绝对者与显现
本译文由人工智能辅助工具生成，可能存在不准确之处。如需查阅权威文本，请参考英文原文。
AI-translated. May contain errors. For accurate text, refer to the original English.
中文
1→第六章 2→ 3→绝对与显现 4→ 5→（1896年讲于伦敦） 6→ 7→在理解不二论哲学时，最难把握的一个问题——一个会被一再追问、 8→且始终悬而未决的问题——是：无限、绝对者，是如何变成有限的？ 9→我现在就来探讨这个问题，为便于说明，我将使用一个比喻。 10→ 11→这里是绝对（甲），这里是宇宙 12→（乙）。绝对已成为宇宙。此处所指不仅是物质世界，还包括心智世界、精神世界—— 13→天堂与尘世，以及事实上一切存在之物。心智是 14→变化的一个名称，身体是另一种变化的名称，如此等等，所有这些变化 15→共同构成我们的宇宙。绝对（甲）通过穿越时间、空间和因果（丙） 16→而成为宇宙（乙）。这是不二论的核心理念。时间、空间与因果 17→如同玻璃，绝对通过它被观看， 18→当从较低一侧审视时，它显现为宇宙。因此，我们立即从中领悟， 19→在绝对之中，既无时间，亦无空间，更无因果。时间的概念 20→不可能存在于彼处，因为彼处既无心智，亦无思想。空间的概念 21→不可能存在于彼处，因为彼处 22→没有外在的变化。你所称的运动与因果，在只有独一者存在之处不可能存在。 23→我们必须理解并铭记于心，我们所称的因果，是在绝对——如果我们可以 24→这样说——退化为现象界之后才开始的，而非在此之前；我们的意志、 25→我们的欲望以及所有这些，都是在此之后才有的。我认为叔本华的哲学 26→在对吠檀多的诠释上犯了一个错误，因为它试图将意志置于一切之上。 27→叔本华让意志占据了绝对的位置。但 28→绝对不能被呈现为意志，因为意志是可变的、现象性的， 29→而在时间、空间和因果之上画出的那条线上方， 30→没有变化，没有运动；只有在线的下方，外在的运动和 31→内在的运动（即思想）才开始。在另一侧不可能有意志， 32→因此意志不能成为这个宇宙的原因。走近些，我们在自己的身体中看到 33→意志并非每一个运动的原因。我移动这把椅子；我的意志是这个运动的原因，而 34→这意志在另一端表现为肌肉运动。但推动椅子的同一 35→力量也在推动心脏、肺等，但 36→不是通过意志。假设力量是相同的，它只有在上升到 37→意识的层面时才成为意志，在它上升到这个层面之前称其为意志 38→是一种误称。这在叔本华的哲学中制造了相当大的混乱。 39→ 40→ 41→一块石头落下，我们问，为什么？这个问题只有在 42→没有原因便不会发生任何事的假设之下才有可能。我请求你在心中 43→将这一点弄得非常清楚，因为每当我们问任何事情为何发生时，我们 44→都在想当然地认为发生的每一件事都必须有一个为什么，也就是说， 45→它必定先有某种其他事物作为原因。 46→这种先后顺序就是我们所称的因果律。它 47→意味着宇宙中的每一件事物依次都是原因和结果。它 48→是跟随其后的某些事物的原因，其本身也是在它之前的 49→某种其他事物的结果。这被称为因果律， 50→是我们一切思维的必要条件。我们相信宇宙中每一个 51→粒子，无论它是什么，都与所有其他粒子相关联。 52→关于这个理念如何产生，存在大量争论。在 53→欧洲，有凭直觉的哲学家相信它是 54→人类的天性，另一些人相信它来自经验， 55→但这个问题从未得到解决。我们稍后将看到 56→吠檀多对此有何说法。但首先我们必须理解，仅仅提出"为什么"这个问题， 57→便已预设了我们周围的一切 58→都曾先有某些事物，也将继之以某些其他事物。 59→这个问题中涉及的另一个信念是，宇宙中没有任何事物是独立的， 60→每一件事物都受到自身之外某种东西的作用。 61→相互依存是整个宇宙的法则。在追问是什么导致了绝对时，我们犯了多么大的错误！ 62→要提出这个问题，我们 63→必须假设绝对也受某种东西的束缚，它是 64→依赖于某种东西的；而在作出这一假设时，我们将绝对 65→拖低到宇宙的水平。因为在绝对之中，既无 66→时间、空间，亦无因果；它是浑然一体的。仅凭自身而存在的 67→不可能有任何原因。自由者不可能有任何原因；否则它 68→便不自由，而是被束缚的。具有相对性者不可能自由。如此 69→我们看到，无限为何成为有限这个问题本身，是 70→一个不可能的问题，因为它自相矛盾。从微妙处回到 71→我们日常层面的逻辑，到常识，我们可以从另一个 72→侧面看到这一点，当我们试图了解绝对如何成为相对时。 73→假设我们知道了答案，绝对还会是绝对吗？它 74→会已经成为相对了。我们常识意义上的知识是什么？只有 75→那些已被我们的心智所限制的，才是我们所知道的， 76→当它超出我们的心智时，它便不是知识。若 77→绝对被心智所限制，它便不再是绝对；它已成为 78→有限的。一切被心智限制的事物都成为有限的。因此认识绝对 79→本身又是一个自相矛盾。这就是为何这个问题从未 80→得到回答，因为若它得到回答，便不再有 81→绝对了。被认识的上帝不再是上帝；他已成为像我们一样有限。 82→他不可能被认识，他始终是那不可知者。 83→ 84→ 85→然而不二论所说的是，上帝超乎可知之上。这是一个伟大的 86→值得学习的事实。你不可带着上帝是不可知的这一理念回家， 87→以不可知论者所说的那种意义。例如，这里有一把椅子， 88→我们知道它。但以太之外是什么，那里是否有人存在， 89→这也许是不可知的。但上帝既非已知亦非这种意义上的不可知。 90→他是比已知更高的某种东西；那便是上帝 91→被称为未知和不可知的含义。这个表达并非用于 92→可以说某些问题是未知且不可知的那种意义。上帝 93→超乎已知之上。这把椅子是已知的，但上帝比那要强烈得多， 94→因为在他之内并通过他，我们必须认识这把椅子本身。他是 95→见证者，一切知识的永恒见证者。我们所知道的一切，我们都必须 96→在他之内并通过他来知道。他是我们自身真我[Atman]的本质。他是 97→这个自我、这个"我"的本质，除了在这个"我"之内并通过它， 98→我们无法认识任何事物。