实践吠檀多：第四部分
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→实践吠檀多 2→ 3→第四部分 4→ 5→（1896年11月18日讲于伦敦） 6→ 7→迄今为止，我们更多地探讨的是普遍性的层面。今晨我将 8→尝试向诸位阐明吠檀多关于个别与普遍之关系的思想。 9→正如我们所见，在吠陀学说的二元论形式中， 10→即较早的形式中，每一存在都有一个明确界定的、有限的个体灵魂。 11→关于每个个体中这一特殊灵魂，已有诸多理论，然而主要的争论 12→发生在古代吠檀多论者与古代佛教徒之间，前者相信 13→个体灵魂在其自身中是完整的， 14→灵魂在其自身中是完整的，后者则完全否认此类 15→个体灵魂的存在。正如我前几日所言，这与 16→你们在欧洲就实体与性质所进行的争论颇为相似，一方认为 17→在诸性质背后存在某种实体，性质寄存其中， 18→另一方则否认此类实体的存在，以为多余， 19→认为诸性质可以自立而存。关于灵魂最古老的理论， 20→自然是建立在自我同一性的论证之上—— 21→"我即是我"——昨日之我即今日之我， 22→今日之我亦将是明日之我；尽管身体不断发生种种变化， 23→我依然相信我是同一个我。这 24→似乎一直是那些相信有一个有限而又完整自足的 25→个体灵魂之人的核心论据。 26→ 27→另一方面，古代佛教徒否认此类假设的必要性。 28→他们提出论据说，我们所知晓并可能知晓的一切， 29→不过就是这些变化本身。设定一个 30→不变而永恒的实体，纯属多余，即便真有 31→此类不变之物，我们也永远无法理解它， 32→亦不可能以任何方式认知它。同样的 33→争论，你们在当今欧洲亦能见到，发生在 34→一方的宗教人士与唯心主义者，以及另一方的现代实证主义者 35→与不可知论者之间；一方相信存在某种不变之物 36→（其最新代表是你们的赫伯特·斯宾塞），认为 37→我们可以瞥见某种不变的东西。而另一方则 38→由现代孔德主义者和现代不可知论者代表。你们中那些 39→几年前曾关注赫伯特·斯宾塞 40→与弗雷德里克·哈里森之间争论的人，也许已注意到那不过是 41→同一古老难题，一方坚持在变化之后有某种实体， 42→另一方否认此类假设的必要性。一方认为 43→我们不能在不设想某种不变之物的前提下设想变化；另一方提出论据说这是多余的；我们 44→只能设想那变化之物，至于不变之物， 45→我们既无法知晓，亦无法感受或感知它。 46→ 47→ 48→在印度，这一重大问题在很古远的时代并未找到解答， 49→因为我们已看到，将实体假设为 50→有别于诸性质且独立于诸性质之外的东西，是无法得到证实的； 51→甚至连基于自我同一性、基于记忆的论证—— 52→即我是昨日之我是因为我记得它，因而我 53→一直是某个连续之物——也无法得到证实。另一个通常被提出的诡辩 54→不过是文字游戏。例如，一个 55→人可以列举一长串这样的句子："我做"、"我去"、"我梦"、 56→"我睡"、"我动"，于是他们声称，做、去、梦 57→等等一直在变化，但保持不变的是 58→那个"我"。由此他们得出结论，"我"是某种恒常之物， 59→且在其自身中是一个个体，而一切变化皆属于身体。这 60→虽然表面上看来颇具说服力且清晰明了，却建立在纯粹的 61→文字游戏之上。"我"与做、去、梦或许在字面上可以分离， 62→但在任何人的心灵中，它们都无法被分开。 63→ 64→当我进食时，我将自己视为正在进食之人——我与进食合而为一。当我 65→奔跑时，我与奔跑并非两件分离之事。由此看来，来自 66→人格同一性的论证似乎并不十分有力。另一个来自 67→记忆的论证同样薄弱。若我之存在的同一性由我的 68→记忆所代表，那么我已遗忘之事便从那同一性中消失了。而且 69→我们知道，人在某些情况下会忘却其全部过去。在 70→许多精神失常的案例中，一个人会以为自己是玻璃做的，或者 71→是一只动物。若那人的存在取决于记忆，他便已 72→成了玻璃，而事实并非如此，故我们无法将 73→自我的同一性建立在如此脆弱的基础——记忆——之上。由此可见，灵魂 74→作为一个有限却完整且持续的同一性，无法被确立为 75→独立于诸性质之外的存在。我们无法确立一个被缩减的、有限的 76→存在，并将一束性质附着于其上。 77→ 78→另一方面，古代佛教徒的论证似乎更为有力—— 79→我们不知晓、也不可能知晓任何超越于 80→这一束性质之外的东西。依他们之见，灵魂由一束 81→称为感觉与情感的性质构成。如此之一团 82→便是所谓的灵魂，而这一团始终处于不断变化之中。 83→ 84→不二论关于灵魂的理论调和了这两种立场。 85→不二论者的立场是：我们确实无法将 86→实体与诸性质分开来思考，我们无法同时思考变化与 87→不变化；那是不可能的。但那 88→本身即是实体的东西，就是诸性质本身；实体与性质并非两 89→件事。不变之物正在显现为变化之物。宇宙那不变的 90→实体并非独立于宇宙之外的某物。 91→本体并非不同于现象的某物，而正是 92→本体本身已成为现象。有一个灵魂是 93→不变的，而我们所称的情感与知觉，乃至身体本身， 94→就是那灵魂，从另一角度观之。我们已养成 95→认为自己有身体和灵魂等等的习惯，但说到底， 96→其实只有一个。 97→ 98→当我将自己视为身体时，我不过是一个身体；说我是其他什么，毫无意义。当我将自己视为灵魂时，身体 99→消隐了，对身体的知觉也不复存在。无人能获得 100→对自我的知觉而不同时让对身体的知觉消失， 101→无人能获得对实体的知觉而不同时让对 102→诸性质的知觉消失。 103→ 104→ 105→不二论那个关于绳被误认为蛇的古老比喻， 106→或许能更进一步阐明这一要点。当一个人将绳误认为 107→蛇时，绳便消失了；而当他将它认作绳时，蛇便 108→消失了，只剩下绳。关于双重或三重存在的观念 109→来自在不充分数据上进行的推理，我们在书中读到它们，或者听闻 110→关于它们的说法，直到我们陷入幻觉，以为自己真正拥有对 111→灵魂与身体的双重知觉；但这样的知觉从未真正 112→存在过。知觉要么是关于身体的，要么是关于灵魂的。这无需 113→任何论证来证明，你们可以在自己的心灵中加以验证。 114→ 115→试图将自己视为一个灵魂，视为某种无形之物。你会发现这几乎是不可能的，而那少数能够做到的人会 116→发现，在他们将自己实现为灵魂的那一刻，他们对 117→身体毫无意念。你们曾听说过——或许亲眼见过——某些人在 118→特殊场合处于特殊心境之中，这种心境由 119→深度冥想、自我催眠、癔症或药物所引发。从他们的经验中 120→你们可以了解到，当他们感知那内在的某物时， 121→外在之物已对他们消失。这表明，凡存在之物皆为一。那 122→一者正以这些各种各样的形式显现，而所有这些各种各样的形式产生 123→了因果关系。因果关系 124→是一种进化关系——一者变成另一者，如此等等。有时 125→因消失了，仿佛，留下了效果。若灵魂 126→是身体的因，灵魂仿佛暂时消失了， 127→而身体留存；而当身体消失时，灵魂留存。这一 128→理论契合了佛教徒针对 129→身心二元论假设所提出的论证，通过否定二元性，并 130→证明实体与性质是同一件事的 131→不同面貌的显现，而化解了那些论证。 132→ 133→ 134→我们还看到，不变之物这一观念，只能就整体而言加以确立， 135→而永远无法就部分而言加以确立。部分这一观念 136→本身就来自变化或运动的观念。凡有限之物我们都能 137→理解和认知，因为它是可变的；而整体必然是 138→不变的，因为除它之外再无其他，相对于它而言 139→变化方有可能。变化始终是相对于某种 140→不变之物，或相对变化较小之物而言的。 141→ 142→因此，依照不二论，灵魂作为普遍的、 143→不变的、不朽的这一观念，可以尽可能地得到证明。 144→困难在于个别方面。我们当如何对待那些对我们影响深远的 145→旧的二元论理论——那些我们都必须经历的 146→关于有限的、渺小的个体灵魂的信念？ 147→ 148→我们已见到，就整体而言我们是不朽的；但 149→困难在于，我们是如此渴望作为整体之一部分而获得不朽。我们已见到，我们是无限的，那才是我们真正的个性。但 150→我们如此渴望使这些渺小的灵魂成为个体。当我们在日常经验中发现 151→这些渺小的灵魂确实是个体时，它们又将如何—— 152→仅有这一保留：它们是持续成长的 153→个体？