数论哲学研究
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→数论哲学研究 2→ 3→原质[Prakriti]在数论哲学家看来被称为"未分化者"，其定义为 4→其中材料的完全平衡；由此自然推论，在 5→完全平衡中不可能有任何运动。在任何显现之前的原初状态中， 6→既无运动而唯有完全平衡，此原质 7→是不可毁灭的，因为分解或死亡源于不稳定或 8→变化。数论哲学又认为，原子并非原初状态。 9→这个宇宙并非从原子中产生：原子或许是第二级或 10→第三级状态。原始物质可以形成原子，继而变成 11→更粗重更巨大之物；就现代研究的进展而言，其结论 12→颇为相近。例如，在以太的现代理论中， 13→若你说以太是原子构成的，问题仍无法解决。更清楚地说： 14→若空气由原子构成，我们知道以太 15→无处不在、充盈一切、遍透万物，而这些空气原子 16→仿佛漂浮于以太之中。若以太再度由原子构成，则 17→每两个以太原子之间仍会有间隙。是什么填满了这些间隙？ 18→若你设想有另一种更精微的以太来填充此空隙， 19→则那种更精微的以太原子之间也会有其他间隙 20→需要填充，如此将陷入无穷后退，此即 21→数论哲学家所称的"导向虚无的因"。故原子 22→论终究不能成立。依数论哲学，自然无处不在，是 23→一片无所不在的自然之质，其中含有一切存在之物的种因。 24→何谓"因"？因是已显现状态的精微状态；是 25→将要显现之物尚未显现的状态。你所谓的毁灭是什么意思？ 26→毁灭即回归于因。若你有一件陶器，将其击碎，它便被毁灭了。其含义是： 27→结果回归于其本性，制造陶器的那些材料 28→回归其原初状态。超越这一 29→毁灭观念之外，任何如"湮灭"之类的概念本身即属荒诞。 30→依现代物理科学所能证明的，一切 31→毁灭均意味着迦毗罗数千年前所言——不过是回归于 32→因。回归更精微的形态，便是毁灭的全部含义。你 33→知可在实验室中证明物质 34→不可毁灭。在我们知识的现阶段，若有人站出来 35→说物质或此灵魂会被湮灭，他不过是在贻笑大方； 36→只有无知浅陋之人才会提出这样的命题；令人称奇的是，现代知识与 37→那些古代哲学家的教导不谋而合。必定如此， 38→这便是真理的证明。他们以心灵为基础展开探究；他们 39→分析了此宇宙的心理层面，得出了若干结论， 40→而我们分析物理层面也必将得出同样的结论，因为二者皆必通向 41→同一中心。 42→而我们分析物理层面也必将如此，因为二者皆必通向 43→同一中心。 44→ 45→你们须记住，原质在宇宙中第一个显现， 46→数论哲学称之为"大"[Mahat]。我们或可称之为"智"——即 47→"大"的原则，此乃其字面含义。原质的第一个变化便是这种 48→智；我不将其译为"自我意识"，因为那是不妥的。 49→意识只是这种智的一部分。"大"是 50→普遍性的，它涵盖了潜意识、意识 51→与超意识的全部领域；因此，将意识的任何单一状态应用于 52→这"大"上，都是不够的。以自然为例，你注意到 53→在你眼前有些变化可以见而知之，但 54→还有其他变化，更为精微，任何人类感知都 55→难以捕捉。这些变化同出于一因，同一"大"在发生这些变化。 56→从"大"中生出普遍的自我感。这些皆是物质。 57→物质与心灵之间并无本质区别，只是程度有别。物质的本体 58→以精粗不同之形态存在；一者可化为另一者，这与 59→现代生理学研究的结论完全吻合。 60→相信心灵并非独立于大脑之外这一教导，你 61→便可免去许多争论与挣扎。自我感再次分化为 62→两种形态。其一变化为诸根。诸根有二： 63→知根与作根。它们并非眼耳本身， 64→而是其背后的脑中枢与 65→神经中枢等处。这种自我感，即物质或本体， 66→发生变化，由此一质料制造出这些中枢。 67→同一本体制造出另一形态的"唯"[Tanmatras]，即 68→物质的精微微粒，触击我们的知觉根器并引发 69→感受。你无法感知它们，只能知其在焉。由 70→"唯"制造出粗大物质——土、水以及我们所见所感的一切 71→事物。我想将此铭刻于你们心中。这一点 72→极难掌握，因为西方国家对于心灵与物质的观念颇为奇异。 73→这些印象很难从我们的大脑中剔除。我自幼 74→受西方哲学教育，自己也曾深感困难。 75→这一切皆属宇宙性的事物。试想这 76→无限延伸、连续不断、唯一本体、未分化的物质， 77→此乃一切的原初状态，它开始以 78→牛奶变为酸奶的方式发生变化。这第一个变化称为"大"。 79→"大"这一本体变化为较粗重的物质，称为自我感。第三个 80→变化显现为普遍的感官与普遍的精微 81→微粒，这些微粒再次组合，形成这个粗大宇宙， 82→我们用眼、鼻、耳来见、嗅、闻。这便是数论哲学的宇宙图景， 83→而宇宙中有的，在小宇宙中亦必有。 84→取一个人而言。他首先在其内部拥有一分未分化的 85→自然，其中的物质自然变化为这 86→"大"，即这普遍之智的一小微粒，而他内部这一 87→普遍之智的微粒，再变化为自我感，继而变化为 88→感官与精微物质微粒，这些组合在一起，制造出 89→他的身体。