因此你必须在梵[Brahman]之内并通过梵认识一切。 99→要认识椅子，你必须在上帝之内并通过上帝来认识它。如此，上帝 100→无限地比椅子更靠近我们，然而他又无限地更高。 101→既非已知，亦非未知，而是某种无限高于二者的东西。他 102→就是你的真我[Atman]。"谁愿在这宇宙中活一秒，谁愿在这宇宙中呼吸一秒， 103→若那蒙福者不充满其中？"因为在他之内并通过他， 104→我们呼吸，在他之内并通过他，我们存在。并非他在某处挺立 105→使我的血液循环。所指的是他是 106→这一切的本质，是我灵魂的灵魂。你不可能说你认识他； 107→那会使他蒙羞。你无法走出你自身， 108→因此你无法认识他。知识是客观化。例如，在记忆中， 109→你在客观化许多事物，将它们从你自身投射出去。所有的 110→记忆，所有我曾见过并知道的事物，都在我的心中。 111→所有这些事物的图像、印象，都在我的心中，当 112→我试图思考它们、认识它们时，知识的第一个行为 113→便是将它们投射到外部。这对上帝无法做到，因为他是 114→我们灵魂的本质，我们无法将他投射到我们自身之外。这是 115→吠檀多中最深邃的段落之一："那是你灵魂本质的他， 116→他是真理，他是真我[Atman]，你就是那个，O 白凯土。"这是 117→"你即是上帝"所指的意义。你无法用任何其他 118→语言来描述他。一切语言的尝试，称他为父亲、兄弟，或我们 119→最亲爱的朋友，都是将上帝客观化的尝试，而这是无法做到的。他是 120→一切事物的永恒主体。我是这把椅子的主体；我看见 121→椅子；同样，上帝是我灵魂的永恒主体。你如何能将他客观化， 122→那是你灵魂的本质，一切事物的实在？如此，我要再次重申， 123→上帝既非可知亦非不可知，而是某种 124→无限高于二者的东西。他与我们合一，而与我们合一的， 125→既非可知亦非不可知，如同我们自己的自我。你无法认识你 126→自己的自我；你无法将其移出，使之成为一个可以观看的客体，因为 127→你就是它，无法将自己与它分离。它也不是不可知的， 128→因为有什么比你自己更为人所知？它真正是我们 129→知识的中心。完全同样地，上帝既非不可知亦非已知， 130→而是无限高于二者；因为他是我们真实的真我[Atman]。 131→ 132→ 133→首先，我们看到"是什么导致了绝对"这个问题 134→自相矛盾；其次，我们发现不二论中的上帝理念是 135→这种唯一性；因此，我们无法将他客观化，因为无论我们是否知晓， 136→我们始终生活和运动于他之中。我们所做的一切 137→始终是通过他。现在问题是：时间、空间和 138→因果是什么？不二论意为非二元；没有两个，只有一个。然而我们看到 139→这里有一个命题：绝对正在通过时间、空间和 140→因果的面纱显现为多。因此似乎这里 141→有两个，绝对和幻象（时间、空间和 142→因果的总和）。看起来显然非常令人信服，确实有两个。对此 143→不二论者回答说，不可称之为两个。要有两个，我们必须 144→有两个绝对独立的、不可被导致的存在。首先， 145→时间、空间和因果不能说是独立的 146→存在。时间完全是依赖性的存在；它随着我们心智的每一次 147→变化而变化。有时在梦中人会认为自己生活了 148→数年，其他时候数月在一秒钟内过去了。所以， 149→时间完全依赖于我们心智的状态。其次，时间的理念有时 150→完全消失。空间也是如此。我们无法知道空间是什么。 151→然而它在那里，无法定义，且无法独立于任何其他事物而存在。 152→因果亦然。 153→ 154→ 155→我们在时间、空间和因果中发现的一个奇特属性是 156→它们无法独立于其他事物而存在。试着去想象没有 157→颜色、没有界限、与周围事物没有任何联系的空间——只是抽象的 158→空间。你做不到；你必须将其想象为两个界限之间 159→或三个物体之间的空间。它必须与某个物体相连才能有 160→任何存在。时间亦然；你无法有任何抽象时间的理念， 161→而必须取两个事件，一个先行一个后继， 162→并以相继的理念将两个事件联系起来。时间依赖于两个事件， 163→正如空间必须与外部物体相关联。因果的理念 164→与时间和空间不可分割。这便是关于它们的奇特之处—— 165→它们没有独立的存在。它们甚至没有 166→椅子或墙壁所拥有的存在。它们如同一切事物周围的影子， 167→你无法捕捉。它们没有真实的存在；然而它们也 168→不是非存在的，因为通过它们，一切事物都显现为 169→这个宇宙。如此我们看到，首先，时间、空间和 170→因果的组合既无存在亦无非存在。其次，它有时 171→消失。举一个例子，海洋上有一个波浪。这个波浪 172→固然与海洋相同，然而我们知道它是波浪，如此 173→与海洋不同。是什么造成了这种差异？名称与形式， 174→即心中的理念与形式。现在，我们能将波浪的形式 175→想象为独立于海洋的某种东西吗？当然不能。它始终与 176→海洋的理念相联系。若波浪平息，形式顷刻消失， 177→然而那形式并非幻觉。只要波浪存在，形式就在那里， 178→你注定要看见形式。这便是幻象。 179→ 180→ 181→因此，整个宇宙，如同一种奇特的形式； 182→绝对是那片海洋，而你和我，太阳和星辰，以及一切 183→其他都是那片海洋的各种波浪。是什么使波浪不同？ 184→只是形式，而那形式是时间、空间和因果，完全 185→依赖于波浪。一旦波浪消失，它们便消失了。一旦 186→个体放弃这幻象，它对他消失，他便自由了。 187→整个奋斗是摆脱对时间、空间和 188→因果的这种执着，它们始终是我们道路上的障碍。进化论是什么？ 189→两个因素是什么？一种巨大的潜在力量正在 190→试图表达自身，而环境将其压制， 191→环境不允许它表达自身。因此，为了与 192→这些环境抗争，力量一次又一次地取用新的身体。 193→一个变形虫，在奋斗中，取得另一个身体，征服一些障碍，然后 194→取得另一个身体，如此下去，直到它成为人类。现在，若你将这 195→理念推到其逻辑结论，必然有一个时刻，那 196→存在于变形虫中且进化为人类的力量，将征服了 197→自然所能带来的所有阻碍，从而从 198→所有环境中逃脱出来。这一理念用形而上学的语言来表达将采取这种形式： 199→在每一个行为中有两个成分，一个是主体，另一个是 200→客体，生命的唯一目标是使主体成为客体的主人。 201→例如，我因一个人骂我而感到不幸。我的奋斗将是 202→使自己足够强大以征服环境，以便他骂我， 203→而我感觉不到。这便是我们所有人试图征服的方式。道德是什么 204→意思？通过将主体与绝对相协调，使主体变强， 205→以便有限的自然停止对我们的控制。这是我们哲学合乎逻辑的 206→结论：必然有一个时刻，我们将征服 207→所有的环境，因为自然是有限的。 208→ 209→