它们是相同的，却又不完全相同。昨日之我是 154→今日之我，却又不尽然，它已有所改变。现在，通过摒弃 155→二元论的观念——即在所有这些变化中有某种东西不变——并采用最现代的观念， 156→即进化的观念，我们发现那个"我"是一个不断变化、 157→不断扩展的实体。 158→不断扩展的实体。 159→ 160→ 161→若人是从软体动物进化而来，则软体动物的个体 162→与人是同一的，只是需要大幅扩展。从 163→软体动物到人，这是一个朝向无限的持续扩展。 164→因此，有限的灵魂可以被称为一个不断 165→朝向无限个体扩展的个体。完美的个性只有 166→当它达到无限时才能实现，但在 167→无限的这一侧，它是一个不断变化、不断成长的人格。不二论吠檀多体系的 168→显著特征之一是调和各先行体系。在许多情况下，这极大地助益了哲学；在某些 169→情况下则有所损害。我们的古代哲学家知晓你们所称的进化论； 170→即成长是渐进的，循序渐进，而对这一点的认识 171→使他们得以调和所有先行体系。因此，这些 172→先行观念中没有一个被否定。佛教信仰的缺陷在于 173→它既缺乏对这种持续扩展式成长的能力，也缺乏对其的洞察， 174→正因如此，它甚至从未尝试 175→将自身与那些朝向理想的既有步骤加以调和。那些步骤被 176→视为无用且有害而遭到摒弃。 177→ 178→ 179→宗教中的这种倾向极为有害。一个人获得了新的、更好的理念， 180→然后回头审视那些他已放弃的旧理念，并随即断定 181→它们是有害的和不必要的。他从不思考，尽管从他 182→当前的观点看来它们可能显得粗陋，但它们对 183→他当时是极为有用的，对于达到他目前的状态是必要的，而且 184→我们每个人都必须以相似的方式成长，先接受粗陋的 185→理念，从中受益，再达到更高的标准。 186→因此，不二论对最古老的理论持友好态度。二元论 187→和一切先行于它的体系，都被不二论所接纳，不是以恩赐的方式， 188→而是出于这样的信念：它们是同一真理的真实显现， 189→它们都通向不二论所达到的同样结论， 190→不二论已然抵达的结论。 191→ 192→应以祝福而非诅咒来保存人类所必经的 193→所有这些不同阶段。因此，所有这些二元论 194→体系从未被否定或抛弃，而是被完整地保存在 195→吠檀多中；关于个体灵魂——有限却 196→在其自身中完整——的二元论观念，在吠檀多中占有其位置。 197→ 198→依照二元论，人死后前往其他世界，等等；而这些 199→观念被完整地保存在吠檀多中。因为在不二论体系认识到成长的前提下，这些理论被 200→赋予了其适当的位置，承认它们仅代表真理的一个 201→局部视角。 202→ 203→ 204→从二元论的立场来看，这个宇宙只能被视为 205→物质或力量的创造物，只能被视为某种意志的游戏，而那意志又只能被视为 206→独立于宇宙之外。因此，持此立场的人不得不将自己视为 207→由身体与灵魂这双重本性所构成，而这灵魂，尽管有限， 208→在其自身中却是完整的个体。此类人关于不朽和 209→来世的观念，必然与他关于灵魂的观念相一致。这些阶段 210→已被保存在吠檀多中，因此有必要向诸位 211→介绍几个二元论的通行观念。依照这一 212→理论，我们当然有一个身体，而在身体之后有他们所 213→称的一个精细之体。这精细之体也由物质构成，只是极为精细。它 214→是我们一切业（Karma）的容器，是我们一切行动与印象的容器， 215→这些行动与印象随时准备以可见的形式涌现。我们所思的每一念， 216→我们所为的每一事，经过一段时间后变得精细， 217→可以说进入种子形态，以潜在的形式存活在精细之体中， 218→经过一段时间后再度显现，结出其果。这些果 219→制约着人的生命。由此人塑造着自己的生命。人不受任何其他 220→规律的约束，除了他为自己制定的规律。我们的思想、言语与 221→行为，是我们为自己编织的网的丝线，无论是善的还是恶的。一旦我们启动某种力量，我们就必须承担它的 222→全部后果。一旦我们启动某种力量，我们就必须承担它的全部后果。这就是业的法则。在精细之体之后，存活着 223→吉瓦（Jiva），即人的个体灵魂。关于这一个体灵魂的 224→形态与大小，存在种种争论。依某些人之见，它极为 225→渺小，如原子一般；依另一些人之见，它并非如此渺小； 226→依另一些人之见，它非常巨大，等等。这吉瓦是那 227→普遍实体的一部分，它也是永恒的；它无始地 228→存在着，且将无终地存在下去。它正经历着所有这些 229→形态，以显现其真实本性——纯粹。每一个 230→阻碍此显现的行动被称为恶行；念头亦然。 231→而每一个帮助吉瓦扩展、显现其真实本性的行动与念头， 232→便是善的。印度所有人——从最粗陋的二元论者到最高深的非二元论者——共同持有的一个理论是， 233→灵魂的一切可能性与力量皆在其自身之内，并不来自 234→任何外部源泉。它们以潜在的形式存在于灵魂之中， 235→而生命的全部工作就是引导显现那些 236→潜能。 237→ 238→ 239→潜能。
他们亦持轮回[Samsara]之说，谓此身消亡之后，灵魂将再获一身；彼身消亡之后，又将再获一身，如此循环往复，或在此界，或在他界；然而此世界被视为最优，因其最利于吾人之目的。他界被想象为苦难极少之处，然而正因如此，他们论证道，在那里思索高远事物的机缘也就更少。
此世界既含若干快乐，又含诸多苦难，灵魂在某时某刻终将觉醒，如梦初醒，思求自我解脱[Moksha]。然而正如极富之人最少机缘思索高远事物，天界之灵魂亦少有进步之机，其处境与富人相仿，且更为强烈——它拥有极精妙之身，不知疾病，无需饮食，一切欲望皆得满足。灵魂在彼处享乐复享乐，竟将其真实本性忘却殆尽。然尚有若干更高之界域，即便在一切享乐之中，灵魂仍可继续进化。部分二元论者将目标设想为最高天界，灵魂将在那里与神永久同住。它们将拥有美妙之躯，不知疾病，不知死亡，不知其他诸苦，一切欲望皆得满足。其中有些将不时重返此地，再度取得肉身，为世人指引归神之道；而世间伟大的导师即是如此。他们早已解脱，居于最高界域与神同住；然而他们对受苦人类的大爱与悲悯是如此深广，以至于再度降临，化身为人，教导人类通往天国之路。
当然，我们知道不二论[Advaita]认为此不可能是目标或理想；无身才是理想。理想不可能是有限的。任何低于无限之物都不能成为理想，而无限之身是不可能的，因为身体来自于局限。无限之思想亦不可能，因为思想来自于局限。不二论说，我们必须超越身体，也必须超越思想。我们亦已明白，依不二论，此自由并非需要获取——它已是我们所有的。我们只不过是忘记了它，否认了它。完美无需获取，它早已在我们内部。不朽与极乐无需追求，我们早已拥有；它们一直都是我们的。
若你敢于宣称自己是自由的，此刻你便是自由的。若你说自己是被缚的，你便将继续被缚。此乃不二论大胆的宣示。我已将二元论者的理念告知于你，你可选取任何适合你的。
吠檀多[Vedanta]的最高理想极难理解，人们总是为之争论不休，最大的困难在于：当人们抓住某些理念时，他们便否定并攻击其他理念。取对你有益的，让他人取其所需。若你渴望执守这微小的个体性，执守这有限的人性，便留在其中，保持所有这些欲望，满足其中，以之为乐。若你的人生经历一直美好愉快，尽管随意保留它；你可以这样做，因为你是自身命运的创造者，无人能强迫你放弃你的人性。只要你愿意，你便是人；无人能阻止你。若你想成为天使，你便将成为天使，此乃定律。然而亦有他人甚至不愿成为天使。你有什么权利认为那是一种可怖的想法？你也许因失去百镑而心惊，然而或许有他人，即便失去他在世间的全部财产，连眼睛也不会眨一下。这样的人古已有之，至今仍有。你为何敢于以自己的标准评判他们？你执守你的局限，而这些微小的世俗观念或许就是你的最高理想。它们对你来说是自由的。它将按你所愿而成。然而亦有他人见过真理，无法安于这些局限；他们已与这些事物了断，欲求超越。对他们而言，这个世界连同其一切享乐不过是一汪泥水。你为何要把他们束缚于你的理念之上？你必须一劳永逸地摆脱这种倾向。给每个人以应有的位置。