我希望这一点能够清晰明了，因为这是通向 90→数论哲学的基石，你们必须理解，因为 91→这是整个世界哲学的根基。世界上没有 92→任何一种哲学不承迦毗罗之情。毕达哥拉斯来到 93→印度研习此哲学，这是 94→希腊哲学的开端。其后形成了亚历山大学派，再 95→其后形成了诺斯替主义。它分为两支；一支传入欧洲与 96→亚历山大，另一支留存于印度；由此，毗耶娑的体系 97→得以发展。迦毗罗的数论哲学是世界上第一个理性 98→体系，举凡世界上的形而上学家，皆必须向他致敬。 99→我要将此印于你们心中，我们有责任聆听 100→这位哲学大父的教诲。这位奇妙之人，最古老的哲学家， 101→甚至在《天启》中亦被提及："哦，主啊，你创造了 102→太初的圣哲迦毗罗。"他的洞察何等精妙， 103→若说需要某种证明来验证瑜伽[Yoga]士 104→超凡感知能力，这些人便是明证。他们既无显微镜，也无望远镜。然而 105→他们的感知何等精微，其分析何等完美卓绝！ 106→ 107→ 108→我在此指出叔本华与印度 109→哲学的区别。叔本华说，欲望或意志，是一切的 110→起因。是存在之意志使我们得以显现，但我们对此持否定。 111→意志与运动神经是相同的。当我看见一个对象，并无 112→意志；当感受被传递至大脑，便产生 113→反应，说"如此行"或"勿如此行"，而自我 114→本体的这种状态便被称为意志。没有 115→哪一粒意志不是反应。许多事物先于意志而存在。意志只是 116→从自我感中制造出来的某种东西，而自我感是由 117→更高的某物——"智"——所制造，那又是 118→未分化之自然的一种变化。这正是佛教的观念，即我们所见 119→一切皆是意志。从心理学上说这完全错误，因为意志只能 120→与运动神经相对应。若你去除运动神经，一个人 121→便毫无意志可言。这一事实，你们或许已知，是 122→通过一系列对低等动物进行的实验发现的。 123→ 124→我们将讨论这个问题。理解人中之"大"这一问题非常重要， 125→即那大的原则，即"智"。这种 126→"智"本身变化为我们所称的自我感，而这种 127→"智"是身体中一切力量的起因。它涵盖了全部 128→领域：潜意识、意识与超意识。这三种状态 129→是什么？潜意识状态是我们在动物身上发现的，我们 130→称之为本能。这几乎是无误的，但范围极其有限。本能极少 131→出错。动物几乎凭本能就能辨别有毒草药与可食用草药， 132→但其本能范围极窄。一旦遇到新事物，便 133→茫然无措。它像机器一样运作。然后是更高层次的知识， 134→它是可错的，时常犯错，但范围更广，虽然 135→迟缓，这便是你们所称的理性。它比本能宽广得多，但 136→本能比理性更可靠。推理中出错的 137→机会多于本能。心灵还有一种更高的状态， 138→超意识，它只属于瑜伽士，属于那些培育了它的人。 139→这是无误的，在范围上远比理性更为无限。这是 140→最高的状态。故我们须记住，这"大"才是此处一切的真正起因， 141→它以种种方式显现自身，涵盖了全部 142→潜意识、意识与超意识的领域，即知识存在于其中的三种状态。 143→ 144→ 145→现在来了一个始终被提出的微妙问题。若一位完美的神 146→创造了宇宙，为何其中存在不完美？我们所称的 147→宇宙，不过是我们所见的一切，而那只是意识与理性的这一小片面； 148→超越这片面，我们根本看不见。这个问题本身便是一个 149→不可能成立的问题。若我从一大团某物中取出一小部分 150→来看，它看起来便是不和谐的。这是自然的。宇宙是 151→不和谐的，因为我们使它如此。怎么说？什么是理性？什么是知识？ 152→知识是发现事物之间的联系。你走上街头 153→见到一个人，说我认识这是个人；因为你记得 154→心灵上的印象，记忆中的标记。你见过许多人， 155→每人在你心中留下了印象；见到此人， 156→你在记忆库中查找，见到许多相似的图像；当 157→你见到它们，你感到满足，便将此新印象与其余归为一类。 158→当一个新印象到来，在你心中有所联系，你便 159→感到满足；这种联系的状态便被称为知识。知识 160→因此是将一种经验与已有的经验积累归档， 161→这也是一个重大的证明：在没有现存积累的情况下，你无法 162→获得任何知识。若你 163→从无经验出发，如某些欧洲哲学家所认为的，你的心灵 164→起初如一块空白石板，你便无法获得任何知识，因为 165→知识的本质正是借助 166→心灵中已有的联系来认识新事物。必须有一个现成的积累， 167→可以将新印象与之对照。假设一个孩子来到这世界 168→没有这样的积累，他将永远无法获得任何 169→知识。因此，这个孩子此前必定处于一种 170→拥有积累的状态，由此知识永远在增长。请向我说明如何绕开这个论证，这是一个数学事实。 171→某些西方哲学流派也认为，没有过去知识的积累便 172→不可能有任何知识。他们提出了 173→孩子生而携带知识的观念。这些西方哲学家说， 174→孩子来到世界时所携带的印象，并非源于孩子的过去，而是源于 175→先祖的经验：这只是遗传传递。