宇宙论
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→宇宙论 2→ 3→世界有两个层面：小宇宙与大宇宙，内在与外在。我们通过 4→经验从两者中获取真理。从内在经验中获取的真理是心理学、 5→形而上学与宗教；从外在经验中获取的，则是自然科学。 6→一个完备的真理应与这两个世界的经验相和谐。小宇宙须为 7→大宇宙作证，大宇宙须为小宇宙作证；物质真理须在内在世界 8→有其对应，内在世界须有外在的印证。然而通常我们发现， 9→这些真理之间存在诸多冲突。在世界历史的某一时期，内在派 10→占据主导，开始与外在派抗衡。在当下，外在派、物理学家 11→居于主导地位，压制了心理学家与形而上学家的许多主张。 12→就我所知，心理学的真实核心部分与现代物理学知识的核心部分 13→是完全吻合的。任何个人不可能在每一方面都卓越非凡； 14→也没有哪个种族或民族能在所有知识领域的研究上同等精强。 15→现代欧洲诸国在外在物质知识的研究上极为精深，但在研究 16→人的内在本性上则不那么强盛。另一方面，东方人在外在 17→物质世界的研究上并不甚精强，但在内在世界的研究上 18→却极为精深。因此我们发现，东方物理学与其他科学不符合 19→西方科学的标准；西方心理学也与东方心理学不相吻合。 20→东方物理学家在西方科学家面前已落败溃退。与此同时， 21→各方都声称自己立足于真理；而如前所述，任何知识领域中 22→真正的真理都不会自我矛盾；内在的真理与外在的真理 23→是相互和谐的。 24→ 25→我们都知道现代天文学家和物理学家关于宇宙的理论； 26→与此同时我们也都知道这些理论如何严重地动摇了欧洲神学的根基， 27→这些科学发现宛如一颗炸弹投向其堡垒；我们也知道神学家 28→历来如何竭力压制这些研究。 29→ 30→我想在此回顾东方人关于宇宙论及其相关问题的心理学见解， 31→诸位将发现它们与现代科学最新发现是何等奇妙地相互印证； 32→而在存在不和谐之处，诸位将发现是现代科学有所欠缺， 33→而非东方哲学。我们都使用"自然"这个词。古代数论 34→（Sankhya）哲学家以两个不同的名字称呼它：原质[Prakriti]， 35→与"自然"这个词十分相近；以及更具科学性的名称， 36→阿维亚克塔（Avyakta），即未分化者，一切皆从中产生， 37→如原子、分子与力，以及心意、思想与智识。东方哲学家 38→与形而上学家早在数千年前就指出：心意是物质的—— 39→这一发现令人震惊。我们当代的唯物主义者正在努力证明什么， 40→不正是心意和身体一样是自然的产物吗？思想如此，而且我们 41→将会发现，智识亦如此：一切都从那被称为阿维亚克塔的 42→自然，即未分化者，中涌现而出。数论哲学家将其定义为 43→三种力量的均衡：其一称萨埵（Sattva），其二称罗阇（Rajas）， 44→其三称答磨（Tamas）。答磨，最低的力量，是吸引力； 45→稍高的是罗阇，是排斥力；最高的是这二者的均衡——萨埵； 46→因此当这两种力量，吸引力与排斥力，被萨埵完美制衡时， 47→世界便无创造，无运动。一旦这种均衡被打破，平衡失调， 48→某一力量强于另一力量，运动便开始，创造便发端。 49→这一状态周期性地、循环地运行。也就是说，存在一个 50→均衡失调的时期，此时力量开始组合与重组，万物向外投射。 51→与此同时，万物都有回归原始均衡状态的趋势，那时便来临， 52→一切显现的彻底消隐。然后又过一段时期，万物再度被扰动， 53→向外投射，然后又缓缓回落——如同波浪。宇宙中的一切 54→运动都可比作波浪，经历连续的起伏。一些哲学家认为， 55→整个宇宙在某一时期会趋于静止。另一些则认为这种 56→静止只适用于各个体系；也就是说，我们这个太阳系 57→会趋于静止，回归未分化状态，而与此同时，数以百万计 58→的其他体系将走向另一方向，向外投射。我更倾向于 59→第二种意见，即这种静止并非同时遍及整个宇宙， 60→而是在不同部分有不同事件发生。但原理是相同的： 61→我们所见的一切——即自然本身——都在连续的起落中前进。 62→一个阶段，回落，回归均衡，达到完美的平衡状态， 63→称为普拉亚（Pralaya），即一个劫期的终结。宇宙的投射 64→与普拉亚，被印度有神论作家比作上帝的呼出与呼入； 65→上帝，可以说，呼出宇宙，宇宙又回归于祂。当它趋于 66→静止时，宇宙会变成什么？它依然存在，只是以更精细的 67→形态，以因的形态，如数论哲学所称。它并未摆脱 68→因果律、时间与空间；它们仍在，只是缩小到极精细 69→微小的形态。假设整个宇宙开始收缩，直到我们每个人 70→都变成一个小分子，我们根本感觉不到这种变化， 71→因为与我们相关的一切都在同步收缩。