摩耶与神之概念的演变
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→第四章 2→ 3→幻象[Maya]与上帝观念的演进 4→ 5→（1896年10月20日讲于伦敦） 6→ 7→我们已见到幻象[Maya]的理念——此理念构成不二论吠檀多的基本 8→教义之一——其萌芽形态早已存在于本集颂歌之中，而实际上，奥义书中 9→所阐发的一切理念，在某种形式上均 10→已存在于本集颂歌之中。诸位大多已熟悉幻象的理念，亦知此词 11→有时被错误地解释为"幻觉"，以致当宇宙被称为幻象时， 12→亦须被解释为幻觉。这种译法 13→既不恰当亦不准确。幻象并非一种理论； 14→它只是对宇宙现状的如实陈述，而要 15→理解幻象，我们必须追溯至本集颂歌，从 16→理解幻象，我们必须追溯至本集颂歌，从 17→萌芽中的概念开始。 18→ 19→我们已见到天神（Devas）的理念是如何形成的。与此同时我们知道， 20→这些天神起初不过是威力强大的存在，仅此而已。诸位大多 21→在阅读希腊人、 22→希伯来人、波斯人或其他古代民族的典籍时，发现古代神灵有时 23→所行之事令我们极为反感，这令诸位大感震骇。然而阅读这些典籍时， 24→我们完全忘记了自己是十九世纪的人，而这些 25→神灵是数千年前便已存在的存在。我们也忘记了， 26→崇拜这些神灵的人在其性格中发现毫无矛盾， 27→亦无任何令他们恐惧之处，因为这些神灵与 28→他们自身颇为相似。我还要指出，那正是我们终生须 29→学习的一大要义。在评判他人时，我们总是以自己的 30→理想来衡量他人。此举并不合宜。每个人都应以其自身的 31→理想来评判，而非以任何他人的标准。在我们与 32→同胞的交往中，我们不断地犯下这个错误，我认为 33→我们彼此之间绝大多数的争吵，不过是源于 34→这一原因：我们总是试图以自己的神来评判他人的神， 35→以自己的理想评判他人的理想，以自己的动机评判他人的动机。在 36→某种情境下我也许会做某件事，当我看到另一个 37→人采取同样的行动时，我便认为驱使他的动机与驱使我的相同， 38→丝毫未曾想到，尽管结果可能相同，却可能有许多 39→其他原因产生同一结果。他也许以 40→与驱使我的完全不同的动机来行事。所以在 41→评判那些古老宗教时，我们不应采取我们所倾向的立场， 42→而必须将自己置于那些早期时代的思想与生活的 43→位置上。 44→ 45→《旧约》中残忍无情的耶和华的形象令许多人感到恐惧——但为何？ 46→他们有何权利假设古代犹太人的耶和华必须代表 47→当今传统意义上的上帝观念？与此同时，我们不可忘记， 48→在我们之后亦会有人来嘲笑我们的宗教与上帝观念， 49→正如我们嘲笑古人的观念一样。然而，贯穿所有这些不同观念的， 50→是一条统一的金线，揭示这条线正是 51→吠檀多的目的。"我是贯穿所有这些不同理念的线索， 52→每一个理念都如同一颗珍珠，" 53→奎师那大主如是说；而吠檀多的职责便是确立这条连接之线， 54→无论当以今日的观念评判时，这些理念显得多么不协调或令人厌恶。 55→然而这些理念在昔日的背景中是和谐的， 56→与我们当今的理念相比毫不逊色。只有当 57→我们试图将它们从原有背景中抽离，应用于我们当下的境况时， 58→其丑陋才变得显而易见。因为旧日的 59→环境已然逝去。正如古代犹太人发展成了 60→精明的现代犹太人，古代雅利安人发展成了富于智性的 61→印度人，同样地，耶和华已成长， 62→天神们也已成长。 63→ 64→大错误在于承认崇拜者的进化，却 65→不承认被崇拜者的进化。被崇拜者未能得到与其信徒 66→所取得的进步相称的功绩。也就是说，代表理念的你和我 67→已然成长；这些神灵，作为理念的代表，也已 68→成长。这对你来说也许显得奇特——上帝竟然也能成长。他不能。 69→他是不变的。同样意义上，真实的人类也从不成长。但人类 70→对上帝的理念却在不断变化与扩展。我们稍后将见到， 71→每一个人类显现背后的真实的人是不动的、 72→不变的、纯净的，且永远完美的；同样地，我们 73→对上帝所形成的观念不过是一种显现，是我们自己的创造。在那背后是 74→那永不改变的真实上帝，那永远纯净的、不变的者。但这种 75→显现始终在变化，越来越多地揭示其背后的实在。 76→当它更多地揭示背后的事实时，称为进步；当它 77→更多地遮蔽背后的事实时，称为退步。如此，随着我们的成长， 78→神灵也随之成长。从普通的角度来看，正如我们在进化时彰显自身， 79→神灵也同样彰显自身。 80→ 81→现在我们将能够理解幻象的理论。在世界各个 82→地区，人们提出讨论的一个问题是：为何 83→宇宙中存在不和谐？为何宇宙中存在这种恶？ 84→在最初的原始宗教理念萌发之处，我们并不会发现这个问题， 85→因为世界在原始人看来并不显得矛盾。 86→对他而言，周遭并不存在不和谐；没有意见的冲突； 87→对他来说没有善恶的对立。心中只有一种感觉， 88→有某种说"是"的声音，也有某种说"否"的声音。 89→原始人是冲动的人。他做任何脑海中浮现的念头， 90→试图通过肌肉将每一个念头付诸实践， 91→从不驻足评判，极少试图遏制冲动。神灵 92→亦然，他们也是冲动的存在。因陀罗来临，击碎魔鬼的力量。 93→耶和华对某人喜悦，对另一人不满， 94→原因无人知晓，亦无人追问。探究的习惯尚未形成， 95→他所做的一切都被视为正当。没有善恶的观念。天神们 96→以我们的标准做了许多邪恶之事； 97→因陀罗和其他神灵一再犯下极为邪恶的行为，但 98→因陀罗的崇拜者心中不曾产生邪恶与罪行的念头， 99→因此对此毫不质疑。 100→ 101→随着伦理观念的推进，冲突随之而来。人类心中产生了某种感觉， 102→在不同的语言和民族中以不同的名称称呼。 103→将其称为上帝之声，或过去教育的结果，或其他任何名称皆可， 104→但其作用是：它对人类自然冲动具有制约的力量。 105→我们心中有一种冲动在说，去做。 106→在其后升起另一个声音说，不要做。我们心中有一套理念， 107→始终挣扎着要通过感官的渠道走向外部， 108→而在它背后，尽管也许细弱而微小，有 109→一个无限小的声音说，不要走向外部。这两种现象的 110→梵语美词是"逐出"（Pravritti）与"引入"（Nivritti）， 111→"向前旋转"与"向内旋转"。