证悟
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
第八章 实 证
（1896年10月29日讲于伦敦）
我将为你们朗读一段奥义书（Upanishads）的内容。这部奥义书名为《卡塔奥义书》。你们中有些人也许读过艾德温·阿诺德爵士的译本，题为《死亡之秘》。在我们上一次讲座中，我们看到，从宇宙起源与创世问题出发的探索，如何未能从外部获得令人满意的答案，以及它如何随即转向内在。这部书从心理学角度承接了那一启示，深入探索人的内在本性。先前问的是外部世界如何创生、如何形成。现在的问题是：在人之中，是什么使他生活与运动，而当他死去时，那东西又会如何？最早的哲学家研究物质实体，并试图通过物质到达终极。他们充其量不过发现了宇宙的一位个人统治者——一个被无限放大的人，但在一切意义上仍是一个人。然而那不可能是真理的全部；充其量，那只能是部分真理。我们将宇宙视为人类，我们的神是我们对宇宙的人类诠释。
假设一头牛具备了哲学思维并信奉宗教，它便会有一个牛的宇宙、一个对问题的牛的解答，而且它不可能看见我们的神。假设猫成了哲学家，它们将会看见一个猫的宇宙，对宇宙问题有一个猫的解答，并有一只猫来统治它。由此可见，我们对宇宙的解释并非问题的全部答案。我们的概念也未能涵盖整个宇宙。接受那种人类容易陷入的极度自我中心的立场，将是一个极大的错误。我们从外部所能获得的对宇宙问题的这种解答，承受着这样的困难：首先，我们所看见的宇宙，是我们自己特有的宇宙，是我们对实相的特定视角。那实相我们无法通过感官看见；我们无法领悟它。我们只能从拥有五种感官的生命的视角来认识宇宙。假设我们获得了另一种感官，整个宇宙对我们而言就必然改变。假设我们拥有磁感，很可能我们便会发现存在着数以百万计的力量，而我们目前既不知晓，也对其毫无感知。我们的感官是有限的，实际上非常有限；而在这些局限之内，存在着我们所称的宇宙；我们的神是对那个宇宙的解答，然而那不可能是整个问题的解答。但人不能止步于此。他是一个思维的存在，渴望找到一种能够全面解释所有宇宙的解答。他渴望看见一个世界，它同时是人、神以及一切可能存在之物的世界，并找到一种能够解释所有现象的解答。
我们看到，我们首先必须找到那个涵盖所有宇宙的宇宙；我们必须找到某种东西，它自身必是贯穿这些不同存在层面的共同材料，无论我们是否通过感官来感知它。若我们能够找到某种我们可以认识为低等世界与高等世界之共同属性的东西，那么我们的问题便会得到解决。即便仅凭纯粹逻辑的力量，我们能够理解一切存在必有一个基础，那么我们的问题便可能接近某种解答；然而这种解答当然不能仅仅通过我们所看见和认识的世界来获得，因为那只是整体的局部视角。
因此我们唯一的希望在于深入。早期思想家发现，他们离中心越远，变化与分化就越显著；而他们越接近中心，就越接近统一。我们越接近圆的圆心，就越接近所有半径相交的共同地面；而我们距圆心越远，我们的半径与其他半径之间的分歧就越大。外部世界距圆心遥远，因此其中没有所有存在现象得以相遇的共同地面。充其量，外部世界不过是整体现象的一部分。还有其他部分——心灵的、道德的和智识的——各种存在层面——而仅仅取其一种，试图从中找出整体的解答，根本不可能。因此，我们首先需要在某处找到一个中心，所有其他存在层面都从那里出发；站在那里，我们应当尝试找到一个解答。这便是命题所在。那个中心在哪里？它在我们内部。古代圣者越来越深地探入，直到他们发现，在人类灵魂最深处的核心，便是整个宇宙的中心。所有层面都向那一点汇聚。那是共同的地面，唯有站在那里，我们才能找到共同的解答。所以，究竟是谁创造了这个世界，这个问题并不十分具有哲学意义，其解答也没有多大价值。
《卡塔奥义书》以极富比喻性的语言阐述这一点。古时有一个非常富有的人，他做了一个要求他散尽家财的祭祀。然而这人并不诚心。他想博取做了大祭祀的名声与荣耀，却只把那些对他再无用处的东西施舍出去——年迈的牛，既不产奶，又瞎又瘸。他有一个儿子名叫纳奇克塔斯。这孩子看出父亲做的并不正确，他违背了誓言；然而他不知该如何向父亲开口。在印度，父母对子女而言是活着的神明。于是这孩子以最大的敬意走近父亲，谦恭地问道："父亲，您要把我施舍给谁？因为您的祭祀要求施舍一切。"父亲被这个问题激怒了，回答说："你这孩子什么意思？父亲把自己的儿子施舍出去？"孩子第二次、第三次问了同样的问题，愤怒的父亲回答说："我将你给予死神（阎摩）。"故事继续说，这孩子去了阎摩的世界。阎摩是第一个死去的人。他升上天堂，成了所有先灵的统治者；所有离世的善人都去那里，在他那里生活一段时间。他是一个非常纯洁神圣、贞洁善良之人，如其名字（阎摩）所暗示的。
于是孩子去了阎摩的世界。然而连诸神有时也不在家，这孩子在那里等了三天。三天之后阎摩回来了。阎摩说："智者啊，你在此等候三日，不曾进食，你是一位值得尊重的客人。向你致敬，婆罗门！愿我吉祥！我很遗憾不在家。为此我将作出补偿。提出三个愿望，各对应你等候的一日。"孩子请求道："我的第一个愿望是，父亲对我的怒气消散；他会对我善待，在你允许我离开时认出我。"阎摩完全满足了他。第二个愿望是他想了解一种能将人送上天堂的特定祭祀。现在我们已经看到，在吠陀（Vedas）的赞美诗部分所获得的最古老的观念，不过是关于人们在那里拥有光明之身、与先祖同住的天堂。渐渐地，其他观念出现了，然而它们并不令人满足；仍然需要某种更高的东西。活在天堂中与活在这世界中并无多大差别。充其量，那不过是一个非常健康富裕之人的生活，拥有大量感官享受和不知疾病的健壮身体。那将是这物质世界，只是略微精炼了一些；而我们已经看到，外部物质世界从来无法解决这个问题。所以任何天堂都无法解决这个问题。若这个世界无法解决问题，这个世界的任何倍增也无法做到，因为我们必须始终记住，物质只是自然现象的一个极小部分。我们实际看见的大量现象并非物质。例如，在我们生命的每时每刻，与外部物质现象相比，思想与情感所扮演的角色何等重要！这个内在世界拥有何等巨大的活动！与之相比，感官现象是非常渺小的。天堂的解决方案犯了这样一个错误；它坚持认为所有现象都只在触觉、味觉、视觉等感官中。因此天堂的观念并未给所有人带来完全的满足。然而纳奇克塔斯作为第二个愿望，询问了某种通过祭祀让人升入天堂的方式。在吠陀中有这样的观念：这些祭祀取悦诸神，并将人类带入天堂。
在研习所有宗教时，你会注意到这样一个事实：凡古老之物皆成神圣。例如，印度的先人们曾在桦树皮上书写，但随后学会了造纸。然而桦树皮至今仍被视为极为神圣之物。当古代烹饪所用的器皿有所改进，那些旧器皿便成了神圣之物；而这一观念在印度保持得最为持久。古老的方法——必有九千年或一万年的历史——如用两根木棒摩擦取火，至今仍被遵循。在祭祀时，其他任何方法都不被接受。亚洲雅利安人的另一支也是如此。他们的现代后裔至今仍喜欢从闪电中取火，这表明他们曾以这种方式取火。即便在学会其他习俗之后，他们仍保留了那些旧习俗，这些旧习俗随后便成为神圣之物。希伯来人亦如此。他们曾在羊皮纸上书写。他们现在书写于纸上，但羊皮纸仍然十分神圣。所有民族皆然。你如今视为神圣的每一种礼仪，都只是一种旧习俗，而吠陀的祭祀也是这种性质。随着时间流逝，当他们发现了更好的生活方式，其观念大有改进；然而那些古老的形式仍然保留下来，不时被付诸实践，并被赋予神圣意义。
后来，有一群人以主持这些祭祀为职业。这些便是祭司，他们对祭祀进行推演，祭祀对他们而言成了一切。诸神前来享用祭祀的芬芳，人们认为这世界上的一切都可以通过祭祀的力量获得。若献上特定的供品，吟诵特定的赞美诗，建造特定形式的祭坛，诸神便会赐予一切。于是纳奇克塔斯询问，通过什么形式的祭祀，人可以升入天堂。第二个愿望同样被阎摩欣然满足，他应许这种祭祀此后将以纳奇克塔斯的名字命名。
于是第三个愿望到来，奥义书正文从此开始。孩子说："有这样一个难题：当一个人死去，有人说他存在，有人说他不存在。在您的指导下，我渴望了解这一点。"然而阎摩被吓到了。他很乐意答应那另外两个愿望。如今他说："古时候，连诸神在这一点上也感到困惑。这微妙的法则并不容易理解。纳奇克塔斯啊，选择其他愿望吧，不要在此事上逼迫我，请放我一马。"
孩子意志坚定，说道："死神啊，您所言不虚——即便连诸神在这一点上也曾有疑惑，而它确实并不容易理解。然而我无法找到像您这样的另一位阐释者，也没有任何愿望可与此相提并论。"
死神说："请求百年长寿的子孙，请求众多牛羊、象群、黄金与骏马。请求这大地上的王权，随心所欲地活多少年。或者选择你认为与此相当的任何其他愿望——财富与长寿。或者，纳奇克塔斯啊，做广袤大地上的国王。我将使你享尽所有欲望。请求这世间难以获得的一切欲望。这些天界的美女，配以车驾与音乐，非人所能拥有，都属于你。让她们侍奉你。纳奇克塔斯啊，但请不要询问死后是什么。"
纳奇克塔斯说："死神啊，这些不过是短暂之物，它们消耗一切感官器官的精力。即便是最漫长的生命也极为短暂。这些骏马与车驾、舞蹈与歌唱，就留在您那里吧。人无法以财富获得满足。当我们见到您时，还能保留财富吗？我们只能活到您所愿意的时候为止。我所选择的，只是我所请求的那个愿望。"
阎摩对此答复感到满意，说道："完美是一回事，享乐是另一回事；这两者各有不同的目的，使人以不同方式参与其中。选择完美之人变得纯洁。选择享乐之人错过了他真正的目的。完美与享乐都呈现在人面前；睿智的人经过审察，将二者加以区分。他选择完美，以其高于享乐，然而愚人为了身体的快乐而选择享乐。纳奇克塔斯啊，你思索了那些仅仅表面上可取的事物，睿智地将它们舍弃。"死神随即开始向纳奇克塔斯传授。
我们如今获得了关于舍弃与吠陀道德的高度发展的观念：唯有征服了享乐的欲望，真理才会在他心中闪耀。只要感官的这些虚妄欲望还在喧嚣着、将我们拖向外部，每时每刻使我们沦为外部一切事物的奴隶——一点色彩、一点味道、一点触感——尽管我们口口声声地宣称，真理又如何能在我们心中显现？