整体收缩，然后 72→再向外投射，因产生果，如此循环往复。 73→ 74→现代所说的物质，在古代心理学家那里被称为布达（Bhutas）， 75→即外在元素。其中有一种元素，据他们认为，是永恒的； 75→其他一切元素都从这一种元素中产生。它被称为阿卡夏（Âkâsha）。 76→它与现代所说的以太有些相似，但并非完全相同。与此元素 77→相伴，有一种原始能量称为普拉纳（Prâna）。普拉纳与阿卡夏 78→组合与重组，由此形成各种元素。在每个劫期结束时， 79→万物消退，回归阿卡夏与普拉纳。在《梨俱吠陀》—— 80→现存最古老的人类著作中，有一段描述创造的美妙段落， 81→极富诗意——"当既无有又无无，当黑暗笼罩黑暗之时， 82→什么存在？"答案是："彼时它存在而无振动。" 83→这普拉纳当时就存在，但其中没有运动；安尼达瓦塔姆 84→（Ânidavâtam）意为"存在而无振动"。振动已经停止。 85→然后当劫期开始，经过漫长的间隔，那未振动的原子 86→开始振动，普拉纳一次次地击打阿卡夏。原子开始凝聚， 87→随着凝聚，不同的元素得以形成。这些东西通常被人以 88→极为奇特的方式翻译；人们不去请教哲学家或注释者， 89→自己又没有能力理解。一个愚蠢之人认识了三个梵文字母， 90→便翻译起整本书来。他们将这些元素译为空气、火等； 91→若他们去请教注释者，便会发现这些绝非空气之类。 92→ 93→阿卡夏受到普拉纳一次次的击打，产生婆由（Vâyu），即振动。 94→这婆由振动，振动愈来愈快，因摩擦而产生热，即帖加斯（Tejas）。 95→然后这热最终液化，即阿帕（Âpah）。然后那液体凝固成固体。 96→我们先有以太，然后有运动，然后产生热，然后液化， 97→然后凝聚成粗大物质；逆序回归亦是如此。固体将液化， 98→然后化为一团热，那热缓缓回归运动；运动将停止， 99→这个劫期将被摧毁。然后它将再度到来，再度消融于以太。 100→普拉纳不能离开阿卡夏单独运作。我们所知的一切运动、 101→振动或思想，都是普拉纳的变形；而我们所知的一切以 102→物质形态或阻力形态存在之物，都是阿卡夏的变形。 103→普拉纳不能单独存活，也不能无介质运作；当它是纯粹 104→的普拉纳时，它以阿卡夏本身为居所；当它转化为自然 105→之力，如引力或离心力时，它必须有物质。你从未见过 106→无物质的力，也从未见过无力的物质；我们所称的力与物质， 107→不过是同一事物的粗大显现，当它们极度精细时， 108→便称为普拉纳与阿卡夏。普拉纳，你可以用英文称为 109→生命（life），即生命力；但你不能将它限制于人的生命， 110→同时也不能将它与灵（Spirit），即阿特曼（Atman），混同。 111→如此运行不已。创造没有始端，也没有终端；它是永恒的进行。 112→ 113→我们将陈述这些古代心理学家的另一个立场：一切粗大之物 114→都是精细之物的结果。一切粗大之物都由精细之物构成， 115→他们称之为坦玛陀罗（Tanmâtras），即精细微粒。我嗅一朵花。 116→要嗅，必有某物与我的鼻子接触；花在那里，但我看不到 117→它向我移动。从花那里来到并与我的鼻子接触的， 118→便称为坦玛陀罗，即那朵花的精细分子。热、光及其他 119→一切亦如此。这些坦玛陀罗还可进一步细分为原子。 120→不同的哲学家有不同的理论，而我们知道这些只是理论。 121→对我们来说，知道一切粗大之物都由极其精细之物构成 122→就足够了。我们首先得到粗大元素，是我们从外部感觉到的； 123→然后来自精细元素，鼻子、眼睛和耳朵与之接触。 124→以太波触及我的眼睛；我看不见它们，然而我知道在 125→我能看见光之前，它们必须与我的眼睛接触。 126→ 127→这里是眼睛，但眼睛不能看见。取走大脑中枢；眼睛仍在， 128→外部世界的图像在视网膜上也是完整的；然而眼睛不能看见。 129→因此眼睛只是次要工具，而非视觉器官。视觉器官是大脑 130→中的神经中枢。同样，鼻子是工具，其后有一个器官。 131→感官只不过是外在工具。可以说，这些不同的器官， 132→在梵文中称为因陀利亚（Indriyas），才是感知的真实所在。 133→ 134→心意与器官相连才能感知，这是必要的。我们有一种共同的 135→体验：当我们埋头于学习时，往往听不见时钟的敲击声。 136→为何如此？耳朵在那里，声音通过它传至大脑；然而未被听见， 137→因为心意没有与听觉器官相连。 138→ 139→每种不同的工具需要不同的器官。因为若一个器官适用于 140→所有感官，我们就会发现，当心意与之相连时，所有感官 141→都同等活跃。然而事实并非如此，我们从时钟的例子中 142→已可见到。若所有工具只有一个器官，心意便会同时看见 143→和听见，会同时看见、听见和嗅闻，且不可能不同时做这一切。 