我曾读过一则故事，讲述南太平洋岛屿中某些被旋风席卷的船只，《伦敦新闻画报》上载有图片。除一艘英国船只安然穿越风暴之外，其余船只皆遭覆没。图画中，那些即将溺水的人们站在甲板上，向乘风破浪之人欢呼致意。要如此勇敢而慷慨。不要把他人拖拽至你所处的境地。另一个愚蠢的念头是：若我们失去渺小的个体性，便不会有道德，人类便无望。仿佛人人时时刻刻都在为人类牺牲！上帝保佑！若每个国家有两百名男女真诚地渴望为人类造福，五天之内乌托邦便会降临。我们清楚自己怎样为人类牺牲！这些不过是夸夸其谈，别无其他。世界历史表明，那些从未为自己的微小个体性着想的人，才是人类最伟大的恩人；而男男女女越是为自己着想，他们就越无力为他人服务。前者是无私，后者是自私。执守微小的享乐，渴望此种境况的延续和重复，是彻头彻尾的自私。这不是出于对真理的任何渴望，其起源不在于对其他众生的善意，而在于人类内心彻底的自私——"我要拥有一切，毫不在乎他人。"这是我的看法。我希望世间能有更多道德高尚之人，像古代那些伟大的先知与圣贤一样——若能以此利益哪怕一只微小的动物，他们愿意舍弃百条生命！大谈道德与利益他人！当今时代的空洞言辞！
我希望见到道德高尚之人，如乔达摩佛陀——他不信奉有位格的神，也不信奉有位格的灵魂，对此从不发问，是一位彻底的不可知论者；然而他随时准备为任何人舍弃生命，毕生为众生之善而工作，唯念众生之善。他的传记作者描述其诞生时说得好：他生来是为众多人的利益，是众多人的福祉。他并非为个人解脱而入林冥思；他感到世界正在燃烧，必须寻得出路。"世间为何有如此多的苦难？"——这一问题主宰了他的整个生命。你以为我们在道德上及得上佛陀吗？
一个人越是自私，他便越是不道德。民族亦然。那个囿于自身的民族，是整个世界中最残忍、最邪恶的。没有哪个宗教比阿拉伯先知创立的宗教更执守这种二元论，也没有哪个宗教曾如此地大量流血、如此残忍地对待他人。《古兰经》中有一条教义，认为不信奉这些教义的人应被杀死；杀死他是一种慈悲！而进入天堂——那里有美丽的处女和种种感官享乐——最可靠的途径就是杀死这些不信者。想想这种信仰所造成的流血惨剧！
基督教中几乎没有粗鄙之处；纯粹的基督教与吠檀多之间差异甚微。其中可见合一的理念；然而基督也向民众宣讲二元论的理念，是为给他们提供具体可把握之物，以引导他们走向最高理想。同一位先知宣讲"我们在天上的父"，也宣讲"我与父为一"，这同一位先知知晓，经由"天上的父"才能抵达"我与父为一"。基督教的宗教中只有祝福与爱；然而一旦粗鄙渗入，它便堕落为与阿拉伯先知的宗教相差无几之物。这确实是粗鄙——这场争夺微小自我的战斗，这对"我"的执守，不仅在今生，乃至渴望其在死后的延续。他们将此宣称为无私；将此定为道德的基础！主啊，若这便是道德的基础，请保佑我们！而令人惊奇的是，本应明辨是非的男男女女认为，一旦这些渺小的自我消失，道德便会荡然无存，并对道德只能建立于其消亡之上这一理念惊骇万分。一切福祉、一切道德善良的口号不是"我"，而是"你"。谁在乎有没有天堂或地狱，谁在乎有没有灵魂，谁在乎有没有不变者？这世界就在这里，而它充满苦难。像佛陀那样走入其中，奋斗以减轻苦难，否则便死于其中。忘却自我——这是首先要学习的一课，无论你是有神论者还是无神论者，是不可知论者还是吠檀多论者，是基督徒还是穆罕默德信徒。一切显而易见的教训是：消灭渺小的自我，建立真实的自我。
两股力量一直并行运作。一个说"我"，另一个说"非我"。它们的显现不仅在人，也在动物，不仅在动物，也在最微小的虫豸。一头将獠牙刺入人类温热血液的母虎，也会为保护幼崽而献出自己的生命。一个视夺取同类生命为无物的最堕落的男人，或许会毫不犹豫地为拯救其挨饿的妻儿而牺牲自我。如此，在整个造化之中，这两股力量并肩运作；你在哪里找到其中一个，另一个也在那里。一个是自私，另一个是无私。一个是获取，另一个是舍弃。一个索取，另一个给予。从最低到最高，整个宇宙都是这两股力量的游场。这无需任何论证；对所有人都是显而易见的。
任何社区中的哪个阶层，有权将宇宙的全部运作与进化仅仅建立在这两股力量中的一个之上——仅建立在竞争与角力之上？有权将宇宙的全部运作建立在激情与争斗、竞争与角力之上？这些的确存在，我们并不否认；然而有谁有权否认另一股力量的运作？有哪个人能否认：爱、这个"非我"、这种舍弃，是宇宙中唯一积极的力量？另那股力量不过是爱的力量被误导的运用；爱的力量带来竞争，竞争的真正根源在于爱。恶的真正根源在于无私。创造恶的是善，目的也是善。它不过是善的力量被误导。一个谋杀他人的男人，其动机或许是对自己孩子的爱。他的爱局限于那一个小婴儿，将宇宙中其他数百万人类排除在外。然而，无论有限还是无限，那都是同一份爱。
如此，宇宙这原动力，无论以何种方式显现，皆是那一奇妙之物——无私、舍弃、爱——存在中真实的、唯一鲜活的力量。因此，吠檀多论者坚持那种合一性。我们坚持这一解释，因为我们无法承认宇宙有两个起因。若我们仅仅认定：通过局限，同一份美丽、奇妙的爱显现为恶或卑劣，我们便发现整个宇宙可由爱这一种力量来解释。否则，宇宙必须假设两个起因——一善一恶，一爱一恨。哪个更合逻辑？当然是单一力量理论。
现在让我们进入那些可能不属于二元论的事物。我不能再久留于二元论者之中了，我有些担忧。我的意图是表明：道德与无私的最高理想与最高的形而上学概念携手并进；你无需降低你的概念来获取伦理与道德，相反，要抵达道德与伦理的真实基础，你必须拥有最高的哲学与科学概念。人类的知识与人类的福祉并非对立。恰恰相反，唯有知识才能在生命的每个领域拯救我们——知识即是敬拜。我们知道得越多，对我们越好。吠檀多论者说，一切表面之恶的原因在于无限者被局限。那份流入细小渠道而似乎是恶的爱，最终从另一端涌现，以神的形态显现。吠檀多也说，这一切表面之恶的原因在于我们自身。不要责怪任何超自然存在，也不要绝望沮丧，不要认为我们身处一处永无逃脱之地，除非有人来拉我们一把。那是不可能的，吠檀多如是说。我们如同蚕；我们用自己的物质抽出丝线，纺成茧房，久而久之被囚于其中。然而这并非永久。在那茧房之中，我们将发展精神的实现，如蝴蝶一般破茧而出，获得自由。这业[karma]的网络是我们自己编织于自身周围的；在无明之中，我们感觉仿佛被缚，哭泣哀号寻求帮助。然而帮助并非来自外部，它来自我们内心。向宇宙中所有的神呐喊。我哭喊了多年，最终发现我得到了帮助。但帮助来自内心。我必须解开我因错误而自己打下的结。此乃唯一之道。我必须割断自己投向自身的那张网，而做到这一点的力量就在内心。对此我深信不疑：我生命中每一个渴望——无论引导正确还是有所偏差——皆未落空，而我乃是我一切过去的结果，善与恶皆然。我犯过许多错误；然而请注意，我确信：若没有那些每一个错误，我今日便不会是如今这般，因此对于曾经犯下那些错误，我颇为释然。我并非说你要回家故意犯错误；请不要这样误解我。但不要因你所犯的错误而郁郁寡欢，要知道，最终一切都会归于正途。它不可能不如此，因为善良是我们的本性，纯洁是我们的本性，而那本性永远不会被摧毁。我们本质的本性始终如一。
我们要理解的是：我们之所以犯下那些我们称之为错误或恶的事，是因为我们软弱，而我们软弱是因为我们无明。我更愿称它们为错误。"罪"这个词，虽然最初是个很好的词，却带有某种令我感到不安的气息。是谁使我们陷入无明的？是我们自己。我们用双手遮住自己的眼睛，哭泣着说天黑了。把手拿开，光明便在那里；光明对我们永远存在——人类灵魂自我光耀的本性。你没有听见你们现代科学家所说的话吗？进化的原因是什么？欲望。动物想要做某事，却发现环境不利，因此发展出新的身体。是谁发展了它？动物自身，它的意志。你从最低等的阿米巴进化而来。继续运用你的意志，它将带你走得更高。意志是全能的。若它是全能的，你或许会问，为何我不能做所有事？但你只在想你渺小的自我。回顾你从阿米巴到人类的状态；是谁造就了这一切？你自己的意志。那么你能否认它是全能的吗？那使你走到如此高度的力量，能带你走得更高。你需要的是品格，是意志的强化。