1→还有一件事需要了解。你如何知道自然是有限的？你只能通过形而上学来知晓。 2→自然是那个在限制之下的无限。因此它是有限的。所以，必然会有 3→一个时刻，我们将征服所有的环境。而我们如何征服它们？我们不可能征服所有 4→外在的环境。 5→不可能。那条小鱼想要逃脱水中的天敌。它是怎么做到的？ 6→通过进化出翅膀，成为一只鸟。那条鱼并没有改变水或 7→空气；改变的是它自身。变化永远是主观的。 8→纵观整个进化过程，你会发现对自然的征服是通过 9→主体自身的改变而实现的。 10→将此应用于宗教与道德，你会发现对恶的征服也只能通过主观的改变来实现。 11→这便是不二论体系在人的主观方面获得其全部力量的所在。 12→谈论恶与痛苦是无稽之谈，因为它们在外部并不存在。若我对一切愤怒免疫， 13→我便永远不会感到愤怒。若我能抵御一切憎恨， 14→我便永远不会感到憎恨。 15→ 16→ 17→因此，实现那种征服的过程便是如此——通过主观，通过完善主观。我可以 18→大胆地说，唯一与现代研究在物质和道德两条线上均相符合、甚至更进一步的 19→宗教，便是不二论——这也是为何它对现代科学家如此具有吸引力。他们发现 20→旧的二元论理论对他们来说不够充分，无法满足他们的需要。一个人 21→不仅需要信仰，还需要理性的信仰。现在，在十九世纪后期，那种认为来自 22→自身遗传宗教以外任何其他来源的 23→宗教必定是错误的观念，表明仍有软弱之处，这类观念 24→必须放弃。我并非说这仅仅是这个国家的情况， 25→这是每一个国家的情况，在我自己的国家尤甚。这个不二论从未被允许 26→走向民众。起初，一些僧侣掌握了它，将其带入森林， 27→因此它被称为"森林哲学"。承蒙 28→上主的慈悲，佛陀来临，将其传授给大众， 29→整个民族都成了佛教徒。在那之后很久，当无神论者和 30→不可知论者再度摧毁这个民族时，人们发现不二论是 31→拯救印度免于唯物主义的唯一途径。 32→ 33→ 34→如此，不二论已两度拯救印度于唯物主义之中。佛陀降临之前， 35→唯物主义已蔓延至令人恐惧的程度，而且是最为可憎的 36→那种，不像当今这种，而是更为糟糕的性质。在某种意义上，我是一个 37→唯物主义者，因为我相信只有一个。 38→那正是唯物主义者要你相信的；只是他称其为物质 39→而我称其为上帝。唯物主义者承认，从这物质中，所有的希望、 40→宗教以及一切都产生了。我说，这一切都从梵[Brahman]中产生了。 41→但佛陀之前盛行的唯物主义是那种粗陋的 42→唯物主义，它教导："吃、喝、享乐；没有 43→上帝、灵魂或天堂；宗教是邪恶祭司的捏造。"它教导 44→的道德是：只要你活着，就必须尽力幸福地生活；吃吧， 45→即使你必须借钱买食物，也不必在意偿还 46→它。那是旧时的唯物主义，那种哲学如此广泛地蔓延， 47→以致即便在今天，它仍获得了"大众哲学"的名称。佛陀将 48→吠檀多带到了光天化日之下，将其给予民众，拯救了印度。一千 49→年后，一种类似的状况再度盛行。众多民众、 50→群众和各种种族，已皈依佛教；自然而然地， 51→佛陀的教义随着时间的推移逐渐退化，因为大多数 52→民众非常无知。佛教不教上帝，不教宇宙的统治者， 53→于是逐渐地，群众将他们的神、鬼怪和妖精重新带了出来， 54→在印度，佛教中形成了一种巨大的大杂烩。再次 55→唯物主义走到前台，在上层阶级中以放荡的形式，在下层中以迷信的形式出现。 56→随后商羯罗阿阇梨崛起，再次 57→复兴了吠檀多哲学。他将其变为一种理性主义的 58→哲学。在奥义书中，论证往往非常晦涩。佛陀着重于 59→哲学的道德方面，而商羯罗阿阇梨着重于智识方面。他阐发、理性化， 60→并将那奇妙连贯的不二论体系呈现在人们面前。 61→ 62→ 63→唯物主义在今天的欧洲盛行。你可以为现代怀疑论者的 64→得救而祈祷，但他们不屈服，他们需要理性。 65→欧洲的得救依赖于一种理性主义的宗教，而不二论——那非二元性， 66→那唯一性，无人格上帝的理念——是唯一能对任何有智识的 67→民众有任何影响的宗教。每当宗教似乎 68→消失、不信宗教似乎盛行时，它便到来，这就是为何它在 69→欧洲和美洲站稳了脚跟。 70→ 71→ 72→关于这个哲学，我还想说一件事。在古老的 73→奥义书中，我们发现崇高的诗歌；它们的作者是诗人。柏拉图说， 74→灵感通过诗歌降临人们，似乎这些古代的 75→仙人[Rishis]，真理的先见者，被提升至人类之上，以彰显这些真理， 76→通过诗歌。他们从不布道，从不哲辩，从不著述。音乐 77→从他们心中流淌而出。在佛陀身上，我们看到了那伟大、普世的心灵与 78→无限的耐心，使宗教变得切实可行，将其带到每一个人的 79→门前。在商羯罗阿阇梨身上，我们看到了巨大的智性力量，将 80→炽烈的理性之光投射于万事万物之上。我们今天所需要的，是那明亮的 81→智性太阳与佛陀的心灵相结合，那奇妙无垠的 82→爱与慈悲之心。这种结合将赋予我们最高的哲学。 83→科学与宗教将相遇握手。诗歌与哲学将 84→成为挚友。这将是未来的宗教，若我们能将其 85→付诸实现，我们可以确信，它将适于一切时代与一切民众。这 86→是唯一能被现代科学所接受的道路，因为它已几乎 87→达到了这一点。当科学导师断言一切事物皆是 88→一种力量的显现时，这不令你想起奥义书中所言及的上帝吗：\"如同那唯一的火进入宇宙， 89→在各种形态中显现自身，甚至那唯一的灵魂也在 90→每一个灵魂中显现自身，却在无限之中更为宏大\"？