很快 176→他们将发现这一观念是完全错误的；某些德国哲学家正在 177→对这些遗传观念予以有力的打击。遗传很好，但 178→不完整，它只解释了物质层面。你如何解释 179→环境对我们的影响？许多原因产生一个结果。环境是 180→诸多修正性影响之一。我们自己创造了自己的环境：我们的过去是什么， 181→我们便在当下遭遇什么样的环境。一个醉汉自然沉沦至 182→城市最低下的贫民窟。 183→ 184→ 185→你们明白知识的含义了。知识是将新印象与旧印象归档， 186→认识一个新印象。什么叫认识？ 187→找到与自己已有的相似印象的联系。 188→知识的含义不外乎此。若知识意味着找到联系， 189→那么要知道任何事物，我们便必须目睹其所有相似者的全序列， 190→不是吗？假设你拿起一块鹅卵石；要找到联系，你必须看到 191→与它相似的整个系列的鹅卵石。但对于我们对 192→整个宇宙的感知，我们无法做到，因为在我们的 193→心灵的记忆库中，只有这一次单一的感知记录，我们没有其他 194→同类或同性质的感知，无法与之比较。 195→我们无法将其归入相关联系。这一块被 196→我们意识切割出来的宇宙，是一件令人惊愕的新鲜事物，因为我们 197→未能找到它的联系。因此，我们为它挣扎，认为 198→它可怕、邪恶、恶劣；我们有时认为它是好的，但我们 199→始终认为它是不完美的。只有当我们找到它的联系， 200→宇宙才能为人所知。当我们超越 201→宇宙与意识，我们便将认识它，那时宇宙便将得到解释。 202→在我们能够做到之前，我们用头撞墙， 203→永远无法解释宇宙，因为知识是寻找相似者， 204→而这意识层面只给了我们对它的一次单一感知。对于 205→我们关于神的观念亦然。我们所见的神不过是一部分，正如我们只见 206→宇宙的一部分，其余一切超越人类的认知。"我， 207→宇宙的整体；我之伟大，连这宇宙不过是我的一部分。" 208→这便是为何我们视神为不完美，无法理解祂。理解祂与宇宙的唯一方式 209→是超越理性，超越 210→意识。"当你超越所听与能听者， 211→所思与能思者，唯那时你才能触及真理。""超越 212→经典而去，因为它们只教导至自然， 213→教导至三德的层次。"当我们超越它们， 214→我们便能找到和谐，此前不能。 215→ 216→小宇宙与大宇宙完全依照同一图景而建，而在 217→小宇宙中，我们只知道一部分，即中间部分。我们既不了解 218→潜意识，也不了解超意识。我们只了解意识。若一个人 219→站起来说"我是罪人"，他做了一个不真实的陈述，因为他 220→并不了解自己。他是最无知的人；他对自身所知 221→只有一部分，因为他的知识只涵盖他所在领域的一部分。 222→宇宙亦然，只有其中一部分可以用理性认知，而非全部； 223→因为潜意识、意识与 224→超意识，个体的"大"与宇宙的"大"，以及所有 225→随后的变化，共同构成宇宙。
1→是什么使自然（原质[Prakriti]）发生变化？迄今我们已看到，一切事物，整个 2→原质，皆是不觉知的（Jada），是无情识的。 3→凡有规律之处，便是其运作领域为无情识的证明。心灵， 4→智能、意志及其他一切皆是无情识的。 5→但它们皆在映照某种情识性，映照某个超越一切之存在的"识"[Chit]， 6→数论哲学家称此存在为"原人"[Purusha]。原人是 7→宇宙中一切变化的无意为之的因。换言之，在普遍意义上，此 8→原人就是宇宙的神。据说 9→神的意志创造了宇宙，作为通俗的表达，这是可以的，但我们看到这不可能为真。 10→何以如此？意志是自然中第三或第四层次的显现。 11→在它之前已有许多事物存在，是什么创造了那些？意志是复合的， 12→凡是复合的皆是自然的产物。因此， 13→意志不可能创造自然。所以，所谓神的意志创造了宇宙，是毫无意义的。我们的意志只 14→涵盖自我意识的一小部分，驱动着我们的大脑。不是 15→意志在驱动你的身体，也不是意志在驱动宇宙。这个身体由某种力量驱动， 16→意志只是其中一部分的显现。 17→同样，宇宙中存在意志，但那只是宇宙的一部分。 18→整个宇宙并非由意志所引导，这便是为何我们 19→无法用意志论来解释它。假设我先入为主地认为 20→是意志在驱动身体，那么当我发现我无法随意志驱动它，我便 21→懊恼不已。这是我的过错，因为我无权先入为主地接受意志论。同样， 22→若我看待宇宙，认为是意志在驱动它，却发现诸多不符，那也是我的过错。所以 23→原人并非意志；它也不可能是智能，因为 24→智能本身便是复合的。没有某种对应于大脑的物质便 25→不可能有任何智能。凡有 26→智能之处，必有某种类似于我们所称"大脑"的物质， 27→它聚合为特定形态，发挥大脑的功能。凡有智能之处， 28→必有某种形态的物质。但智能本身是复合的。 29→那么这个原人究竟是什么？它既非智能也非意志，而是 30→这一切的因。它的存在使一切运转与 31→组合。它不与自然混合；它不是智能，也不是"大"[Mahat]； 32→而真我[Atman]，那纯净的，便是原人。"