若我因此而教导你说你的本性是恶的，你应该回家披麻蒙灰，哭泣一生，因为你踏出了某些错误的步伐，这对你不会有任何帮助，只会使你更加软弱，而我会是在为你指引一条通往更多恶而非善的路。若这个房间里充满了数千年的黑暗，你走进来开始哭泣哀叹"哦，黑暗啊"，黑暗会消散吗？划一根火柴，光明即刻降临。你终其一生思想"哦，我曾作恶，我犯过许多错误"，这对你有什么益处？这无需鬼魂来告诉我们。带来光明，恶就在顷刻间消散。建立你的品格，彰显你的真实本性——那光辉灿烂的、璀璨耀目的、永远纯洁的，在你所见的每一个人身上呼唤出它来。我希望我们每一个人都能达到这样一种境界：即便在最卑微的人类身上，我们也能看见其内在的真我[Atman]，而不是谴责他们，而是说："起来吧，你这光辉灿烂者；起来吧，你这永远纯洁者；起来吧，你这无生无死者；起来吧，全能者，彰显你的真实本性。这些细微的显现不配你。"这是不二论所教导的最高祈祷。这是唯一的祈祷——忆念我们的真实本性，那永远在我们内心的神，将它始终想象为无限的、全能的、永远善良的、永远赐福的、无私的、无一切局限的。正因那本性是无私的，它才是强大无畏的；因为唯有自私才会带来恐惧。一个无任何私欲的人，他惧怕谁，什么能惊吓他？死亡对他有何惧？恶对他有何惧？所以若我们是不二论者，我们必须从此刻起想到：我们的旧我已死去消逝。旧日的某先生、某太太、某小姐皆已逝去，他们不过是迷信，剩下的是那永远纯洁的、永远强大的、全能的、无所不知的——那唯独对我们留存，随后一切恐惧从我们身上消散。谁能伤害我们这无所不在者？一切软弱已从我们身上消散，我们唯一的工作是在同类中唤醒这一知识。我们看到他们也是同一纯洁的自我，只是他们不知晓；我们必须教导他们，必须帮助他们唤起其无限的本性。这是我认为在整个世界上绝对必要的。这些教义古老久远，或许比许多山峦还要古老。一切真理都是永恒的。真理不是任何人的财产；没有哪个种族、哪个个人能对它主张任何专属权利。真理是一切灵魂的本性。谁能对它提出任何特别的主张？然而它必须被付诸实践，必须被简化（因为最高的真理始终是简单的），使其得以渗透人类社会的每个毛孔，成为最高智识与最平凡心灵的共同财富，成为男人、女人与孩童同享之物。所有这些逻辑的推理，所有这些形而上学的堆砌，所有这些神学与仪式，在它们各自的时代或许都是好的；但让我们尝试使事物更加简单，带来黄金时代——在那个时代，每个人都将是一个崇拜者，每个人内心的实在都将是崇拜的对象。
注释
English
PRACTICAL VEDANTA
PART IV
(Delivered in London, 18th November 1896)
We have been dealing more with the universal so far. This morning I shall try to place before you the Vedantic ideas of the relation of the particular to the universal. As we have seen, in the dualistic form of Vedic doctrines, the earlier forms, there was a clearly defined particular and limited soul for every being. There have been a great many theories about this particular soul in each individual, but the main discussion was between the ancient Vedantists and the ancient Buddhists, the former believing in the individual soul as complete in itself, the latter denying in toto the existence of such an individual soul. As I told you the other day, it is pretty much the same discussion you have in Europe as to substance and quality, one set holding that behind the qualities there is something as substance, in which the qualities inhere; and the other denying the existence of such a substance as being unnecessary, for the qualities may live by themselves. The most ancient theory of the soul, of course, is based upon the argument of self-identity — "I am I" — that the I of yesterday is the I of today, and the I of today will be the I of tomorrow; that in spite of all the changes that are happening to the body, I yet believe that I am the same I. This seems to have been the central argument with those who believed in a limited, and yet perfectly complete, individual soul.
On the other hand, the ancient Buddhists denied the necessity of such an assumption. They brought forward the argument that all that we know, and all that we possibly can know, are simply these changes. The positing of an unchangeable and unchanging substance is simply superfluous, and even if there were any such unchangeable thing, we could never understand it, nor should we ever be able to cognise it in any sense of the word. The same discussion you will find at the present time going on in Europe between the religionists and the idealists on the one side, and the modern positivists and agnostics on the other; one set believing there is something which does not change (of whom the latest representative is your Herbert Spencer), that we catch a glimpse of something which is unchangeable. And the other is represented by the modern Comtists and modern Agnostics. Those of you who were interested a few years ago in the discussions between Herbert Spencer and Frederick Harrison might have noticed that it was the same old difficulty, the one party standing for a substance behind the changeful, and the other party denying the necessity for such an assumption. One party says we cannot conceive of changes without conceiving of something which does not change; the other party brings out the argument that this is superfluous; we can only conceive of something which is changing, and as to the unchanging, we can neither know, feel, nor sense it.