144→因此，每种感官必须有各自独立的器官，这是必要的。 145→现代生理学已证实了这一点。我们当然可以同时听见和看见， 146→但这是因为心意将自身部分地连接于两个中枢。 147→ 148→器官由什么构成？我们看到，工具——眼睛、鼻子和耳朵—— 149→由粗大材料构成。器官也由物质构成。正如身体由粗大材料 150→构成，将普拉纳（Prana）转化为各种粗大力量；同样， 151→器官由精细元素构成——阿卡夏（Akasha）、婆由（Vayu）、 152→帖加斯（Tejas）等——将普拉纳转化为更精细的感知之力。 153→器官、普拉纳功能、心意与菩提（Buddhi）合而为一， 154→称为人的精细身体——灵伽（Linga）或苏克什玛·沙里拉 155→（Sukshma Sharira）。灵伽身有真实的形态，因为一切 157→物质之物都必然有形态。 158→ 159→心意称为摩那斯（Manas），处于振动或波动状态时称为 160→赤塔（Chitta），即不安定的状态。若你向湖中投石， 161→首先会有振动，然后是抵抗。水会短暂振动，然后对石头 162→产生反作用。同样，当任何印象作用于赤塔时，它先 163→略有振动，这便称为摩那斯。心意将印象进一步向内携带， 164→呈现给决断官能——菩提（Buddhi），菩提作出反应。 165→菩提之后是阿哈姆卡拉（Ahamkâra），即自我意识， 166→自我感说"我在"。阿哈姆卡拉之后是摩合特（Mahat）， 167→智识，即自然存在的最高形态。每一个都是其后者的结果。 168→在湖的例子中，每一次击打都来自外部世界；而在心意的 169→情况下，击打可能来自外部或内部世界。智识之后是 170→人的真我——原人（Purusha），阿特曼（Atman），那纯净、 171→完美者，唯祂是真正的见者，一切这些变化皆为祂而存在。 172→ 173→人观照这一切变化；他自身永远不会不洁净；然而通过 174→吠檀多论者所称的阿底亚萨（Adhyâsa），即映照、含义上的归因， 175→他似乎变得不洁净。这如同水晶前放置红花或蓝花时的 176→外观：颜色映照于其上，但水晶本身是纯净的。我们将 177→以为理所当然地认为有众多真我，每个真我都是纯净完美的； 178→各种粗大和精细的物质叠加在真我之上，使它呈现出多彩的色彩。 179→自然为何要这样做？自然正在经历这一切变化，是为了灵魂的 180→发展；这一切创造都是为了灵魂的利益，以使它得以自由。 181→这部我们称之为宇宙的浩瀚著作，在人面前展开，以便他阅读； 182→他最终发现，他是一个全知全能的存在。我必须在此告诉 183→诸位，我们的一些最优秀的心理学家并不相信你们所理解 184→的那种意义上的上帝。我们心理学的奠基者迦毗罗（Kapila） 185→否认上帝的存在。他的观点是，一个人格神是完全不必要的； 186→自然本身足以运作整个创造。他打倒了所谓的"设计论"， 187→说从未有过比这更幼稚的理论。然而他承认一种特殊的上帝。 188→他说，我们都在努力获得自由；当我们变得自由时，我们 189→可以，可以说，融入自然，然后在下一个劫期开始时重新 190→出现，成为其统治者。我们以全知全能的存在出现。从这个 191→意义上，我们可以被称为神；你、我和最卑微的存在， 192→在不同的劫期中都可以成为神。他说，这样的上帝将是 193→暂时性的；但一个永恒的上帝，永恒全能且统治宇宙， 194→是不可能存在的。若存在这样的上帝，将面临这一困境： 195→祂必然要么是一个受束缚的灵，要么是一个自由的灵。 196→一个完全自由的上帝不会去创造：没有必要。若祂受束缚， 197→祂不会去创造，因为祂不能：祂将是无能为力的。无论哪种 198→情况，都不可能有任何永恒全知全能的统治者。在我们的 199→圣典中，凡提及"上帝"这个词的地方，他说，指的是那些 200→已获得自由的人类。 201→ 202→迦毗罗（Kapila）不相信所有灵魂的合一。他的分析，就其所达 203→之深度而言，实属精妙绝伦。他是印度思想家之父；佛教及 204→其他体系皆源出于他的思想。 205→ 206→据其心理学，所有灵魂都能重获自由与其天赋权利，即全知 207→与全能。然而问题在于：这种束缚源自何处？迦毗罗说它是 208→无始的。但若是无始，便必然无终，我们将永无解脱[Moksha]。 209→他说：尽管束缚是无始的，但它不具有与灵魂同等的那种 210→恒常不变的性格。换言之，自然（束缚之因）虽无始无终， 211→但不与灵魂同义，因为自然没有个体性；它宛如一条河流， 212→每时每刻都获得新的水体；这些水体的总和构成那条河， 213→但那条河并非一个固定不变的量。自然中的一切都在不断变化， 214→而灵魂永远不变；因此，由于自然始终在变，灵魂便可能 215→从其束缚中解脱出来。 