摩耶与幻象
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→第三章 2→ 3→幻象[Maya]与幻觉 4→ 5→（在伦敦讲演） 6→ 7→你们几乎都听说过"玛雅"这个词。通常，尽管并不准确，人们用它来表示幻 8→觉、错觉或诸如此类的东西。但幻象[Maya]的理论是吠檀多的支柱之一；因 9→此，有必要对其加以正确的理解。我请求诸位稍加耐心，因为它很容易被误 10→解。我们在吠陀文献中所能找到的关于幻象[Maya]最古老的观念，是迷妄的含 11→义；但彼时真正的理论尚未成形。我们发现诸如此类的段落："因陀罗通过他 12→的幻象[Maya]显现出各种形态。"此处幻象[Maya]这个词确实带有某种近乎魔 13→法的含义，我们还发现其他各种段落，都取相同的含义。随后，幻象[Maya]这 14→个词彻底从视野中淡出。但与此同时，这个观念在不断发展。后来，有人提 15→出："我们为何无法认知宇宙的秘密？"所给出的答案意义深远："因为我们 16→空谈，因为我们满足于感官之物，因为我们追逐欲望；因此，我们仿佛用一层 17→迷雾遮盖了实在。"此处完全没有使用幻象[Maya]这个词，但我们得到了这样 18→的观念：我们无明的根源是一种在我们与真理之间升起的迷雾。此后很久，在 19→最晚出的奥义书之一中，幻象[Maya]这个词再度出现，但这一次，它已经历了 20→一番蜕变，大量新的含义附着于其上。各种理论被提出并反复阐述，另一些被 21→采纳，直至幻象[Maya]的观念最终定型。我们在《希维塔希瓦塔拉奥义书》中 22→读到："知自然为幻象[Maya]，而此幻象[Maya]的主宰即是主神本身。"来到 23→我们的哲学家这里，我们发现幻象[Maya]这个词经过各种方式的阐发，直至伟 24→大的商羯罗阿阇梨。佛教徒也对幻象[Maya]的理论稍作改造，但在佛教哲学家 25→手中，它变得非常接近所谓的唯心主义，而那正是通常赋予幻象[Maya]这个词 26→的含义。当印度教徒说世界是幻象[Maya]，人们立刻产生世界是幻觉的观念。这 27→种解读有一定根据，因为它经由佛教哲学家传来——其中有一派哲学家完全 28→不相信外部世界的存在。但吠檀多的幻象[Maya]，在其最后发展成熟的形态中 29→，既非唯心主义，亦非实在论，也不是一种理论。它 30→是对事实的简单陈述——我们是什么，以及我们周围所见是什么。 31→ 32→正如我此前所说，《吠陀》诞生于其中的那些人的心灵，专注于追寻原理、发 33→现原理。他们没有时间研究细节，也无法等待细节；他们想要深入事物的核 34→心。某种超越性的东西在呼唤他们，他们无法等待。散布于各奥义书中，我们 35→发现那些我们如今称之为现代科学的学科的细节，往往多有错误；但与此同 36→时，它们的原理是正确的。举例来说，以太的观念——这是现代科学最新的理 37→论之一——在我们古代文献中已有记载，且比当今现代科学的以太理论更为成 38→熟，但它是原理性的。当他们试图演示那个原理的运作时，他们犯了许多错 39→误。关于遍在的生命原理的理论——宇宙中一切生命不过是其不同显现——在 40→《吠陀》时代便已被理解；它见于《婆罗门书》。《本集》中有一首长颂，赞 41→美普拉纳，宇宙一切生命不过是其显现。顺便提一句，也许对诸位中的一些人 42→有所启发：吠陀哲学中关于地球生命起源的理论，与某些现代欧洲科学家所提 43→出的理论颇为相似。诸位当然都知道，有一种理论认为生命来自其他星球。某 44→些吠陀哲学家持有一种确立的教义：生命以这种方式来自月球。 45→ 46→来到原理层面，我们发现这些吠陀思想家在提出宏大的、普遍性的理论时，极 47→为勇敢，大胆得令人惊叹。他们对宇宙奥秘从外部世界所作的解答，已是尽其 48→所能地令人满意了。现代科学对细节的精心研究，并未使这一问题的解答向前 49→迈进一步，因为原理已然失败。若以太理论在古代无法给出宇宙奥秘的解答， 50→那么精心研究以太理论的细节，也不会使我们更接近真理。若遍在生命理论作 51→为宇宙理论已然失败，即便将其精细阐发，也不会增添任何意义，因为细节并 52→不改变宇宙的原理。我的意思是：在对原理的探究方面，印度思想家同样勇 53→敢，在某些情况下，甚至比现代人更为大胆。他们作出了迄今所达到的最宏大 54→的概括，其中一些仍作为理论存在，现代科学尚未将其纳入自己的理论框架之 55→内。例如，他们不仅达到了以太理论，而且更进一步，将心意也归类为一种更 56→为稀薄的以太。在那之上，他们又发现了一种更为稀薄的以太。然而这依然不 57→是解答，它没有解决问题。再多的外部世界知识也无法解决这一问题。"但 58→是，"科学家说，"我们才刚刚开始略知一二；再等几千年，我们便会得到答 59→案。""不，"吠檀多论者说，因为他已毫无疑义地证明，心意是有限的，它 60→无法超越某些限度——超越时间、空间与因果的限度。正如没有人能够跳出自 61→身，同样，没有人能够超越时间与空间法则为他设定的限度。每一次试图解决 62→因果、时间与空间法则的尝试都将是徒劳，因为那尝试本身就必须以这三者的 63→存在为前提。那么，世界存在这一陈述意味着什么？"这个世界没有存在。" 64→这话是什么意思？它的意思是，世界没有绝对的存在。它的存在只是相对于我 65→的心意、你的心意，以及其他一切人的心意而言的。我们用五种感官看见这个 66→世界，但若我们还有另一种感官，我们将在其中看见更多的东西。若我们再有 67→另一种感官，它又会显现为另一种面貌。因此，它没有真实的存在；它没有不 68→变的、不可动摇的、无限的存在。也不能说它不存在，因为它确实存在，而我 69→们不得不在其中工作。它是存在与非存在的混合体。 70→ 71→从抽象回到我们日常生活的具体细节，我们发现整个生命充满了矛盾，是存在 72→与非存在的混合体。知识中存在这种矛盾。人似乎可以认知一切，只要他愿意 73→去认知；但走了几步之后，他便发现了一堵金刚石墙，无法穿越。他的全部工 74→作都在一个圆圈之内，超不出那个圆圈。那些与他最为切近、最为亲爱的问 75→题，日夜驱策着他，呼唤着解答，但他无法解答，因为他无法超越自己的理 76→智。然而那种渴望在他身上根植深固。我们依然知道，唯有通过节制与抑制， 77→才能获得真正的善。每一次呼吸，我们心中的每一个冲动都催促我们自 78→私。与此同时，有一种超越我们的力量说，唯有无私才是善。每个孩子都是天 79→生的乐观主义者；他做着金色的梦。青年时期他变得更加乐观。一个年轻人很 80→难相信死亡真的存在，真的会有失败或堕落。老年降临，生命变成一片废墟。 81→梦想消散于空气之中，那人变成了悲观主义者。于是我们从一个极端摆向另一 82→个极端，被自然所玩弄，不知自己走向何处。这令我想起《拉利塔·维斯塔 83→拉》——佛陀传记——中一首著名的歌。书中说，佛陀降生是为了拯救人类， 84→但他在宫殿的奢靡享乐中忘记了自己。几位天使来到他身边，唱起一首歌唤醒 85→他。那整首歌的主旨是：我们在生命之河上漂流，那河川不断变迁，没有停歇， 86→没有休止。我们的生命亦如此，不断流逝，不知任何休止。我们该怎么办？ 87→那个有足够食物和饮水的人是乐观主义者，他回避一切关于苦难的话题，因为 88→它使他不安。不要对他说世界的悲苦与痛苦；去告诉他一切都好。"是的，我 89→安全，"他说。"看看我！我有一栋好房子住。我不惧寒冷与饥饿；因此不要 90→把这些可怖的图景摆到我面前。"但另一方面，还有许多人正在受寒挨饿。若 91→你去教导他们一切都好，他们不会听你的。当他们自己悲苦时，他们又怎能希 92→望他人幸福？如此，我们在乐观主义与悲观主义之间摇摆。 93→ 94→然后，是死亡这一可怖的事实。整个世界都走向死亡；万物皆死。我们所有的 95→进步、我们的虚荣、我们的改革、我们的奢华、我们的财富、我们的知识，都 96→只有一个终点——死亡。那是唯一确定的事。城市来了又去，帝国兴了又亡， 97→星球碎裂成片、化为尘埃，被其他星球的大气吹散。自无始以来，事情便是这 98→样进行的。死亡是一切的终点。死亡是生命的终点，是美丽的终点，是财富的 99→终点，是权力的终点，也是德行的终点。圣人死去，罪人死去，国王死去，乞 100→丐死去。他们都走向死亡，然而这种对生命的巨大执着依然存在。不知为何， 101→我们执着于生命，无法放弃。这就是幻象[Maya]。 102→ 103→母亲正在悉心抚育一个孩子；她整个灵魂、她的整个生命都在那孩子身上。孩 104→子长大，成为了一个男人，或许变成了一个流氓与粗人，每天踢打、殴打她； 105→然而母亲依然执着于孩子；当她的理智苏醒时，她用爱的观念将这一切掩盖起 106→来。