In India this great question did not find its solution in very ancient times, because we have seen that the assumption of a substance which is behind the qualities, and which is not the qualities, can never be substantiated; nay, even the argument from self-identity, from memory, — that I am the I of yesterday because I remember it, and therefore I have been a continuous something — cannot be substantiated. The other quibble that is generally put forward is a mere delusion of words. For instance, a man may take a long series of such sentences as "I do", "I go", "I dream", "I sleep", "I move", and here you will find it claimed that the doing, going, dreaming etc., have been changing, but what remained constant was that "I". As such they conclude that the "I" is something which is constant and an individual in itself, but all these changes belong to the body. This, though apparently very convincing and clear, is based upon the mere play on words. The "I" and the doing, going, and dreaming may be separate in black and white, but no one can separate them in his mind.
When I eat, I think of myself as eating — am identified with eating. When I run, I and the running are not two separate things. Thus the argument from personal identity does not seem to be very strong. The other argument from memory is also weak. If the identity of my being is represented by my memory, many things which I have forgotten are lost from that identity. And we know that people under certain conditions forget their whole past. In many cases of lunacy a man will think of himself as made of glass, or as being an animal. If the existence of that man depends on memory, he has become glass, which not being the case we cannot make the identity of the Self depend on such a flimsy substance as memory. Thus we see that the soul as a limited yet complete and continuing identity cannot be established as separate from the qualities. We cannot establish a narrowed-down, limited existence to which is attached a bunch of qualities.
On the other hand, the argument of the ancient Buddhists seems to be stronger — that we do not know, and cannot know, anything that is beyond the bunch of qualities. According to them, the soul consists of a bundle of qualities called sensations and feelings. A mass of such is what is called the soul, and this mass is continually changing.
The Advaitist theory of the soul reconciles both these positions. The position of the Advaitist is that it is true that we cannot think of the substance as separate from the qualities, we cannot think of change and not-change at the same time; it would be impossible. But the very thing which is the substance is the quality; substance and quality are not two things. It is the unchangeable that is appearing as the changeable. The unchangeable substance of the universe is not something separate from it. The noumenon is not something different from the phenomena, but it is the very noumenon which has become the phenomena. There is a soul which is unchanging, and what we call feelings and perceptions, nay, even the body, are the very soul, seen from another point of view. We have got into the habit of thinking that we have bodies and souls and so forth, but really speaking, there is only one.
When I think of myself as the body, I am only a body; it is meaningless to say I am something else. And when I think of myself as the soul, the body vanishes, and the perception of the body does not remain. None can get the perception of the Self without his perception of the body having vanished, none can get perception of the substance without his perception of the qualities having vanished.