我是见证者，经由我的见证，自然运作生产；一切有情 33→众生与一切无情之物皆如是。" 34→ 35→那么自然中这种情识性是什么？我们发现这种被称为 36→"识"[Chit]的情识性即是智能。情识性的基础在于原人，它是 37→原人的本性。它是那无法被解释、却是我们所称一切知识之因的东西。原人 38→并非意识，因为意识是复合的；但 39→意识中一切光明与善美之物皆属原人。原人并非有意识的，但 40→智能中一切光明之物皆属原人。情识性在于原人，但 41→原人并不是智识的，不是"知者"。原人中的"识"加上 42→原质，便是我们在周围所见的一切。凡有快乐、幸福与 43→光明之处皆属原人；但它是复合的，因为 44→它是"原人加原质"。"凡有幸福之处，凡有 45→喜乐之处，便有那永生不朽的火花，即神。""原人是 46→宇宙的大吸引力；虽与宇宙不相触、不 47→相连，却吸引着整个宇宙。"你见一人追逐黄金，因为其背后有原人的一缕火花， 48→虽混杂着许多尘垢。当一位父亲爱他的子女，或一位女子 49→爱她的丈夫，那吸引力是什么？是其背后原人的一缕火花， 50→虽混杂着"尘垢"。除此之外，没有别的东西能够吸引。"在 51→这无情识的世界中，唯原人是有情识的。"这便是数论 52→哲学的原人。由此必然推论，原人必定是无所不在的。凡非 53→无所不在者，必是有限的。一切限制皆是被造的； 54→凡被造者皆有始有终。若 55→原人是有限的，它便会死灭，不会自由，不会是终极的， 56→必有某种原因。故它是无所不在的。依迦毗罗， 57→原人有许多个；不是一个，而是无穷多个。你我 58→各有其一，其他每个人亦然；无穷多个 59→圆，每一个皆是无限的，贯穿于此宇宙之中。原人 60→既非心灵也非物质，从它所折射的一切才是我们所知的。若 61→它是无处不在的，则可确信它无死无生。自然将生死的 62→阴影投射于其上，但原人本性纯净。 63→至此，我们发现数论哲学实属精妙。 64→ 65→接下来我们将讨论反对它的论证。至此，分析是完美的， 66→心理学无可反驳。通过将感官分为 67→根器与工具，我们发现感官并非简单的，而是复合的；将 68→自我感分为感觉与物质，我们发现这也是物质性的， 69→"大"[Mahat]也是物质的一种状态，最终我们找到了原人。至此 70→并无异议。但若我们问数论哲学家 71→"谁创造了自然？"——数论哲学回答，原人与原质皆是非被造的 72→且无所不在的，并且原人有无穷多个。我们 73→需要对这些命题提出反驳，寻找更好的解决方案， 74→由此将走向不二论。我们的第一个异议是：怎么可能存在这两种无限？ 75→然后我们的论证将是，数论哲学并非 76→一种完美的概括，在其中尚未找到完美的 77→解决方案。然后我们将看到吠檀多[Vedanta]学者如何从所有这些 78→困难中摸索出路，达到完美的解答，而一切荣耀 79→实际上都归于数论哲学。当一座建筑已经建成， 80→再给它添加最后的点睛之笔是很容易的。 81→ 82→ 83→ 84→ 85→ 86→
English
A STUDY OF THE SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY
Prakriti is called by the Sânkhya philosophers indiscrete, and defined as the perfect balance of the materials in it; and it naturally follows that in perfect balance there cannot be any motion. In the primal state before any manifestation, when there was no motion but perfect balance, this Prakriti was indestructible, because decomposition or death comes from instability or change. Again, according to the Sankhya, atoms are not the primal state. This universe does not come out of atoms: they may be the secondary or the tertiary state. The primordial material may form into atoms and become grosser and bigger things; and as far as modern investigations go, they rather point towards the same conclusion. For instance, in the modern theory of ether, if you say ether is atomic, it will not solve anything. To