？当然不能依靠两部书，因为书籍相互争斗，本身无法成为裁判。所以我们必然要承认，存在某种比这些书更为普遍的东西，某种高于世界上所有伦理准则的东西，某种能够在不同民族的灵感启示之间作出裁断的东西。无论我们是否明确、清楚地宣示——在这里，我们显然诉诸的是理性。 9→ 9→那么，问题来了：这理性之光是否能够在启示与启示之间作出裁断？当争端在先知与先知之间发生时，这道理性之光是否能够维护其标准？它是否有能力去理解任何宗教之事？若理性没有这种能力，则那旷日持久、延续了无数世代的书籍与先知之争将毫无希望地持续下去，无法解决——因为这意味着所有宗教不过是谎言，毫无定论，缺乏任何稳固的伦理观念。宗教的证明依赖于人类自身构成的真理，而非依赖于任何书籍。那些书籍是人类构成的外显、是其效果；人创造了那些书。我们尚未见到那些创造了人的书。理性同样是那个共同根因——人类构成——的效果，我们必须向那个根因申诉。然而，既然理性是唯一与这一构成直接相连的，只要它忠实地遵循这一构成，便应当诉诸于它。我所说的理性是什么意思？我指的是每一位受过教育的男女在当今时代所渴望做到的事：将世俗知识的发现运用于宗教。推理的第一原则是：特殊由一般来解释，一般由更普遍来解释，如此直至我们抵达宇宙性的普遍。例如，我们有法则的观念：若某事发生，我们认为它是某某法则的效果，我们便感到满足——这对我们而言是一个解释。我们所说的解释，意思是：那个此前令我们不满的单一效果，被证明不过是我们称之为"法则"的大量事件中的一个特殊例子。一个苹果落下，牛顿感到困惑；但当他发现所有的苹果都落下时，那便是万有引力，他感到满足。这是人类知识的一个原则。我在街上看到一个特殊的存在，一个人。我将他归入更大的"人"这一概念，我便感到满足——通过将他归入更普遍的范畴，我知道他是个人。如此，特殊被归入一般，一般被归入更普遍，而最终一切归入宇宙性的普遍——那是我们所能拥有的最终概念，最为普遍的——即"存在"。存在是最普遍的概念。 11→ 11→我们都是人；也就是说，我们每一个人，可以说，不过是"人类"这一一般概念的某个特殊部分。一个人，一只猫，一条狗，都是动物。这些特殊的例子，如人、狗、猫，皆是"动物"这一更大、更一般概念的组成部分。人、猫、狗、植物、树木，都归入更为普遍的"生命"这一概念。再进一步，所有这些，所有众生与所有物质，都归入"存在"这一概念，因为我们都在其中。这样的解释不过意味着将特殊归入更高的概念，发现与其同类的更多事物。心灵，可以说，已储存了大量此类概括，它满是可以将这些观念归类在一起的格子；每当发现一件新事物，心灵便立刻试图在这些格子中找到其类型。若找到，便将这件新事物放入其中，感到满足，据说便认知了这件事物。这便是知识的含义，不多不少。若找不到任何与之相似的东西，便感到不满，只能等待，直到在心灵中发现一个已经存在的、更进一步的分类。因此，正如我已指出的，知识或多或少就是分类。但还有更多：关于知识的第二个解释是：对一件事物的解释，必须从其内部而来，而非从外部而来。过去曾有一种信念：当一个人将一块石头抛向空中，石头落下，乃是某个恶魔将其拖曳而下。许多实际上是自然现象的事件，被人们归因于超自然存在。鬼魂将石头拖拽而下——这是一种不在石头本身之内的解释，而是从外部而来的解释；而万有引力的第二种解释，则是石头本性中固有的某种东西——解释来自内部。这一倾向，你们将发现贯穿于现代思想的始终；用一个词来说，科学的含义就是：对事物的解释存在于其自身的本性之中，不需要任何外部的存在或实体来解释宇宙中所发生的事情。化学家从不需要恶魔或鬼魂来解释其现象；物理学家也不需要任何此类事物来解释他所认知的事物，其他科学家亦然。这是科学的特征之一，我意欲将其运用于宗教。在这一点上，宗教被发现有所欠缺，这也正是它们正在土崩瓦解的原因。每一门科学都要求从事物本身的内在性质寻求解释，而宗教却无法提供这一点。有一个古老的理论，认为存在一位人格神，与宇宙完全分离；这一理论从最早的时代起便被持守着。支持这一理论的论据被一再重复——宇宙之外的神明如何是必要的，一个宇宙外在的神明如何凭其意志创造了宇宙，并被宗教设想为宇宙的统治者。我们发现，撇开所有这些论据不谈，全能的神被描绘为全慈的，而与此同时，不平等却依然存在于世间。这些事情根本不困扰哲学家，但他说：问题的核心是错误的——它是从外部而来的解释，而非从内部而来的。宇宙的原因是什么？是宇宙之外的某种东西，某个在推动这个宇宙的存在！这与解释落石的现象被发现同样不足，与此同样，宗教的解释也被发现不足。宗教正在土崩瓦解，因为它们无法给出更好的解释。 13→ 13→与此相关的另一个观念——同一原则的显现，即对一切事物的解释来自其内部——是现代的进化论。进化论的全部含义不过是：事物的本性是可以被再生产的；效果不过是以另一种形式呈现的原因；效果的一切潜能都预先存在于原因之中；整个创造不过是一种进化（evolution）而非创造（creation）。也就是说，每一个效果都是前一个原因的再现，只不过由于环境而有所改变，而在整个宇宙中如此持续；我们无需走出宇宙之外去寻找这些变化的原因——原因就在宇宙之内。寻找任何外部原因都是多余的。这同样也在颠覆宗教。我所说的颠覆宗教，是指那些坚守宇宙外在神明观念的宗教——他不过是一个很伟大的人，仅此而已——已无法再站稳脚跟；它们已被推倒，可以说。
1→是否存在一种能满足这两条原则的宗教？我认为是有的。首先，我们已看到，必须满足概括的原则，这一概括原则应与进化的原则同时得到满足。我们必须抵达一个终极概括，这一概括不仅是所有概括中最为普遍的，而且一切事物都必须从中涌现出来。它将与最低层的效果具有同样的性质；原因、最高者、终极者、最初的原因，必须与其最低且最遥远的效果具有同一本性，这是一系列的进化。吠檀多的梵（Brahman）满足了这一条件，因为梵是我们所能抵达的最终概括。它没有属性，而是存在、知识与极乐——绝对的。存在，我们已看到，是人类心灵所能抵达的最终极概括。知识并不指我们所拥有的知识，而是其本质——那在进化过程中于人类或其他动物中表现为知识的东西。所指的是那知识的本质，超越于（若我可以这样说的话）甚至意识之外的终极事实。那便是知识的含义，以及我们在宇宙中所见的事物的本质统一性。依我之见，现代科学反复证明的，正是这一点：我们是一体的——精神上、灵性上和物质上皆然。说我们甚至在物质上也是不同的，这是错误的。假设我们为了讨论起见而成为唯物主义者，我们将不得不归结说：整个宇宙不过是一片物质的海洋，你我宛如其中小小的漩涡。一团物质流入每个漩涡，呈现漩涡的形态，再以物质的形式流出。组成我身体的物质，几年前或许曾在你的身体里，或许曾在太阳中，或曾是植物中的物质，如此等等，处于持续流动的状态之中。你的身体与我的身体意味着什么？不过是身体的统一性。思想亦然：它是一片思想的海洋，一个无限的整体，在其中你的心灵与我的心灵宛如漩涡。