通常主导我们行动的是 112→向前旋转。宗教从这向内旋转开始。宗教 113→从这个"不要"开始。灵性从这个"不要"开始。当 114→"不要"尚未出现时，宗教尚未开始。这个"不要"到来， 115→促使人类的理念成长，尽管他们崇拜的是 116→好战的神灵。 117→ 118→一点点爱在人类心中觉醒。起初这爱确实非常微小， 119→即便现在也未大多少。起初它仅局限于一个部落， 120→也许涵盖同一部落的成员；这些神灵爱护自己的部落， 121→每一位神是该部落的部落神，该部落的保护者。有时 122→一个部落的成员会认为自己是其神明的后裔， 123→正如各国家的氏族认为他们是 124→氏族创始人的共同后裔。古代有些人， 125→甚至现在仍有，声称自己不仅是这些部落神明的后裔， 126→也是太阳和月亮的后裔。你在古代 127→梵文典籍中可以读到日月两大王朝的英雄帝王。 128→他们起初是太阳和月亮的崇拜者， 129→逐渐认为自己是太阳神和 130→月神的后裔，诸如此类。随着这些部落理念开始成长， 131→一点点爱出现了，一些关于彼此义务的轻微理念，一点 132→初步的社会组织。自然而然地，理念随之而来：我们如何 133→才能在不宽容忍耐的情况下共同生活？一个人如何 134→在不时时遏制冲动、约束自我、 135→忍耐不做心中所想之事的情况下与另一个人共处？ 136→这是不可能的。于是约束的理念应运而生。整个社会结构 137→都建立在约束这一理念之上，我们都知道， 138→那些没有学会宽容忍耐这一伟大功课的男女 139→过着最为悲苦的生活。 140→ 141→现在，当这些宗教理念到来，一瞥更高层次、更具伦理意义之物的 142→曙光照进人类的智性之中时，古老的神灵被发现与之格格不入—— 143→那些喧嚣争斗、饮酒吃肉的古代神灵—— 144→其喜悦在于燃烧肉食的气味与烈酒的祭奠。 145→有时因陀罗喝得酩酊大醉，跌倒在地， 146→语无伦次。这些神灵再也无法被容忍。 147→探究动机的意识已然觉醒，神灵们也须 148→接受审视。人们开始要求某些行为的理由， 149→而理由往往付之阙如。因此，人们放弃了这些神灵，或者说， 150→他们对神灵形成了更高的观念。他们对所有神灵的行为与品质进行了一番审视， 151→摒弃了那些无法调和的， 152→保留了那些可以理解的， 153→将其融合在一起，冠以一个名称：天神之神（Deva-deva），众神之神。被 154→崇拜的神不再只是力量的象征；他需要的远不止于此。 155→他是一位伦理的神；他爱护人类，为人类行善。 156→但神的理念依然存在。他们增强了他的伦理意义， 157→也增强了他的力量。他成为宇宙中最具伦理性的存在， 158→同时几乎无所不能。 159→ 160→然而所有这些拼凑的工作都不奏效。随着解释的规模越来越大， 161→它所要解决的困难也以同样的比例增长。若 162→神灵的品质以算术级数增长，困难 163→与疑惑则以几何级数增长。耶和华的困难与 164→宇宙之神的困难相比不过是小巫见大巫，而这个 165→问题延续至今。为何在一位全能 166→全爱的宇宙之神的统治下，魔鬼般的事物 167→竟被允许存留？为何苦多于乐，恶 168→多于善？我们也许可以对所有这些事情闭目不见，但事实依然存在： 169→这个世界是一个可怕的世界。往好里说，它是 170→坦塔罗斯的地狱。我们在这里，带着强烈的冲动和对感官享乐 171→更为强烈的渴望，却无法满足它们。一股浪潮升起， 172→在我们自身意志之外推动着我们前行，当我们迈出一步，随即便是 173→一记打击。我们全都注定如坦塔罗斯般在此活着。理想 174→在我们脑海中浮现，远超感官理想的极限，但当我们寻求将其表达出来， 175→却力不从心。另一方面，我们被周遭汹涌的人群所压迫。 176→然而若我放弃所有的理想主义，仅仅在这个世界中苟活， 177→我的存在便如同野兽，我在退化和堕落自身。 178→两条路都无幸福可言。那些满足于在这个世界如此生活的人，命运是不幸的。 179→那些敢于为真理和更高事物挺身而出的人，命运中有千倍更大的苦难， 180→是那些敢于为真理和更高事物挺身而出的人的命运， 181→那些敢于在此追求高于禽兽存在之物的人的命运。 182→这些都是事实；但没有解释——也不可能有任何 183→解释。然而吠檀多指出了出路。你必须牢记，我 184→必须告诉你一些有时会令你感到震惊的事实，但若你记住 185→我所说的，加以思考并消化吸收，它将成为你的，它将把你提升得更高， 186→使你能够理解真理并生活在真理之中。 187→ 188→现在，如下这件事是一个事实的陈述：这个世界是坦塔罗斯的地狱，我们对 189→这个宇宙一无所知，然而与此同时我们也不能说我们不知道。当我认为 190→我不知道这条链子时，我不能说它存在。它也许是我大脑的 191→完全幻觉。我也许一直在做梦。我梦见我在与你们交谈， 192→你们在聆听我的话。没有人 193→能证明这不是一场梦。我的大脑本身也许就是一场梦，至于这一点， 194→没有人曾经看见过自己的大脑。我们 195→都想当然地接受它。一切皆如此。我自己的身体，我也 196→想当然地接受。与此同时，我也不能说，我不知道。这种 197→站在知与不知之间的处境，这种神秘的暮光，真与假的交织—— 198→它们在何处相遇——无人知晓。我们行走在 199→梦境之中。半睡半醒，在迷雾中度过我们全部的生命； 200→这是我们每一个人的命运。这是所有感官知识的命运。 201→这是一切哲学、一切引以为傲的科学、一切引以为傲的 202→人类知识的命运。这便是宇宙。 203→ 204→无论你称之为物质、精神、心智还是任何其他你喜欢的名称， 205→事实依然如故：我们不能说它们存在，我们不能 206→说它们不存在。我们不能说它们是一，我们不能说它们是 207→多。这光与暗的永恒游戏——无区别、 208→无分别、不可分离——始终在那里。是一个事实，然而与此同时 209→又不是事实；既醒着，同时又在沉睡。这是一个 210→事实的陈述，这就是所谓的幻象。我们诞生在这幻象之中，我们生活在 211→其中，我们在其中思考，我们在其中做梦。我们在其中是哲学家，我们是 212→灵性的人，不，我们在这幻象中是魔鬼，我们也在这幻象中是神灵。 213→尽量扩展你的理念，使其尽可能崇高， 214→将其称为无限或任何你喜欢的其他名称，即便这些理念 215→也在幻象之内。别无他途，而全部人类的知识 216→不过是对这幻象的概括，试图了解它呈现出的样貌。这 217→是名（Nāma-Rūpa）的工作——名称与形式。一切有形之物， 218→一切能在你心中唤起一个概念的事物，都在幻象之内；因为 219→一切受时间、空间和因果之法约束的，都在幻象之内。 220→幻象。