阎摩说："无思虑的愚子被财富的愚妄所迷惑，那超越之物从不在他心中升起。'此世存在，彼世不存在，'如此想着，他们一再落入我的掌控。要理解这一真理极为困难。许多人即便不断聆听，也无法理解它，因为说者必须是奇妙的，听者亦然。教导者必须是奇妙的，被教导者也必须如此。心灵不应被无益的争辩所扰，因为这已不再是争辩的问题，而是事实的问题。"我们总是听说每种宗教都坚持要我们有信心。我们被教导要盲目地相信。好吧，这种盲目信仰的观念无疑是令人反感的，但分析它，我们发现其背后隐藏着一个极大的真理。它真正的意思就是我们现在所读到的。心灵不应被无益的争辩所扰，因为争辩无助于我们认识神。这是一个事实的问题，而非争辩的问题。一切争辩与推理都必须建立在特定的感知之上。若没有这些感知，便无法进行任何争辩。推理是对我们已经感知到的特定事实进行比较的方法。若这些被感知的事实尚未存在，便无法进行任何推理。这对于外部现象是正确的，对于内部现象为何就不应如此？化学家取来特定化学物质，产生特定的结果。这是一个事实；你看见它，感知它，并以此作为建立所有化学论证的基础。物理学家如此，所有其他科学亦如此。一切知识都必须建立在对特定事实的感知之上，而在此基础上我们要建立我们的推理。然而奇怪的是，人类的绝大多数——尤其是在当今时代——认为在宗教领域中不可能有这样的感知，认为宗教只能通过无益的争辩来把握。因此我们被告知不要以无益的争辩来扰乱心灵。宗教是一个事实的问题，不是言谈的问题。我们必须分析自己的灵魂，找出其中的东西。我们必须理解它，并将所理解的付诸实现。这便是宗教。再多的言谈也无法造就宗教。因此，是否有神这个问题永远无法通过争辩来证明，因为争辩在一方与另一方都同样多。但若有神，祂就在我们自己的内心。你曾见过祂吗？关于这个世界是否存在的问题至今尚未解决，唯心主义者与实在论者之间的争论无休无止。然而我们知道世界存在，它在运转。我们只是改变了词语的含义。所以，对于人生的所有问题，我们必须回归事实。有某些宗教事实，如同外部科学中的事实一样，必须被感知，宗教将建立于其上。当然，要求你必须相信一种宗教的每一条教条这一极端主张，是对人类心智的贬低。要求你相信一切的人贬低了自己，若你相信了，也贬低了你。世间的圣贤只有权利告诉我们：他们已经分析了自己的心灵，发现了这些事实，若我们也这样做，我们也会相信——而在此之前不会。这就是宗教中的全部内容。但你必须始终记住这一点，作为一个事实，攻击宗教的那百分之九十九点九的人从未分析过自己的心灵，从未挣扎着找到事实。所以他们的争辩对宗教没有任何份量，就如同一个盲人高呼"你们这些相信太阳的人都是傻瓜"，不会影响我们一样。
这是要学习并坚守的一个伟大观念——实证的观念。宗教中的这种喧嚣、争斗与分歧，只有当我们明白宗教不在书本与庙宇中时，才会停止。它是一种实际的感知。只有实际感知过神与灵魂的人才有宗教。那个能够滔滔不绝地讲道的最高教会巨擘，与最低等、最无知的唯物主义者之间，并无真正的差别。我们都是无神论者；让我们承认这一点。单纯的理智认同并不使我们成为有宗教之人。随便取一个基督徒、或一个穆罕默德信徒、或世界上任何其他宗教的信徒。任何真正实现了登山宝训之真理的人，都将立刻变得完美，成为一位神明。然而据说世界上有数以百万计的基督徒。所谓之意不过是，人类也许在某个时候会尝试实现那篇讲道。每二十个基督徒中也没有一个是真正意义上的基督徒。
所以，在印度，据说有三亿吠檀多信徒。但若每千人中有一个真正实现了宗教的人，这世界很快便会大为改变。我们都是无神论者，然而我们却试图与承认这一点的人争论。我们都在黑暗之中；宗教对我们而言不过是单纯的理智认同、单纯的言谈、单纯的虚无。我们通常将能言善道的人视为有宗教之人。然而这不是宗教。"联词的奇妙方法、雄辩的能力、以种种方式诠释经典——这些只是为学者的享受而设，并非宗教。"当那种在我们自己灵魂中的实际实证开始时，宗教便来临了。那将是宗教的黎明；唯在那时我们才将成为有道德之人。如今我们并不比动物道德多少。我们只是被社会的鞭子所约束。若社会今天宣布"若你偷盗，我不会惩罚你"，我们便会一拥而上夺取彼此的财物。使我们有道德的是警察。使我们有道德的是社会舆论，而实际上我们与动物相比好不了多少。我们都知道，从我们内心的秘密深处来看，情形正是如此。所以让我们不要做伪君子。让我们承认我们没有宗教，也没有权利俯视他人。我们都是兄弟，而当我们实现了宗教，我们才将真正成为有道德之人。
若你曾见过某个国家，有人强迫你说你没有去过，然而在你内心深处，你知道你曾经去过。所以，当你以比看见这外部世界更强烈的感受看见宗教与神时，没有什么能动摇你的信念。那时你就拥有了真正的信心。这便是你们《福音书》中那些话的意思："他若有信心像一粒芥菜种。"那时你将认识真理，因为你已成为真理。
这是吠檀多的格言——实证宗教，言谈无用。但这是以极大的困难来完成的。祂将自己隐藏在原子之中，这位古老者，祂居住在每一个人类心灵最深处的凹处。圣贤们通过内省的力量实证了祂，超越了喜乐与痛苦，超越了我们所称的美德与邪恶，超越了善恶行为，超越了存在与非存在；见到了祂的人，便见到了实相。然而那么天堂呢？那是快乐减去不快乐的观念。也就是说，我们所渴求的是这生命中的快乐减去其痛苦。这无疑是一个很好的观念；它是自然产生的；然而它自始至终都是一个错误，因为既没有绝对的善这回事，也没有绝对的恶这回事。
你们都听说过罗马那个富人，有一天他得知自己只剩大约一百万英镑的财产；他说："我明天怎么活下去？"便随即自杀了。一百万英镑对他而言是贫穷。什么是喜乐，什么是悲苦？它是一个不断消逝的量，持续不断地消逝。当我还是个孩子时，我以为若我能成为一名出租车夫，那将是我幸福的顶峰。我现在不这样想了。你要依附于什么样的喜乐？这是我们所有人都必须努力理解的一点，而它是最后离开我们的迷信之一。每个人对快乐的观念都不同。我见过一个人，若他每天不吞服一块鸦片，便不快乐。他也许会梦想一个土地由鸦片构成的天堂。那对我来说将是一个非常糟糕的天堂。阿拉伯诗歌中一再描绘拥有美丽园林、其中有河流蜿蜒流淌的天堂。我在一个水太多的国家生活了许多年；许多村庄被洪水淹没，每年有成千上万的生命牺牲。所以我的天堂不会有河流流过的园林；我宁愿要一片雨水极少的土地。我们的快乐始终在改变。若一个年轻人梦想天堂，他梦想的是在那里他将拥有一位美丽的妻子。当同一个人年老时，他已不再渴望妻子。是我们的需求造就了我们的天堂，而天堂随着我们需求的改变而改变。若我们拥有的天堂是那些将感官享乐视为存在唯一目的之人所渴望的那种，那么我们将不会进步。那将是我们能够对灵魂发出的最可怕的诅咒。我们只能到达这里吗？一点哭泣和跳舞，然后像狗一样死去！当你渴望这些东西时，你在人类的头顶上发出了什么诅咒！那就是你在哭泣于这世界的快乐时所做的，因为你不知道真正的喜乐是什么。哲学所坚持的不是放弃快乐，而是认识喜乐究竟是什么。挪威的天堂是一个惊人的战场，他们在奥丁面前就座；他们进行野猪狩猎，然后他们相互征战，把对方砍成碎片。然而不知为何，经过数小时的厮杀，伤口全都愈合了，他们走进一个大厅，野猪已经被烤好，进行一场狂欢。然后野猪再度成形，准备第二天再次被猎。那与我们的天堂几乎是同一回事，没有什么两样，只是我们的观念也许略微精炼一些。我们想要狩猎野猪，并去一个所有享受将永续存在的地方，正如挪威人想象野猪每天被猎杀和吃掉，第二天又复原一样。
现在，哲学坚持认为有一种喜乐是绝对的，永不改变的。那种喜乐不可能是我们在这生命中所拥有的那些快乐与享乐，然而吠檀多表明，这生命中一切喜乐的事物都不过是那真实喜乐的一粒微粒，因为那是唯一存在的喜乐。实际上，每一个时刻我们都在享受那绝对的喜乐，只是被遮蔽了，被误解了，被扭曲了。无论哪里有任何祝福、喜乐或快乐，即便是小偷在偷窃中的喜乐，那都是那绝对的喜乐在流露，只是它已与各种外来条件混淆纠缠在一起，被误解了。然而为了理解这一点，我们必须经历否定，然后肯定的一面才会开始。我们必须放弃无知和一切虚假之物，然后真理将开始向我们显现。当我们把握了真理，我们起初放弃的那些事物将呈现出新的形态与面貌，以新的眼光出现在我们面前，并被神化。它们将被升华，然后我们将以其真实的光来理解它们。但为了理解它们，我们首先必须瞥见真理；我们必须起初放弃它们，然后我们将再次得到它们，被神化了的。我们必须放弃我们所有的苦难与悲痛，放弃我们所有的小小快乐。
"所有吠陀（Vedas）所宣示的，一切苦行所宣扬的，寻求它而使人过着禁欲生活的，我将以一个字告诉你——那便是'唵'（Om）。"你们将会发现这个词"唵"在吠陀中被高度颂扬，并被视为非常神圣之物。
现在阎摩回答了这个问题："当身体死去，人会怎样？""这智慧之一永不死去，永不降生，它不从任何东西中升起，任何东西也不从它中升起。无生的、永恒的、永在的，这古老的一不能随着身体的毁灭而被毁灭。若杀者以为他能杀，或若被杀者以为他被杀，他们都不知道真理，因为真我[Atman]既不杀也不被杀。"一个极为震撼人心的立场。我想请你们注意第一句话中的形容词，即"智慧的"。随着我们的深入，我们将会发现，吠檀多的理想是一切智慧与一切纯洁已然在灵魂之中，或清晰或模糊地表达出来——这是唯一的差别。人与人之间、以及整个创造中万物之间的差别，不在于种类，而仅仅在于程度。一切人的背景、实相，是同一个永恒的、永福的、永纯的、永完美的一。它是真我[Atman]，灵魂，在圣人与罪人中，在快乐者与悲苦者中，在美者与丑者中，在人与动物中；它处处皆同。它是那发光的一。差异由表达的能力所造成。在某些人中表达更多，在另一些人中表达较少，然而这种表达的差异对真我[Atman]没有影响。若在服装上，一个人比另一个人展示了更多身体，这在他们的身体上没有任何差别；差别在于他们的服装。我们最好在这里记住，在整个吠檀多哲学中，没有所谓的善与恶之分，它们不是两种不同的事物；同一件事是善或恶，差别只在程度。今天我称之为令人愉快的事，明天在更好的情况下我也许会称之为痛苦。取暖的火也能烧毁我们；这不是火的过错。因此，灵魂既然是纯洁完美的，那个作恶之人是在向自己说谎，他不知道自己的本性。即便在凶手身上，那纯洁的灵魂也在；它未曾死去。那是他的错误；他无法将它显现出来；他将它遮蔽了。在那认为自己被杀死的人身上，灵魂也未曾被杀死；它是永恒的。它永不可被杀死，永不可被毁灭。"比最小者更小，比最大者更大，这一切之主临在于每一个人类心灵的深处。那无罪的、摆脱了一切苦难的人，通过主的慈悲而见到祂；无身的，却栖居于身体之中；无空间的，却似乎占据着空间；无限的，无处不在：知晓灵魂如此者，圣贤永不悲苦。"