216→ 217→整个宇宙是按照其某一部分的同一规划建造的。因此，正如 218→我有心意，宇宙亦有宇宙心意。个体之中有的，宇宙中亦有。 219→有宇宙粗身；其后有宇宙精身；其后有宇宙心意；其后有 220→宇宙自我意识；其后有宇宙智识。这一切都在自然之中， 221→是自然的显现，而非自然之外。 222→ 223→我们的粗身来自父母，意识亦然。严格的遗传论认为， 224→我的身体是父母身体的一部分，我的意识与自我意识的材料 225→是父母意识的一部分。我们可以在从父母那里继承的少量 226→基础上，通过从宇宙意识中汲取来加以增补。宇宙中有一个 227→无限的智识宝库，我们从中汲取所需；宇宙中有一个无限的 228→心理力量宝库，我们永恒地从中汲取；但种子必须来自父母。 229→我们的理论是遗传与轮回[Samsara]相结合。依据遗传法则， 230→轮回中的灵魂从父母那里获得制造一个人所需的物质材料。
1→迦毗罗（Kapila）不相信所有灵魂的合一。他的分析，就其所达 2→之深度而言，实属精妙绝伦。他是印度思想家之父；佛教及 3→其他体系皆源出于他的思想。 4→ 5→据其心理学，所有灵魂都能重获自由与其天赋权利， 6→即全知与全能。然而问题在于：这种束缚源自何处？ 7→迦毗罗说它是无始的。然而若是无始，便必然无终， 8→我们将永无解脱[Moksha]。他说：尽管束缚是无始的， 9→但它不具有与灵魂同等的那种恒常不变的性格。 10→换言之，自然（束缚之因）虽无始无终，但不与灵魂 11→同义，因为自然没有个体性；它宛如一条河流， 12→每时每刻都获得新的水体；这些水体的总和构成那条河， 13→但那条河并非一个固定不变的量。自然中的一切都在 14→不断变化，而灵魂永远不变；因此，由于自然始终在变， 15→灵魂便可能从其束缚中解脱出来。 16→ 17→整个宇宙是按照其某一部分的同一规划建造的。因此， 18→正如我有心意，宇宙亦有宇宙心意。个体之中有的， 19→宇宙中亦有。有宇宙粗身；其后有宇宙精身；其后有 20→宇宙心意；其后有宇宙自我意识；其后有宇宙智识。 21→这一切都在自然之中，是自然的显现，而非自然之外。 22→ 23→我们的粗身来自父母，意识亦然。严格的遗传说认为， 24→我的身体是父母身体的一部分，我的意识与自我意识的 25→材料是父母意识的一部分。我们可以在从父母那里继承的 26→少量基础上，通过从宇宙意识中汲取来加以增补。宇宙中有 27→一个无限的智识宝库，我们从中汲取所需；宇宙中有一个 28→无限的心理力量宝库，我们永恒地从中汲取；但种子必须 29→来自父母。我们的理论是遗传与轮回[Samsara]相结合。 30→依据遗传法则，轮回中的灵魂从父母那里获得制造一个 31→人所需的物质材料。 32→ 33→一些欧洲哲学家曾断言，这个世界的存在是因为我的存在； 34→若我不存在，这个世界便不复存在。有时这样陈述： 35→若世界上所有的人都死去，不再有人类，也没有具备 36→感知与智识能力的动物，这一切显现便将消失。 37→然而这些欧洲哲学家并不了解其中的心理学，尽管他们 38→了解其原理；现代哲学对此仅有一瞥之见。从数论的 39→角度来看，这便易于理解了。依据数论，任何存在的事物， 40→其材料中都必然包含我的心意的某个部分，这是不可能 41→没有的。我对这张桌子的认识并非如其所是。从桌子 42→传来的印象到达眼睛，再到感觉器官（因陀利亚）， 43→然后到心意；心意产生反应，那反应便是我所称的桌子。 44→这恰如向湖中投石；湖面向石头涌起一道波浪； 45→这波浪便是我们所知的。外在是什么，无人知晓；当我试图 46→认识它，它必须成为我所提供的那种材料。是我，以我 47→自己的心意，为我的眼睛提供了材料。外在有某物， 48→它不过是缘起、暗示，而我在那暗示上投射我的心意； 49→它便呈现出我所见的形态。我们如何能看见同样的事物？ 50→因为我们都拥有宇宙心意的相似部分。心意相似者将见 51→相似之物，心意不同者则所见各异。
English
COSMOLOGY