1→让我们回溯一下上帝的早期观念，看看它们后来演变为何。我们立即发现， 2→那种有某个存在永恒地爱着我们——永恒地无私且全能， 3→统治着这个宇宙——这样的理念无法令人满足。"那位公正慈悲的上帝在哪里？" 4→哲人问道。难道他看不见他以人类和动物形态出现的 5→数以百万计的孩子在受苦受难？因为谁能在这世间活一刻而不杀死他人？ 6→你能呼吸而不毁灭数千生命吗？ 7→你活着，是因为数以百万计的生命死去。你生命中的每一刻，你所呼的每一口气， 8→对数千生命而言就是死亡；你所做的 9→每一个动作，对数百万生命而言就是死亡。你所吃的 10→每一口食物，对数百万生命而言就是死亡。为何 11→它们必须死去？有一种古老的诡辩说它们不过是低等的存在。姑且如此—— 12→这是可疑的，因为谁能证明蚂蚁不如人，或 13→人不如蚂蚁——谁能从一方或另一方加以证明？撇开此问题不谈， 14→即便承认这些是非常低等的生命， 15→它们为何仍须死去？若它们低等，它们更有理由活下去。为何 16→不呢？因为它们更多地活在感官之中，所感受到的苦乐是你我的 17→千倍。我们之中谁能像狗或狼那样津津有味地享用一顿饭？ 18→没有人，因为我们的精力不在感官上；它们在智性，在精神上。但在动物，其 19→整个灵魂都在感官之中，它们为人类从未 20→梦想过的事情而疯狂愉悦，而痛苦与快乐相称。 21→苦乐以同等分量分配。若动物所感受到的快乐 22→远比人类敏锐，则动物的痛苦之感 23→也同样敏锐，甚至更甚于人类。所以事实是， 24→人在死亡时所感受的痛苦与悲惨，在动物身上被放大了千倍， 25→然而我们却毫不顾及它们的痛苦而将其杀死。这便是幻象。 26→若我们假设有一位如人一般的人格神，创造了一切，那些试图 27→证明善从恶中生的所谓解释和理论便是不够充分的。即便有两万件 28→好事出现，为何它们必须源于恶？基于这一原则， 29→我可以割断他人的咽喉，因为我想获得 30→五感的全部满足。这算不得理由。为何善必须经由恶而来？ 31→这个问题尚待回答，且无从回答。 32→印度哲学不得不承认这一点。 33→ 34→吠檀多是（且始终是）最为大胆的宗教体系。它从不在任何地方止步， 35→且它有一个优势。没有任何一批祭司试图 36→压制每一个敢于说出真相的人。这里始终有着 37→绝对的宗教自由。在印度，迷信的枷锁是社会性的； 38→而在西方，社会是非常自由的。印度的社会事务非常严格， 39→但宗教意见是自由的。在英格兰，一个人可以随心所欲地着装， 40→或吃他喜欢的食物——没有人反对；但若他缺席教会礼拜， 41→格伦迪夫人便会来找他麻烦。他必须首先 42→遵从社会在宗教上的要求，然后才能考虑真理。在印度， 43→另一方面，若一个人 44→与不属于自己种姓的人共进晚餐，社会便会以其 45→全部可怕的力量倾轧而来，将他当即摧毁。若他想 46→穿着与祖先几百年前的穿着略有不同的服装，他就完了。我听说有人 47→因为走了好几英里去看第一列火车而被社会驱逐。 48→好吧，我们姑且认为那不是真的！但在宗教方面，我们发现无神论者、 49→唯物主义者和佛教徒，各种信仰、意见和思辨， 50→有些具有最令人震惊的性质，并行不悖。 51→各个教派的传教士四处讲道，招收信徒，就连 52→在神灵庙宇的门前，婆罗门们——为他们的荣誉而言—— 53→甚至允许唯物主义者驻足，让他们发表意见。 54→即便在神灵庙宇的门前，婆罗门们——为其荣誉—— 55→允许唯物主义者驻足，发表他们的意见。 56→ 57→佛陀寿终正寝。我记得我的一位朋友，一位美国大科学家， 58→喜欢阅读佛陀的一生。他不喜欢佛陀之死， 59→因为佛陀不是被钉死在十字架上的。多么错误的观念！一个人要 60→伟大必须被谋杀！这样的观念在印度从未盛行。这位 61→伟大的佛陀走遍印度，谴责她的神灵，甚至谴责宇宙之神， 62→然而他活到了高龄。他活了八十岁， 63→皈依了半个国家。 64→ 65→此外，还有查尔瓦卡派，他们宣扬可怕的东西，是最赤裸裸的、 66→毫不掩饰的唯物主义，十九世纪他们都不敢 67→公开宣扬的那种。这些查尔瓦卡派被允许从庙宇到庙宇、 68→从城市到城市地宣扬：宗教全是无稽之谈，是祭司的把戏， 69→吠陀是愚人、恶棍和魔鬼的言辞与著述， 70→既无上帝，也无永恒的灵魂。如果有灵魂，为何它 71→死后不因对妻子和孩子的爱而回来。他们的想法是， 72→如果有灵魂，它死后必定仍然充满爱意，渴望美食 73→和华服。然而没有人伤害这些查尔瓦卡派。 74→ 75→如此，印度始终有着这种宏大的宗教自由理念， 76→你必须记住，自由是成长的首要条件。你不使之自由的， 77→永远不会成长。那种认为你可以使他人成长并帮助其成长、 78→可以引导和指导他人，同时自己保留 79→教师之自由的想法，是一派胡言，是一个危险的谎言，它已 80→阻碍了世界上数以百万计的人类的成长。 81→让人们拥有自由的光明。这是成长的唯一条件。 82→ 83→在印度，我们在精神事务上给予了自由，即便在今天， 84→我们在宗教思想上也拥有巨大的精神力量。你在社会事务上给予 85→同样的自由，因此拥有辉煌的社会组织。我们没有 86→给予社会事务扩展的任何自由，我们的社会是受压制的。 87→你从未给予宗教事务任何自由，而是用 88→刀剑强制推行你的信仰，结果是宗教在欧洲人的心中是一种 89→发育迟滞、退化的成长物。在印度，我们必须 90→从社会上卸去枷锁；在欧洲，必须从 91→精神进步的脚上摘除锁链。那时将会有 92→人类奇妙的成长与发展。若我们发现贯穿所有这些发展—— 93→精神、道德和社会——的有一种统一性，我们将发现 94→宗教，在最完整的意义上，必须走入社会，走入 95→我们的日常生活。在吠檀多的光照之下，你将理解 96→一切科学不过是宗教的显现，世界上 97→存在的一切皆然。 