你难道不正在感受这效果吗——我的思想如何正在进入你的思想，你的思想如何正在进入我的？我们生命的整体是一体的；我们是一，即使在思想中也是如此。再进一步作更终极的概括：物质与思想的本质是其具有灵性的潜能；这是一切都从中涌现的统一体，它本质上必然是一。我们是绝对的一体；我们在物质上是一，在精神上是一，作为灵性（spirit），不言而喻，若我们相信灵性的话，我们是一体的。这种统一性是现代科学每天都在证明的唯一事实。对骄傲的人来说，他被告知：你与那里的小虫虫是一体的；不要以为你与它有着巨大的不同；你就是它。在前一个轮回中你曾是那样，而那蠕虫爬行着进化到了你如今如此引以为傲的人的状态。这一宏大的宣讲——万物的统一性，使我们与一切存在成为一体——是最重要的功课，因为我们中的大多数人非常乐意与更高的存在成为一体，却没有人愿意与较低的存在成为一体。这就是人类的无明（ignorance）：若一个人的祖先是社会尊崇的人——即使他们是粗野的，是强盗，甚至是拦路抢劫的盗匪——我们每个人都会试图追溯与他们的血缘关系；但若在我们的祖先中有贫穷却诚实的绅士，则没有人愿意追溯与他们的血缘。然而，遮目的鳞片正在脱落，真理开始日益彰显，这对宗教而言是巨大的收获。这正是我正在向你们讲授的不二论（Advaita）的教导。真我（Atman，Self）是这个宇宙的本质，是所有灵魂的本质；他是你们自己生命的本质，诚然，"汝即彼也"。你与这宇宙是一体的。凡说自己与他人不同者，哪怕仅仅相差一丝毫，都会立即变得痛苦。幸福属于那了知这统一性的人，那了知自己与这宇宙是一体的人。 2→ 3→由此，我们看到吠檀多的宗教能够满足科学世界的要求——通过将其归入最高概括，并遵循进化的法则。对于事物的解释来自其内部这一点，吠檀多满足得更为彻底。吠檀多的梵（Brahman），吠檀多的神，其外别无他物，绝无一物。这一切确实皆是他：他在宇宙之中；他就是宇宙本身。"你是那个男人，你是那个女人，你是步履轻盈、意气风发的青年，你是步履蹒跚、垂垂老矣的老人。"他就在这里。我们见到他，感受到他：在他之中我们生活、运动和存在。你们在《新约》中有这一概念。这就是那个观念——神内在于宇宙，是万物的本质、核心与灵魂。他在这宇宙中显现自身，可以说。你与我是微小的片段、微小的点、微小的通道、微小的表达，都生活在那无限的存在、知识与极乐之洋的内部。人与人之间、天使与人之间、人与动物之间、动物与植物之间、植物与石头之间的差异，并非性质上的差异，因为从最高天使到最卑微的物质微粒，无不是那同一无限之洋的一种表达，差异仅在程度而已。我是一个低级的显现，你或许是更高级的，但在两者之中，材料是同样的。你我皆是同一条通道的出口，而那通道就是神；所以，你的本性是神，我的也是。你生来便具有神的本性，我亦如此。你或许是纯洁的天使，而我或许是最黑暗的恶魔。然而，我生来的权利是那无限的存在、知识与极乐之洋。你的也是。你今日已显现得更多。等着；我将显现得更多，因为我内里拥有这一切。没有任何外部的解释被寻求；也不需要任何。这整个宇宙的总和就是神本身。那么，神是物质吗？当然不是，因为物质是透过五种感官被感知到的那个神；透过智识被感知到的那个神是心灵；当灵性观照时，他被见为灵性。他不是物质，但物质中凡真实的，皆是他。这把椅子中凡真实的，皆是他，因为这把椅子需要两件事物来构成：某种东西在外部，我的感官将其带到我这里，而我的心灵为其添加了某种东西，这两者的结合便是这把椅子。那永恒存在的，独立于感官与智识之外的，便是神明本身。我们的感官在他之上绘制着椅子、桌子、房间、房屋、世界、月亮、太阳、星辰及一切其他事物。那么，为何我们所有人都看到同一把椅子，我们都同样地在那位主宰之上绘制这种种事物呢？不必所有人都以同样的方式绘制，但那些以同样方式绘制的人存在于同一层次的存在之上，因此他们既看到彼此的绘画，也看到彼此本身。在你与我之间，可能存在数以百万计的众生，他们对那位主宰的绘法不同，他们及其绘画，我们皆无从见到。 4→ 5→另一方面，正如你们所知，现代物理学研究越来越多地倾向于证明：真实的无非是更为微细的；粗糙的不过是现象。无论如何，我们已看到，若有任何宗教理论能够经受现代推理的检验，那便是不二论（Advaita），因为它满足了现代推理的两个要求。它是最高的概括，超越于甚至人格之外——这一概括对每一众生都是共同的。以人格神结束的概括永远无法成为普遍的，因为首先，要设想一个人格神，我们必须说：他是全慈的、全善的。但这个世界是掺杂的，有些是善的，有些是恶的。我们截取我们所喜欢的，将其概括为一个人格神！正如你说人格神是这样的，你同样不得不说他不是这样的，也不是那样的。你们将永远发现：人格神的观念必然带来一个人格魔鬼。这样我们便清楚地看到，人格神的观念不是一个真正的概括——我们必须超越它，抵达无人格的。在无人格之中，宇宙与其一切苦乐共同存在，因为其中存在的一切，皆从无人格之梵中涌现而来。我们可以将怎样的一位神归咎为善与恶等等？这一观念在于：善与恶不过是同一事物的不同侧面或显现。认为它们是两种事物的观念，从一开始便大错特错，它也是我们这个世界中诸多苦难的根由——认为正与邪是两个截然分开的事物，厘清切割、各自独立、互不相涉；认为善与恶是两个永远可分离且相互分隔的事物。我非常乐意看到有人能向我展示某种始终是善的事物，以及某种始终是恶的事物。仿佛某人可以站立起来，庄严地将我们这人生中的某些事件定义为纯粹的善，而另一些定义为纯粹的恶。今日是善的，明日可能是恶的；今日是恶的，明日可能是善的。对我是善的，对你可能是恶的。结论是：就像其他一切事物一样，善与恶中也存在进化。有某种东西，在其进化过程中，我们在一个程度上称之为善，在另一个程度上称之为恶。杀死我朋友的风暴，我称之为恶，但它或许通过杀死空气中的细菌，拯救了数十万人的生命。他们称之为善，我却称之为恶。所以，善与恶都属于相对的世界，属于现象界。我们所提出的无人格之神不是一个相对的神；因此不能说它是善的或恶的，而是说它是超越于此之上的某种东西，因为它既非善也非恶。然而，善是比恶更接近于它的显现。 6→ 7→接受这样一个无人格的存在——无人格的神明——将产生什么效果？我们将获得什么？宗教是否仍将作为人类生活的一个因素而存在，作为我们的慰藉者与助力者？人类心灵向某个存在祈求帮助的渴望又将如何？这一切都将保留。人格神将继续存在，但建立在更好的基础之上。他已被无人格者所巩固。我们已看到，没有无人格者，人格者便无法存续。若你的意思是，存在一个与宇宙完全分离的存在，他凭其意志、无中生有地创造了这个宇宙，这是无法得到证明的。这样的状态不可能存在。但若我们理解了无人格者的观念，那么人格者的观念也可以存续于其中。这个宇宙，以其种种形式，不过是同一无人格者的各种读法。当我们以五种感官来读它，我们称之为物质世界。若存在一个拥有超过五种感官的存在，他将以另一种方式来读它。若我们中的某一个人获得了电感，他将以全然不同的方式看这个宇宙。