There are two worlds, the microcosm, and the macrocosm, the internal and the external. We get truth from both of these by means of experience. The truth gathered from internal experience is psychology, metaphysics, and religion; from external experience, the physical sciences. Now a perfect truth should be in harmony with experiences in both these worlds. The microcosm must bear testimony to the macrocosm, and the macrocosm to the microcosm; physical truth must have its counterpart in the internal world, and the internal world must have its verification outside. Yet, as a rule, we find that many of these truths are in conflict. At one period of the world's history, the internals become supreme, and they begin to fight the externals. At the present time the externals, the physicists, have become supreme, and they have put down many claims of psychologists and metaphysicians. So far as my knowledge goes, I find that the real, essential parts of psychology are in perfect accord with the essential parts of modern physical knowledge. It is not given to one individual to be great in every respect; it is not given to one race or nation to be equally strong in the research of all fields of knowledge. The modern European nations are very strong in their research of external physical knowledge, but they are not so strong in their study of the inner nature of man. On the other hand, the Orientals have not been very strong in their researches of the external physical world, but very strong in their researches of the internal. Therefore we find that Oriental physics and other sciences are not in accordance with Occidental Sciences; nor is Occidental psychology in harmony with Oriental psychology. The Oriental physicists have been routed by Occidental scientists. At the same time, each claims to rest on truth; and as we stated before, real truth in any field of knowledge will not contradict itself; the truths internal are in harmony with the truths external.
We all know the theories of the cosmos according to the modern astronomers and physicists; and at the same time we all know how woefully they undermine the theology of Europe, how these scientific discoveries that are made act as a bomb thrown at its stronghold; and we know how theologians have in all times attempted to put down these researches.