make it clearer, say that air is composed of atoms, and we know that ether is everywhere, interpenetrating, omnipresent, and that these air atoms are floating, as it were, in ether. If ether again be composed of atoms, there will still be spaces between every two atoms of ether. What fills up these? If you suppose that there is another ether still finer which does this, there will again be other spaces between the atoms of that finer ether which require filling up, and so it will be regressus ad infinitum, what the Sankhya philosophers call the "cause leading to nothing" So the atomic theory cannot be final. According to Sankhya, nature is omnipresent, one omnipresent mass of nature, in which are the causes of everything that exists. What is meant by cause? Cause is the fine state of the manifested state; the unmanifested state of that which becomes manifested. What do you mean by destruction? It is reverting to the cause If you have a piece of pottery and give it a blow, it is destroyed. What is meant by this is that the effects go back to their own nature, they materials out of which the pottery was created go back into their original state. Beyond this idea of destruction, any idea such as annihilation is on the face of it absurd. According to modern physical science, it can be demonstrated that all destruction means that which Kapila said ages ago — simply reverting to the cause. Going back to the finer form is all that is meant by destruction. You know how it can be demonstrated in a laboratory that matter is indestructible. At this present stage of our knowledge, if any man stands up and says that matter or this soul becomes annihilated, he is only making himself, ridiculous; it is only uneducated, silly people who would advance such a proposition; and it is curious that modern knowledge coincides with what those old philosophers taught. It must be so, and that is the proof of truth. They proceeded in their inquiry, taking up mind as the basis; they analysed the mental part of this universe and came to certain conclusions, which we, analysing the physical part, must come to, for they both must lead to the same centre.