她几乎没有意识到，这并非爱，而是某种抓住了她神经、她怎么也无法摆 107→脱的东西；无论她如何挣扎，她都无法摆脱自己所处的束缚。这就是幻象[Maya]。 108→ 109→我们都在追寻金羊毛。我们每个人都认为这将属于自己。每个理性的人都知 110→道，自己成功的机会或许是两千万分之一，然而每个人都在为之挣扎。这就是 111→幻象[Maya]。 112→ 113→死亡日夜在我们的大地上徘徊，然而与此同时，我们却认为自己将永恒长存。 114→曾有人问坚战王，"大地上最奇妙的事是什么？"国王 115→回答说，"每天都有人在我们周围死去，然而人们却认为自己 116→永远不会死。"这就是幻象[Maya]。 117→ 118→这些在我们的理智、我们的知识中，乃至在我们生命的一切事实中存在的巨大 119→矛盾，从四面八方向我们呈现。一位改革者出现，想要纠正某个民族中存在的 120→弊病；但在这些弊病尚未得到纠正之前，另一处便涌现出千种新的弊病。这就 121→像一栋正在倒塌的旧房子；你在一处修补，毁坏便蔓延到另一处。在印度，我 122→们的改革者哭号、讲道，反对强制守寡的弊端。在西方，不婚是一大弊病。帮 123→助一方的未婚者；他们在受苦。帮助另一方的寡妇；她们在受苦。这就像慢性 124→风湿病：你把它从头上赶走，它便跑到身体；从身体上赶走，它又跑到脚上。 125→改革者起来宣讲：学识、财富与文化不应掌握在少数人手中；他们尽力使之人 126→人可及。这些或许给一些人带来更多幸福，但或许随着文明的来临，物质幸福 127→却在减少。幸福的知识带来了不幸福的知识。那么我们该走向何方？我们所享 128→有的哪怕最少量的物质繁荣，都在别处造成同等数量的苦难。这就是规律。年 129→轻人或许还看不清楚，但那些活得足够长、经历了足够多挣扎的人会理解这一 130→点。这就是幻象[Maya]。这些事情日夜进行着，要找到这一问题的解答是不可 131→能的。为什么会这样？这是无法回答的，因为这个问题在逻辑上无法被正确地 132→提出。事实上，没有为何与如何；我们只知道它就是这样，而我们无能为力。 133→即便是要把握它、在我们自己的心中对它画出一幅精确的图像，都已超出我们 134→的能力。那我们怎能解决它呢？ 135→ 136→幻象[Maya]是对这宇宙事实的陈述，陈述它正在如何进行。当这些事情被告知 137→给人们时，人们通常感到恐慌。但我们必须勇敢。掩盖事实并非寻求补救的方 138→法。你们都知道，被猎狗追逐的野兔把头埋入地下，以为自己安全；当我们逃 139→入乐观主义时，我们与那野兔如出一辙，但那不是补救的方法。对此有人提出 140→异议，但你们可能会注意到，这些异议通常来自于那些拥有许多人生美好事物 141→的人。在这个国家（英国），很难成为悲观主义者。每个人都告诉我世界进行 142→得多么美好，多么进步；但他自己是什么样的人，那就是他自己的世界。古老 143→的问题又来了：基督教必定是世界上唯一真正的宗教，因为基督教国家繁荣！ 144→但这个断言自我推翻，因为基督教国家的繁荣依赖于非基督教国家的不幸。必 145→须有人被掠夺。假设整个世界都成为基督教，那么基督教国家便会变穷，因为 146→便没有可供掠夺的非基督教国家了。于是这个论点自我摧毁。动物以植物为 147→食，人以动物为食，而最糟糕的是，人相互为食，强者以弱者为食。这在处处 148→都在进行着。这就是幻象[Maya]。你们发现了什么解答？我们每天都听到许多 149→解释，被告知长远来看一切都会变好。就算假定这是可能的，为什么行善要采 150→取这种魔鬼式的方式？为何善不能通过善来实现，而要通过这些魔鬼式的方 151→法？今日人类的后代将会幸福；但为何现在必须经历所有这些苦难？没有解 152→答。这就是幻象[Maya]。
1→再者，我们常常听闻进化的一个特征是它消除恶，而这恶不断地从世界中被消 2→除，最终只有善会留存。这话听来很是悦耳，它迎合了那些拥有足够多的世俗 3→财货、无需每日面对艰苦挣扎、不被所谓进化的车轮碾压的人的虚荣心。对 4→这些幸运者来说，这话确实令人安慰。芸芸众生或许受苦，但他们不在乎；让 5→他们死去，无关紧要。好吧，然而这个论点从头到尾都是谬误的。它首先预设 6→了一个前提——世界上显现的善与恶是两种绝对的实在。其次，它作出了一个 7→更糟糕的假设——善的数量在增加，恶的数量在减少。所以，若恶正以他们所 8→谓进化的方式被消除，终将有一天，一切恶都被消除，剩下的将全是善。这话 9→说起来容易，但能否证明恶是一个递减量？举个例子，住在森林里的人，不知 10→如何耕种心智，不识字，不曾听闻书写之物。若他受了重伤，很快便能痊愈； 11→而我们若只是划破一道口子便会送命。机器使物品变得廉价，助推进步与进 12→化，但数百万人遭受碾压，只为使少数人致富；一人致富，同时数千人变得愈 13→来愈贫，大批人沦为奴隶。事情就是这样进行的。动物性的人活在感官之中。 14→若他没有足够的食物，他便痛苦；或若他的身体出了什么问题，他便痛苦。他 15→的苦与乐都从感官中发端，也在感官中终结。一旦这个人有所进步，一旦他的 16→幸福视野扩展，他的不幸视野也随之等比例扩展。森林中的人不知嫉妒为何 17→物，不知何为诉讼缠讼，不知何为缴税，不知何为被社会非议，不知何为日 18→夜受人类魔性所发明的最为可怖的专制所宰制——那种专制窥探每颗人心的秘 19→密。他不知道人如何以其全部的虚妄知识和全部的傲慢，变得比任何动物都要 20→千倍地魔性。因此，当我们从感官中显现出来，我们便发展出更高的享受能 21→力，同时也不得不发展出更高的受苦能力。神经变得愈来愈精细，愈来愈能承 22→受苦难。在每个社会中，我们常常发现，无知的普通人受到辱骂时感受不深， 23→却对一顿痛打感受颇深。而绅士则连一句辱骂之词也难以承受；他已变得如此 24→敏感。苦难随着他感受幸福的敏感度而增加。这并不能为进化论者的立场提供 25→多少佐证。我们增强感受幸福的能力，也同样增强了受苦的能力；有时我甚至 26→倾向于认为，若我们以算术级数增加感受幸福的能力，我们增加感受苦难的能 27→力便会以几何级数递增。我们这些正在进步的人知道，进步愈多，通向痛苦与 28→快乐的途径便愈多。这就是幻象[Maya]。 29→ 30→因此我们发现，幻象[Maya]并非一种用来解释世界的理论；它不过是对事实现 31→状的陈述——我们存在的根基本身就是矛盾，我们无处不在经历这巨大的矛 32→盾，凡有善之处，必有恶；凡有恶之处，必有某种善；凡有生命之处，死亡必 33→如影随形；每一个微笑之人都必将哭泣，反之亦然。这种境况也无法得到改 34→善。我们或许真的设想，会有一处只有善而无恶、我们只会微笑而永不哭泣的 35→地方。这在事物的本性中根本不可能；因为条件依然如故。凡在我们心中有能 36→力产生微笑之处，悲泣的力量便潜伏其中。凡有能力产生幸福之处，使我们痛 37→苦的力量也潜伏于某处。 38→ 39→因此，吠檀多哲学既非乐观主义，亦非悲观主义。它将这两种观点都加以表达 40→，并如实看待事物。它承认这个世界是善与恶、幸福与苦难的混合体，而增加 41→其中之一，必然同等地增加另一者。永远不会有一个完全善或完全恶的世界， 42→因为这个观念本身就是自相矛盾的。这种分析所揭示的伟大秘密是：善与恶并 43→非两种截然分明、各自独立的存在。在我们这个世界上，没有任何一件事物是 44→你可以标注为纯粹之善的，宇宙中也没有任何一件事物是你可以标注为纯粹之 45→恶的。同一现象，此刻显现为善，明日或许显现为恶。同一件事，在一个人那 46→里产生苦难，在另一个人那里或许产生幸福。烫伤孩子的火，也可能为一个饥 47→饿的人烹制一顿美食。传导苦难感觉的神经，同样传导幸福的感觉。因此，制 48→止恶的唯一方法，就是同时制止善；没有别的办法。要制止死亡，我们也必须 49→同时制止生命。没有死亡的生命与没有苦难的幸福是矛盾的，两者都无法单独 50→存在，因为它们不过是同一事物的不同显现。我昨日认为是善的，今日未必如 51→此。当我回顾自己的生命，看看我在不同时期的理想，便发现事实如此。在某 52→个时期，我的理想是驾驭一对骏马；在另一个时期，我认为若能制作某种糖 53→果，便会完全满足；后来我设想，若有了妻子、儿女与充足的金钱，我便会完 54→全称心。今日，我对所有这些理想嗤之以鼻，视之为幼稚的无聊之举。 55→ 56→吠檀多说，终将有一天，我们回顾过去，会对那些使我们害怕放弃个性的理想 57→发出笑声。我们每个人都想将这个身体保留无限长的时间，以为会因此而非常 58→幸福，但终将有一天，我们会对这个念头发出笑声。