The ancient illustration of Advaita, of the rope being taken for a snake, may elucidate the point a little more. When a man mistakes the rope for a snake, the rope has vanished, and when he takes it for a rope, the snake has vanished, and the rope only remains. The ideas of dual or treble existence come from reasoning on insufficient data, and we read them in books or hear about them, until we come under the delusion that we really have a dual perception of the soul and the body; but such a perception never really exists. The perception is either of the body or of the soul. It requires no arguments to prove it, you can verify it in your own minds.
Try to think of yourself as a soul, as a disembodied something. You will find it to be almost impossible, and those few who are able to do so will find that at the time when they realise themselves as a soul they have no idea of the body. You have heard of, or perhaps have seen, persons who on particular occasions had been in peculiar states of mind, brought about by deep meditation, self-hypnotism, hysteria, or drugs. From their experience you may gather that when they were perceiving the internal something, the external had vanished for them. This shows that whatever exists is one. That one is appearing in these various forms, and all these various forms give rise to the relation of cause and effect. The relation of cause and effect is one of evolution — the one becomes the other, and so on. Sometimes the cause vanishes, as it were, and in its place leaves the effect. If the soul is the cause of the body, the soul, as it were vanishes for the time being, and the body remains; and when the body vanishes, the soul remains. This theory fits the arguments of the Buddhists that were levelled against the assumption of the dualism of body and soul, by denying the duality, and showing that the substance and the qualities are one and the same thing appearing in various forms.
We have seen also that this idea of the unchangeable can be established only as regards the whole, but never as regards the part. The very idea of part comes from the idea of change or motion. Everything that is limited we can understand and know, because it is changeable; and the whole must be unchangeable, because there is no other thing besides it in relation to which change would be possible. Change is always in regard to something which does not change, or which changes relatively less.
According to Advaita, therefore, the idea of the soul as universal, unchangeable, and immortal can be demonstrated as far as possible. The difficulty would be as regards the particular. What shall we do with the old dualistic theories which have such a hold upon us, and which we have all to pass through — these beliefs in limited, little, individual souls?
We have seen that we are immortal with regard to the whole; but the difficulty is, we desire so much to be immortal as parts of the whole. We have seen that we are Infinite, and that that is our real individuality. But we want so much to make these little souls individual. What becomes of them when we find in our everyday experience that these little souls are individuals, with only this reservation that they are continuously growing individuals? They are the same, yet not the same. The I of yesterday is the I of today, and yet not so, it is changed somewhat. Now, by getting rid of the dualistic conception, that in the midst of all these changes there is something that does not change, and taking the most modern of conceptions, that of evolution, we find that the "I" is a continuously changing, expanding entity.
If it be true that man is the evolution of a mollusc, the mollusc individual is the same as the man, only it has to become expanded a great deal. From mollusc to man it has been a continuous expansion towards infinity. Therefore the limited soul can be styled an individual which is continuously expanding towards the Infinite Individual. Perfect individuality will only be reached when it has reached the Infinite, but on this side of the Infinite it is a continuously changing, growing personality. One of the remarkable features of the Advaitist system of Vedanta is to harmonise the preceding systems. In many cases it helped the philosophy very much; in some cases it hurt it. Our ancient philosophers knew what you call the theory of evolution; that growth is gradual, step by step, and the recognition of this led them to harmonise all the preceding systems. Thus not one of these preceding ideas was rejected. The fault of the Buddhistic faith was that it had neither the faculty nor the perception of this continual, expansive growth, and for this reason it never even made an attempt to harmonise itself with the preexisting steps towards the ideal. They were rejected as useless and harmful.
This tendency in religion is most harmful. A man gets a new and better idea, and then he looks back on those he has given up, and forthwith decides that they were mischievous and unnecessary. He never thinks that, however crude they may appear from his present point of view, they were very useful to him, that they were necessary for him to reach his present state, and that everyone of us has to grow in a similar fashion, living first on crude ideas, taking benefit from them, and then arriving at a higher standard. With the oldest theories, therefore, the Advaita is friendly. Dualism and all systems that had preceded it are accepted by the Advaita not in a patronising way, but with the conviction that they are true manifestations of the same truth, and that they all lead to the same conclusions as the Advaita has reached.
With blessing, and not with cursing, should be preserved all these various steps through which humanity has to pass. Therefore all these dualistic systems have never been rejected or thrown out, but have been kept intact in the Vedanta; and the dualistic conception of an individual soul, limited yet complete in itself, finds its place in the Vedanta.
According to dualism, man dies and goes to other worlds, and so forth; and these ideas are kept in the Vedanta in their entirety. For with the recognition of growth in the Advaitist system, these theories are given their proper place by admitting that they represent only a partial view of the Truth.
From the dualistic standpoint this universe can only be looked upon as a creation of matter or force, can only be looked upon as the play of a certain will, and that will again can only be looked upon as separate from the universe. Thus a man from such a standpoint has to see himself as composed of a dual nature, body and soul, and this soul, though limited, is individually complete in itself. Such a man's ideas of immortality and of the future life would necessarily accord with his idea of soul. These phases have been kept in the Vedanta, and it is, therefore, necessary for me to present to you a few of the popular ideas of dualism. According to this theory, we have a body, of course, and behind the body there is what they call a fine body. This fine body is also made of matter, only very fine. It is the receptacle of all our Karma, of all our actions and impressions, which are ready to spring up into visible forms. Every thought that we think, every deed that we do, after a certain time becomes fine, goes into seed form, so to speak, and lives in the fine body in a potential form, and after a time it emerges again and bears its results. These results condition the life of man. Thus he moulds his own life. Man is not bound by any other laws excepting those which he makes for himself. Our thoughts, our words and deeds are the threads of the net which we throw round ourselves, for good or for evil. Once we set in motion a certain power, we have to take the full consequences of it. This is the law of Karma. Behind the subtle body, lives Jiva or the individual soul of man. There are various discussions about the form and the size of this individual soul. According to some, it is very small like an atom; according to others, it is not so small as that; according to others, it is very big, and so on. This Jiva is a part of that universal substance, and it is also eternal; without beginning it is existing, and without end it will exist. It is passing through all these forms in order to manifest its real nature which is purity. Every action that retards this manifestation is called an evil action; so with thoughts. And every action and every thought that helps the Jiva to expand, to manifest its real nature, is good. One theory that is held in common in India by the crudest dualists as well as by the most advanced non-dualists is that all the possibilities and powers of the soul are within it, and do not come from any external source. They are in the soul in potential form, and the whole work of life is simply directed towards manifesting those potentialities.