98→ 99→我们看到，通过自由，科学得以建立；在其中我们有 100→两套意见，一套是唯物的和谴责性的，另一套是积极的和建设性的。 101→一个最为奇特的事实是，你在每一个社会中都能找到它们。 102→假设社会中有一种恶，你会 103→立即看到有一群人以充满复仇意味的方式起身谴责它，有时 104→退化为狂热主义。每个社会都有狂热分子， 105→女性往往因其冲动的天性而加入这些呼吁。 106→每一个站起来谴责某事的狂热分子都能获得追随者。 107→破坏是很容易的；一个疯子可以随心所欲地破坏任何东西， 108→但对他来说建设任何东西都是困难的。这些狂热分子也许 109→按照他们的见解做了一些好事，但造成了更多的伤害。 110→因为社会制度不是一日建成的，而改变它意味着消除 111→根源。假设有一种恶；谴责它不会消除它，你 112→必须从根本上着手。首先找出原因，然后消除它， 113→效果也将随之消除。单纯的呼吁不会产生任何效果，除非 114→产生不幸。 115→ 116→还有另一些人，他们心中有同情，理解我们必须 117→深入探究根源的道理，这些便是伟大的圣者。有 118→一个事实你必须记住，世界上所有伟大的导师 119→都宣告他们来不是为了摧毁，而是为了成全。许多时候，这 120→未被理解，他们的宽容被认为是对现有大众意见的 121→一种不光彩的妥协。即便现在，你偶尔也会听到， 122→这些先知和伟大的导师是相当懦弱的，不敢说出 123→和做出他们认为正确的事情；但事实并非如此。狂热分子 124→很少能理解这些伟大圣者心中那无限的爱的力量—— 125→他们视这个世界的居民为自己的孩子。他们是 126→真正的父亲，真正的神灵，充满对每一个人无限的同情与耐心； 127→他们随时准备宽容忍耐。他们知道人类社会应如何成长， 128→耐心地、缓慢地、坚定地施用他们的补救方法， 129→不是通过谴责和恐吓人们，而是温柔亲切地 130→引导他们一步步向上。奥义书的著者便是如此。他们 131→深知旧有的上帝观念与那个时代进步的伦理理念是不可调和的； 132→他们深知无神论者所宣扬的内容含有大量的真理，不，是伟大的 133→真理金块；但与此同时，他们也明白，那些想要 134→斩断串联珍珠之线的人，那些想要 135→在空中建造一个新社会的人， 136→将会彻底失败。 137→ 138→我们从不建造新事物，我们只是改变位置；我们不可能拥有任何新事物， 139→我们只是改变事物的位置。种子成长为大树， 140→耐心而轻柔；我们必须将精力引向真理， 141→成全已有的真理，而不是试图创造新的真理。因此， 142→古代的圣者们没有谴责旧有的上帝观念为不适合现代时代， 143→而是开始探寻其中蕴含的实在。其结果便是 144→吠檀多哲学，从旧有的神灵，从宇宙的统治者这一一神论的上帝出发， 145→他们在所谓的无人格绝对中 146→发现了越来越高的理念；他们发现了贯穿整个宇宙的统一性。 147→ 148→在这个多元性的世界中，看见贯穿一切的那个唯一者；在这个 149→死亡的世界中，找到那唯一的无限生命；在这个 150→感知迟钝与无明的世界中，找到那唯一的光明与知识—— 151→归于他的，是永恒的安宁。别无他者，别无他者。
English
CHAPTER IV
MAYA AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPTION OF GOD
( Delivered in London, 20th October 1896 )
We have seen how the idea of Mâyâ, which forms, as it were, one of the basic doctrines of the Advaita Vedanta, is, in its germs, found even in the Samhitâs, and that in reality all the ideas which are developed in the Upanishads are to be found already in the Samhitas in some form or other. Most of you are by this time familiar with the idea of Maya, and know that it is sometimes erroneously explained as illusion, so that when the universe is said to be Maya, that also has to be explained as being illusion. The translation of the word is neither happy nor correct. Maya is not a theory; it is simply a statement of facts about the universe as it exists, and to understand Maya we must go back to the Samhitas and begin with the conception in the germ.
We have seen how the idea of the Devas came. At the same time we know that these Devas were at first only powerful beings, nothing more. Most of you are horrified when reading the old scriptures, whether of the Greeks, the Hebrews, the Persians, or others, to find that the ancient gods sometimes did things which, to us, are very repugnant. But when we read these books, we entirely forget that we are persons of the nineteenth