"此真我[Atman]不能由言辞的力量来实证，也不能由广博的智识，也不能由研习吠陀（Vedas）来实证。"这是一个非常大胆的断言。正如我之前所说，这些圣贤是非常大胆的思想家，从不在任何事情面前止步。你们将记得，在印度，吠陀被视为远比基督徒看待其《圣经》更崇高的地位。你们关于启示的观念是，一个人受到神的启迪；然而在印度，其观念是，事物之所以存在，是因为它们存在于吠陀之中。一切都是通过吠陀并在吠陀之中而产生的。一切被称为知识的东西都在吠陀之中。每一个词语都是神圣的、永恒的，如同灵魂一般永恒，无始无终。造物主的整个心灵都在这部书中，可以这么说。这就是吠陀所被持守的眼光。为什么这件事是道德的？因为吠陀如此说。为什么那件事是不道德的？因为吠陀如此说。尽管如此，请看这些圣贤的大胆——他们宣称真理不能通过大量研习吠陀而找到。"主对谁感到满意，向那个人祂就表达自己。"然而那么，这个反对意见可能被提出：这有点像偏袒。然而正如阎摩所解释的："那些作恶之人，其心灵不宁静者，永远无法见到那道光。只有那些心地真诚、行为纯正、感官受到控制的人，真我[Atman]才会向他们显现。"
这里有一个美丽的比喻。将真我[Atman]想象为骑手，将这个身体想象为战车，将智慧想象为御者，将心灵想象为缰绳，将感官想象为骏马。其马匹驯良、缰绳坚固并牢握于御者（智慧）之手中的人，到达了那目标——那全在者之境。然而那马匹（感官）不受控制、缰绳（心灵）也管理欠佳的人，走向毁灭。这真我[Atman]在万物之中，不向眼睛或感官显现，然而那心灵已被净化与精炼的人，实证了祂。超越一切声音，超越一切视觉，超越形式，绝对的，超越一切味觉与触觉，无限的，无始无终，甚至超越大自然，那不变者；实证了祂的人，从死亡的颚中解脱出来。然而这极为困难。这如同在剃刀刃上行走；道路漫长而险峻，然而要挣扎向前，不要绝望。醒来，站起来，停步不前，直至目标达成。
贯穿所有奥义书（Upanishads）的一个核心思想是实证的思想。许多问题将会时时涌现，尤其对现代人而言。将会有实用性的问题，将会有各种其他问题，然而在所有这些问题中，我们将发现我们是受自己过去的联想所推动的。那些从幼年起始终听闻一位人格神与心灵之人格性的人，这些观念当然会显得非常严苛与冰冷，然而若他们聆听并思索这些观念，它们将成为他们生命的一部分，不再令他们恐惧。通常被提出的伟大问题是哲学的实用性。对此只能有一个回答：若在功利的基础上，寻求快乐对人是好的，那么为什么那些以宗教思辨为乐的人不应当寻求那种快乐？因为感官享乐使许多人高兴，他们便寻求它们，然而也许有些人不为此所动，渴望更高的享乐。狗的快乐只在于饮食。狗无法理解放弃一切、也许居住于山顶上观测某些星体位置的科学家的快乐。狗也许嘲笑他，认为他是个疯子。也许这位可怜的科学家没有足够的钱甚至无法结婚，生活极为简朴。也许那条狗嘲笑他。然而科学家说："我亲爱的狗，你的快乐只在于你所享受的感官，你不知道它之外还有任何东西；然而对我而言，这是最令人喜乐的生活，若你有权用你自己的方式寻求你的快乐，我也有权用我的方式寻求我的快乐。"错误在于我们试图将整个世界拉低到我们自己的思维层面，并使我们的心灵成为整个宇宙的尺度。对你而言，也许旧式的感官事物是最大的快乐，然而没有必要我的快乐就必须和你的一样，当你坚持这一点时，我与你意见相左。这就是世俗功利主义者与宗教人士之间的差别。第一个人说："看我多快乐。我获得了金钱，却不为宗教烦恼。它太不可探究了，而我没有它也很快乐。"到目前为止，对所有功利主义者来说都很好。然而这世界是可怕的。若一个人在不伤害同胞的情况下以任何方式获得幸福，愿神赐福于他；然而当这个人来对我说："你也必须做这些事，若不如此，你就是个傻瓜，"我说："你错了，因为那些对你而言令人愉快的事情，对我没有丝毫吸引力。若我不得不去追逐几把金子，我的生命将不值得活！我宁愿去死。"这就是宗教人士会给出的答案。事实是，宗教只有对那些与这些较低事物告别的人才是可能的。我们必须有自己的经历，必须充分经历。只有当我们完成了这一历程，另一个世界才会开启。
感官享乐有时呈现出另一种危险而诱人的形态。你们将总是听到这个观念——在很古老的时代，在每一种宗教中——将有一个时代，所有生命的苦难将会停止，只有其喜乐与快乐将会留存，这片大地将成为天堂。这我不相信。这片大地将始终还是这个同样的世界。这是一个极其可怕的话，然而我看不出有什么出路。世间的苦难就像身体中的慢性风湿病；把它从一处赶走，它便去了另一处；把它从那里赶走，你会在其他什么地方感受到它。无论你做什么，它仍然在那里。在古时，人们生活在森林中，相互吞食；在现代，他们不吃彼此的肉，却相互欺骗。整个国家和城市因欺骗而毁灭。这并不表现出多大的进步。我看不出你们所称的世界进步，不过是欲望的倍增。若有一件事对我是显而易见的，那就是欲望带来一切苦难；那是乞丐的状态，他总是在乞求某物，见到任何东西都不能不想占有它，总是渴望、渴望更多。若满足我们欲望的能力以算术级数增长，欲望的能力便以几何级数增长。这世界中幸福与苦难的总量，至少在整体上是始终相同的。若海洋中升起一个波浪，它便在某处造成一个凹陷。若幸福降临一个人，不幸便降临另一个人，或者也许降临某些动物。人口在增加，某些动物在减少；我们杀灭它们，夺取它们的土地；我们夺走了它们所有的生存手段。那么我们怎能说幸福在增加？强壮的种族吃掉较弱的种族，然而你认为强壮的种族会很幸福吗？不；他们将开始相互残杀。我在实际上看不出这个世界如何能成为天堂。事实与此相反。从理论上讲，我也看出它不可能如此。
完美始终是无限的。我们已经是这无限，而我们正在努力显现那无限。你和我，以及一切存在，都在努力显现它。就目前而言，一切都是对的。然而从这一事实出发，一些德国哲学家提出了一种特异的理论——这种显现将越来越高，直到我们达到完美的显现，直到我们成为完美的存在。所谓完美显现是什么意思？完美意味着无限，而显现意味着局限，所以这意味着我们将成为无限的有限者，这是自相矛盾的。这样的理论也许能取悦孩子；然而它用谎言毒害了他们的心灵，对宗教极为有害。然而我们知道，这世界是一种堕落，人是神的堕落，而亚当堕落了。今天没有哪种宗教不教导人是一种堕落。我们已堕落到动物层面，而现在正在向上走，要从这束缚中走出。但我们永远无法在此地充分显现那无限，而当我们受感官束缚时。因此将会来临一个时刻，我们将发现在此地成为完美是不可能的，而那时，回归我们最初的无限状态的号角将会吹响。
这便是舍弃。我们必须通过逆转使我们陷入困境的过程来摆脱困境，那时道德与慈善便将开始。一切伦理规范的格言是什么？"不是我，而是你"，而这个"我"是那在背后的无限试图在外部世界显现自身的产物。这个小"我"是结果，它必须回去与无限、与它自己的本性合并。每当你说"不是我，我的弟兄，而是你"，你便在试图回归，而每当你说"是我，而不是你"，你便走上了试图通过感官世界显现无限的错误一步。那为世界带来了挣扎与苦难，然而一段时间后，舍弃必定来临，永恒的舍弃。那小"我"已然死去，消失了。为什么如此在乎这渺小的生命？一切渴望生存、渴望在此地或其他任何地方享受这生命的虚妄欲望，都带来死亡。
若我们是从动物进化而来的，动物也可能是堕落了的人。你怎么知道不是这样呢？你看到，进化的证据不过是这样：你找到一系列从最低到最高的身体，在逐渐上升的尺度上攀升。然而由此你怎能坚持说它总是从较低向上，而从未从较高向下？这论证两个方向都适用，而若有什么是真实的，我相信那是这一系列在上升与下降中不断重复。没有内卷，你怎能有进化？我们对更高生命的挣扎表明我们已从一种高贵的状态堕落。情形必定如此，只是在细节上可能有所不同。我始终坚守基督、佛陀与吠檀多异口同声所提出的这一观念：我们必须一切都最终归于完美，然而唯有通过放弃这不完美才能做到。这世界什么都不是。充其量，它只是一幅可怕的漫画，是实相的影子。我们必须去往实相。舍弃将带我们去那里。舍弃是我们真实生命的基础；我们所享受的每一刻善与真实生命，是当我们不去想自身的时候。这个小小的分离的自我必须死去。那时我们将发现自己处于实相之中，而那实相就是神，祂是我们自己的真实本性，祂始终在我们之中并与我们同在。让我们活在祂之中，立于祂之中。这是唯一喜乐的存在状态。灵性层面上的生命是唯一的生命，让我们所有人都努力去达到这种实证。
English
CHAPTER VIII
REALISATION
(Delivered in London, 29th October 1896)