那同一统一性有着各种形式，所有这些关于世界的各种观念不过是它的各种读法，而人格神是人类智识对那无人格者所能企及的最高读法。所以，人格神是真实的，就如同这把椅子是真实的，就如同这个世界是真实的，但不多于此。它并非绝对的真理。也就是说，人格神即是那无人格的神，因此它是真实的，正如我作为一个人类存在，同时是真实的也是非真实的。说我是你所见到的那个我，这并非真实——你可以自行验证这一点。我并非你所认为的那个存在。你可以用理性令自己信服这一点，因为光线，以及各种振动或大气的条件，还有我内部的各种运动，都促成了你眼中的我。若这些条件中有任何一个改变，我便再次不同了。你可以通过在不同光线条件下拍摄同一个人的照片来使自己信服。所以，我是我在与你的感官的关系中所呈现的样子，然而，尽管有这一切事实，仍然存在某种不变的东西，这一切都是它的不同存在状态——无人格的我，其中数以千计的我，以不同的人格呈现。我曾是孩童，我曾年轻，我在渐渐老去。我生命中的每一天，我的身体与思想都在变化，但尽管有这一切变化，它们总和构成了一个恒量。那就是无人格的我，所有这些显现，可以说，都构成其中的部分。 8→ 9→同样地，这个宇宙的总和是不动的，我们知道，但属于这个宇宙的一切都由运动构成，一切都处于持续的流变状态中，一切都在变化和运动之中。与此同时，我们看到宇宙作为一个整体是不动的，因为运动是一个相对的概念。我相对于不动的椅子而移动。运动必须至少有两者才能发生。若将整个宇宙作为一个单元，便没有运动——它应当相对于什么而运动？因此，绝对者是不变且不动的，而所有的运动与变化都只在现象世界、有限世界中存在。那整体是无人格的，在这无人格者之内，有所有这些各种各样的人格——从最低的原子，直至神明，那位人格神，宇宙的创造者与统治者，我们向他祈祷，在他面前屈膝等等。这样一位人格神，可以凭借大量的理性来加以确立。这样一位人格神，是无人格者的最高显现，因而是可以解释的。你与我是非常低级的显现，而人格神是我们所能设想的最高者。你也好，我也好，都不可能成为那位人格神。当吠檀多说你我即是神，它所指的并非人格神。举一个例子：从一大团黏土中塑造出一头巨大的黏土象，又从同样的黏土中塑造出一只小小的黏土鼠。那只黏土鼠能够成为那头黏土象吗？但将二者放入水中，它们都是黏土；作为黏土，它们是一体的，但作为老鼠与大象，它们之间将存在永久的差异。无限者、无人格者，就如同这个例子中的黏土。我们与宇宙的统治者是一体的，但作为有显现的存在、作为人，我们是他永恒的奴仆、他的礼敬者。由此，我们看到人格神继续存在。这相对世界中的一切其他事物都继续存在，宗教建立在更好的基础之上。因此，我们必须首先知晓无人格者，方能知晓人格者。
1→正如我们所见，理性的法则说：特殊只能通过一般来认识。所以所有这些特殊，从人到神，只能通过无人格者——那最高的概括——来认识。祈祷将继续存在，只是将获得更好的含义。那些毫无意义的祈祷观念——祈祷的低级阶段，也许不过是将我们心中形形色色愚蠢欲望付诸言辞——将不得不告别。在所有明智的宗教中，他们从不允许向神（God）祈祷，他们允许的是向众神（gods）祈祷。这是完全自然的。罗马天主教徒向圣人们祈祷，这很好。但向神祈祷则是毫无意义的。请求神给你一口空气，降下一场滂沱大雨，使你花园中的果实茂盛生长，诸如此类——这是十分不自然的。然而，那些与我们一样是小小存在的圣人们，或许能够帮助我们。但向宇宙的统治者祈祷，喋喋不休地诉说我们每一个小小的需求，从童年起便说："哦，主啊，我头痛了，请让它消去"——这是荒谬可笑的。已有数以百万计的灵魂在这世界上离世，他们都在这里；他们已成为众神与天使；让他们来帮助你吧。但向神！这是不可能的。向他，我们必须去寻求更高的事物。那坐在恒河（Gangâ）岸边，却为了取水而挖一口小井的人，实在是愚蠢之人；那居住在钻石矿附近，却在挖掘小小水晶片的人，实在是愚蠢之人。 2→ 3→诚然，若我们向万慈之父、万爱之父祈求世间琐碎之物，我们实在是愚蠢之人。因此，向他，我们当去寻求光明、力量与爱。但只要我们之中还有软弱，还有对奴颜婢膝式依赖的渴望，就将有这些小小的祈祷和礼敬人格神的观念存在。然而，那些高度进步的人并不关心这样的小小帮助——他们已几乎忘却了一切为自身谋求事物、为自身渴望事物。在他们心中占主导地位的观念是——不是"我"，而是"你，我的兄弟"。那些是适合礼敬无人格之神的人。礼敬无人格之神意味着什么？那里没有奴役——"哦，主啊，我什么都不是，请怜悯我。"你们知道那首古老的波斯诗歌，已被译成英文："我来寻见我的爱人。门是关闭的。我敲了门，从里面传来一个声音：'你是谁？''我是某某人。'门没有被打开。我第二次来敲门，被问了同样的问题，我给了同样的回答。门没有打开。我第三次来，同样的问题来了。我回答：'我是你，我的爱人，'门便打开了。"礼敬无人格之神是通过真理。什么是真理？就是我即是他（Brahman）。当我说我不是你，这是不真实的。当我说我与你是分离的，那是谎言，一个可怕的谎言。我与这宇宙是一体的，生来便是一体的。这对我的感官而言是显而易见的：我与这宇宙是一体的。我与围绕我的空气是一体的，与热是一体的，与光是一体的，永远与那被称为这宇宙的宇宙普遍存在是一体的——他被误认为宇宙，因为他正是宇宙，而非其他——他是每一颗心中的永恒主体，宣说着"我是"——那不死者，那不眠者，永远清醒，不朽者，其荣耀永不凋谢，其力量永不消失。我与那个是一体的。 4→ 5→这就是礼敬无人格者的全部，其结果是什么？人的整个生命将被改变。力量——力量是我们在这人生中最需要的，因为我们所称的罪恶与悲苦，皆只有一个根因，那便是我们的软弱。软弱带来无明（ignorance），无明带来苦难。礼敬无人格者将使我们坚强。那时，苦难将被一笑置之；那时，恶徒的暴虐将被淡然一笑；那凶猛的虎豹，将在其虎性之后，显现出我自己的真我（Atman，Self）。那将是结果。那与主合而为一的灵魂是强大的，其他的灵魂皆非强大。在你们自己的《圣经》中，你们认为拿撒勒的耶稣的力量之源是什么——那无限的巨大力量，能对叛徒一笑置之，并祝福那些蓄意谋害他的人？那正是"我与我父是一"；正是那祈祷——"父啊，就如同我与你是一体，使他们也都与我是一体。"这就是礼敬无人格之神。与宇宙合而为一，与他合而为一。而这无人格之神不需要任何证明，不需要任何证据。他比我们的感官更接近我们，比我们自己的思想更接近我们；正是在他之中且透过他，我们看见与思考。要看见任何东西，我必须首先看见他。要看见这堵墙，我首先看见他，然后才看见这堵墙，因为他是永恒的主体。是谁在看见谁？他就在我们心灵的心灵之中。身体与心灵变化；苦难、幸福、善与恶来了又去；岁月流逝；生命来了又去；但他不死。那同一声音，"我是，我是"，是永恒不变的。在他之中且透过他，我们认识一切。在他之中且透过他，我们看见一切。在他之中且透过他，我们感知、思考、生活，并且存在。而那"我"，我们误以为是渺小的"我"、有限的"我"，不仅是我的"我"，也是你的，是所有人的，是动物的，是天使的，是最低微存在的。那"我是"，在杀人犯与圣人中是同一的，在富人与穷人中是同一的，在男人与女人中是同一的，在人与动物中是同一的。从最低的变形虫到最高的天使，他居于每一个灵魂之中，永恒地宣示："我是他，我是他。"当我们已理解了那永远存在于其中的声音，当我们已学会了这一功课，整个宇宙将已向我们揭示了其秘密。自然将已向我们交出了她的秘密。没有什么需要进一步知晓的了。由此，我们发现了所有宗教所追寻的真理——一切物质科学的知识不过是次要的。那才是唯一真实的知识，它使我们与这宇宙的宇宙之神合而为一。