如今，若真理果如此，我 59→们便处于一种绝望的矛盾之中——既非存在亦非非存在，既非苦难亦非幸福， 60→而是两者的混合。那么，吠檀多及一切其他哲学与宗教有何用处？而且，最重 61→要的是，行善有何用处？这是一个萦绕心头的问题。若真如此——行善不能不 62→同时为恶，每当你试图创造幸福，苦难便如影随形——人们便会问你："行善 63→有何用处？"答案首先是：我们必须为减少苦难而工作，因为这是使自己幸福 64→的唯一途径。我们每个人或早或晚都会在生命中发现这一点。聪明的人发现得 65→早一些，迟钝的人晚一些。迟钝的人为这一发现付出了极大的代价，聪明的人 66→代价较小。其次，我们必须尽到自己的本分，因为这是摆脱这种矛盾生命的唯 67→一途径。善与恶两股力量都将使宇宙为我们保持活力，直到我们从梦中觉醒， 68→放弃这堆泥饼的游戏。那个教训我们必须学习，而学习它将需要漫长、漫长的 69→时间。 70→ 71→在德国，有人曾试图建立一套哲学体系，其基础是：无限者已成为有限者。在 72→英国也有人作出同样的尝试。这些哲学家的立场分析如下：无限者正在这宇宙 73→中试图表达自身，终将有一天，无限者会成功地做到这一点。这话说得很好， 74→我们也使用了无限者、显现与表达这样的词语，如此等等，但哲学家自然要求 75→有一个合乎逻辑的基本根据，来支持有限者能够完全表达无限者这一断言。绝 76→对者与无限者成为这个宇宙，只能通过局限。凡经由感官、心意或理智而来的 77→一切，都必然是有限的；有限者成为无限者，纯属荒谬，永无可能。另一方 78→面，吠檀多说，绝对者或无限者确实在试图在有限者中表达自身，但终将有一 79→天，它发现这是不可能的，那时它便不得不鸣金收兵，而这鸣金收兵意味着弃 80→绝，这才是宗教真正的开始。时下，谈论弃绝已是极为困难的事。有人在美国 81→说我，是一个从一个已死去并埋葬了五千年的国度里走出来的人，在那里谈论 82→弃绝。英国哲学家或许也这样说。然而，这确实是通向宗教的唯一道路。弃绝 83→，舍弃。基督说了什么？"凡为我的缘故失去生命的，必得着生命。"他一次 84→又一次地宣讲弃绝是走向完美的唯一道路。终将有一个时刻，心意从这漫长而 85→沉重的梦中觉醒——孩子放下游戏，渴望回到母亲身边。他发现这句话的真实 86→性："欲望绝不因欲望的满足而得到满足，它只会愈加增长，如同火焰，当黄 87→油被浇于其上。" 88→ 89→对于一切感官享乐、一切智识享乐，以及人类心意所能拥有的一切享乐，皆是 90→如此。它们都算不了什么，它们都在幻象[Maya]之内，在这张我们无法穿越的 91→大网之内。我们或许在其中穿行无限的时间，找不到尽头；每当我们挣扎着获 92→取一点享乐，大量的苦难便随之降临。何等可怖！每当我想到这一点，我不由 93→得认为，幻象[Maya]的这套理论，这"一切皆是幻象[Maya]"的陈述，是最好 94→也是唯一的解释。这个世界存在多少苦难；若你游历各个民族，你会发现一个 95→民族试图以一种手段补救其弊病，另一个民族以另一种手段。同样的弊病被各 96→种族采用，并以各种方式加以遏制，然而没有哪个民族获得了成功。若在一处 97→被减少，大量的恶便拥挤于另一处。事情就是这样进行的。印度人为了维持民 98→族高度的贞洁标准，认可了童婚，而从长远来看，这却使民族退化。与此同 99→时，我不能否认童婚使民族更为贞洁。你要怎样选择？若你要使民族更为贞 100→洁，你就通过童婚从身体上削弱了男男女女。另一方面，英国的情形难道更 101→好？不，因为贞洁是一个民族的生命。你们难道没有在历史中发现，一个民族 102→走向死亡的第一个征兆便是不贞洁？一旦不贞洁进入，这个民族的末日便已在 103→望。那我们从哪里获得这些苦难的解答呢？若父母为子女择选夫妻，这种恶便 104→被减至最小。印度的女儿们是务实的，而非多愁善感的。但她们生命中几乎没 105→有诗意留存。反过来，若人们自行选择夫妻，这似乎也未能带来多少幸福。印 106→度妇女通常非常幸福；夫妻争吵的情况并不多见。另一方面，在享有最大自由 107→的美国，不幸福的家庭与婚姻的数量相当庞大。不幸福无处不在。这说明什么 108→？说明所有这些理想终究未能带来多少幸福。我们都在追求幸福，而一旦在一 109→边得到了一点幸福，另一边便来了不幸福。 110→ 111→那我们就不行善了吗？不，要以更大的热情行善，但这种知识所能为我们做到 112→的，是打破我们的狂热偏执。英国人不再是狂热分子，不再咒骂印度教徒。他 113→将学会尊重不同民族的风俗习惯。狂热偏执会少一些，实实在在的工作会多一 114→些。狂热分子无法工作，他们浪费了四分之三的精力。是头脑冷静、沉稳务实 115→的人在工作。因此，从这一观念出发，工作的能力将会增强。知道了事物的本 116→来状态，就会有更多的耐心。看见苦难或罪恶，将不再能使我们失去平衡，不 117→再使我们追逐幻影。因此，耐心会来到我们这里，知道世界必然按其自身的方 118→式前行。例如，若所有人都变好了，动物便会在那时进化成人，必须经历同样 119→的阶段；植物亦然。但只有一件事是确定的：这条奔腾的大河正向着大海奔 120→涌，所有构成水流的水滴，终将在时间中被汇入那无边无际的大海。所以，在 121→这人生之中，带着它所有的苦难与哀愁、欢乐与微笑和泪水，有一件事是确定 122→的——一切事物都在奔向它们的目标，这只是一个时间问题，你我，植物与动 123→物，以及宇宙中存在的每一粒生命微粒，都必然抵达完美的无限之海，都必然 124→达到自由，达到神。
1→让我再重申一次，吠檀多的立场既非悲观主义，亦非乐观主义。它不说这个世 2→界全是恶，也不说全是善。它说我们的恶与我们的善同等价值，我们的善与我 3→们的恶同等价值。它们是相互束缚的。这就是世界，认识了这一点，你便耐心 4→地工作。为了什么？我们为何应当工作？若事情便是如此，我们该怎么办？何 5→不成为不可知论者？现代不可知论者也知道，这幻象[Maya]之恶——用我们的 6→语言来说——没有解决方案，没有出路；因此他们告诉我们要知足享乐。这里 7→又是一个错误，一个巨大的错误，一个极不合逻辑的错误。那就是：你所说的 8→生命是什么意思？你是只指感官的生命吗？在这一点上，我们每个人与禽兽的 9→区别仅仅是微乎其微的。我确信，在场没有任何一个人的生命是只活在感官之 10→中的。那么，当下的生命意味着更多的东西。我们的感情、思想与抱负，都是 11→我们生命的组成部分；而朝向理想、朝向完美的挣扎，难道不是我们所谓生命 12→中最重要的组成部分之一吗？按照不可知论者的说法，我们必须享受生命本来 13→的样子。但这生命意味着，首先是追寻理想；生命的本质是朝向完美前进。我 14→们必须拥有这一点，因此，我们既不能成为不可知论者，也不能接受世界的表 15→象。不可知论者的立场将这种生命——减去其理想成分——视为现实的全部。 16→而这一理想成分，不可知论者声称无法企及，因此必须放弃追寻。这就是所谓 17→的幻象[Maya]——这自然，这宇宙。 18→ 19→所有宗教或多或少都是超越自然的尝试——无论是最粗陋的还是最精进的，无 20→论是以神话或象征的方式表达，以神、天使或魔鬼的故事形式，以圣者或先知 21→者、伟人或先知的故事形式，还是以哲学的抽象形式——都有同一个目的，都 22→在试图超越这些局限。一言以蔽之，它们都在朝向自由挣扎。人——有意识地 23→或无意识地——感到自己是被束缚的；他不是他所想成为的那样。这在他开始 24→环顾四周的那一刻便被教给了他。就在他学会自己是被束缚的那一刻，他也发 25→现自己内心有某种东西渴望飞越，到那肉身无法追随之处，但它却依然被这局 26→限所束缚。即便在最低级的宗教观念中——在那些离去的祖先与其他神灵受到 27→崇拜的地方，那些神灵大多暴戾凶残，徘徊于朋友的居所，嗜好杀戮与烈酒 28→——即便在那里，我们也发现那一共同因素：自由。那些想要崇拜神的人，在 29→神灵身上首先看到的，是比自己更大的自由。若一扇门关闭，他认为神灵可以 30→穿门而过，墙壁对他们毫无阻碍。这种自由的观念不断增长，直至达到人格神 31→的理想——其核心概念是祂是一个超越自然、超越幻象[Maya]局限的存在。我 32→仿佛看见，在印度某处的林间静修之所，那些古代贤者正在讨论这一问题；在 33→其中一处，即便是最年迈最神圣的人也未能达到解答，一位年轻人站在他们中 34→间，宣告道："听啊，不朽之子们，听啊，你们这些居于最高之处者，我已找 35→到了道路。通过认知那超越黑暗者，我们可以超越死亡。" 36→ 37→这幻象[Maya]无处不在。它是可怖的。然而我们必须在其中穿行。