你没有看出 91→科学正在走向何方吗？印度民族通过对心灵的研究， 92→通过形而上学与逻辑来探求。欧洲各民族从 93→外在自然出发，而今他们也正在得出同样的结论。我们发现， 94→通过探究心灵，我们最终达到那唯一性，那 95→宇宙之一，一切事物的内在灵魂，一切事物的本质与实在， 96→那永恒自由者、永恒极乐者、永恒存在者。通过 97→物质科学，我们达到同样的唯一性。今日科学告诉我们， 98→一切事物不过是一种能量的显现，这能量是 99→一切存在事物的总和，而人类的趋向是走向 100→自由而非走向束缚。为何人类应当合乎道德？因为通过 101→道德才是走向自由的道路，而不道德导向束缚。 102→ 103→ 104→ 105→不二论体系的另一个特点是，从其一开始它便是 106→非破坏性的。这是另一种荣耀，那勇于宣讲的大胆：\"不要 107→扰乱任何人的信仰，甚至那些出于无知而将自身 108→依附于较低崇拜形式的人。\"它如是说，不要扰乱， 109→而要帮助每个人越来越高；包容整个人类。这 110→哲学宣讲一位作为总和的上帝。若你寻求一种普世的 111→宗教，适用于每一个人，那种宗教不得仅由 112→部分组成，而必须始终是其总和，涵盖一切 113→宗教发展的程度。 114→ 115→这一理念在其他任何宗教体系中均未被清晰呈现。它们都是 116→各部分，同等地奋力向那整体迈进。部分的存在 117→唯为此目的。因此，从一开始，不二论便与 118→印度现存的各宗派毫无对立。今日仍有二元论者存在， 119→而他们的数量在印度是迄今最多的，因为二元论自然地 120→吸引受教育程度较低的心灵。这是一种极为便利、自然、 121→合乎常识的宇宙解释。但对于这些二元论者，不二论 122→并无争执。一方认为上帝在宇宙之外， 123→在某处天堂之中，另一方则认为他是自己的灵魂，而 124→称他为任何更为遥远之物都是亵渎。任何分离的理念都将是 125→可怕的。他是最近者中的最近者。任何语言中都没有文字能 126→表达这种近密，除了唯一性[Oneness]这个词。对于任何其他理念， 127→不二论者都不满足，正如二元论者为不二论的概念所震惊 128→并认为其亵渎一样。同时，不二论者深知这些其他理念必然存在， 129→因此与那走在正确道路上的二元论者毫无争执。 130→从他的立场出发，二元论者将不得不看到多元性。 131→这是其立场的必然性。让他拥有这一点。 132→不二论者深知，无论其理论为何，他正走向 133→与他自身相同的目标。在此处他与二元论者截然不同，后者 134→被其观点所迫，相信一切相异的见解都是错误的。 135→二元论者遍及世界，自然地相信一位人格神，其 136→完全是拟人化的，如同这世间的大权贵， 137→对某些人喜悦，对另一些人不悦。他任意地对某些 138→人或种族感到愉悦并赐福于他们。自然地，二元论者得出 139→结论：上帝有宠儿，而他希望成为其中之一。 140→你会发现，几乎在每一种宗教中都有这样的理念：\"我们是 141→我们上帝的宠儿，唯有像我们一样相信，你才能被 142→他垂爱。\"一些二元论者如此狭隘，坚持认为唯有被 143→预定得到上帝垂爱的少数人才能得救；其余的人可能 144→尽力而为，却无法被接纳。我挑战你找出一种二元论宗教， 145→其中没有或多或少的这种排他性。 146→因此，就其本性而言，二元论宗教必然相互争斗， 147→而这正是他们一直以来所做的。 148→再者，这些二元论者通过迎合未受教育者的虚荣心来赢得大众的青睐。 149→他们喜欢感觉自己享有特权。二元论者认为 150→你若没有一位手持权杖随时准备惩罚你的上帝，便无法道德。那些不加思考的大众通常是二元论者， 151→而他们，可怜的人们，在每个国家都被迫害了数千年； 152→因此，他们对救赎的理念是免于惩罚之恐惧的自由。 153→一位美国牧师曾问我：\"什么！你的宗教中没有魔鬼？这怎么 154→可能？\"但我们发现，世间所诞生的最优秀、最伟大的人们， 155→都以那崇高的无人格理念来工作。正是那位说过\"我与父原为一\"的人， 156→其力量已传承至数以百万计的人们。数千年来，这力量已 157→为善效力。而我们知道，同一位人，因为他是非二元论者， 158→对他人充满慈悲。对那些无法构想比人格神更高之物的大众， 159→他说：\"向你在天上的父祈祷。\"对那些能掌握更高理念的人， 160→他说：\"我是葡萄树，你们是枝条，\" 161→但对那些他向其更完整地显示自身的门徒，他宣告了 162→最高的真理：\"我与父原为一。\" 163→ 164→ 165→ 166→正是那伟大的佛陀，从不在意二元论的诸神，被称为无神论者 167→和唯物主义者，却随时准备为一只可怜的山羊献出 168→自己的身体。那位人设动了任何民族所能有的最高道德理念。每当有道德法则时，它都是 169→来自那位人的一缕光芒。我们无法将这世间伟大的心灵强行关入狭窄的界限， 170→并将其困于其中，尤其是在这个人类历史的时刻， 171→当今智性发展的程度是百年前连梦也未曾梦到的， 172→当一波科学知识的浪潮已然兴起， 173→即便是五十年前，人们也未曾梦到过的。通过试图 174→将人们强行关入狭窄的界限，你将他们贬低为禽兽与不思考的 175→大众。你扼杀了他们的道德生命。现在所需要的是 176→最伟大的心灵与最高智性的结合，无限的爱与 177→无限的知识的结合。吠檀多信奉者赋予上帝没有别的属性，唯有 178→这三者——他是无限的存在，无限的知识，与 179→无限的极乐，而他将这三者视为合一。没有 180→知识与爱的存在不可能有；没有爱的知识与没有知识的爱 181→不可能有。我们所需要的是存在、知识 182→与无限极乐的和谐。因为那便是我们的目标。我们需要和谐，而非片面的 183→发展。而拥有商羯罗的智性与佛陀的心灵是可能的。我希望我们都将 184→努力达到那蒙福的 185→结合。 186→
English
CHAPTER VI
THE ABSOLUTE AND MANIFESTATION