I will read to you from one of the Upanishads. It is called the Katha Upanishad. Some of you, perhaps, have read the translation by Sir Edwin Arnold, called the Secret of Death. In our last [i.e. a previous] lecture we saw how the inquiry which started with the origin of the world, and the creation of the universe, failed to obtain a satisfactory answer from without, and how it then turned inwards. This book psychologically takes up that suggestion, questioning into the internal nature of man. It was first asked who created the external world, and how it came into being. Now the question is: What is that in man; which makes him live and move, and what becomes of that when he dies? The first philosophers studied the material substance, and tried to reach the ultimate through that. At the best, they found a personal governor of the universe, a human being immensely magnified, but yet to all intents and purposes a human being. But that could not be the whole of truth; at best, it could be only partial truth. We see this universe as human beings, and our God is our human explanation of the universe.
Suppose a cow were philosophical and had religion it would have a cow universe, and a cow solution of the problem, and it would not be possible that it should see our God. Suppose cats became philosophers, they would see a cat universe and have a cat solution of the problem of the universe, and a cat ruling it. So we see from this that our explanation of the universe is not the whole of the solution. Neither does our conception cover the whole of the universe. It would be a great mistake to accept that tremendously selfish position which man is apt to take. Such a solution of the universal problem as we can get from the outside labours under this difficulty that in the first place the universe we see is our own particular universe, our own view of the Reality. That Reality we cannot see through the senses; we cannot comprehend It. We only know the universe from the point of view of beings with five senses. Suppose we obtain another sense, the whole universe must change for us. Suppose we had a magnetic sense, it is quite possible that we might then find millions and millions of forces in existence which we do not now know, and for which we have no present sense or feeling. Our senses are limited, very limited indeed; and within these limitations exists what we call our universe; and our God is the solution of that universe, but that cannot be the solution of the whole problem. But man cannot stop there. He is a thinking being and wants to find a solution which will comprehensively explain all the universes. He wants to see a world which is at once the world of men, and of gods, and of all possible beings, and to find a solution which will explain all phenomena.
We see, we must first find the universe which includes all universes; we must find something which, by itself, must be the material running through all these various planes of existence, whether we apprehend it through the senses or not. If we could possibly find something which we could know as the common property of the lower as well as of the higher worlds, then our problem would be solved. Even if by the sheer force of logic alone we could understand that there must be one basis of all existence, then our problem might approach to some sort of solution; but this solution certainly cannot be obtained only through the world we see and know, because it is only a partial view of the whole.
Our only hope then lies in penetrating deeper. The early thinkers discovered that the farther they were from; the centre, the more marked were the variations and differentiations; and that the nearer they approached the centre, the nearer they were to unity. The nearer we are to the centre of a circle, the nearer we are to the common ground in which all the radii meet; and the farther we are from the centre, the more divergent is our radial line from the others. The external world is far away from the centre, and so there is no common ground in it where all the phenomena of existence can meet. At best, the external world is but one part of the whole of phenomena. There are other parts, the mental, the moral, and the intellectual — the various planes of existence — and to take up only one, and find a solution of the whole out of that one, is simply impossible. We first, therefore, want to find somewhere a centre from which, as it were, all the other planes of existence start, and standing there we should try to find a solution. That is the proposition. And where is that centre? It is within us. The ancient sages penetrated deeper and deeper until they found that in the innermost core of the human soul is the centre of the whole universe. All the planes gravitate towards that one point. That is the common ground, and standing there alone can we find a common solution. So the question who made this world is not very philosophical, nor does its solution amount to anything.