century, and these gods were beings existing thousands of years ago. We also forget that the people who worshipped these gods found nothing incongruous in their characters, found nothing to frighten them, because they were very much like themselves. I may also remark that that is the one great lesson we have to learn throughout our lives. In judging others we always judge them by our own ideals. That is not as it should be. Everyone must be judged according to his own ideal, and not by that of anyone else. In our dealings with our fellow-beings we constantly labour under this mistake, and I am of opinion that the vast majority of our quarrels with one another arise simply from this one cause that we are always trying to judge others' gods by our own, others' ideals by our ideals, and others' motives by our motives. Under certain circumstances I might do a certain thing, and when I see another person taking the same course I think he has also the same motive actuating him, little dreaming that although the effect may be the same, yet many other causes may produce the same thing. He may have performed the action with quite a different motive from that which impelled me to do it. So in judging of those ancient religions we must not take the standpoint to which we incline, but must put ourselves into the position of thought and life of those early times.
The idea of the cruel and ruthless Jehovah in the Old Testament has frightened many — but why? What right have they to assume that the Jehovah of the ancient Jews must represent the conventional idea of the God of the present day? And at the same time, we must not forget that there will come men after us who will laugh at our ideas of religion and God in the same way that we laugh at those of the ancients. Yet, through all these various conceptions runs the golden thread of unity, and it is the purpose of the Vedanta to discover this thread. "I am the thread that runs through all these various ideas, each one of which is; like a pearl," says the Lord Krishna; and it is the duty of Vedanta to establish this connecting thread, how ever incongruous or disgusting may seem these ideas when judged according to the conceptions of today. These ideas, in the setting of past times, were harmonious and not more hideous than our present ideas. It is only when we try to take them out of their settings and apply to our own present circumstances that the hideousness becomes obvious. For the old surroundings are dead and gone. Just as the ancient Jew has developed into the keen, modern, sharp Jew, and the ancient Aryan into the intellectual Hindu similarly Jehovah has grown, and Devas have grown.