( Delivered in London, 1896 )
The one question that is most difficult to grasp in understanding the Advaita philosophy, and the one question that will be asked again and again and that will always remain is: How has the Infinite, the Absolute, become the finite? I will now take up this question, and, in order to illustrate it, I will use a figure.
Here is the Absolute (a), and this is the universe (b). The Absolute has become the universe.By this is not only meant the material world, but the mental world, the spiritual world — heavens and earths, and in fact, everything that exists. Mind is the name of a change, and body the name of another change, and so on, and all these changes compose our universe. This Absolute (a) has become the universe (b) by coming through time, space, and causation (c). This is the central idea of Advaita. Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the universe. Now we at once gather from this that in the Absolute there is neither time, space, nor causation. The idea of time cannot be there, seeing that there is no mind, no thought. The idea of space cannot be there, seeing that there is no external change. What you call motion and causation cannot exist where there is only One. We have to understand this, and impress it on our minds, that what we call causation begins after, if we may be permitted to say so, the degeneration of the Absolute into the phenomenal, and not before; that our will, our desire and all these things always come after that. I think Schopenhauer's philosophy makes a mistake in its interpretation of Vedanta, for it seeks to make the will everything. Schopenhauer makes the will stand in the place of the Absolute. But the absolute cannot be presented as will, for will is something changeable and phenomenal, and over the line, drawn above time, space, and causation, there is no change, no motion; it is only below the line that external motion and internal motion, called thought begin. There can be no will on the other side, and will therefore, cannot be the cause of this universe. Coming nearer, we see in our own bodies that will is not the cause of every movement. I move this chair; my will is the cause of this movement, and this will becomes manifested as muscular motion at the other end. But the same power that moves the chair is moving the heart, the lungs, and so on, but not through will. Given that the power is the same, it only becomes will when it rises to the plane of consciousness, and to call it will before it has risen to this plane is a misnomer. This makes a good deal of confusion in Schopenhauer's philosophy.