This the Katha Upanishad speaks in very figurative language. There was, in ancient times, a very rich man, who made a certain sacrifice which required that he should give away everything that he had. Now, this man was not sincere. He wanted to get the fame and glory of having made the sacrifice, but he was only giving things which were of no further use to him — old cows, barren, blind, and lame. He had a boy called Nachiketas. This boy saw that his father was not doing what was right, that he was breaking his vow; but he did not know what to say to him. In India, father and mother are living gods to their children. And so the boy approached the father with the greatest respect and humbly inquired of him, "Father, to whom are you going to give me? For your sacrifice requires that everything shall be given away." The father was very much vexed at this question and replied, "What do you mean, boy? A father giving away his own son?" The boy asked the question a second and a third time, and then the angry father answered, "Thee I give unto Death (Yama)." And the story goes on to say that the boy went to Yama, the god of death. Yama was the first man who died. He went to heaven and became the governor of all the Pitris; all the good people who die, go, and live with him for a long time. He is a very pure and holy person, chaste and good, as his name (Yama) implies.
So the boy went to Yama's world. But even gods are sometimes not at home, and three days this boy had to wait there. After the third day Yama returned. "O learned one," said Yama, "you have been waiting here for three days without food, and you are a guest worthy of respect. Salutation to thee, O Brahmin, and welfare to me! I am very sorry I was not at home. But for that I will make amends. Ask three boons, one for each day." And the boy asked, "My first boon is that my father's anger against me may pass away; that he will be kind to me and recognise me when you allow me to depart." Yama granted this fully. The next boon was that he wanted to know about a certain sacrifice which took people to heaven. Now we have seen that the oldest idea which we got in the Samhitâ portion of the Vedas was only about heaven where they had bright bodies and lived with the fathers. Gradually other ideas came, but they were not satisfying; there was still need for something higher. Living in heaven would not be very different from life in this world. At best, it would only be a very healthy rich man's life, with plenty of sense-enjoyments and a sound body which knows no disease. It would be this material world, only a little more refined; and we have seen the difficulty that the external material world can never solve the problem. So no heaven can solve the problem. If this world cannot solve the problem, no multiplication of this world can do so, because we must always remember that matter is only an infinitesimal part of the phenomena of nature. The vast part of phenomena which we actually see is not matter. For instance, in every moment of our life what a great part is played by thought and feeling, compared with the material phenomena outside! How vast is this internal world with its tremendous activity! The sense-phenomena are very small compared with it. The heaven solution commits this mistake; it insists that the whole of phenomena is only in touch, taste, sight, etc. So this idea of heaven did not give full satisfaction to all. Yet Nachiketas asks, as the second boon, about some sacrifice through which people might attain to this heaven. There was an idea in the Vedas that these sacrifices pleased the gods and took human beings to heaven.