那个说他要 38→等到世界变得全善，然后再享受至福的人，与那个坐在恒河边说"等所有河水 39→流入大海后，我再涉水而过"的人一样，同样不可能成功。道路不在顺从幻象 40→[Maya]，而在反抗它。这是另一个需要学习的事实。我们并非作为自然的助手 41→而生，而是作为自然的竞争者。我们是它的主宰，但我们束缚了自己。为何有 42→这所房屋？自然没有建造它。自然说，去住在森林里。人说，我要建造一所房 43→屋，与自然抗争，他确实做到了。人类全部的历史，是与所谓自然法则不断抗 44→争的历史，而人类最终获胜。来到内在世界，同样的抗争也在进行——动物性 45→之人与灵性之人的抗争，光明与黑暗的抗争；在这里，人也同样得胜。他仿佛 46→是从自然中披荆斩棘，走向自由。 47→ 48→如此，我们看到，在幻象[Maya]之彼岸，吠檀多哲学家发现了某种不受幻象 49→[Maya]束缚之物；若我们能够抵达那里，我们便不再受幻象[Maya]的束缚。这 50→个观念以某种形式，是所有宗教的共同财富。但对于吠檀多而言，它不过是宗 51→教的起点，而非终点。人格神的观念——这宇宙的主宰与创造者，如其所被称 52→谓的，幻象[Maya]即自然的主宰——并非这些吠檀多观念的终点；它不过是开 53→始。这观念不断成长、成长，直到吠檀多论者发现，他曾以为站在外部的那一 54→位，就是他自己，实际上就在内部。他就是那自由者，却因局限而以为自己被 55→束缚。
English
CHAPTER III
MAYA AND ILLUSION
( Delivered in London )
Almost all of you have heard of the word Mâyâ. Generally it is used, though incorrectly, to denote illusion, or delusion, or some such thing. But the theory of Maya forms one of the pillars upon which the Vedanta rests; it is, therefore, necessary that it should be properly understood. I ask a little patience of you, for there is a great danger of its being misunderstood. The oldest idea of Maya that we find in Vedic literature is the sense of delusion; but then the real theory had not been reached. We find such passages as, "Indra through his Maya assumed various forms." Here it is true the word Maya means something like magic, and we find various other passages, always taking the same meaning. The word Maya then dropped out of sight altogether. But in the meantime the idea was developing. Later, the question was raised: "Why can't we know this secret of the universe?" And the answer given was very significant: "Because we talk in vain, and because we are satisfied with the things of the senses, and because we are running after desires; therefore, we, as it were, cover the Reality with a mist." Here the word Maya is not used at all, but we get the idea that the cause of our ignorance is a kind of mist that has come between us and the Truth. Much later on, in one of the latest Upanishads, we find the word Maya reappearing, but this time, a transformation has taken place in it, and a mass of new meaning has attached itself to the word. Theories had been propounded and repeated, others had been taken up, until at last the idea of Maya became fixed. We read in the Shvetâshvatara Upanishad, "Know nature to be Maya and the Ruler of this Maya is the Lord Himself." Coming to our philosophers, we find that this word Maya has been manipulated in various fashions, until we come to the great Shankarâchârya. The theory of Maya was manipulated a little by the Buddhists too, but in the hands of the Buddhists it became very much like what is called Idealism, and that is the meaning that is now generally given to the word Maya. When the Hindu says the world is Maya, at once people get the idea that the world is an illusion. This interpretation has some basis, as coming through the Buddhistic philosophers, because there was one section of philosophers who did not believe in the external world at all. But the Maya of the Vedanta, in its last developed form, is neither Idealism nor Realism, nor is it a theory. It is a simple statement of facts — what we are and what we see around us.