English
Reason And Religion
( Delivered in England )
A sage called Nârada went to another sage named Sanatkumâra to learn about truth, and Sanatkumara inquired what he had studied already. Narada answered that he had studied the Vedas, Astronomy, and various other things, yet he had got no satisfaction. Then there was a conversation between the two, in the course of which Sanatkumara remarked that all this knowledge of the Vedas, of Astronomy, and of Philosophy, was but secondary; sciences were but secondary. That which made us realise the Brahman was the supreme, the highest knowledge. This idea we find in every religion, and that is why religion always claimed to be supreme knowledge. Knowledge of the sciences covers, as it were, only part of our lives, but the knowledge which religion brings to us is eternal, as infinite as the truth it preaches. Claiming this superiority, religions have many times looked down, unfortunately, on all secular knowledge, and not only so, but many times have refused to be justified by the aid of secular knowledge. In consequence, all the world over there have been fights between secular knowledge and religious knowledge, the one claiming infallible authority as its guide, refusing to listen to anything that secular knowledge has to say on the point, the other, with its shining instrument of reason, wanting to cut to pieces everything religion could bring forward. This fight has been and is still waged in every country. Religions have been again and again defeated, and almost exterminated. The worship of the goddess of Reason during the French Revolution was not the first manifestation of that phenomenon in the history of humanity, it was a re-enactment of what had happened in ancient times, but in modern times it has assumed greater proportions. The physical sciences are better equipped now than formerly, and religions have become less and less equipped. The foundations have been all undermined, and the modern man, whatever he may say in public, knows in the privacy of his heart that he can no more "believe". Believing certain things because an organised body of priests tells him to believe, believing because it is written in certain books, believing because his people like him to believe, the modern man knows to be impossible for him. There are, of course, a number of people who seem to acquiesce in the so-called popular faith, but we also know for certain that they do not think. Their idea of belief may be better translated as "not-thinking-carelessness". This fight cannot last much longer without breaking to pieces all the buildings of religion.