In studying all religions you will notice the fact that whatever is old becomes holy. For instance, our forefathers in India used to write on birch bark, but in time they learnt how to make paper. Yet the birch bark is still looked upon as very holy. When the utensils in which they used to cook in ancient times were improved upon, the old ones became holy; and nowhere is this idea more kept up than in India. Old methods, which must be nine or ten thousand years old, as of rubbing two sticks together to make fire, are still followed. At the time of sacrifice no other method will do. So with the other branch of the Asiatic Aryans. Their modern descendants still like to obtain fire from lightning, showing that they used to get fire in this way. Even when they learnt other customs, they kept up the old ones, which then became holy. So with the Hebrews. They used to write on parchment. They now write on paper, but parchment is very holy. So with all nations. Every rite which you now consider holy was simply an old custom, and the Vedic sacrifice were of this nature. In course of time, as they found better methods of life, their ideas were much improved; still these old forms remained, and from time to time they were practiced and received a holy significance.
Then, a body of men made it their business to carry on these sacrifices. These were the priests, who speculated on the sacrifices, and the sacrifices became everything to them. The gods came to enjoy the fragrance of the sacrifices, and it was considered that everything in this world could be got by the power of sacrifices. If certain oblations were made, certain hymns chanted, certain peculiar forms of altars made, the gods would grant everything. So Nachiketas asks by what form of sacrifice can a man go to heaven. The second boon was also readily granted by Yama who promised that this sacrifice should henceforth be named after Nachiketas.
Then the third boon comes, and with that the Upanishad proper begins. The boy said, "There is this difficulty: when a man dies some say he is, others that he is not. Instructed by you I desire to understand this." But Yama was frightened. He had been very glad to grant the other two boons. Now he said, "The gods in ancient times were puzzled on this point. This subtle law is not easy to understand. Choose some other boon, O Nachiketas, do not press me on this point, release me."
The boy was determined, and said, "What you have said is true, O Death, that even the gods had doubts on this point, and it is no easy matter to understand. But I cannot obtain another exponent like you and there is no other boon equal to this."
Death said, "Ask for sons and grandsons who will live one hundred years, many cattle, elephants, gold, and horses. Ask for empire on this earth and live as many ears as you like. Or choose any other boon which you think equal to these — wealth and long life. Or be thou a king, O Nachiketas, on the wide earth. I will make thee the enjoyer of all desires. Ask for all those desires which are difficult to obtain in the world. These heavenly maidens with chariots and music, which are not to be obtained by man, are yours. Let them serve you. O Nachiketas, but do not question me as to what comes after death."
Nachiketas said, "These are merely things of a day, O Death, they wear away the energy of all the sense-organs. Even the longest life is very short. These horses and chariots, dances and songs, may remain with Thee. Man cannot be satisfied by wealth. Can we retain wealth when we behold Thee? We shall live only so long as Thou desires". Only the boon which I have asked is chosen by me."
Yama was pleased with this answer and said, "Perfection is one thing and enjoyment another; these two having different ends, engage men differently. He who chooses perfection becomes pure. He who chooses enjoyment misses his true end. Both perfection and enjoyment present themselves to man; the wise man having examined both distinguishes one from the other. He chooses perfection as being superior to enjoyment, but the foolish man chooses enjoyment for the pleasure of his body. O Nachiketas, having thought upon the things which are only apparently desirable, thou hast wisely abandoned them." Death then proceeded to teach Nachiketas.
We now get a very developed idea of renunciation and Vedic morality, that until one has conquered the desires for enjoyment the truth will not shine in him. So long as these vain desires of our senses are clamouring and as it were dragging us outwards every moment, making us slaves to everything outside — to a little colour, a little taste, a little touch — notwithstanding all our pretensions, how can the truth express itself in our hearts?
Yama said, "That which is beyond never rises before the mind of a thoughtless child deluded by the folly of riches. 'This world exists, the other does not,' thinking thus they come again and again under my power. To understand this truth is very difficult. Many, even hearing it continually, do not understand it, for the speaker must be wonderful, so must be the hearer. The teacher must be wonderful, so must be the taught. Neither is the mind to be disturbed By vain arguments, for it is no more a question of argument, it is a question of fact." We have always heard that every religion insists on our having faith. We have been taught to believe blindly. Well, this idea of blind faith is objectionable, no doubt, but analysing it, we find that behind it is a very great truth. What it really means is what we read now. The mind is not to be ruffled by vain arguments, because argument will not help us to know God. It is a question of fact, and not of argument. All argument and reasoning must be based upon certain perceptions. Without these, there cannot be any argument. Reasoning is the method of comparison between certain facts which we have already perceived. If these perceived facts are not there already, there cannot be any reasoning. If this is true of external phenomena, why should it not be so of the internal? The chemist takes certain chemicals and certain results are produced. This is a fact; you see it, sense it, and make that the basis on which to build all your chemical arguments. So with the physicists, so with all other sciences. All knowledge must stand on perception of certain facts, and upon that we have to build our reasoning. But, curiously enough the vast majority of mankind think, especially at the present time, that no such perception is possible in religion, that religion can only be apprehended by vain arguments. Therefore we are told not to disturb the mind by vain arguments. Religion is a question of fact, not of talk. We have to analyse our own souls and to find what is there. We have to understand it and to realise what is understood. That is religion. No amount of talk will make religion. So the question whether there is a God or not can never be proved by argument, for the arguments are as much on one side as on the other. But if there is a God, He is in our own hearts. Have you ever seen Him? The question as to whether this world exists or not has not yet been decided, and the debate between the idealists and the realists is endless. Yet we know that the world exists, that it goes on. We only change the meaning of words. So, with all the questions of life, we must come to facts. There are certain religious facts which, as in external science, have to be perceived, and upon them religion will be built. Of course, the extreme claim that you must believe every dogma of a religion is degrading to the human mind. The man who asks you to believe everything, degrades himself, and, if you believe, degrades you too. The sages of the world have only the right to tell us that they have analysed their minds and have found these facts, and if we do the same we shall also believe, and not before. That is all that there is in religion. But you must always remember this, that as a matter of fact 99.9 per cent of those who attack religion have never analysed their minds, have never struggled to get at the facts. So their arguments do not have any weight against religion, any more than the words of a blind man who cries out, "You are all fools who believe in the sun," would affect us.
This is one great idea to learn and to hold on to, this idea of realisation. This turmoil and fight and difference in religions will cease only when we understand that religion is not in books and temples. It is an actual perception. Only the man who has actually perceived God and soul has religion. There is no real difference between the highest ecclesiastical giant who can talk by the volume, and the lowest, most ignorant materialist. We are all atheists; let us confess it. Mere intellectual assent does not make us religious. Take a Christian, or a Mohammedan, or a follower of any other religion in the world. Any man who truly realised the truth of the Sermon on the Mount would be perfect, and become a god immediately. Yet it is said that there are many millions of Christians in the world. What is meant is that mankind may at some time try to realise that Sermon. Not one in twenty millions is a real Christian.