They have also the theory of reincarnation which says that after the dissolution of this body, the Jiva will have another, and after that has been dissolved, it will again have another, and so on, either here or in some other worlds; but this world is given the preference, as it is considered the best of all worlds for our purpose. Other worlds are conceived of as worlds where there is very little misery, but for that very reason, they argue, there is less chance of thinking of higher things there. As this world contains some happiness and a good deal of misery, the Jiva some time or other gets awakened, as it were, and thinks of freeing itself. But just as very rich persons in this world have the least chance of thinking of higher things, so the Jiva in heaven has little chance of progress, for its condition is the same as that of a rich man, only more intensified; it has a very fine body which knows no disease, and is under no necessity of eating or drinking, and all its desires are fulfilled. The Jiva lives there, having enjoyment after enjoyment, and so forgets all about its real nature. Still there are some higher worlds, where in spite of all enjoyments, its further evolution is possible. Some dualists conceive of the goal as the highest heaven, where souls will live with God for ever. They will have beautiful bodies and will know neither disease nor death, nor any other evil, and all their desires will be fulfilled. From time to time some of them will come back to this earth and take another body to teach human beings the way to God; and the great teachers of the world have been such. They were already free, and were living with God in the highest sphere; but their love and sympathy for suffering humanity was so great that they came and incarnated again to teach mankind the way to heaven.
Of course we know that the Advaita holds that this cannot be the goal or the ideal; bodilessness must be the ideal. The ideal cannot be finite. Anything short of the Infinite cannot be the ideal, and there cannot be an infinite body. That would be impossible, as body comes from limitation. There cannot be infinite thought, because thought comes from limitation. We have to go beyond the body, and beyond thought too, says the Advaita. And we have also seen that, according to Advaita, this freedom is not to be attained, it is already ours. We only forget it and deny it. Perfection is not to be attained, it is already within us. Immortality and bliss are not to be acquired, we possess them already; they have been ours all the time.
If you dare declare that you are free, free you are this moment. If you say you are bound, bound you will remain. This is what Advaita boldly declares. I have told you the ideas of the dualists. You can take whichever you like.
The highest ideal of the Vedanta is very difficult to understand, and people are always quarrelling about it, and the greatest difficulty is that when they get hold of certain ideas, they deny and fight other ideas. Take up what suits you, and let others take up what they need. If you are desirous of clinging to this little individuality, to this limited manhood, remain in it, have all these desires, and be content and pleased with them. If your experience of manhood has been very good and nice, retain it as long as you like; and you can do so, for you are the makers of your own fortunes; none can compel you to give up your manhood. You will be men as long as you like; none can prevent you. If you want to be angels, you will be angels, that is the law. But there may be others who do not want to be angels even. What right have you to think that theirs is a horrible notion? You may be frightened to lose a hundred pounds, but there may be others who would not even wink if they lost all the money they had in the world. There have been such men and still there are. Why do you dare to judge them according to your standard? You cling on to your limitations, and these little worldly ideas may be your highest ideal. You are welcome to them. It will be to you as you wish. But there are others who have seen the truth and cannot rest in these limitations, who have done with these things and want to get beyond. The world with all its enjoyments is a mere mud-puddle for them. Why do you want to bind them down to your ideas? You must get rid of this tendency once for all. Accord a place to everyone.
I once read a story about some ships that were caught in a cyclone in the South Sea Islands, and there was a picture of it in the Illustrated London News. All of them were wrecked except one English vessel, which weathered the storm. The picture showed the men who were going to be drowned, standing on the decks and cheering the people who were sailing through the storm. Be brave and generous like that. Do not drag others down to where you are. Another foolish notion is that if we lose our little individuality, there will be no morality, no hope for humanity. As if everybody had been dying for humanity all the time! God bless you! If in every country there were two hundred men and women really wanting to do good to humanity, the millennium would come in five days. We know how we are dying for humanity! These are all tall talks, and nothing else. The history of the world shows that those who never thought of their little individuality were the greatest benefactors of the human race, and that the more men and women think of themselves, the less are they able to do for others. One is unselfishness, and the other selfishness. Clinging on to little enjoyments, and to desire the continuation and repetition of this state of things is utter selfishness. It arises not from any desire for truth, its genesis is not in kindness for other beings, but in the utter selfishness of the human heart, in the idea, "I will have everything, and do not care for anyone else." This is as it appears to me. I would like to see more moral men in the world like some of those grand old prophets and sages of ancient times who would have given up a hundred lives if they could by so doing benefit one little animal! Talk of morality and doing good to others! Silly talk of the present time!
I would like to see moral men like Gautama Buddha, who did not believe in a Personal God or a personal soul, never asked about them, but was a perfect agnostic, and yet was ready to lay down his life for anyone, and worked all his life for the good of all, and thought only of the good of all. Well has it been said by his biographer, in describing his birth, that he was born for the good of the many, as a blessing to the many. He did not go to the forest to meditate for his own salvation; he felt that the world was burning, and that he must find a way out. "Why is there so much misery in the world ?" — was the one question that dominated his whole life. Do you think we are so moral as the Buddha?
The more selfish a man, the more immoral he is. And so also with the race. That race which is bound down to itself has been the most cruel and the most wicked in the whole world. There has not been a religion that has clung to this dualism more than that founded by the Prophet of Arabia, and there has not been a religion which has shed so much blood and been so cruel to other men. In the Koran there is the doctrine that a man who does not believe these teachings should be killed; it is a mercy to kill him! And the surest way to get to heaven, where there are beautiful houris and all sorts of sense-enjoyments, is by killing these unbelievers. Think of the bloodshed there has been in consequence of such beliefs!
In the religion of Christ there was little of crudeness; there is very little difference between the pure religion of Christ and that of the Vedanta. You find there the idea of oneness; but Christ also preached dualistic ideas to the people in order to give them something tangible to take hold of, to lead them up to the highest ideal. The same Prophet who preached, "Our Father which art in heaven", also preached, "I and my Father are one", and the same Prophet knew that through the "Father in heaven" lies the way to the "I and my Father are one". There was only blessing and love in the religion of Christ; but as soon as crudeness crept in, it was degraded into something not much better than the religion of the Prophet of Arabia. It was crudeness indeed — this fight for the little self, this clinging on to the "I", not only in this life, but also in the desire for its continuance even after death. This they declare to be unselfishness; this the foundation of morality! Lord help us, if this be the foundation of morality! And strangely enough, men and women who ought to know better think all morality will be destroyed if these little selves go and stand aghast at the idea that morality can only stand upon their destruction. The watchword of all well-being, of all moral good is not "I" but "thou". Who cares whether there is a heaven or a hell, who cares if there is a soul or not, who cares if there is an unchangeable or not? Here is the world, and it is full of misery. Go out into it as Buddha did, and struggle to lessen it or die in the attempt. Forget yourselves; this is the first lesson to be learnt, whether you are a theist or an atheist, whether you are an agnostic or a Vedantist, a Christian or a Mohammedan. The one lesson obvious to all is the destruction of the little self and the building up of the Real Self.
Two forces have been working side by side in parallel lines. The one says "I", the other says "not I". Their manifestation is not only in man but in animals, not only in animals but in the smallest worms. The tigress that plunges her fangs into the warm blood of a human being would give up her own life to protect her young. The most depraved man who thinks nothing of taking the lives of his brother men will, perhaps, sacrifice himself without any hesitation to save his starving wife and children. Thus throughout creation these two forces are working side by side; where you find the one, you find the other too. The one is selfishness, the other is unselfishness. The one is acquisition, the other is renunciation. The one takes, the other gives. From the lowest to the highest, the whole universe is the playground of these two forces. It does not require any demonstration; it is obvious to all.