A stone falls and we ask, why? This question is possible only on the supposition that nothing happens without a cause. I request you to make this very clear in your minds, for whenever we ask why anything happens, we are taking for granted that everything that happens must have a why, that is to say, it must have been preceded by something else which acted as the cause. This precedence and succession are what we call the law of causation. It means that everything in the universe is by turn a cause and an effect. It is the cause of certain things which come after it, and is itself the effect of something else which has preceded it. This is called the law of causation and is a necessary condition of all our thinking. We believe that every particle in the universe, whatever it be, is in relation to every other particle. There has been much discussion as to how this idea arose. In Europe, there have been intuitive philosophers who believed that it was constitutional in humanity, others have believed it came from experience, but the question has never been settled. We shall see later on what the Vedanta has to say about it. But first we have to understand this that the very asking of the question "why" presupposes that everything round us has been preceded by certain things and will be succeeded by certain other things. The other belief involved in this question is that nothing in the universe is independent, that everything is acted upon by something outside itself. Interdependence is the law of the whole universe. In asking what caused the Absolute, what an error we are making! To ask this question we have to suppose that the Absolute also is bound by something, that It is dependent on something; and in making this supposition, we drag the Absolute down to the level of the universe. For in the Absolute there is neither time, space, nor causation; It is all one. That which exists by itself alone cannot have any cause. That which is free cannot have any cause; else it would not be free, but bound. That which has relativity cannot be free. Thus we see the very question, why the Infinite became the finite, is an impossible one, for it is self-contradictory. Coming from subtleties to the logic of our common plane, to common sense, we can see this from another side, when we seek to know how the Absolute has become the relative. Supposing we knew the answer, would the Absolute remain the Absolute? It would have become relative. What is meant by knowledge in our common-sense idea? It is only something that has become limited by our mind, that we know, and when it is beyond our mind, it is not knowledge. Now if the Absolute becomes limited by the mind, It is no more Absolute; It has become finite. Everything limited by the mind becomes finite. Therefore to know the Absolute is again a contradiction in terms. That is why this question has never been answered, because if it were answered, there would no more be an Absolute. A God known is no more God; He has become finite like one of us. He cannot be known He is always the Unknowable One.
But what Advaita says is that God is more than knowable. This is a great fact to learn. You must not go home with the idea that God is unknowable in the sense in which agnostics put it. For instance, here is a chair, it is known to us. But what is beyond ether or whether people exist there or not is possibly unknowable. But God is neither known nor unknowable in this sense. He is something still higher than known; that is what is meant by God being unknown and unknowable. The expression is not used in the sense in which it may be said that some questions are unknown ant unknowable. God is more than known. This chair is known, but God is intensely more than that because in and through Him we have to know this chair itself. He is the Witness, the eternal Witness of all knowledge. Whatever we know we have to know in and through Him. He is the Essence of our own Self. He is the Essence of this ego, this I and we cannot know anything excepting in and through that I. Therefore you have to know everything in and through the Brahman. To know the chair you have to know it in and through God. Thus God is infinitely nearer to us than the chair, but yet He is infinitely higher. Neither known, nor unknown, but something infinitely higher than either. He is your Self. "Who would live a second, who would breathe a second in this universe, if that Blessed One were not filling it?" Because in and through Him we breathe, in and through Him we exist. Not the He is standing somewhere and making my blood circulate. What is meant is that He is the Essence of all this, tie Soul of my soul. You cannot by any possibility say you know Him; it would be degrading Him. You cannot get out of yourself, so you cannot know Him. Knowledge is objectification. For instance, in memory you are objectifying many things, projecting them out of yourself. All memory, all the things which I have seen and which I know are in my mind. The pictures, the impressions of all these things, are in my mind, and when I would try to think of them, to know them, the first act of knowledge would be to project them outside. This cannot be done with God, because He is the Essence of our souls, we cannot project Him outside ourselves. Here is one of the profoundest passages in Vedanta: "He that is the Essence of your soul, He is the Truth, He is the Self, thou art That, O Shvetaketu." This is what is meant by "Thou art God." You cannot describe Him by any other language. All attempts of language, calling Him father, or brother, or our dearest friend, are attempts to objectify God, which cannot be done. He is the Eternal Subject of everything. I am the subject of this chair; I see the chair; so God is the Eternal Subject of my soul. How can you objectify Him, the Essence of your souls, the Reality of everything? Thus, I would repeat to you once more, God is neither knowable nor unknowable, but something infinitely higher than either. He is one with us, and that which is one with us is neither knowable nor unknowable, as our own self. You cannot know your own self; you cannot move it out and make it an object to look at, because you are that and cannot separate yourself from it. Neither is it unknowable, for what is better known than yourself? It is really the centre of our knowledge. In exactly the same sense, God is neither unknowable nor known, but infinitely higher than both; for He is our real Self.
First, we see then that the question, "What caused the Absolute?" is a contradiction in terms; and secondly, we find that the idea of God in the Advaita is this Oneness; and, therefore, we cannot objectify Him, for we are always living and moving in Him, whether we know it or not. Whatever we do is always through Him. Now the question is: What are time, space, and causation? Advaita means non-duality; there are no two, but one. Yet we see that here is a proposition that the Absolute is manifesting Itself as many, through the veil of time, space, and causation. Therefore it seems that here are two, the Absolute and Mâyâ (the sum total of time, space, and causation). It seems apparently very convincing that there are two. To this the Advaitist replies that it cannot be called two. To have two, we must have two absolute independent existences which cannot be caused. In the first place time, space, and causation cannot be said to be independent existences. Time is entirely a dependent existence; it changes with every change of our mind. Sometimes in dream one imagines that one has lived several years, at other times several months were passed as one second. So, time is entirely dependent on our state of mind. Secondly, the idea of time vanishes altogether, sometimes. So with space. We cannot know what space is. Yet it is there, indefinable, and cannot exist separate from anything else. So with causation.
The one peculiar attribute we find in time, space, and causation is that they cannot exist separate from other things. Try to think of space without colour, or limits, or any connection with the things around — just abstract space. You cannot; you have to think of it as the space between two limits or between three objects. It has to be connected with some object to have any existence. So with time; you cannot have any idea of abstract time, but you have to take two events, one preceding and the other succeeding, and join the two events by the idea of succession. Time depends on two events, just as space has to be related to outside objects. And the idea of causation is inseparable from time and space. This is the peculiar thing about them that they have no independent existence. They have not even the existence which the chair or the wall has. They are as shadows around everything which you cannot catch. They have no real existence; yet they are not non-existent, seeing that through them all things are manifesting as this universe. Thus we see, first, that the combination of time, space, and causation has neither existence nor non-existence. Secondly, it sometimes vanishes. To give an illustration, there is a wave on the ocean. The wave is the same as the ocean certainly, and yet we know it is a wave, and as such different from the ocean. What makes this difference? The name and the form, that is, the idea in the mind and the form. Now, can we think of a wave-form as something separate from the ocean? Certainly not. It is always associated with the ocean idea. If the wave subsides, the form vanishes in a moment, and yet the form was not a delusion. So long as the wave existed the form was there, and you were bound to see the form. This is Maya.