The great mistake is in recognising the evolution of the worshippers, while we do not acknowledge the evolution of the Worshipped. He is not credited with the advance that his devotees have made. That is to say, you and I, representing ideas, have grown; these gods also, as representing ideas, have grown. This may seem somewhat curious to you — that God can grow. He cannot. He is unchangeable. In the same sense the real man never grows. But man's ideas of God are constantly changing and expanding. We shall see later on how the real man behind each one of these human manifestations is immovable, unchangeable, pure, and always perfect; and in the same way the idea that we form of God is a mere manifestation, our own creation. Behind that is the real God who never changes, the ever pure, the immutable. But the manifestation is always changing revealing the reality behind more and more. When it reveals more of the fact behind, it is called progression, when it hides more of the fact behind, it is called retrogression. Thus, as we grow, so the gods grow. From the ordinary point of view, just as we reveal ourselves as we evolve, so the gods reveal themselves.
We shall now be in a position to understand the theory of Maya. In all the regions of the world the one question they propose to discuss is this: Why is there disharmony in the universe? Why is there this evil in the universe? We do not find this question in the very inception of primitive religious ideas, because the world did not appear incongruous to the primitive man. Circumstances were not inharmonious for him; there was no dash of opinions; to him there was no antagonism of good and evil. There was merely a feeling in his own heart of something which said yea, and something which said nay. The primitive man was a man of impulse. He did what occurred to him, and tried to bring out through his muscles whatever thought came into his mind, and he never stopped to judge, and seldom tried to check his impulses. So with the gods, they were also creatures of impulse. Indra comes and shatters the forces of the demons. Jehovah is pleased with one person and displeased with another, for what reason no one knows or asks. The habit of inquiry had not then arisen, and whatever he did was regarded as right. There was no idea of good or evil. The Devas did many wicked things in our sense of the word; again and again Indra and other gods committed very wicked deeds, but to the worshippers of Indra the ideas of wickedness and evil did not occur, so they did not question them.
With the advance of ethical ideas came the fight. There arose a certain sense in man, called in different languages and nations by different names. Call it the voice of God, or the result of past education, or whatever else you like, but the effect was this that it had a checking power upon the natural impulses of man. There is one impulse in our minds which says, do. Behind it rises another voice which says, do not. There is one set of ideas in our mind which is always struggling to get outside through the channels of the senses, and behind that, although it may be thin and weak, there is an infinitely small voice which says, do not go outside. The two beautiful Sanskrit words for these phenomena are Pravritti and Nivritti, "circling forward" and "circling inward". It is the circling forward which usually governs our actions. Religion begins with this circling inward. Religion begins with this "do not". Spirituality begins with this "do not". When the "do not" is not there, religion has not begun. And this "do not" came, causing men's ideas to grow, despite the fighting gods which they had worshipped.
A little love awoke in the hearts of mankind. It was very small indeed, and even now it is not much greater. It was at first confined to a tribe embracing perhaps members of the same tribe; these gods loved their tribes and each god was a tribal god, the protector of that tribe. And sometimes the members of a tribe would think of themselves as the descendants of their god, just as the clans in different nations think that they are the common descendants of the man who was the founder of the clan. There were in ancient times, and are even now, some people who claim to be descendants not only of these tribal gods, but also of the Sun and the Moon. You read in the ancient Sanskrit books of the great heroic emperors of the solar and the lunar dynasties. They were first worshippers of the Sun and the Moon, and gradually came to think of themselves as descendants of the god of the Sun of the Moon, and so forth. So when these tribal ideas began to grow there came a little love, some slight idea of duty towards each other, a little social organisation. Then, naturally, the idea came: How can we live together without bearing and forbearing? How can one man live with another without having some time or other to check his impulses, to restrain himself, to forbear from doing things which his mind would prompt him to do? It is impossible. Thus comes the idea of restraint. The whole social fabric is based upon that idea of restraint, and we all know that the man or woman who has not learnt the great lesson of bearing and forbearing leads a most miserable life.
Now, when these ideas of religion came, a glimpse of something higher, more ethical, dawned upon the intellect of mankind. The old gods were found to be incongruous — these boisterous, fighting, drinking, beef-eating gods of the ancients — whose delight was in the smell of burning flesh and libations of strong liquor. Sometimes Indra drank so much that he fell upon the ground and talked unintelligibly. These gods could no longer be tolerated. The notion had arisen of inquiring into motives, and the gods had to come in for their share of inquiry. Reason for such-and-such actions was demanded and the reason was wanting. Therefore man gave up these gods, or rather they developed higher ideas concerning them. They took a survey, as it were, of all the actions and qualities of the gods and discarded those which they could not harmonise, and kept those which they could understand, and combined them, labelling them with one name, Deva-deva, the God of gods. The god to be worshipped was no more a simple symbol of power; something more was required than that. He was an ethical god; he loved mankind, and did good to mankind. But the idea of god still remained. They increased his ethical significance, and increased also his power. He became the most ethical being in the universe, as well as almost almighty.