You must remember that the first manifestation of this Prakriti in the cosmos is what the Sankhya calls "Mahat". We may call it intelligence — the great principle, its literal meaning. The first change in Prakriti is this intelligence; I would not translate it by self-consciousness, because that would be wrong. Consciousness is only a part of this intelligence. Mahat is universal. It covers all the grounds of sub-consciousness, consciousness, and super-consciousness; so any one state of consciousness, as applied to this Mahat, would not be sufficient. In nature, for instance, you note certain changes going on before your eyes which you see and understand, but there are other changes, so much finer, that no human perception can catch them. The are from the same cause, the same Mahat is making these changes. Out of Mahat comes universal egoism. These are all substance. There is no difference between matter and mind, except in degree. The substance is the same in finer or grosser form; one changes into the other, and this exactly coincides with the conclusions of modern physiological research. By believing in the teaching that the mind is not separate from the brain, you will be saved from much fighting and struggling. Egoism again changes into two varieties. In one variety it changes into the organs. Organs are of two kinds, organs of sensation and organs of reaction. They are not the eyes or the ears, but back of those are what you call brain-centres, and nerve-centres, and so on. This egoism, this matter or substance, becomes changed, and out of this material are manufactured these centres. Of the same substance is manufactured the other variety, the Tanmatras, fine particles of matter, which strike our organs of perception and bring about sensations. You cannot perceive them but only know they are there. Out of the Tanmatras is manufactured the gross matter — earth, water, and all the things that we see and feel. I want to impress this on your mind. It is very, hard to grasp it, because in Western countries the ideas are so queer about mind and matter. It is hard to get those impressions out of our brains. I myself had a tremendous difficulty, being educated in Western philosophy in my boyhood. These are all cosmic things. Think of this universal extension of matter, unbroken, one substance, undifferentiated, which is the first state of everything, and which begins to change in the same way as milk becomes curd. This first change is called Mahat. The substance Mahat changes into the grosser matter called egoism. The third change is manifested as universal sense-organs, and universal fine particles, and these last again combine and become this gross universe which with eyes, nose, and ears, we see, smell, and hear. This is the cosmic plan according to the Sankhya, and what is in the cosmos must also be microcosmic. Take an individual man. He has first a part of undifferentiated nature in him, and that material nature in him becomes changed into this Mahat, a small particle of this universal intelligence, and this particle of universal intelligence in him becomes changed into egoism, and then into the sense-organs and the fine particles of matter which combine and manufacture his body. I want this to be clear, because it is the stepping-stone to Sankhya, and it is absolutely necessary for you to understand it, because this is the basis of the philosophy of the whole world. There is no philosophy in the world that is not indebted to Kapila. Pythagoras came to India and studied this philosophy, and that was the beginning of the philosophy of the Greeks. Later, it formed the Alexandrian school, and still later, the Gnostic. It became divided into two; one part went to Europe and Alexandria, and the other remained in India; and out of this, the system of Vyasa was developed. The Sankhya philosophy of Kapila was the first rational system that the world ever saw. Every metaphysician in the world must pay homage to him. I want to impress on your mind that we are bound to listen to him as the great father of philosophy. This wonderful man, the most ancient of philosophers, is mentioned even in the Shruti: "O Lord, Thou who produced the sage Kapila in the Beginning." How wonderful his perceptions were, and if there is ant proof required of the extraordinary power of the perception of Yogis, such men are the proof. They had no microscopes or telescopes. Yet how fine their perception was, how perfect and wonderful their analysis of things!
I will here point out the difference between Schopenhauer and the Indian philosophy. Schopenhauer says that desire, or will, is the cause of everything. It is the will to exist that make us manifest, but we deny this. The will is identical with the motor nerves. When I see an object there is no will; when its sensations are carried to the brain, there comes the reaction, which says "Do this", or "Do not do this", and this state of the ego-substance is what is called will. There cannot be a single particle of will which is not a reaction. So many things precede will. It is only a manufactured something out of the ego, and the ego is a manufacture of something still higher — the intelligence — and that again is a modification of the indiscrete nature. That was the Buddhistic idea, that whatever we see is the will. It is psychologically entirely wrong, because will can only be identified with the motor nerves. If you take out the motor nerves, a man has no will whatever. This fact, as is perhaps well known to you, has been found out after a long series of experiments made with the lower animals.
We will take up this question. It is very important to understand this question of Mahat in man, the great principle, the intelligence. This intelligence itself is modified into what we call egoism, and this intelligence is the cause of all the powers in the body. It covers the whole ground, sub-consciousness, consciousness, and super-consciousness. What are these three states? The sub-conscious state we find in animals, which we call instinct. This is almost infallible, but very limited. Instinct rarely fails. An animal almost instinctively knows a poisonous herb from an edible one, but its instinct is very limited. As soon as something new comes, it is blind. It works like a machine. Then comes a higher state of knowledge which is fallible and makes mistakes often, but has a larger scope, although it is slow, and this you call reason. It is much larger than instinct, but instinct is surer than reason. There are more chances of mistakes in reasoning than in instinct. There is a still higher state of the mind, the super-conscious, which belongs only to Yogis, to men who have cultivated it. This is infallible and much more unlimited in its scope than reason. This is the highest state. So we must remember, this Mahat is the real cause of all that is here, that which manifests itself in various ways, covers the whole ground of sub-conscious, conscious, and super-conscious, the three states in which knowledge exists.