I want here to go over the psychological ideas of the Orientals about cosmology and all that pertains to it, and you will find how wonderfully they are in accordance with the latest discoveries of modern science; and where there is disharmony, you will find that it is modern science which lacks and not they. We all use the word nature. The old Sânkhya philosophers called it by two different names, Prakriti, which is very much the same as the word nature, and the more scientific name, Avyakta, undifferentiated, from which everything proceeds, such as atoms, molecules, and forces, mind, thought, and intelligence. It is startling to find that the philosophers and metaphysicians of India stated ages ago that mind is material. What are our present materialists trying to do, but to show that mind is as much a product of nature as the body? And so is thought, and, we shall find by and by, intelligence also: all issue from that nature which is called Avyakta, the undifferentiated. The Sankhyas define it as the equilibrium of three forces, one of which is called Sattva, another Rajas, and the third Tamas. Tamas, the lowest force, is that of attraction; a little higher is Rajas, that of repulsion; and the highest is the balance of these two, Sattva; so that when these two forces, attraction and repulsion, are held in perfect control by the Sattva there is no creation, no movement in the world. As soon as this equilibrium is lost, the balance is disturbed, and one of these forces gets stronger than the other, motion sets in, and creation begins. This state of things goes on cyclically, periodically. That is to say, there is a period of disturbance of the balance, when forces begin to combine and recombine, and things project outwards. At the same time, everything has a tendency to go back to the primal state of equilibrium, and the time comes when that total annihilation of all manifestation is reached. Again, after a period, the whole thing is disturbed, projected outwards, and again it slowly goes down — like waves. All motion, everything in this universe, can be likened to waves undergoing successive rise and fall. Some of these philosophers hold that the whole universe quiets down for a period. Others hold that this quieting down applies only to systems; that is to say, that while our system here, this solar system, will quiet down and go back into the undifferentiated state, millions of other systems will go the other way, and will project outwards. I should rather favour the second opinion, that this quieting down is not simultaneous over the whole of the universe, and that in different parts different things go on. But the principle remains the same, that all we see — that is, nature herself — is progressing in successive rises and falls. The one stage, falling down, going back to balance, the perfect equilibrium, is called Pralaya, the end of a cycle. The projection and the Pralaya of the universe have been compared by theistical writers in India to the outbreathing and inbreathing of God; God, as it were, breathes out the universe, and it comes into Him again. When it quiets down, what becomes of the universe? It exists, only in finer forms, in the form of cause, as it is called in the Sankhya philosophy. It does not get rid of causation, time, and space; they are there, only it comes to very fine and minute forms. Supposing that this whole universe begins to shrink, till every one of us becomes just a little molecule, we should not feel the change at all, because everything relating to us would be shrinking at the same time. The whole thing goes down, and again projects out, the cause brings out the effect, and so it goes on.
What we call matter in modern times was called by; the ancient psychologists Bhutas, the external elements. There is one element which, according to them, is eternal ; every other element is produced out of this one. It is called Âkâsha. It is somewhat similar to the idea of ether of the moderns, though not exactly similar. Along with this element, there is the primal energy called Prâna. Prana and Akasha combine and recombine and form the elements out of them. Then at the end of the Kalpa; everything subsides, and goes back to Akasha and Prana. There is in the Rig-Veda, the oldest human writing in existence, a beautiful passage describing creation, and it is most poetical — "When there was neither aught nor naught, when darkness was rolling over darkness, what existed?" and the answer is given, "It then existed without vibration". This Prana existed then, but there was no motion in it; Ânidavâtam means "existed without vibration". Vibration had stopped. Then when the Kalpa begins, after an immense interval, the Anidavatam (unvibrating atom) commences to vibrate, and blow after blow is given by Prana to Akasha. The atoms become condensed, and as they are condensed different elements are formed. We generally find these things very curiously translated; people do not go to the philosophers or the commentators for their translation, and have not the brains to understand them themselves. A silly man reads three letters of Sanskrit and translates a whole book. They translate the, elements as air, fire, and so on; if they would go to the commentators, they would find they do not mean air or anything of the sort.