As I have told you before, the minds of the people from whom the Vedas came were intent upon following principles, discovering principles. They had no time to work upon details or to wait for them; they wanted to go deep into the heart of things. Something beyond was calling them, as it were, and they could not wait. Scattered through the Upanishads, we find that the details of subjects which we now call modern sciences are often very erroneous, but, at the same time, their principles are correct. For instance, the idea of ether, which is one of the latest theories of modern science, is to be found in our ancient literature in forms much more developed than is the modern scientific theory of ether today, but it was in principle. When they tried to demonstrate the workings of that principle, they made many mistakes. The theory of the all-pervading life principle, of which all life in this universe is but a differing manifestation, was understood in Vedic times; it is found in the Brâhmanas. There is a long hymn in the Samhitâs in praise of Prâna of which all life is but a manifestation. By the by, it may interest some of you to know that there are theories in the Vedic philosophy about the origin of life on this earth very similar to those which have been advanced by some modern European scientists. You, of course, all know that there is a theory that life came from other planets. It is a settled doctrine with some Vedic philosophers that life comes in this way from the moon.
Coming to the principles, we find these Vedic thinkers very courageous and wonderfully bold in propounding large and generalised theories. Their solution of the mystery of the universe, from the external world, was as satisfactory as it could be. The detailed workings of modern science do not bring the question one step nearer to solution, because the principles have failed. If the theory of ether failed in ancient times to give a solution of the mystery of the universe, working out the details of that ether theory would not bring us much nearer to the truth. If the theory of all-pervading life failed as a theory of this universe, it would not mean anything more if worked out in detail, for the details do not change the principle of the universe. What I mean is that in their inquiry into the principle, the Hindu thinkers were as bold, and in some cases, much bolder than the moderns. They made some of the grandest generalizations that have yet been reached, and some still remain as theories, which modern science has yet to get even as theories. For instance, they not only arrived at the ether theory, but went beyond and classified mind also as a still more rarefied ether. Beyond that again, they found a still more rarefied ether. Yet that was no solution, it did not solve the problem. No amount of knowledge of the external world could solve the problem. "But", says the scientist, "we are just beginning to know a little: wait a few thousand years and we shall get the solution." "No," says the Vedantist, for he has proved beyond all doubt that the mind is limited, that it cannot go beyond certain limits — beyond time, space, and causation. As no man can jump out of his own self, so no man can go beyond the limits that have been put upon him by the laws of time and space. Every attempt to solve the laws of causation, time, and space would be futile, because the very attempt would have to be made by taking for granted the existence of these three. What does the statement of the existence of the world mean, then? "This world has no existence." What is meant by that? It means that it has no absolute existence. It exists only in relation to my mind, to your mind, and to the mind of everyone else. We see this world with the five senses but if we had another sense, we would see in it something more. If we had yet another sense, it would appear as something still different. It has, therefore, no real existence; it has no unchangeable, immovable, infinite existence. Nor can it be called non-existence, seeing that it exists, and we slave to work in and through it. It is a mixture of existence and non-existence.