The whole of this universe, therefore, is, as it were, a peculiar form; the Absolute is that ocean while you and I, and suns and stars, and everything else are various waves of that ocean. And what makes the waves different? Only the form, and that form is time, space, and causation, all entirely dependent on the wave. As soon as the wave goes, they vanish. As soon as the individual gives up this Maya, it vanishes for him and he becomes free. The whole struggle is to get rid of this clinging on to time, space, and causation, which are always obstacles in our way. What is the theory of evolution? What are the two factors? A tremendous potential power which is trying to express itself, and circumstances which are holding it down, the environments not allowing it to express itself. So, in order to fight with these environments, the power is taking new bodies again and again. An amoeba, in the struggle, gets another body and conquers some obstacles, then gets another body and so on, until it becomes man. Now, if you carry this idea to its logical conclusion, there must come a time when that power that was in the amoeba and which evolved as man will have conquered all the obstructions that nature can bring before it and will thus escape from all its environments. This idea expressed in metaphysics will take this form; there are two components in every action, the one the subject, the other the object and the one aim of life is to make the subject master of the object. For instance, I feel unhappy because a man scolds me. My struggle will be to make myself strong enough to conquer the environment, so that he may scold and I shall not feel. That is how we are all trying to conquer. What is meant by morality? Making the subject strong by attuning it to the Absolute, so that finite nature ceases to have control over us. It is a logical conclusion of our philosophy that there must come a time when we shall have conquered all the environments, because nature is finite.
Here is another thing to learn. How do you know that nature is finite? You can only know this through metaphysics. Nature is that Infinite under limitations. Therefore it is finite. So, there must come a time when we shall have conquered all environments. And how are we to conquer them? We cannot possibly conquer all the objective environments. We cannot. The little fish wants to fly from its enemies in the water. How does it do so? By evolving wings and becoming a bird. The fish did not change the water or the air; the change was in itself. Change is always subjective. All through evolution you find that the conquest of nature comes by change in the subject. Apply this to religion and morality, and you will find that the conquest of evil comes by the change in the subjective alone. That is how the Advaita system gets its whole force, on the subjective side of man. To talk of evil and misery is nonsense, because they do not exist outside. If I am immune against all anger, I never feel angry. If I am proof against all hatred, I never feel hatred.
This is, therefore, the process by which to achieve that conquest — through the subjective, by perfecting the subjective. I may make bold to say that the only religion which agrees with, and even goes a little further than modern researches, both on physical and moral lines is the Advaita, and that is why it appeals to modern scientists so much. They find that the old dualistic theories are not enough for them, do not satisfy their necessities. A man must have not only faith, but intellectual faith too. Now, in this later part of the nineteenth century, such an idea as that religion coming from any other source than one's own hereditary religion must be false shows that there is still weakness left, and such ideas must be given up. I do not mean that such is the case in this country alone, it is in every country, and nowhere more than in my own. This Advaita was never allowed to come to the people. At first some monks got hold of it and took it to the forests, and so it came to be called the "Forest Philosophy". By the mercy of the Lord, the Buddha came and preached it to the masses, and the whole nation became Buddhists. Long after that, when atheists and agnostics had destroyed the nation again, it was found out that Advaita was the only way to save India from materialism.
Thus has Advaita twice saved India from materialism Before the Buddha came, materialism had spread to a fearful extent, and it was of a most hideous kind, not like that of the present day, but of a far worse nature. I am a materialist in a certain sense, because I believe that there is only One. That is what the materialist wants you to believe; only he calls it matter and I call it God. The materialists admit that out of this matter all hope, and religion, and everything have come. I say, all these have come out of Brahman. But the materialism that prevailed before Buddha was that crude sort of materialism which taught, "Eat, drink, and be merry; there is no God, soul or heaven; religion is a concoction of wicked priests." It taught the morality that so long as you live, you must try to live happily; eat, though you have to borrow money for the food, and never mind about repaying it. That was the old materialism, and that kind of philosophy spread so much that even today it has got the name of "popular philosophy". Buddha brought the Vedanta to light, gave it to the people, and saved India. A thousand years after his death a similar state of things again prevailed. The mobs, the masses, and various races, had been converted to Buddhism; naturally the teachings of the Buddha became in time degenerated, because most of the people were very ignorant. Buddhism taught no God, no Ruler of the universe, so gradually the masses brought their gods, and devils, and hobgoblins out again, and a tremendous hotchpotch was made of Buddhism in India. Again materialism came to the fore, taking the form of licence with the higher classes and superstition with the lower. Then Shankaracharya arose and once more revivified the Vedanta philosophy. He made it a rationalistic philosophy. In the Upanishads the arguments are often very obscure. By Buddha the moral side of the philosophy was laid stress upon, and by Shankaracharya, the intellectual side. He worked out, rationalised, and placed before men the wonderful coherent system of Advaita.
Materialism prevails in Europe today. You may pray for the salvation of the modern sceptics, but they do not yield, they want reason. The salvation of Europe depends on a rationalistic religion, and Advaita — the non-duality, the Oneness, the idea of the Impersonal God — is the only religion that can have any hold on any intellectual people. It comes whenever religion seems to disappear and irreligion seems to prevail, and that is why it has taken ground in Europe and America.