The question is: Is there a way out? To put it in a more concrete form: Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries of reason, through which every other science justifies itself? Are the same methods of investigation, which we apply to sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of Religion? In my opinion this must be so, and I am also of opinion that the sooner it is done the better. If a religion is destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be the best thing that could happen. All that is dross will be taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Not only will it be made scientific — as scientific, at least, as any of the conclusions of physics or chemistry — but will have greater strength, because physics or chemistry has no internal mandate to vouch for its truth, which religion has.
People who deny the efficacy of any rationalistic investigation into religion seem to me somewhat to be contradicting themselves. For instance, the Christian claims that his religion is the only true one, because it was revealed to so-and-so. The Mohammedan makes the same claim for his religion; his is the only true one, because it was revealed to so-and-so. But the Christian says to the Mohammedan, "Certain parts of your ethics do not seem to be right. For instance, your books say, my Mohammedan friend, that an infidel may be converted to the religion of Mohammed by force, and if he will not accept the Mohammedan religion he may be killed; and any Mohammedan who kills such an infidel will get a sure entry into heaven, whatever may have been his sins or misdeeds." The Mohammedan will retort by saying, "It is right for me to do so, because my book enjoins it. It will be wrong on my part not to do so." The Christian says, "But my book does not say so." The Mohammedan replies, "I do not know; I am not bound by the authority of your book; my book says, 'Kill all the infidels'. How do you know which is right and which is wrong? Surely what is written in my book is right and what your book says, 'Do not kill,' is wrong. You also say the same thing, my Christian friend; you say that what Jehovah declared to the Jews is right to do, and what he forbade them to do is wrong. So say I, Allah declared in my book that certain things should be done, and that certain things should not be done, and that is all the test of right and wrong." In spite of that the Christian is not satisfied; he insists on a comparison of the morality of the Sermon on the Mount with the morality of the Koran. How is this to be decided? Certainly not by the books, because the books, fighting between themselves, cannot be the judges. Decidedly then we have to admit that there is something more universal than these books, something higher than all the ethical codes that are in the world, something which can judge between the strength of inspirations of different nations. Whether we declare it boldly, clearly, or not — it is evident that here we appeal to reason.
Now, the question arises if this light of reason is able to judge between inspiration and inspiration, and if this light can uphold its standard when the quarrel is between prophet and prophet, if it has the power of understanding anything whatsoever of religion. If it has not, nothing can determine the hopeless fight of books and prophets which has been going on through ages; for it means that all religions are mere lies, hopelessly contradictory, without any constant idea of ethics. The proof of religion depends on the truth of the constitution of man, and not on any books. These books are the outgoings, the effects of man's constitution; man made these books. We are yet to see the books that made man. Reason is equally an effect of that common cause, the constitution of man, where our appeal must be. And yet, as reason alone is directly connected with this constitution, it should be resorted to, as long as it follows faithfully the same. What do I mean by reason? I mean what every educated man or woman is wanting to do at the present time, to apply the discoveries of secular knowledge to religion. The first principle of reasoning is that the particular is explained by the general, the general by the more general, until we come to the universal. For instance, we have the idea of law. If something happens and we believe that it is the effect of such and such a law, we are satisfied; that is an explanation for us. What we mean by that explanation is that it is proved that this one effect, which had dissatisfied us, is only one particular of a general mass of occurrences which we designate by the word "law". When one apple fell, Newton was disturbed; but when he found that all apples fell, it was gravitation, and he was satisfied. This is one principle of human knowledge. I see a particular being, a human being, in the street. I refer him to the bigger conception of man, and I am satisfied; I know he is a man by referring him to the more general. So the particulars are to be referred to the general, the general to the more general, and everything at last to the universal, the last concept that we have, the most universal — that of existence. Existence is the most universal concept.