Coming from abstractions to the common, everyday details of our lives, we find that our whole life is a contradiction, a mixture of existence and non-existence. There is this contradiction in knowledge. It seems that man can know everything, if he only wants to know; but before he has gone a few steps, he finds an adamantine wall which he cannot pass. All his work is in a circle, and he cannot go beyond that circle. The problems which are nearest and dearest to him are impelling him on and calling, day and night, for a solution, but he cannot solve them, because he cannot go beyond his intellect. And yet that desire is implanted strongly in him. Still we know that the only good is to be obtained by controlling and checking it. With every breath, every impulse of our heart asks us to be selfish. At the same time, there is some power beyond us which says that it is unselfishness alone which is good. Every child is a born optimist; he dreams golden dreams. In youth he becomes still more optimistic. It is hard for a young man to believe that there is such a thing as death, such a thing as defeat or degradation. Old age comes, and life is a mass of ruins. Dreams have vanished into the air, and the man becomes a pessimist. Thus we go from one extreme to another, buffeted by nature, without knowing where we are going. It reminds me of a celebrated song in the Lalita Vistara, the biography of Buddha. Buddha was born, says the book, as the saviour of mankind, but he forgot himself in the luxuries of his palace. Some angels came and sang a song to rouse him. And the burden of the whole song is that we are floating down the river of life which is continually changing with no stop and no rest. So are our lives, going on and on without knowing any rest. What are we to do? The man who has enough to eat and drink is an optimist, and he avoids all mention of misery, for it frightens him. Tell not to him of the sorrows and the sufferings of the world; go to him and tell that it is all good. "Yes, I am safe," says he. "Look at me! I have a nice house to live in. I do not fear cold and hunger; therefore do not bring these horrible pictures before me." But, on the other hand, there are others dying of cold and hunger. If you go and teach them that it is all good, they will not hear you. How can they wish others to be happy when they are miserable? Thus we are oscillating between optimism and pessimism.
Then, there is the tremendous fact of death. The whole world is going towards death; everything dies. All our progress, our vanities, our reforms, our luxuries, our wealth, our knowledge, have that one end — death. That is all that is certain. Cities come and go, empires rise and fall, planets break into pieces and crumble into dust, to be blown about by the atmospheres of other planets. Thus it has been going on from time without beginning. Death is the end of everything. Death is the end of life, of beauty, of wealth, of power, of virtue too. Saints die and sinners die, kings die and beggars die. They are all going to death, and yet this tremendous clinging on to life exists. Somehow, we do not know why, we cling to life; we cannot give it up. And this is Maya.
The mother is nursing a child with great care; all her soul, her life, is in that child. The child grows, becomes a man, and perchance becomes a blackguard and a brute, kicks her and beats her every day; and yet the mother clings to the child; and when her reason awakes, she covers it up with the idea of love. She little thinks that it is not love, that it is something which has got hold of her nerves, which she cannot shake off; however she may try, she cannot shake off the bondage she is in. And this is Maya.
We are all after the Golden Fleece. Every one of us thinks that this will be his. Every reasonable man sees that his chance is, perhaps, one in twenty millions, yet everyone struggles for it. And this is Maya.
Death is stalking day and night over this earth of ours, but at the same time we think we shall live eternally. A question was once asked of King Yudhishthira, "What is the most wonderful thing on this earth?" And the king replied, "Every day people are dying around us, and yet men think they will never die." And this is Maya.
These tremendous contradictions in our intellect, in our knowledge, yea, in all the facts of our life face us on all sides. A reformer arises and wants to remedy the evils that are existing in a certain nation; and before they have been remedied, a thousand other evils arise in another place. It is like an old house that is falling; you patch it up in one place and the ruin extends to another. In India, our reformers cry and preach against the evils of enforced widowhood. In the West, non-marriage is the great evil. Help the unmarried on one side; they are suffering. Help the widows on the other; they are suffering. It is like chronic rheumatism: you drive from the head, and it goes to the body; you drive it from there, and it goes to the feet. Reformers arise and preach that learning, wealth, and culture should not be in the hands of a select few; and they do their best to make them accessible to all. These may bring more happiness to some, but, perhaps, as culture comes, physical happiness lessens. The knowledge of happiness brings the knowledge of unhappiness. Which way then shall we go? The least amount of material prosperity that we enjoy is causing the same amount of misery elsewhere. This is the law. The young, perhaps, do not see it clearly, but those who have lived long enough and those who have struggled enough will understand it. And this is Maya. These things are going on, day and night, and to find a solution of this problem is impossible. Why should it be so? It is impossible to answer this, because the question cannot be logically formulated. There is neither how nor why in fact; we only know that it is and that we cannot help it. Even to grasp it, to draw an exact image of it in our own mind, is beyond our power. How can we solve it then?
Maya is a statement of the fact of this universe, of how it is going on. People generally get frightened when these things are told to them. But bold we must be. Hiding facts is not the way to find a remedy. As you all know, a hare hunted by dogs puts its head down and thinks itself safe; so, when we run into optimism; we do just like the hare, but that is no remedy. There are objections against this, but you may remark that they are generally from people who possess many of the good things of life. In this country (England) it is very difficult to become a pessimist. Everyone tells me how wonderfully the world is going on, how progressive; but what he himself is, is his own world. Old questions arise: Christianity must be the only true religion of the world because Christian nations are prosperous! But that assertion contradicts itself, because the prosperity of the Christian nation depends on the misfortune of non-Christian nations. There must be some to prey on. Suppose the whole world were to become Christian, then the Christian nations would become poor, because there would be no non-Christian nations for them to prey upon. Thus the argument kills itself. Animals are living upon plants, men upon animals and, worst of all, upon one another, the strong upon the weak. This is going on everywhere. And this is Maya. What solution do you find for this? We hear every day many explanations, and are told that in the long run all will be good. Taking it for granted that this is possible, why should there be this diabolical way of doing good? Why cannot good be done through good, instead of through these diabolical methods? The descendants of the human beings of today will be happy; but why must there be all this suffering now? There is no solution. This is Maya.