The Akasha, acted upon by the repeated blows of Prana, produces Vâyu or vibrations. This Vayu vibrates, and the vibrations growing more and more rapid result in friction giving rise to heat, Tejas. Then this heat ends in liquefaction, Âpah. Then that liquid becomes solid. We had ether, and motion, then came heat, then it became liquefied, and then it condensed into gross matter; and it goes back in exactly the reverse way. The solid will be liquefied and will then be converted into a mass of heat, and that will slowly get back into motion; that motion will stop, and this Kalpa will be destroyed. Then, again it will come back and again dissolve into ether. Prana cannot work alone without the help of Akasha. All that we know in the form of motion, vibration, or thought is a modification of the Prana, and everything that we know in the shape of matter, either as form or as resistance, is a modification of the Akasha. The Prana cannot live alone, or act without a medium; when it is pure Prana, it has the Akasha itself to live in, and when it changes into forces of nature, say gravitation, or centrifugal force, it must have matter. You have never seen force without matter or matter without force; what we call force and matter are simply the gross manifestations of these same things, which, when superfine, are called Prana and Akasha. Prana you can call in English life, the vital force; but you must not restrict it to the life of man; at the same time you must not identify it with Spirit, Atman. So this goes on. Creation cannot have either a beginning or an end; it is an eternal on-going.
We shall state another position of these old psychologists, which is that all gross things are the results of fine ones. Everything that is gross is composed of fine things, which they call the Tanmâtras, the fine particles. I smell a flower. To smell, something must come in contact with my nose; the flower is there, but I do not see it move towards me. That which comes from the flower and in contact with my nose is called the Tanmatra, fine molecules of that flower. So with heat, light and everything. These Tanmatras can again be subdivided into atoms. Different philosophers have different theories, and we know these are only theories. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that everything gross is composed of things that are very, very fine. We first get the gross elements which we feel externally, and then come the fine elements with which the nose, eyes, and ears come in contact. Ether waves touch my eyes; I cannot see them, yet I know they must come in contact with my eyes before I can see light.
Here are the eyes, but the eyes do not see. Take away the brain centre; the eyes will still be there, as also the picture of the outside world complete on the retinae; yet the eyes will not see. So the eyes are only a secondary instrument, not the organ of vision. The organ of vision is the nerve-centre in the brain. Likewise the nose is an instrument, and there is an organ behind it. The senses are simply the external instruments. It may be said that these different organs, Indriyas, as they are called in Sanskrit, are the real seats of perception.
It is necessary for the mind to be joined to an organ to perceive. It is a common experience that we do not hear the clock strike when we happen to be buried in study. Why? The ear was there, the sound was carried through it to the brain; yet it was not heard, because the mind did not attach itself to the organ of hearing.
There is a different organ for each different instrument. For, if one served for all, we should find that when the mind joined itself to it, all the senses would be equally active. But it is not so, as we have seen from the instance of the clock. If there was only one organ for all the instruments, the mind would see and hear at the same time, would see and hear and smell at the same time, and it would be impossible for it not to do all these at one and the same time. Therefore it is necessary that there should be a separate organ for each sense. This has been borne out by modern physiology. It is certainly possible for us to hear and see at the same time, but that is because the mind attaches itself partially to the two centres.
What are the organs made of? We see that the instruments — eyes, nose, and ears — are made of gross materials. The organs are also made of matter. Just as the body is composed of gross materials, and manufactures Prana into different gross forces, so the organs are composed of the fine elements, Akasha, Vayu, Tejas, etc., and manufacture Prana into the finer forces of perception. The organs, the Prana functions, the mind and the Buddhi combined, are called the finer body of man — the Linga or Sukshma Sharira. The Linga Sharira has a real form because everything material must have a form.
The mind is called the Manas, the Chitta in Vritti or vibrating, the unsettled state. If you throw a stone in a lake, first there will be vibration, and then resistance. For a moment the water will vibrate and then it will react on the stone. So when any impression comes on the Chitta, it first vibrates a little. That is called the Manas. The mind carries the impression farther in, and presents it to the determinative faculty, Buddhi, which reacts. Behind Buddhi is Ahamkâra, egoism, the self-consciousness which says, "I am". Behind Ahamkara is Mahat, intelligence, the highest form of nature's existence. Each one is the effect of the succeeding one. In the case of the lake, every blow that comes to it is from the external world, while in the case of the mind, the blow may come either from the external or the internal world. Behind the intelligence is the Self of man, the Purusha, the Atman, the pure, the perfect, who alone is the seer, and for whom is all this change.