What right has any section of the community to base the whole work and evolution of the universe upon one of these two factors alone, upon competition and struggle? What right has it to base the whole working of the universe upon passion and fight, upon competition and struggle? That these exist we do not deny; but what right has anyone to deny the working of the other force? Can any man deny that love, this "not I", this renunciation is the only positive power in the universe? That other is only the misguided employment of the power of love; the power of love brings competition, the real genesis of competition is in love. The real genesis of evil is in unselfishness. The creator of evil is good, and the end is also good. It is only misdirection of the power of good. A man who murders another is, perhaps, moved to do so by the love of his own child. His love has become limited to that one little baby, to the exclusion of the millions of other human beings in the universe. Yet, limited or unlimited, it is the same love.
Thus the motive power of the whole universe, in what ever way it manifests itself, is that one wonderful thing, unselfishness, renunciation, love, the real, the only living force in existence. Therefore the Vedantist insists upon that oneness. We insist upon this explanation because we cannot admit two causes of the universe. If we simply hold that by limitation the same beautiful, wonderful love appears to be evil or vile, we find the whole universe explained by the one force of love. If not, two causes of the universe have to be taken for granted, one good and the other evil, one love and the other hatred. Which is more logical? Certainly the one-force theory.
Let us now pass on to things which do not possibly belong to dualism. I cannot stay longer with the dualists. I am afraid. My idea is to show that the highest ideal of morality and unselfishness goes hand in hand with the highest metaphysical conception, and that you need not lower your conception to get ethics and morality, but, on the other hand, to reach a real basis of morality and ethics you must have the highest philosophical and scientific conceptions. Human knowledge is not antagonistic to human well-being. On the contrary, it is knowledge alone that will save us in every department of life — in knowledge is worship. The more we know the better for us. The Vedantist says, the cause of all that is apparently evil is the limitation of the unlimited. The love which gets limited into little channels and seems to be evil eventually comes out at the other end and manifests itself as God. The Vedanta also says that the cause of all this apparent evil is in ourselves. Do not blame any supernatural being, neither be hopeless and despondent, nor think we are in a place from which we can never escape unless someone comes and lends us a helping hand. That cannot be, says the Vedanta. We are like silkworms; we make the thread out of our own substance and spin the cocoon, and in course of time are imprisoned inside. But this is not for ever. In that cocoon we shall develop spiritual realisation, and like the butterfly come out free. This network of Karma we have woven around ourselves; and in our ignorance we feel as if we are bound, and weep and wail for help. But help does not come from without; it comes from within ourselves. Cry to all the gods in the universe. I cried for years, and in the end I found that I was helped. But help came from within. And I had to undo what I had done by mistake. That is the only way. I had to cut the net which I had thrown round myself, and the power to do this is within. Of this I am certain that not one aspiration, well-guided or ill-guided in my life, has been in vain, but that I am the resultant of all my past, both good and evil. I have committed many mistakes in my life; but mark you, I am sure of this that without every one of those mistakes I should not be what I am today, and so am quite satisfied to have made them. I do not mean that you are to go home and wilfully commit mistakes; do not misunderstand me in that way. But do not mope because of the mistakes you have committed, but know that in the end all will come out straight. It cannot be otherwise, because goodness is our nature, purity is our nature, and that nature can never be destroyed. Our essential nature always remains the same.
What we are to understand is this, that what we call mistakes or evil, we commit because we are weak, and we are weak because we are ignorant. I prefer to call them mistakes. The word sin, although originally a very good word, has got a certain flavour about it that frightens me. Who makes us ignorant? We ourselves. We put our hands over our eyes and weep that it is dark. Take the hands away and there is light; the light exists always for us, the self-effulgent nature of the human soul. Do you not hear what your modern scientific men say? What is the cause of evolution? Desire. The animal wants to do something, but does not find the environment favourable, and therefore develops a new body. Who develops it? The animal itself, its will. You have developed from the lowest amoeba. Continue to exercise your will and it will take you higher still. The will is almighty. If it is almighty, you may say, why cannot I do everything? But you are thinking only of your little self. Look back on yourselves from the state of the amoeba to the human being; who made all that? Your own will. Can you deny then that it is almighty? That which has made you come up so high can make you go higher still. What you want is character, strengthening of the will.
If I teach you, therefore, that your nature is evil, that you should go home and sit in sackcloth and ashes and weep your lives out because you took certain false steps, it will not help you, but will weaken you all the more, and I shall be showing you the road to more evil than good. If this room is full of darkness for thousands of years and you come in and begin to weep and wail, "Oh the darkness", will the darkness vanish? Strike a match and light comes in a moment. What good will it do you to think all your lives, "Oh, I have done evil, I have made many mistakes"? It requires no ghost to tell us that. Bring in the light and the evil goes in a moment. Build up your character, and manifest your real nature, the Effulgent, the Resplendent, the Ever-Pure, and call It up in everyone that you see. I wish that everyone of us had come to such a state that even in the vilest of human beings we could see the Real Self within, and instead of condemning them, say, "Rise thou effulgent one, rise thou who art always pure, rise thou birthless and deathless, rise almighty, and manifest thy true nature. These little manifestations do not befit thee." This is the highest prayer that the Advaita teaches. This is the one prayer, to remember our true nature, the God who is always within us, thinking of it always as infinite, almighty, ever-good, ever-beneficent, selfless, bereft of all limitations. And because that nature is selfless, it is strong and fearless; for only to selfishness comes fear. He who has nothing to desire for himself, whom does he fear, and what can frighten him? What fear has death for him? What fear has evil for him? So if we are Advaitists, we must think from this moment that our old self is dead and gone. The old Mr., Mrs., and Miss So-and-so are gone, they were mere superstitions, and what remains is the ever-pure, the ever-strong, the almighty, the all-knowing — that alone remains for us, and then all fear vanishes from us. Who can injure us, the omnipresent? All weakness has vanished from us, and our only work is to arouse this knowledge in our fellow beings. We see that they too are the same pure self, only they do not know it; we must teach them, we must help them to rouse up their infinite nature. This is what I feel to be absolutely necessary all over the world. These doctrines are old, older than many mountains possibly. All truth is eternal. Truth is nobody's property; no race, no individual can lay any exclusive claim to it. Truth is the nature of all souls. Who can lay an, special claim to it? But it has to be made practical, to be made simple (for the highest truths are always simple), so that it may penetrate every pore of human society, and become the property of the highest intellects and the commonest minds, of the man, woman, and child at the same time. All these ratiocinations of logic, all these bundles of metaphysics, all these theologies and ceremonies may have been good in their own time, but let us try to make things simpler and bring about the golden days when every man will be a worshipper, and the Reality in every man will be the object of worship.
Notes
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。