Again, we often hear that it is one of the features of evolution that it eliminates evil, and this evil being continually eliminated from the world, at last only good will remain. That is very nice to hear, and it panders to the vanity of those who have enough of this world's goods, who have not a hard struggle to face every clay and are not being crushed under the wheel of this so-called evolution. It is very good and comforting indeed to such fortunate ones. The common herd may surfer, but they do not care; let them die, they are of no consequence. Very good, yet this argument is fallacious from beginning to end. It takes for granted, in the first place, that manifested good and evil in this world are two absolute realities. In the second place, it make, at still worse assumption that the amount of good is an increasing quantity and the amount of evil is a decreasing quantity. So, if evil is being eliminated in this way by what they call evolution, there will come a time when all this evil will be eliminated and what remains will be all good. Very easy to say, but can it be proved that evil is a lessening quantity? Take, for instance, the man who lives in a forest, who does not know how to cultivate the mind, cannot read a book, has not heard of such a thing as writing. If he is severely wounded, he is soon all right again; while we die if we get a scratch. Machines are making things cheap, making for progress and evolution, but millions are crushed, that one may become rich; while one becomes rich, thousands at the same time become poorer and poorer, and whole masses of human beings are made slaves. That way it is going on. The animal man lives in the senses. If he does not get enough to eat, he is miserable; or if something happens to his body, he is miserable. In the senses both his misery and his happiness begin and end. As soon as this man progresses, as soon as his horizon of happiness increases, his horizon of unhappiness increases proportionately. The man in the forest does not know what it is to be jealous, to be in the law courts, to pay taxes, to be blamed by society, to be ruled over day and night by the most tremendous tyranny that human diabolism ever invented, which pries into the secrets of every human heart. He does not know how man becomes a thousand times more diabolical than any other animal, with all his vain knowledge and with all his pride. Thus it is that, as we emerge out of the senses, we develop higher powers of enjoyment, and at the same time we have to develop higher powers of suffering too. The nerves become finer and capable off more suffering. In every society, we often find that the ignorant, common man, when abused, does not feel much, but he feels a good thrashing. But the gentleman cannot bear a single word of abuse; he has become so finely nerved. Misery has increased with his susceptibility to happiness. This does not go much to prove the evolutionist's case. As we increase our power to be happy, we also increase our power to suffer, and sometimes I am inclined to think that if we increase our power to become happy in arithmetical progression, we shall increase, on the other hand, our power to become miserable in geometrical progression. We who are progressing know that the more we progress, the more avenues are opened to pain as well as to pleasure. And this is Maya.
Thus we find that Maya is not a theory for the explanation of the world; it is simply a statement of facts as they exist, that the very basis of our being is contradiction, that everywhere we have to move through this tremendous contradiction, that wherever there is good, there must also be evil, and wherever there is evil, there must be some good, wherever there is life, death must follow as its shadow, and everyone who smiles will have to weep, and vice versa. Nor can this state of things be remedied. We may verily imagine that there will be a place where there will be only good and no evil, where we shall only smile and never weep. This is impossible in the very nature of things; for the conditions will remain the same. Wherever there is the power of producing a smile in us, there lurks the power of producing tears. Wherever there is the power of producing happiness, there lurks somewhere the power of making us miserable.
Thus the Vedanta philosophy is neither optimistic nor pessimistic. It voices both these views and takes things as they are. It admits that this world is a mixture of good and evil, happiness and misery, and that to increase the one, one must of necessity increase the other. There will never be a perfectly good or bad world, because the very idea is a contradiction in terms. The great secret revealed by this analysis is that good and bad are not two cut-and-dried, separate existences. There is not one thing in this world of ours which you can label as good and good alone, and there is not one thing in the universe which you can label as bad and bad alone. The very same phenomenon which is appearing to be good now, may appear to be bad tomorrow. The same thing which is producing misery in one, may produce happiness in another. The fire that burns the child, may cook a good meal for a starving man. The same nerves that carry the sensations of misery carry also the sensations of happiness. The only way to stop evil, therefore, is to stop good also; there is no other way. To stop death, we shall have to stop life also. Life without death and happiness without misery are contradictions, and neither can be found alone, because each of them is but a different manifestation of the same thing. What I thought to be good yesterday, I do not think to be good now. When I look back upon my life and see what were my ideals at different times, I final this to be so. At one time my ideal was to drive a strong pair of horses; at another time I thought, if I could make a certain kind of sweetmeat, I should be perfectly happy; later I imagined that I should be entirely satisfied if I had a wife and children and plenty of money. Today I laugh at all these ideals as mere childish nonsense.
The Vedanta says, there must come a time when we shall look back and laugh at the ideals which make us afraid of giving up our individuality. Each one of us wants to keep this body for an indefinite time, thinking we shall be very happy, but there will come a time when we shall laugh at this idea. Now, if such be the truth, we are in a state of hopeless contradiction — neither existence nor non-existence, neither misery nor happiness, but a mixture of them. What, then, is the use of Vedanta and all other philosophies and religions? And, above all, what is the use of doing good work? This is a question that comes to the mind. If it is true that you cannot do good without doing evil, and whenever you try to create happiness there will always be misery, people will ask you, "What is the use of doing good?" The answer is in the first place, that we must work for lessening misery, for that is the only way to make ourselves happy. Every one of us finds it out sooner or later in our lives. The bright ones find it out a little earlier, and the dull ones a little later. The dull ones pay very dearly for the discovery and the bright ones less dearly. In the second place, we must do our part, because that is the only way of getting out of this life of contradiction. Both the forces of good and evil will keep the universe alive for us, until we awake from our dreams and give up this building of mud pies. That lesson we shall have to learn, and it will take a long, long time to learn it.
Attempts have been made in Germany to build a system of philosophy on the basis that the Infinite has become the finite. Such attempts are also made in England. And the analysis of the position of these philosophers is this, that the Infinite is trying to express itself in this universe, and that there will come a time when the Infinite will succeed in doing so. It is all very well, and we have used the words Infinite and manifestation and expression, and so on, but philosophers naturally ask for a logical fundamental basis for the statement that the finite can fully express the Infinite. The Absolute and the Infinite can become this universe only by limitation. Everything must be limited that comes through the senses, or through the mind, or through the intellect; and for the limited to be the unlimited is simply absurd and can never be. The Vedanta, on the other hand, says that it is true that the Absolute or the Infinite is trying to express itself in the finite, but there will come a time when it will find that it is impossible, and it will then have to beat a retreat, and this beating a retreat means renunciation which is the real beginning of religion. Nowadays it is very hard even to talk of renunciation. It was said of me in America that I was a man who came out of a land that had been dead and buried for five thousand years, and talked of renunciation. So says, perhaps, the English philosopher. Yet it is true that that is the only path to religion. Renounce and give up. What did Christ say? "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." Again and again did he preach renunciation as the only way to perfection. There comes a time when the mind awakes from this long and dreary dream — the child gives up its play and wants to go back to its mother. It finds the truth of the statement, "Desire is never satisfied by the enjoyment of desires, it only increases the more, as fire, when butter is poured upon it."