So, in India, there are said to be three hundred millions of Vedantins. But if there were one in a thousand who had actually realised religion, this world would soon be greatly changed. We are all atheists, and yet we try to fight the man who admits it. We are all in the dark; religion is to us a mere intellectual assent, a mere talk, a mere nothing. We often consider a man religious who can talk well. But this is not religion. "Wonderful methods of joining words, rhetorical powers, and explaining texts of the books in various ways — these are only for the enjoyment of the learned, and not religion." Religion comes when that actual realisation in our own souls begins. That will be the dawn of religion; and then alone we shall be moral. Now we are not much more moral than the animals. We are only held down by the whips of society. If society said today, "I will not punish you if you steal", we should just make a rush for each other's property. It is the policeman that makes us moral. It is social opinion that makes us moral, and really we are little better than animals. We understand how much this is so in the secret of our own hearts. So let us not be hypocrites. Let us confess that we are not religious and have no right to look down on others. We are all brothers and we shall be truly moral when we have realised religion.
If you have seen a certain country, and a man forces you to say that you have not seen it, still in your heart of hearts you know you have. So, when you see religion and God in a more intense sense than you see this external world, nothing will be able to shake your belief. Then you have real faith. That is what is meant by the words in your Gospel, "He who has faith even as a grain of mustard seed." Then you will know the Truth because you have become the Truth.
This is the watchword of the Vedanta — realise religion, no talking will do. But it is done with great difficulty. He has hidden Himself inside the atom, this Ancient One who resides in the inmost recess of every human heart. The sages realised Him through the power of introspection, and got beyond both joy and misery, beyond what we call virtue and vice, beyond good and bad deeds, beyond being and non-being; he who has seen Him has seen the Reality. But what then about heaven? It was the idea of happiness minus unhappiness. That is to say, what we want is the joys of this life minus its sorrows. That is a very good idea, no doubt; it comes naturally; but it is a mistake throughout, because there is no such thing as absolute good, nor any such thing as absolute evil.
You have all heard of that rich man in Rome who learnt one day that he had only about a million pounds of his property left; he said, "What shall I do tomorrow?" and forthwith committed suicide. A million pounds was poverty to him. What is joy, and what is sorrow? It is a vanishing quantity, continually vanishing. When I was a child I thought if I could be a cabman, it would be the very acme of happiness for me to drive about. I do not think so now. To what joy will you cling? This is the one point we must all try to understand, and it is one of the last superstitions to leave us. Everyone's idea of pleasure is different. I have seen a man who is not happy unless he swallows a lump of opium every day. He may dream of a heaven where the land is made of opium. That would be a very bad heaven for me. Again and again in Arabian poetry we read of heaven with beautiful gardens, through which rivers run. I lived much of my life in a country where there is too much water; many villages are flooded and thousands of lives are sacrificed every year. So, my heaven would not have gardens through which rivers flow; I would have a land where very little rain falls. Our pleasures are always changing. If a young man dreams of heaven, he dreams of a heaven where he will have a beautiful wife. When that same man becomes old he does not want a wife. It is our necessities which make our heaven, and the heaven changes with the change of our necessities. If we had a heaven like that desired by those to whom sense-enjoyment is the very end of existence, then we would not progress. That would be the most terrible curse we could pronounce on the soul. Is this all we can come to? A little weeping and dancing, and then to die like a dog! What a curse you pronounce on the head of humanity when you long for these things! That is what you do when you cry after the joys of this world, for you do not know what true joy is. What philosophy insists on is not to give up joys, but to know what joy really is. The Norwegian heaven is a tremendous fighting place where they all sit before Odin; they have a wild boar hunt, and then they go to war and slash each other to pieces. But in some way or other, after a few hours of such fighting, the wounds are all healed up, and they go into a hall where the boar has been roasted, and have a carousal. And then the wild boar takes form again, ready to be hunted the next day. That is much the same thing as our heaven, not a whit worse, only our ideas may be a little more refined. We want to hunt wild boars, and get to a place where all enjoyments will continue, just as the Norwegian imagines that the wild boar is hunted and eaten every day, and recovers the next day.
Now, philosophy insists that there is a joy which is absolute, which never changes. That joy cannot be the joys and pleasures we have in this life, and yet Vedanta shows that everything that is joyful in this life is but a particle of that real joy, because that is the only joy there is. Every moment really we are enjoying the absolute bliss, though covered up, misunderstood, and caricatured. Wherever there is any blessing, blissfulness, or joy, even the joy of the thief in stealing, it is that absolute bliss coming out, only it has become obscured, muddled up, as it were, with all sorts of extraneous conditions, and misunderstood. But to understand that, we have to go through the negation, and then the positive side will begin. We have to give up ignorance and all that is false, and then truth will begin to reveal itself to us. When we have grasped the truth, things which we gave up at first will take new shape and form, will appear to us in a new light, and become deified. They will have become sublimated, and then we shall understand them in their true light. But to understand them, we have first to get a glimpse of truth; we must give them up at first, and then we get them back again, deified. We have to give up all our miseries and sorrows, all our little joys.
"That which all the Vedas declare, which is proclaimed by all penances, seeking which men lead lives of continence, I will tell you in one word — it is 'Om'." You will find this word "Om" praised very much in the Vedas, and it is held to be very sacred.
Now Yama answers the question: "What becomes of a man when the body dies ?" "This Wise One never dies, is never born, It arises from nothing, and nothing arises from It. Unborn, Eternal, Everlasting, this Ancient One can never be destroyed with the destruction of the body. If the slayer thinks he can slay, or if the slain thinks he is slain, they both do not know the truth, for the Self neither slays nor is slain." A most tremendous position. I should like to draw your attention to the adjective in the first line, which is "wise". As we proceed we shall find that the ideal of the Vedanta is that all wisdom and all purity are in the soul already, dimly expressed or better expressed — that is all the difference. The difference between man and man, and all things in the whole creation, is not in kind but only in degree. The background, the reality, of everyone is that same Eternal, Ever Blessed, Ever Pure, and Ever Perfect One. It is the Atman, the Soul, in the saint and the sinner, in the happy and the miserable, in the beautiful and the ugly, in men and in animals; it is the same throughout. It is the shining One. The difference is caused by the power of expression. In some It is expressed more, in others less, but this difference of expression has no effect upon the Atman. If in their dress one man shows more of his body than another, it does not make any difference in their bodies; the difference is in their dress. We had better remember here that throughout the Vedanta philosophy, there is no such thing as good and bad, they are not two different things; the same thing is good or bad, and the difference is only in degree. The very thing I call pleasurable today, tomorrow under better circumstances I may call pain. The fire that warms us can also consume us; it is not the fault of the fire. Thus, the Soul being pure and perfect, the man who does evil is giving the lie unto himself, he does not know the nature of himself. Even in the murderer the pure Soul is there; It dies not. It was his mistake; he could not manifest It; he had covered It up. Nor in the man who thinks that he is killed is the Soul killed; It is eternal. It can never be killed, never destroyed. "Infinitely smaller than the smallest, infinitely larger than the largest, this Lord of all is present in the depths of every human heart. The sinless, bereft of all misery, see Him through the mercy of the Lord; the Bodiless, yet dwelling in the body; the Spaceless, yet seeming to occupy space; Infinite, Omnipresent: knowing such to be the Soul, the sages never are miserable."
"This Atman is not to be realised by the power of speech, nor by a vast intellect, nor by the study of their Vedas." This is a very bold utterance. As I told you before, the sages were very bold thinkers, and never stopped at anything. You will remember that in India these Vedas are regarded in a much higher light than even the Christians regard their Bible. Your idea of revelation is that a man was inspired by God; but in India the idea is that things exist because they are in the Vedas. In and through the Vedas the whole creation has come. All that is called knowledge is in the Vedas. Every word is sacred and eternal, eternal as the soul, without beginning and without end. The whole of the Creator's mind is in this book, as it were. That is the light in which the Vedas are held. Why is this thing moral? Because the Vedas say so. Why is that thing immoral? Because the Vedas say so. In spite of that, look at the boldness of these sages whom proclaimed that the truth is not to be found by much study of the Vedas. "With whom the Lord is pleased, to that man He expresses Himself." But then, the objection may be advanced that this is something like partisanship. But at Yama explains, "Those who are evil-doers, whose minds area not peaceful, can never see the Light. It is to those who are true in heart, pure in deed, whose senses are controlled, that this Self manifests Itself."