We are all human beings; that is to say, each one of us, as it were, a particular part of the general concept, humanity. A man, and a cat, and a dog, are all animals. These particular examples, as man, or dog, or cat, are parts of a bigger and more general concept, animal. The man, and the cat, and the dog, and the plant, and the tree, all come under the still more general concept, life. Again, all these, all beings and all materials, come under the one concept of existence, for we all are in it. This explanation merely means referring the particular to a higher concept, finding more of its kind. The mind, as it were, has stored up numerous classes of such generalisations. It is, as it were, full of pigeon-holes where all these ideas are grouped together, and whenever we find a new thing the mind immediately tries to find out its type in one of these pigeon-holes. If we find it, we put the new thing in there and are satisfied, and we are said to have known the thing. This is what is meant by knowledge, and no more. And if we do not find that there is something like it, we are dissatisfied, and have to wait until we find a further classification for it, already existing in the mind. Therefore, as I have already pointed out, knowledge is more or less classification. There is something more. A second explanation of knowledge is that the explanation of a thing must come from inside and not from outside. There had been the belief that, when a man threw up a stone and it fell, some demon dragged it down. Many occurrences which are really natural phenomena are attributed by people to unnatural beings. That a ghost dragged down the stone was an explanation that was not in the thing itself, it was an explanation from outside; but the second explanation of gravitation is something in the nature of the stone; the explanation is coming from inside. This tendency you will find throughout modern thought; in one word, what is meant by science is that the explanations of things are in their own nature, and that no external beings or existences are required to explain what is going on in the universe. The chemist never requires demons, or ghosts, or anything of that sort, to explain his phenomena. The physicist never requires any one of these to explain the things he knows, nor does any other scientist. And this is one of the features of science which I mean to apply to religion. In this religions are found wanting and that is why they are crumbling into pieces. Every science wants its explanations from inside, from the very nature of things; and the religions are not able to supply this. There is an ancient theory of a personal deity entirely separate from the universe, which has been held from the very earliest time. The arguments in favour of this have been repeated again and again, how it is necessary to have a God entirely separate from the universe, an extra-cosmic deity, who has created the universe out of his will, and is conceived by religion to be its ruler. We find, apart from all these arguments, the Almighty God painted as the All-merciful, and at the same time, inequalities remain in the world. These things do not concern the philosopher at all, but he says the heart of the thing was wrong; it was an explanation from outside, and not inside. What is the cause of the universe? Something outside of it, some being who is moving this universe! And just as it was found insufficient to explain the phenomenon of the falling stone, so this was found insufficient to explain religion. And religions are falling to pieces, because they cannot give a better explanation than that.
Another idea connected with this, the manifestation of the same principle, that the explanation of everything comes from inside it, is the modern law of evolution. The whole meaning of evolution is simply that the nature of a thing is reproduced, that the effect is nothing but the cause in another form, that all the potentialities of the effect were present in the cause, that the whole of creation is but an evolution and not a creation. That is to say, every effect is a reproduction of a preceding cause, changed only by the circumstances, and thus it is going on throughout the universe, and we need not go outside the universe to seek the causes of these changes; they are within. It is unnecessary to seek for any cause outside. This also is breaking down religion. What I mean by breaking down religion is that religions that have held on to the idea of an extra-cosmic deity, that he is a very big man and nothing else, can no more stand on their feet; they have been pulled down, as it were.
Can there be a religion satisfying these two principles? I think there can be. In the first place we have seen that we have to satisfy the principle of generalisation. The generalisation principle ought to be satisfied along with the principle of evolution. We have to come to an ultimate generalisation, which not only will be the most universal of all generalisations, but out of which everything else must come. It will be of the same nature as the lowest effect; the cause, the highest, the ultimate, the primal cause, must be the same as the lowest and most distant of its effects, a series of evolutions. The Brahman of the Vedanta fulfils that condition, because Brahman is the last generalisation to which we can come. It has no attributes but is Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss — Absolute. Existence, we have seen, is the very ultimate generalisation which the human mind can come to. Knowledge does not mean the knowledge we have, but the essence of that, that which is expressing itself in the course of evolution in human beings or in other animals as knowledge. The essence of that knowledge is meant, the ultimate fact beyond, if I may be allowed to say so, even consciousness. That is what is meant by knowledge and what we see in the universe as the essential unity of things. To my mind, if modern science is proving anything again and again, it is this, that we are one — mentally, spiritually, and physically. It is wrong to say we are even physically different. Supposing we are materialists, for argument's sake, we shall have to come to this, that the whole universe is simply an ocean of matter, of which you and I are like little whirlpools. Masses of matter are coming into each whirlpool, taking the whirlpool form, and coming out as matter again. The matter that is in my body may have been in yours a few years ago, or in the sun, or may have been the matter in a plant, and so on, in a continuous state of flux. What is meant by your body and my body? It is the oneness of the body. So with thought. It is an ocean of thought, one infinite mass, in which your mind and my mind are like whirlpools. Are you not seeing the effect now, how my thoughts are entering into yours, and yours into mine? The whole of our lives is one; we are one, even in thought. Coming to a still further generalisation, the essence of matter and thought is their potentiality of spirit; this is the unity from which all have come, and that must essentially be one. We are absolutely one; we are physically one, we are mentally one, and as spirit, it goes without saying, that we are one, if we believe in spirit at all. This oneness is the one fact that is being proved every day by modern science. To proud man it is told: You are the same as that little worm there; think not that you are something enormously different from it; you are the same. You have been that in a previous incarnation, and the worm has crawled up to this man state, of which you are so proud. This grand preaching, the oneness of things, making us one with everything that exists, is the great lesson to learn, for most of us are very glad to be made one with higher beings, but nobody wants to be made one with lower beings. Such is human ignorance, that if anyone's ancestors were men whom society honoured, even if they were brutish, if they were robbers, even robber barons, everyone of us would try to trace our ancestry to them; but if among our ancestors we had poor, honest gentlemen, none of us wants to trace our ancestry to them. But the scales are falling from our eyes, truth is beginning to manifest itself more and more, and that is a great gain to religion. That is exactly the teaching of the Advaita, about which I am lecturing to you. The Self is the essence of this universe, the essence of all souls; He is the essence of your own life, nay, "Thou art That". You are one with this universe. He who says he is different from others, even by a hair's breadth, immediately becomes miserable. Happiness belongs to him who knows this oneness, who knows he is one with this universe.