Now comes a delicate question which is being always asked. If a perfect God created the universe, why is there imperfection in it? What we call the universe is what we see, and that is only this little plane of consciousness and reason; beyond that we do not see at all. Now the very question is an impossible one. If I take only a small portion out of a mass of something and look at it, it seems to be inharmonious. Naturally. The universe is inharmonious because we make it so. How? What is reason? What is knowledge? Knowledge is finding the association about things. You go into the street and see a man and say, I know this is a man; because you remember the impressions on your mind, the marks on the Chitta. You have seen many men, and each one has made an impression on your mind; and as you see this man, you refer this to your store and see many similar pictures there; and when you see them, you are satisfied, and you put this new one with the rest. When a new impression comes and it has associations in your mind, you are satisfied; and this state of association is called knowledge. Knowledge is, therefore, pigeon-holing one experience with the already existing fund of experience, and this is one of the great proofs of the fact that you cannot have any knowledge until you have already a fund in existence. If you are without experience, as some European philosophers think, and that your mind is a tabula rasa to begin with, you cannot get any knowledge, because the very fact of knowledge is the recognition of the new by means of associations already existing in the mind. There must be a store at hand to which to refer a new impression. Suppose a child is born into this world without such a fund, it would be impossible for him ever to get any knowledge. Therefore, the child must have been previously in a state in which he had a fund, and so knowledge is eternally increasing. Slow me a way of getting round this argument. It is a mathematical fact. Some Western schools of philosophy also hold that there cannot be any knowledge without a fund of past knowledge. They have framed the idea that the child is born with knowledge. These Western philosophers say that the impressions with which the child comes into the world are not due to the child's past, but to the experiences of his forefathers: it is only hereditary transmission. Soon they will find out that this idea is all wrong; some German philosophers are now giving hard blows to these heredity ideas. Heredity is very good, but incomplete, it only explains the physical side. How do you explain the environments influencing us? Many causes produce one effect. Environment is one of the modifying effects. We make our own environment: as our past is, so we find the present environment. A drunken man naturally gravitates to the lowest slums of the city.
You understand what is meant by knowledge. Knowledge is pigeon-holing a new impression with old ones, recognising a new impression. What is meant by recognition? Finding associations with similar impressions that one already has. Nothing further is meant by knowledge. If that is the case, if knowledge means finding the associations, then it must be that to know anything we have to set the whole series of its similars. Is it not so? Suppose you take a pebble; to find the association, you have to see the whole series of pebbles similes to it. But with our perception of the universe as a whole we cannot do that, because in the pigeon-hole of our mind there is only one single record of the perception, we have no other perception of the same nature or class, we cannot compare it with any other. We cannot refer it to its associations. This bit of the universe, cut off by our consciousness, is a startling new thing, because we have not been able to find its associations. Therefore, we are struggling with it, and thinking it horrible, wicked, and bad; we may sometimes think it is good, but we always think it is imperfect. It is only when we find its associations that the universe can be known. We shall recognise it when we go beyond the universe and consciousness, and then the universe will stand explained. Until we can do that, all the knocking of our heads against a wall will never explain the universe, because knowledge is the finding of similars, and this conscious plane only gives us one single perception of it. So with our idea of God. All that we see of God is only a part just as we see only one portion of the universe, and all the rest is beyond human cognition. "I, the universal; so great am I that even this universe is but a part of Me." That is why we see God as imperfect, and do not understand Him. The only way to understand Him and the universe is to go beyond reason, beyond consciousness. "When thou goest beyond the heard and the hearing, the thought and the thinking, then alone wilt thou come to Truth." "Go thou beyond the scriptures, because they teach only up to nature, up to the three qualities." When we go beyond them, we find the harmony, and not before.
The microcosm and the macrocosm are built on exactly the same plan, and in the microcosm we know only one part, the middle part. We know neither the sub-conscious, nor the super-conscious. We know the conscious only. If a man stands up and says, "I am a sinner", he makes an untrue statement because he does not know himself. He is the most ignorant of men; of himself he knows only one part, because his knowledge covers only a part of the ground he is on. So with this universe, it is possible to know only a part of it with the reason, not the whole of it; for the sub-conscious, the conscious and the super-conscious, the individual Mahat and the universal Mahat, and all the subsequent modifications, constitute the universe.