But all this patchwork would not do. As the explanation assumed greater proportions, the difficulty which it sought to solve did the same. If the qualities of the god increased in arithmetical progression, the difficulty and doubt increased in geometrical progression. The difficulty of Jehovah was very little beside the difficulty of the God of the universe, and this question remains to the present day. Why under the reign of an almighty and all-loving God of the universe should diabolical things be allowed to remain? Why so much more misery than happiness, and so much more wickedness than good? We may shut our eyes to all these things, but the fact still remains that this world is a hideous world. At best, it is the hell of Tantalus. Here we are with strong impulses and stronger cravings for sense-enjoyments, but cannot satisfy them. There rises a wave which impels us forward in spite of our own will, and as soon as we move one step, comes a blow. We are all doomed to live here like Tantalus. Ideals come into our head far beyond the limit of our sense-ideals, but when we seek to express them, we cannot do so. On the other hand, we are crushed by the surging mass around us. Yet if I give up all ideality and merely struggle through this world, my existence is that of a brute, and I degenerate and degrade myself. Neither way is happiness. Unhappiness is the fate of those who are content to live in this world, born as they are. A thousand times greater misery is the fate of those who dare to stand forth for truth and for higher things and who dare to ask for something higher than mere brute existence here. These are facts; but there is no explanation — there cannot be any explanation. But the Vedanta shows the way out. You must bear in mind that I have to tell you facts that will frighten you sometimes, but if you remember what I say, think of it, and digest it, it will be yours, it will raise you higher, and make you capable of understanding and living in truth.
Now, it is a statement of fact that this world is a Tantalus's hell, that we do not know anything about this universe, yet at the same time we cannot say that we do not know. I cannot say that this chain exists, when I think that I do not know it. It may be an entire delusion of my brain. I may be dreaming all the time. I am dreaming that I am talking to you, and that you are listening to me. No one can prove that it is not a dream. My brain itself may be a dream, and as to that no one has ever seen his own brain. We all take it for granted. So it is with everything. My own body I take for granted. At the same time I cannot say, I do not know. This standing between knowledge and ignorance, this mystic twilight, the mingling of truth and falsehood — and where they meet — no one knows. We are walking in the midst of a dream. Half sleeping, half waking, passing all our lives in a haze; this is the fate of everyone of us. This is the fate of all sense-knowledge. This is the fate of all philosophy, of all boasted science, of all boasted human knowledge. This is the universe.
What you call matter, or spirit, or mind, or anything else you may like to call them, the fact remains the same: we cannot say that they are, we cannot say that they are not. We cannot say they are one, we cannot say they are many. This eternal play of light and darkness — indiscriminate, indistinguishable, inseparable — is always there. A fact, yet at the same time not a fact; awake and at the same time asleep. This is a statement of facts, and this is what is called Maya. We are born in this Maya, we live in it, we think in it, we dream in it. We are philosophers in it, we are spiritual men in it, nay, we are devils in this Maya, and we are gods in this Maya. Stretch your ideas as far as you can make them higher and higher, call them infinite or by any other name you please, even these ideas are within this Maya. It cannot be otherwise, and the whole of human knowledge is a generalization of this Maya trying to know it as it appears to be. This is the work of Nâma-Rupa — name and form. Everything that has form, everything that calls up an idea in your mind, is within Maya; for everything that is bound by the laws of time, space, and causation is within Maya.
Let us go back a little to those early ideas of God and see what became of them. We perceive at once that the idea of some Being who is eternally loving us — eternally unselfish and almighty, ruling this universe — could not satisfy. "Where is the just, merciful God?" asked the philosopher. Does He not see millions and millions of His children perish, in the form of men and animals; for who can live one moment here without killing others? Can you draw a breath without destroying thousands of lives? You live, because, millions die. Every moment of your life, every breath that you breathe, is death to thousands; every movement that you make is death to millions. Every morsel that you eat is death to millions. Why should they die? There is an old sophism that they are very low existences. Supposing they are — which is questionable, for who knows whether the ant is greater than the man, or the man than the ant — who can prove one way or the other? Apart from that question, even taking it for granted that these are very low beings, still why should they die? If they are low, they have more reason to live. Why not? Because they live more in the senses, they feel pleasure and pain a thousandfold more than you or I can do. Which of us eats a dinner with the same gusto as a dog or wolf? None, because our energies are not in the senses; they are in the intellect, in the spirit. But in animals, their whole soul is in the senses, and they become mad and enjoy things which we human beings never dream of, and the pain is commensurate with the pleasure. Pleasure and pain are meted out in equal measure. If the pleasure felt by animals is so much keener than that felt by man, it follows that the animals' sense of pain is as keen, if not keener than man's. So the fact is, the pain and misery men feel in dying is intensified a thousandfold in animals, and yet we kill them without troubling ourselves about their misery. This is Maya. And if we suppose there is a Personal God like a human being, who made everything, these so-called explanations and theories which try to prove that out of evil comes good are not sufficient. Let twenty thousand good things come, but why should they come from evil? On that principle, I might cut the throats of others because I want the full pleasure of my five senses. That is no reason. Why should good come through evil? The question remains to be answered, and it cannot be answered. The philosophy of India was compelled to admit this.