Thus we see that the religion of the Vedanta can satisfy the demands of the scientific world, by referring it to the highest generalisation and to the law of evolution. That the explanation of a thing comes from within itself is still more completely satisfied by Vedanta. The Brahman, the God of the Vedanta, has nothing outside of Himself; nothing at all. All this indeed is He: He is in the universe: He is the universe Himself. "Thou art the man, Thou art the woman, Thou art the young man walking in the pride of youth, Thou art the old man tottering in his step." He is here. Him we see and feel: in Him we live, and move, and have our being. You have that conception in the New Testament. It is that idea, God immanent in the universe, the very essence, the heart, the soul of things. He manifests Himself, as it were, in this universe. You and I are little bits, little points, little channels, little expressions, all living inside of that infinite ocean of Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss. The difference between man and man, between angels and man, between man and animals, between animals and plants, between plants and stones is not in kind, because everyone from the highest angel to the lowest particle of matter is but an expression of that one infinite ocean, and the difference is only in degree. I am a low manifestation, you may be a higher, but in both the materials are the same. You and I are both outlets of the same channel, and that is God; as such, your nature is God, and so is mine. You are of the nature of God by your birthright; so am I. You may be an angel of purity, and I may be the blackest of demons. Nevertheless, my birthright is that infinite ocean of Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss. So is yours. You have manifested yourself more today. Wait; I will manifest myself more yet, for I have it all within me. No extraneous explanation is sought; none is asked for. The sum total of this whole universe is God Himself. Is God then matter? No, certainly not, for matter is that God perceived by the five senses; that God as perceived through the intellect is mind; and when the spirit sees, He is seen as spirit. He is not matter, but whatever is real in matter is He. Whatever is real in this chair is He, for the chair requires two things to make it. Something was outside which my senses brought to me, and to which my mind contributed something else, and the combination of these two is the chair. That which existed eternally, independent of the senses and of the intellect, was the Lord Himself. Upon Him the senses are painting chairs, and tables, and rooms, houses, and worlds, and moons, and suns, and stars, and everything else. How is it, then, that we all see this same chair, that we are all alike painting these various things on the Lord, on this Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss? It need not be that all paint the same way, but those who paint the same way are on the same plane of existence and therefore they see one another's paintings as well as one another. There may be millions of beings between you and me who do not paint the Lord in the same way, and them and their paintings we do not see.
On the other hand, as you all know, the modern physical researches are tending more and more to demonstrate that what is real is but the finer; the gross is simply appearance. However that may be, we have seen that if any theory of religion can stand the test of modern reasoning, it is the Advaita, because it fulfils its two requirements. It is the highest generalisation, beyond even personality, generalisation which is common to every being. A generalisation ending in the Personal God can never be universal, for, first of all, to conceive of a Personal God we must say, He is all-merciful, all-good. But this world is a mixed thing, some good and some bad. We cut off what we like, and generalise that into a Personal God! Just as you say a Personal God is this and that, so you have also to say that He is not this and not that. And you will always find that the idea of a Personal God has to carry with it a personal devil. That is how we clearly see that the idea of a Personal God is not a true generalisation, we have to go beyond, to the Impersonal. In that the universe exists, with all its joys and miseries, for whatever exists in it has all come from the Impersonal. What sort of a God can He be to whom we attribute evil and other things? The idea is that both good and evil are different aspects, or manifestations of the same thing. The idea that they were two was a very wrong idea from the first, and it has been the cause of a good deal of the misery in this world of ours — the idea that right and wrong are two separate things, cut and dried, independent of each other, that good and evil are two eternally separable and separate things. I should be very glad to see a man who could show me something which is good all the time, and something which is bad all the time. As if one could stand and gravely define some occurrences in this life of ours as good and good alone, and some which are bad and bad alone. That which is good today may be evil tomorrow. That which is bad today may be good tomorrow. What is good for me may be bad for you. The conclusion is, that like every other thing, there is an evolution in good and evil too. There is something which in its evolution, we call, in one degree, good, and in another, evil. The storm that kills my friend I call evil, but that may have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people by killing the bacilli in the air. They call it good, but I call it evil. So both good and evil belong to the relative world, to phenomena. The Impersonal God we propose is not a relative God; therefore it cannot be said that It is either good or bad, but that It is something beyond, because It is neither good nor evil. Good, however, is a nearer manifestation of It than evil.
What is the effect of accepting such an Impersonal Being, an Impersonal Deity? What shall we gain? Will religion stand as a factor in human life, our consoler, our helper? What becomes of the desire of the human heart to pray for help to some being? That will all remain. The Personal God will remain, but on a better basis. He has been strengthened by the Impersonal. We have seen that without the Impersonal, the Personal cannot remain. If you mean to say there is a Being entirely separate from this universe, who has created this universe just by His will, out of nothing, that cannot be proved. Such a state of things cannot be. But if we understand the idea of the Impersonal, then the idea of the Personal can remain there also. This universe, in its various forms, is but the various readings of the same Impersonal. When we read it with the five senses, we call it the material world. If there be a being with more senses than five, he will read it as something else. If one of us gets the electrical sense, he will see the universe as something else again. There are various forms of that same Oneness, of which all these various ideas of worlds are but various readings, and the Personal God is the highest reading that can be attained to, of that Impersonal, by the human intellect. So that the Personal God is true as much as this chair is true, as much as this world is true, but no more. It is not absolute truth. That is to say, the Personal God is that very Impersonal God and, therefore, it is true, just as I, as a human being, am true and not true at the same time. It is not true that I am what you see I am; you can satisfy yourself on that point. I am not the being that you take me to be. You can satisfy your reason as to that, because light, and various vibrations, or conditions of the atmosphere, and all sorts of motions inside me have contributed to my being looked upon as what I am, by you. If any one of these conditions change, I am different again. You may satisfy yourself by taking a photograph of the same man under different conditions of light. So I am what I appear in relation to your senses, and yet, in spite of all these facts, there is an unchangeable something of which all these are different states of existence, the impersonal me, of which thousands of me's are different persons. I was a child, I was young, I am getting older. Every day of my life, my body and thoughts are changing, but in spite of all these changes, the sum-total of them constitutes a mass which is a constant quantity. That is the impersonal me, of which all these manifestations form, as it were, parts.