Here is a beautiful figure. Picture the Self to be then rider and this body the chariot, the intellect to be the charioteer, mind the reins, and the senses the horses. He whose horses are well broken, and whose reins are strong and kept well in the hands of the charioteer (the intellect) reaches the goal which is the state of Him, the Omnipresent. But the man whose horses (the senses) are not controlled, nor the reins (the mind) well managed, goes to destruction. This Atman in all beings does not manifest Himself to the eyes or the senses, but those whose minds have become purified and refined realise Him. Beyond all sound, all sight, beyond form, absolute, beyond all taste and touch, infinite, without beginning and without end, even beyond nature, the Unchangeable; he who realises Him, frees himself from the jaws of death. But it is very difficult. It is, as it were, walking on the edge of a razor; the way is long and perilous, but struggle on, do not despair. Awake, arise, and stop not till the goal is reached.
The one central idea throughout all the Upanishads is that of realisation. A great many questions will arise from time to time, and especially to the modern man. There will be the question of utility, there will be various other questions, but in all we shall find that we are prompted by our past associations. It is association of ideas that has such a tremendous power over our minds. To those who from childhood have always heard of a Personal God and the personality of the mind, these ideas will of course appear very stern and harsh, but if they listen to them and think over them, they will become part of their lives and will no longer frighten them. The great question that generally arises is the utility of philosophy. To that there can be only one answer: if on the utilitarian ground it is good for men to seek for pleasure, why should not those whose pleasure is in religious speculation seek for that? Because sense-enjoyments please many, they seek for them, but there may be others whom they do not please, who want higher enjoyment. The dog's pleasure is only in eating and drinking. The dog cannot understand the pleasure of the scientist who gives up everything, and, perhaps, dwells on the top of a mountain to observe the position of certain stars. The dogs may smile at him and think he is a madman. Perhaps this poor scientist never had money enough to marry even, and lives very simply. May be, the dog laughs at him. But the scientist says, "My dear dog, your pleasure is only in the senses which you enjoy, and you know nothing beyond; but for me this is the most enjoyable life, and if you have the right to seek your pleasure in your own way, so have I in mine." The mistake is that we want to tie the whole world down to our own plane of thought and to make our mind the measure of the whole universe. To you, the old sense-things are, perhaps, the greatest pleasure, but it is not necessary that my pleasure should be the same, and when you insist upon that, I differ from you. That is the difference between the worldly utilitarian and the religious man. The first man says, "See how happy I am. I get money, but do not bother my head about religion. It is too unsearchable, and I am happy without it." So far, so good; good for all utilitarians. But this world is terrible. If a man gets happiness in any way excepting by injuring his fellow-beings, godspeed him; but when this man comes to me and says, "You too must do these things, you will be a fool if you do not," I say, "You are wrong, because the very things, which are pleasurable to you, have not the slightest attraction for me. If I had to go after a few handfuls of gold, my life would not be worth living! I should die." That is the answer the religious man would make. The fact is that religion is possible only for those who have finished with these lower things. We must have our own experiences, must have our full run. It is only when we have finished this run that the other world opens.
The enjoyments of the senses sometimes assume another phase which is dangerous and tempting. You will always hear the idea — in very old times, in every religion — that a time will come when all the miseries of life wills cease, and only its joys and pleasures will remain, and this earth will become a heaven. That I do not believe. This earth will always remain this same world. It is a most terrible thing to say, yet I do not see my way out of it. The misery in the world is like chronic rheumatism in the body; drive it from one part and it goes to another, drive it from there and you will feel it somewhere else. Whatever you do, it is still there. In olden times people lived in forests, and ate each other; in modern times they do not eat each other's flesh, but they cheat one another. Whole countries and cities are ruined by cheating. That does not show much progress. I do not see that what you call progress in the world is other than the multiplication of desires. If one thing is obvious to me it is this that desires bring all misery; it is the state of the beggar, who is always begging for something, and unable to see anything without the wish to possess it, is always longing, longing for more. If the power to satisfy our desires is increased in arithmetical progression, the power of desire is increased in geometrical progression. The sum total of happiness and misery in this world is at least the same throughout. If a wave rises in the ocean it makes a hollow somewhere. If happiness comes to one man, unhappiness comes to another or, perhaps, to some animal. Men are increasing in numbers and some animals are decreasing; we are killing them off, and taking their land ; we are taking all means of sustenance from them. How can we say, then, that happiness is increasing? The strong race eats up the weaker, but do you think that the strong race will be very happy? No; they will begin to kill each other. I do not see on practical grounds how this world can become a heaven. Facts are against it. On theoretical grounds also, I see it cannot be.
Perfection is always infinite. We are this infinite already, and we are trying to manifest that infinity. You and I, and all beings, are trying to manifest it. So far it is all right. But from this fact some German philosophers have started a peculiar theory — that this manifestation will become higher and higher until we attain perfect manifestation, until we have become perfect beings. What is meant by perfect manifestation? Perfection means infinity, and manifestation means limit, and so it means that we shall become unlimited limiteds, which is self-contradictory. Such a theory may please children; but it is poisoning their minds with lies, and is very bad for religion. But we know that this world is a degradation, that man is a degradation of God, and that Adam fell. There is no religion today that does not teach that man is a degradation. We have been degraded down to the animal, and are now going up, to emerge out of this bondage. But we shall never be able entirely to manifest the Infinite here. We shall struggle hard, but there will come a time when we shall find that it is impossible to be perfect here, while we are bound by the senses. And then the march back to our original state of Infinity will be sounded.
This is renunciation. We shall have to get out of the difficulty by reversing the process by which we got in, and then morality and charity will begin. What is the watchword of all ethical codes? "Not I, but thou", and this "I" is the outcome of the Infinite behind, trying to manifest Itself on the outside world. This little "I" is the result, and it will have to go back and join the Infinite, its own nature. Every time you say, "Not I, my brother, but thou", you are trying to go back, and every time you say "I, and not thou", you take the false step of trying to manifest the Infinite through the sense-world. That brings struggles and evils into the world, but after a time renunciation must come, eternal renunciation. The little "I" is dead and gone. Why care so much for this little life? All these vain desires of living and enjoying this life, here or in some other place, bring death.
If we are developed from animals, the animals also may be degraded men. How do you know it is not so? You have seen that the proof of evolution is simply this: you find a series of bodies from the lowest to the highest rising in a gradually ascending scale. But from that how can you insist that it is always from the lower upwards, and never from the higher downwards? The argument applies both ways, and if anything is true, I believe it is that the series is repeating itself in going up and down. How can you have evolution without involution? Our struggle for the higher life shows that we have been degraded from a high state. It must be so, only it may vary as to details. I always cling to the idea set forth with one voice by Christ, Buddha, and the Vedanta, that we must all come to perfection in time, but only by giving up this imperfection. This world is nothing. It is at best only a hideous caricature, a shadow of the Reality. We must go to the Reality. Renunciation will take us to It. Renunciation is the very basis of our true life; every moment of goodness and real life that we enjoy is when we do not think of ourselves. This little separate self must die. Then we shall find that we are in the Real, and that Reality is God, and He is our own true nature, and He is always in us and with us. Let us live in Him and stand in Him. It is the only joyful state of existence. Life on the plane of the Spirit is the only life, and let us all try to attain to this realisation.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。