What makes nature (Prakriti) change? We see so far that everything, all Prakriti, is Jada, insentient. It is all compound and insentient. Wherever there is law, it is proof that the region of its play is insentient. Mind, intelligence, will, and everything else is insentient. But they are all reflecting the sentiency, the "Chit" of some being who is beyond all this, whom the Sankhya philosophers call "Purusha". The Purusha is the unwitting cause of all the changes in the universe. That is to say, this Purusha, taking Him in the universal sense, is the God of the universe. It is said that the will of the Lord created the universe. It is very good as a common expression, but we see it cannot be true. How could it be will? Will is the third or fourth manifestation in nature. Many things exist before it, and what created them? Will is a compound, and everything that is a compound is a product of nature. Will, therefore, could not create nature. So, to say that the will of the Lord created the universe is meaningless. Our will only covers a little portion of self-consciousness and moves our brain. It is not will that is working your body or that is working the universe. This body is being moved by a power of which will is only a manifestation in one part. Likewise in the universe there is will, but that is only one part of the universe. The whole of the universe is not guided by will; that is why we cannot explain it by the will theory. Suppose I take it for granted that it is will moving the body, then, when I find I cannot work it at will, I begin to fret and fume. It is my fault, because I had no right to take the will theory for granted. In the same way, if I take the universe and think it is will that moves it and find things which do not coincide, it is my fault. So the Purusha is not will; neither can it be intelligence, because intelligence itself is a compound. There cannot be any intelligence without some sort of matter corresponding to the brain. Wherever there is intelligence, there must be something akin to that matter which we call brain which becomes lumped together into a particular form and serves the purpose of the brain. Wherever there is intelligence, there must be that matter in some form or other. But intelligence itself is a compound. What then is this Purusha? It is neither intelligence nor will, but it is the cause of all these. It is its presence that sets them all going and combining. It does not mix with nature; it is not intelligence, or Mahat; but the Self, the pure, is Purusha. "I am the witness, and through my witnessing, nature is producing; all that is sentient and all that is insentient."
What is this sentiency in nature? We find intelligence is this sentiency which is called Chit. The basis of sentiency is in the Purusha, it is the nature of Purusha. It is that which cannot be explained but which is the cause of all that we call knowledge. Purusha is not consciousness, because consciousness is a compound; buts whatever is light and good in consciousness belongs to Purusha. Purusha is not conscious, but whatever is light in intelligence belongs to Purusha. Sentiency is in the Purusha, but the Purusha is not intelligent, not knowing. The Chit in the Purusha plus Prakriti is what we see around us. Whatever is pleasure and happiness and light in the universe belongs to Purusha; but it is a compound, because it is Purusha plus Prakriti. "Wherever there is any happiness, wherever there is any bliss, there is a spark of that immortality which is God." "Purusha is the; great attraction of the universe; though untouched by and unconnected with the universe, yet it attracts the whole; universe." You see a man going after gold, because behind it is a spark of the Purusha though mixed up with a good deal of dirt. When a man loves his children or a woman her husband, what is the attracting power? A spark of Purusha behind them. It is there, only mixed up with "dirt". Nothing else can attract. "In this world of insentiency the Purusha alone is sentient." This is the Purusha of the Sankhya. As such, it necessarily follows that the Purusha must be omnipresent. That which is not omnipresent must be limited. All limitations are caused; that which is caused must have a beginning and end. If the Purusha is limited, it will die, will not be free, will not be final, but must have some cause. Therefore it is omnipresent. According to Kapila, there are many Purushas; not one, but an infinite number of them. You and I have each of us one, and so has everyone else; an infinite number of circles, each one infinite, running through this universe. The Purusha is neither mind nor matter, the reflex from it is all that we know. We are sure if it is omnipresent it has neither death nor birth. Nature is casting her shadow upon it, the shadow of birth and death, but it is by its nature pure. So far we have found the philosophy of the Sankhya wonderful.
Next we shall take up the proofs against it. So far the analysis is perfect, the psychology incontrovertible. We find by the division of the senses into organs and instruments that they are not simple, but compound; by dividing egoism into sense and matter, we find that this is also material and that Mahat is also a state of matter, and finally we find the Purusha. So far there is no objection. But if we ask the Sankhya the question, "Who created nature?" — the Sankhya says that the Purusha and the Prakriti are uncreate and omnipresent, and that of this Purusha there is an infinite number. We shall have to controvert these propositions, and find a better solution, and by so doing we shall come to Advaitism. Our first objection is, how can there be these two infinites? Then our argument will be that the Sankhya is not a perfect generalization, and that we have not found in it a perfect solution. And then we shall see how the Vedantists grope out of all these difficulties and reach a perfect solution, and yet all the glory really belongs to the Sankhya. It is very easy to give a finishing touch to a building when it is constructed.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。