I would say one thing more in connection with this philosophy. In the old Upanishads we find sublime poetry; their authors were poets. Plato says, inspiration comes to people through poetry, and it seems as if these ancient Rishis, seers of Truth, were raised above humanity to show these truths through poetry. They never preached, nor philosophised, nor wrote. Music came out of their hearts. In Buddha we had the great, universal heart and infinite patience, making religion practical and bringing it to everyone's door. In Shankaracharya we saw tremendous intellectual power, throwing the scorching light of reason upon everything. We want today that bright sun of intellectuality joined with the heart of Buddha, the wonderful infinite heart of love and mercy. This union will give us the highest philosophy. Science and religion will meet and shake hands. Poetry and philosophy will become friends. This will be the religion of the future, and if we can work it out, we may be sure that it will be for all times and peoples. This is the one way that will prove acceptable to modern science, for it has almost come to it. When the scientific teacher asserts that all things are the manifestation of one force, does it not remind you of the God of whom you hear in the Upanishads: "As the one fire entering into the universe expresses itself in various forms, even so that One Soul is expressing Itself in every soul and yet is infinitely more besides?" Do you not see whither science is tending? The Hindu nation proceeded through the study of the mind, through metaphysics and logic. The European nations start from external nature, and now they too are coming to the same results. We find that searching through the mind we at last come to that Oneness, that Universal One, the Internal Soul of everything, the Essence and Reality of everything, the Ever-Free, the Ever-blissful, the Ever-Existing. Through material science we come to the same Oneness. Science today is telling us that all things are but the manifestation of one energy which is the sum total of everything which exists, and the trend of humanity is towards freedom and not towards bondage. Why should men be moral? Because through morality is the path towards freedom, and immorality leads to bondage.
Another peculiarity of the Advaita system is that from its very start it is non-destructive. This is another glory, the boldness to preach, "Do not disturb the faith of any, even of those who through ignorance have attached themselves to lower forms of worship." That is what it says, do not disturb, but help everyone to get higher and higher; include all humanity. This philosophy preaches a God who is a sum total. If you seek a universal religion which can apply to everyone, that religion must not be composed of only the parts, but it must always be their sum total and include all degrees of religious development.
This idea is not clearly found in any other religious system. They are all parts equally struggling to attain to the whole. The existence of the part is only for this. So, from the very first, Advaita had no antagonism with the various sects existing in India. There are dualists existing today, and their number is by far the largest in India, because dualism naturally appeals to less educated minds. It is a very convenient, natural, common-sense explanation of the universe. But with these dualists, Advaita has no quarrel. The one thinks that God is outside the universe, somewhere in heaven, and the other, that He is his own Soul, and that it will be a blasphemy to call Him anything more distant. Any idea of separation would be terrible. He is the nearest of the near. There is no word in any language to express this nearness except the word Oneness. With any other idea the Advaitist is not satisfied just as the dualist is shocked with the concept of the Advaita, and thinks it blasphemous. At the same time the Advaitist knows that these other ideas must be, and so has no quarrel with the dualist who is on the right road. From his standpoint, the dualist will have to see many. It is a constitutional necessity of his standpoint. Let him have it. The Advaitist knows that whatever may be his theories, he is going to the same goal as he himself. There he differs entirely from dualist who is forced by his point of view to believe that all differing views are wrong. The dualists all the world over naturally believe in a Personal God who is purely anthropomorphic, who like a great potentate in this world is pleased with some and displeased with others. He is arbitrarily pleased with some people or races and showers blessing upon them. Naturally the dualist comes to the conclusion that God has favourites, and he hopes to be one of them. You will find that in almost every religion is the idea: "We are the favourites of our God, and only by believing as we do, can you be taken into favour with Him." Some dualists are so narrow as to insist that only the few that have been predestined to the favour of God can be saved; the rest may try ever so hard, but they cannot be accepted. I challenge you to show me one dualistic religion which has not more or less of this exclusiveness. And, therefore, in the nature of things, dualistic religions are bound to fight and quarrel with each other, and this they have ever been doing. Again, these dualists win the popular favour by appealing to the vanity of the uneducated. They like to feel that they enjoy exclusive privileges. The dualist thinks you cannot be moral until you have a God with a rod in His hand, ready to punish you. The unthinking masses are generally dualists, and they, poor fellows, have been persecuted for thousands of years in every country; and their idea of salvation is, therefore, freedom from the fear of punishment. I was asked by a clergyman in America, "What! you have no Devil in your religion? How can that be?" But we find that the best and the greatest men that have been born in the world have worked with that high impersonal idea. It is the Man who said, "I and my Father are One", whose power has descended unto millions. For thousands of years it has worked for good. And we know that the same Man, because he was a nondualist, was merciful to others. To the masses who could not conceive of anything higher than a Personal God, he said, "Pray to your Father in heaven." To others who could grasp a higher idea, he said, "I am the vine, ye are the branches," but to his disciples to whom he revealed himself more fully, he proclaimed the highest truth, "I and my Father are One."
It was the great Buddha, who never cared for the dualist gods, and who has been called an atheist and materialist, who yet was ready to give up his body for a poor goat. That Man set in motion the highest moral ideas any nation can have. Whenever there is a moral code, it is ray of light from that Man. We cannot force the great hearts of the world into narrow limits, and keep them there, especially at this time in the history of humanity when there is a degree of intellectual development such as was never dreamed of even a hundred years ago, when a wave of scientific knowledge has arisen which nobody, even fifty years ago, would have dreamed of. By trying to force people into narrow limits you degrade them into animals and unthinking masses. You kill their moral life. What is now wanted is a combination of the greatest heart with the highest intellectuality, of infinite love with infinite knowledge. The Vedantist gives no other attributes to God except these three — that He is Infinite Existence, Infinite Knowledge, and Infinite Bliss, and he regards these three as One. Existence without knowledge and love cannot be; knowledge without love and love without knowledge cannot be. What we want is the harmony of Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss Infinite. For that is our goal. We want harmony, not one-sided development. And it is possible to have the intellect of a Shankara with the heart of a Buddha. I hope we shall all struggle to attain to that blessed combination.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。