The Vedanta was (and is) the boldest system of religion. It stopped nowhere, and it had one advantage. There was no body of priests who sought to suppress every man who tried to tell the truth. There was always absolute religious freedom. In India the bondage of superstition is a social one; here in the West society is very free. Social matters in India are very strict, but religious opinion is free. In England a man may dress any way he likes, or eat what he lilies — no one objects; but if he misses attending church, then Mrs. Grundy is down on him. He has to conform first to what society says on religion, and then he may think of the truth. In India, on the other hand, if a man dines with one who does not belong to his own caste, down comes society with all its terrible powers and crushes him then and there. If he wants to dress a little differently from the way in which his ancestor dressed ages ago, he is done for. I have heard of a man who was cast out by society because he went several miles to see the first railway train. Well, we shall presume that was not true! But in religion, we find atheists, materialists, and Buddhists, creeds, opinions, and speculations of every phase and variety, some of a most startling character, living side by side. Preachers of all sects go about reaching and getting adherents, and at the very gates of the temples of gods, the Brâhmins — to their credit be it said — allow even the materialists to stand and give forth their opinions.
Buddha died at a ripe old age. I remember a friend of mine, a great American scientist, who was fond of reading his life. He did not like the death of Buddha, because he was not crucified. What a false idea! For a man to be great he must be murdered! Such ideas never prevailed in India. This great Buddha travelled all over India, denouncing her gods and even the God of the universe, and yet he lived to a good old age. For eighty years he lived, and had converted half the country.
Then, there were the Chârvâkas, who preached horrible things, the most rank, undisguised materialism, such as in the nineteenth century they dare not openly preach. These Charvakas were allowed to preach from temple to temple, and city to city, that religion was all nonsense, that it was priestcraft, that the Vedas were the words and writings of fools, rogues, and demons, and that there was neither God nor an eternal soul. If there was a soul, why did it not come back after death drawn by the love of wife and child. Their idea was that if there was a soul it must still love after death, and want good things to eat and nice dress. Yet no one hurt these Charvakas.
Thus India has always had this magnificent idea of religious freedom, and you must remember that freedom is the first condition of growth. What you do not make free, will never grow. The idea that you can make others grow and help their growth, that you can direct and guide them, always retaining for yourself the freedom of the teacher, is nonsense, a dangerous lie which has retarded the growth of millions and millions of human beings in this world. Let men have the light of liberty. That is the only condition of growth.
We, in India, allowed liberty in spiritual matters, and we have a tremendous spiritual power in religious thought even today. You grant the same liberty in social matters, and so have a splendid social organisation. We have not given any freedom to the expansion of social matters, and ours is a cramped society. You have never given any freedom in religious matters but with fire and sword have enforced your beliefs, and the result is that religion is a stunted, degenerated growth in the European mind. In India, we have to take off the shackles from society; in Europe, the chains must be taken from the feet of spiritual progress. Then will come a wonderful growth and development of man. If we discover that there is one unity running through all these developments, spiritual, moral, and social, we shall find that religion, in the fullest sense of the word, must come into society, and into our everyday life. In the light of Vedanta you will Understand that all sciences are but manifestations of religion, and so is everything that exists in this world.
We see, then, that through freedom the sciences were built; and in them we have two sets of opinions, the one the materialistic and denouncing, and the other the positive and constructive. It is a most curious fact that in every society you find them. Supposing there is an evil in society, you will find immediately one group rise up and denounce it in vindictive fashion, which sometimes degenerates into fanaticism. There are fanatics in every society, and women frequently join in these outcries, because of their impulsive nature. Every fanatic who gets up and denounces something can secure a following. It is very easy to break down; a maniac can break anything he likes, but it would be hard for him to build up anything. These fanatics may do some good, according to their light, but much morn harm. Because social institutions are not made in a day, and to change them means removing the cause. Suppose there is an evil; denouncing it will not remove it, but you must go to work at the root. First find out the cause, then remove it, and the effect will be removed also. Mere outcry not produce any effect, unless indeed it produces misfortune.
There are others who had sympathy in their hearts and who understood the idea that we must go deep into the cause, these were the great saints. One fact you must remember, that all the great teachers of the world have declared that they came not to destroy but to fulfil. Many times his has not been understood, and their forbearance has been thought to be an unworthy compromise with existing popular opinions. Even now, you occasionally hear that these prophets and great teachers were rather cowardly, and dared not say and do what they thought was right; but that was not so. Fanatics little understand the infinite power of love in the hearts of these great sages who looked upon the inhabitants of this world as their children. They were the real fathers, the real gods, filled with infinite sympathy and patience for everyone; they were ready to bear and forbear. They knew how human society should grow, and patiently slowly, surely, went on applying their remedies, not by denouncing and frightening people, but by gently and kindly leading them upwards step by step. Such were the writers of the Upanishads. They knew full well how the old ideas of God were not reconcilable with the advanced ethical ideas of the time; they knew full well that what the atheists were preaching contained a good deal of truth, nay, great nuggets of truth; but at the same time, they understood that those who wished to sever the thread that bound the beads, who wanted to build a new society in the air, would entirely fail.
We never build anew, we simply change places; we cannot have anything new, we only change the position of things. The seed grows into the tree, patiently and gently; we must direct our energies towards the truth and fulfil the truth that exists, not try to make new truths. Thus, instead of denouncing these old ideas of God as unfit for modern times, the ancient sages began to seek out the reality that was in them. The result was the Vedanta philosophy, and out of the old deities, out of the monotheistic God, the Ruler of the universe, they found yet higher and higher ideas in what is called the Impersonal Absolute; they found oneness throughout the universe.
He who sees in this world of manifoldness that One running through all, in this world of death he who finds that One Infinite Life, and in this world of insentience and ignorance he who finds that One Light and Knowledge, unto him belongs eternal peace. Unto none else, unto none else.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。