Similarly, the sum-total of this universe is immovable, we know, but everything pertaining to this universe consists of motion, everything is in a constant state of flux, everything changing and moving. At the same time, we see that the universe as a whole is immovable, because motion is a relative term. I move with regard to the chair, which does not move. There must be at least two to make motion. If this whole universe is taken as a unit there is no motion; with regard to what should it move? Thus the Absolute is unchangeable and immovable, and all the movements and changes are only in the phenomenal world, the limited. That whole is Impersonal, and within this Impersonal are all these various persons beginning with the lowest atom, up to God, the Personal God, the Creator, the Ruler of the Universe, to whom we pray, before whom we kneel, and so on. Such a Personal God can be established with a great deal of reason. Such a Personal God is explicable as the highest manifestation of the Impersonal. You and I are very low manifestations, and the Personal God is the highest of which we can conceive. Nor can you or I become that Personal God. When the Vedanta says you and I are God, it does not mean the Personal God. To take an example. Out of a mass of clay a huge elephant of clay is manufactured, and out of the same clay, a little clay mouse is made. Would the clay mouse ever be able to become the clay elephant? But put them both in water and they are both clay; as clay they are both one, but as mouse and elephant there will be an eternal difference between them. The Infinite, the Impersonal, is like the clay in the example. We and the Ruler of the Universe are one, but as manifested beings, men, we are His eternal slaves, His worshippers. Thus we see that the Personal God remains. Everything else in this relative world remains, and religion is made to stand on a better foundation. Therefore it is necessary, that we first know the Impersonal in order to know the Personal.
As we have seen, the law of reason says, the particular is only known through the general. So all these particulars, from man to God, are only known through the Impersonal, the highest generalisation. Prayers will remain, only they will get a better meaning. All those senseless ideas of prayer, the low stages of prayer, which are simply giving words to all sorts of silly desire in our minds, perhaps, will have to go. In all sensible religions, they never allow prayers to God; they allow prayers to gods. That is quite natural. The Roman Catholics pray to the saints; that is quite good. But to pray to God is senseless. To ask God to give you a breath of air, to send down a shower of rain, to make fruits grow in your garden, and so on, is quite unnatural. The saints, however, who were little beings like ourselves, may help us. But to pray to the Ruler of the Universe, prating every little need of ours, and from our childhood saying, "O Lord, I have a headache; let it go," is ridiculous. There have been millions of souls that have died in this world, and they are all here; they have become gods and angels; let them come to your help. But God! It cannot be. Unto Him we must go for higher things. A fool indeed is he who, resting on the banks of the Gangâ, digs a little well for water; a fool indeed is he who, living near a mine of diamonds, digs for bits of crystal.
And indeed we shall be fools if we go to the Father of all mercy, Father of all love, for trivial earthly things. Unto Him, therefore, we shall go for light, for strength, for love. But so long as there is weakness and a craving for servile dependence in us, there will be these little prayers and ideas of the worship of the Personal God. But those who are highly advanced do not care for such little helps, they have wellnigh forgotten all about this seeking things for themselves, wanting things for themselves. The predominant idea in them is — not I, but thou, my brother. Those are the fit persons to worship the Impersonal God. And what is the worship of the Impersonal God? No slavery there — "O Lord, I am nothing, have mercy on me." You know the old Persian poem, translated into English: "I came to see my beloved. The doors were closed. I knocked and a voice came from inside. 'Who art thou?' 'I am so-and-so' The door was not opened. A second time I came and knocked; I was asked the same question, and gave the same answer. The door opened not. I came a third time, and the same question came. I answered, 'I am thee, my love,' and the door opened." Worship of the Impersonal God is through truth. And what is truth? That I am He. When I say that I am not Thou, it is untrue. When I say I am separate from you it is a lie, a terrible lie. I am one with this universe, born one. It is self evident to my senses that I am one with the universe. I am one with the air that surrounds me, one with heat, one with light, eternally one with the whole Universal Being, who is called this universe, who is mistaken for the universe, for it is He and nothing else, the eternal subject in the heart who says, "I am," in every heart — the deathless one, the sleepless one, ever awake, the immortal, whose glory never dies, whose powers never fail. I am one with That.
This is all the worship of the Impersonal, and what is the result? The whole life of man will be changed. Strength, strength it is that we want so much in this life, for what we call sin and sorrow have all one cause, and that is our weakness. With weakness comes ignorance, and with ignorance comes misery. It will make us strong. Then miseries will be laughed at, then the violence of the vile will be smiled at, and the ferocious tiger will reveal, behind its tiger's nature, my own Self. That will be the result. That soul is strong that has become one with the Lord; none else is strong. In your own Bible, what do you think was the cause of that strength of Jesus of Nazareth, that immense, infinite strength which laughed at traitors, and blessed those that were willing to murder him? It was that, "I and my Father are one"; it was that prayer, "Father, just as I am one with you, so make them all one with me." That is the worship of the Impersonal God. Be one with the universe, be one with Him. And this Impersonal God requires no demonstrations, no proofs. He is nearer to us than even our senses, nearer to us than our own thoughts; it is in and through Him that we see and think. To see anything, I must first see Him. To see this wall I first see Him, and then the wall, for He is the eternal subject. Who is seeing whom? He is here in the heart of our hearts. Bodies and minds change; misery, happiness, good and evil come and go; days and years roll on; life comes and goes; but He dies not. The same voice, "I am, I am," is eternal, unchangeable. In Him and through Him we know everything. In Him and through Him we see everything. In Him and through Him we sense, we think, we live, and we are. And that "I," which we mistake to be a little "I," limited, is not only my "I," but yours, the "I" of everyone, of the animals, of the angels, of the lowest of the low. That "I am" is the same in the murderer as in the saint, the same in the rich as in the poor, the same in man as in woman, the same in man as in animals. From the lowest amoeba to the highest angel, He resides in every soul, and eternally declares, "I am He, I am He." When we have understood that voice eternally present there, when we have learnt this lesson, the whole universe will have expressed its secret. Nature will have given up her secret to us. Nothing more remains to be known. Thus we find the truth for which all religions search, that all this knowledge of material sciences is but secondary. That is the only true knowledge which makes us one with this Universal God of the Universe.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。