Man looks on all these changes; he himself is never impure; but through what the Vedantists call Adhyâsa, by reflection, by implication, he seems to be impure. It is like the appearance of a crystal when a red or a blue flower is brought before it: the colour is reflected on it, but the crystal itself is pure. We shall take it for granted that there are many selves, and each self is pure and perfect; various kinds of gross and fine matter superimpose themselves on the self and make it multicoloured. Why does nature do all this? Nature is undergoing all these changes for the development of the soul; all this creation is for the benefit of the soul, so that it may be free. This immense book which we call the universe is stretched out before man so that he may read; and he discovers eventually that he is an omniscient and omnipotent being. I must here tell you that some of our best psychologists do not believe in God in the sense in which you believe in Him. The father of our psychology, Kapila, denies the existence of God. His idea is that a Personal God is quite unnecessary; nature itself is sufficient to work out the whole of creation. What is called the Design Theory, he knocked on the head, and said that a more childish theory was never advanced. But he admits a peculiar kind of God. He says we are all struggling to get free; and when we become free, we can, as it were, melt away into nature, only to come out at the beginning of the next cycle and be its ruler. We come out omniscient and omnipotent beings. In that sense we can be called Gods; you and I and the humblest beings can be Gods in different cycles. He says such a God will be temporal; but an eternal God, eternally omnipotent and ruler of the universe cannot be. If there was such a God, there would be this difficulty: He must be either a bound spirit or a free one. A God who is perfectly free would not create: there is no necessity for it. If He were bound, He would not create, because He could not: He would be powerless. In either case, there cannot be any omniscient or omnipotent eternal ruler. In our scriptures, wherever the word God is mentioned, he says, it means those human beings who have become free.
Kapila does not believe in the unity of all souls. His analysis, so far as it goes, is simply marvellous. He is the father of Indian thinkers; Buddhism and other systems are the outcome of his thought.
According to his psychology, all souls can regain their freedom and their natural rights, which are omnipotence and omniscience. But the question arises: Where is this bondage? Kapila says it is without beginning. But if it is without beginning, it must be without end, and we shall never be free. He says that though bondage is without beginning, it is not of that constant uniform character as the soul is. In other words, nature (the cause of bondage) is without beginning and end, but not in the same sense as soul, because nature has no individuality; it is like a river which gets a fresh body of water every moment; the sum total of these bodies of water is the river, but the river is not a constant quantity. Everything in nature is constantly changing, but the soul never changes; so, as nature is always changing, it is possible for the soul to come out of its bondage.
The whole of the universe is built upon the same plan as a part of it. So, just as I have a mind, there is a cosmic mind. As in the individual, so in the universal. There is the universal gross body; behind that, a universal fine body; behind that, a universal mind; behind that, a universal egoism, or consciousness; and behind that, a universal intelligence. And all this is in nature, the manifestation of nature, not outside of it.
We have the gross bodies from our parents, as also our consciousness. Strict heredity says my body is a part of my parents' bodies, the material of my consciousness and egoism is a part of my parents'. We can add to the little portion inherited from our parents by drawing upon the universal consciousness. There is an infinite storehouse of intelligence out of which we draw what we require; there is an infinite storehouse of mental force in the universe out of which we are drawing eternally; but the seed must come from the parents. Our theory is heredity coupled with reincarnation. By the law of heredity, the reincarnating soul receives from parents the material out of which to manufacture a man.
Some of the European philosophers have asserted that this world exists because I exist; and if I do not exist, the world will not exist. Sometimes it is stated thus: If all the people in the world were to die, and there were no more human beings, and no animals with powers of perception and intelligence, all these manifestations would disappear. But these European philosophers do not know the psychology of it, although they know the principle; modern philosophy has got only a glimpse of it. This becomes easy of understanding when looked at from the Sankhya point of view. According to Sankhya, it is impossible for anything to be, which has not as its material, some portion of my mind. I do not know this table as it is. An impression from it comes to the eyes, then to, the Indriya, and then to the mind; and the mind reacts, and that reaction is what I call the table. It is just the same as throwing a stone in a lake; the lake throws a wave towards the stone; this wave is what we know. What is external nobody knows; when I try to know it, it has to become that material which I furnish. I, with my own mind, have furnished the material for my eyes. There is something which is outside, which is only, the occasion, the suggestion, and upon that suggestion I project my mind; and it takes the form that I see. How do we all see the same things? Because we all have; similar parts of the cosmic mind. Those who have like minds will see like things, and those who have not will not see alike.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。