This is true of all sense-enjoyments, of all intellectual enjoyments, and of all the enjoyments of which the human mind is capable. They are nothing, they are within Maya, within this network beyond which we cannot go. We may run therein through infinite time and find no end, and whenever we struggle to get a little enjoyment, a mass of misery falls upon us. How awful is this! And when I think of it, I cannot but consider that this theory of Maya, this statement that it is all Maya, is the best and only explanation. What an amount of misery there is in this world; and if you travel among various nations you will find that one nation attempts to cure its evils by one means, and another by another. The very same evil has been taken up by various races, and attempts have been made in various ways to check it, yet no nation has succeeded. If it has been minimised at one point, a mass of evil has been crowded at another point. Thus it goes. The Hindus, to keep up a high standard of chastity in the race, have sanctioned child-marriage, which in the long run has degraded the race. At the same time, I cannot deny that this child-marriage makes the race more chaste. What would you have? If you want the nation to be more chaste, you weaken men and women physically by child-marriage. On the other hand, are you in England any better off? No, because chastity is the life of a nation. Do you not find in history that the first death-sign of a nation has been unchastity? When that has entered, the end of the race is in sight. Where shall we get a solution of these miseries then? If parents select husbands and wives for their children, then this evil is minimised. The daughters of India are more practical than sentimental. But very little of poetry remains in their lives. Again, if people select their own husbands and wives, that does not seem to bring much happiness. The Indian woman is generally very happy; there are not many cases of quarrelling between husband and wife. On the other hand in the United States, where the greatest liberty obtains, the number of unhappy homes and marriages is large. Unhappiness is here, there, and everywhere. What does it show? That, after all, not much happiness has been gained by all these ideals. We all struggle for happiness and as soon as we get a little happiness on one side, on the other side there comes unhappiness.
Shall we not work to do good then? Yes, with more zest than ever, but what this knowledge will do for us is to break down our fanaticism. The Englishman will no more be a fanatic and curse the Hindu. He will learn to respect the customs of different nations. There will be less of fanaticism and more of real work. Fanatics cannot work, they waste three-fourths of their energy. It is the level-headed, calm, practical man who works. So, the power to work will increase from this idea. Knowing that this is the state of things, there will be more patience. The sight of misery or of evil will not be able to throw us off our balance and make us run after shadows. Therefore, patience will come to us, knowing that the world will have to go on in its own way. If, for instance, all men have become good, the animals will have in the meantime evolved into men, and will have to pass through the same state, and so with the plants. But only one thing is certain; the mighty river is rushing towards the ocean, and all the drops that constitute the stream will in time be drawn into that boundless ocean. So, in this life, with all its miseries and sorrows, its joys and smiles and tears, one thing is certain, that all things are rushing towards their goal, and it: is only a question of time when you and I, and plants and animals, and every particles of life that exists must reach the Infinite Ocean of Perfection, must attain to Freedom, to God.
Let me repeat, once more, that the Vedantic position is neither pessimism nor optimism. It does not say that this world is all evil or all good. It says that our evil is of no less value than our good, and our good of no more value than our evil. They are bound together. This is the world, and knowing this, you work with patience. What for? Why should we work? If this is the state of things, what shall we do? Why not become agnostics? The modern agnostics also know there is no solution of this problem, no getting out of this evil of Maya, as we say in our language; therefore they tell us to be satisfied and enjoy life. Here, again, is a mistake, a tremendous mistake, a most illogical mistake. And it is this. What do you mean by life? Do you mean only the life of the senses? In this, every one of us differs only slightly from the brutes. I am sure that no one is present here whose life is only in the senses. Then, this present life means something more than that. Our feelings, thoughts, and aspirations are all part and parcel of our life; and is not the struggle towards the area, ideal, towards perfection, one of the most important components of what we call life? According to the agnostics, we must enjoy life as it is. But this life means, above all, this search after the ideal; the essence of life is going towards perfection. We must have that, and, therefore, we cannot be agnostics or take the world as it appears. The agnostic position takes this life, minus the ideal component, to be all that exists. And this, the agnostic claims, cannot be reached, therefore he must give up the search. This is what is called Maya — this nature, this universe.
All religions are more or less attempts to get beyond nature — the crudest or the most developed, expressed through mythology or symbology, stories of gods, angels or demons, or through stories of saints or seers, great men or prophets, or through the abstractions of philosophy — all have that one object, all are trying to get beyond these limitations. In one word, they are all struggling towards freedom. Man feels, consciously or unconsciously, that he is bound; he is not what he wants to be. It was taught to him at the very moment he began to look around. That very instant he learnt that he was bound, and be also found that there was something in him which wanted to fly beyond, where the body could not follow, but which was as yet chained down by this limitation. Even in the lowest of religious ideas, where departed ancestors and other spirits — mostly violent and cruel, lurking about the houses of their friends, fond of bloodshed and strong drink — are worshipped, even there we find that one common factor, that of freedom. The man who wants to worship the gods sees in them, above all things, greater freedom than in himself. If a door is closed, he thinks the gods can get through it, and that walls have no limitations for them. This idea of freedom increases until it comes to the ideal of a Personal God, of which the central concept is that He is a Being beyond the limitation of nature, of Maya. I see before me, as it were, that in some of those forest retreats this question is being, discussed by those ancient sages of India; and in one of them, where even the oldest and the holiest fail to reach the solutions a young man stands up in the midst of them, and declares, "Hear, ye children of immortality, hear, who live in the highest places, I have found the way. By knowing Him who is beyond darkness we can go beyond death."
This Maya is everywhere. It is terrible. Yet we have to work through it. The man who says that he will work when the world has become all good and then he will enjoy bliss is as likely to succeed as the man who sits beside the Ganga and says, "I will ford the river when all the water has run into the ocean." The way is not with Maya, but against it. This is another fact to learn. We are not born as helpers of nature, but competitors with nature. We are its bond-masters, but we bind ourselves down. Why is this house here? Nature did not build it. Nature says, go and live in the forest. Man says, I will build a house and fight with nature, and he does so. The whole history of humanity is a continuous fight against the so-called laws of nature, and man gains in the end. Coming to the internal world, there too the same fight is going on, this fight between the animal man and the spiritual man, between light and darkness; and here too man becomes victorious. He, as it were, cuts his way out of nature to freedom.
We see, then, that beyond this Maya the Vedantic philosophers find something which is not bound by Maya; and if we can get there, we shall not be bound by Maya. This idea is in some form or other the common property of all religions. But, with the Vedanta, it is only the beginning of religion and not the end. The idea of a Personal God, the Ruler and Creator of this universe, as He has been styled, the Ruler of Maya, or nature, is not the end of these Vedantic ideas; it is only the beginning. The idea grows and grows until the Vedantist finds that He who, he thought, was standing outside, is he himself and is in reality within. He is the one who is free, but who through limitation thought he was bound.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。