灵魂的自由
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→第十章 2→ 3→灵魂的自由 4→ 5→（1896年11月5日讲于伦敦） 6→ 7→我们一直在研究的卡塔奥义书，写成时间比我们现在转向的《歌者奥义书》晚得多。语言更为现代， 8→而思想更为系统。在较古老的奥义书中，语言极为古雅， 9→如吠陀赞歌部分的语言，有时不得不跋涉 10→相当多的非必要内容才能抵达核心教义。我曾告诉你们的那种仪轨文献， 11→构成吠陀的第二部分，在这部古老奥义书上留下了大量印记， 12→以至于其中超过一半仍是仪轨性的。 13→然而，研究极古老的奥义书有一个重大收获。你可以 14→在其中追溯灵性观念的历史发展轨迹。在较晚近的奥义书中，灵性观念 15→已被汇聚并整合于一处；如在博伽梵歌[Bhagavad Gita]中，举例而言，我们或许 16→可以将其视为最后一部奥义书，你在其中找不到任何 17→这些仪轨观念的痕迹。博伽梵歌如同一束 18→从各奥义书中采集的灵性真理的美丽花朵组成的花束。但在 19→博伽梵歌中你无法研究灵性观念的兴起，你无法 20→将它们追溯至其源头。要做到这一点，正如许多人所指出的，你必须 21→研究吠陀。附着于这些书籍的伟大神圣观念， 22→使它们比世界上任何其他书籍更完好地保存免遭篡改。 23→在它们之中，处于最高与最低的思想皆被保存，重要的与 24→非重要的，最为崇高的教导与最简单的细节 25→并列共存；因为没有人敢触碰它们。注疏者们来了，试图将其抹平并 26→从古老的事物中带出精彩的新观念；他们试图在最普通的陈述中也寻找灵性观念，但文本 27→依然如故，正因如此，它们是最精彩的历史研究材料。我们都知道， 28→在每种宗教的典籍中，都曾为了适应后世日益增长的灵性而作出更改； 29→一个词在这里被改动，另一个词在那里被替换， 30→如此等等。这种情况在吠陀文献中可能从未发生过， 31→或即便曾经发生，也几乎难以察觉。因此我们拥有这一巨大优势， 32→我们能够以其原始意义研究思想， 33→注意它们如何发展，如何从唯物主义观念中进化出越来越精微的灵性观念， 34→直至它们在吠檀多中达到其最大高度。书中也有一些古老风俗习惯的描写， 35→但它们在奥义书中出现不多。所用语言简洁、凝练、便于记忆。 36→ 37→这些书籍的作者只是将这些文行草草记下， 38→作为帮助记忆某些他们认为早已为人熟知的事实的辅助。在他们所 39→讲述的叙事中，他们想当然地认为它 40→已为他们所有听众所熟知。这样一来出现了巨大的困难， 41→我们几乎不知道这些故事中任何一个的真实含义， 42→因为传统几乎已经消亡，而其残留的也已被大量 43→夸大。许多新的解读被强加于它们，以至于当你在往世书中找到它们时， 44→它们已经成为了抒情诗。就如在西方， 45→在西方种族政治发展中，我们发现这一突出的事实：他们无法忍受 46→专制统治，他们总是试图阻止任何一个人统治他们， 47→并逐渐迈向越来越高的民主观念， 48→越来越高的关于身体自由的观念；在印度形而上学中， 49→精神生活发展中也出现了完全相同的现象。 50→众神的多元性让位于一个宇宙之神，而在奥义书中， 51→甚至有对那唯一之神的反叛。不仅仅是宇宙的许多统治者 52→主宰命运的观念令人无法忍受，就连有一个人统治这个 53→宇宙的观念也是无法容忍的。 54→这是首先触动我们的事情。这一观念不断发展壮大， 55→直至在奥义书几乎每一部中达到其顶点，而那就是对 56→这个宇宙之神的废黜。神的人格消失了，非人格性出现。神不再是 57→一个人，不再是一个被放大和夸大的人类，统治着这个 58→宇宙，而是成为了每一众生中的一个体现的原则，遍及 59→整个宇宙。从人格神到非人格，同时将人保留为 60→人格，这在逻辑上是不一致的。因此人格之人被打破，原则之人被 61→建立。人格只是一种现象，原则在其背后。如此， 62→从两方面同时，我们发现人格的分解以及对原则的趋近， 63→人格神趋近非人格， 64→人格之人趋近非人格之人。然后是 65→非人格神与非人格之人两条前进线逐渐汇聚的相继阶段。 66→奥义书体现了这两条线最终合而为一的阶段， 67→而每部奥义书的最后一语是，"你即那个"。只有一个 68→永恒极乐的原则，而那个一者正在显现为 69→所有这种多样性。 70→ 71→然后哲学家们来了。奥义书的工作似乎已在那一点上终结； 72→下一步由哲学家们承接。奥义书为他们提供了框架， 73→他们必须填充细节。如此，自然地会产生许多问题。假定 74→只有一个非人格的原则在所有这些多元形式中显现自身， 75→这一者如何成为多？这只是以另一种方式提出了 76→同一个古老问题，它以粗陋的形式进入人心，即对邪恶之因的追问等等。 77→世界上为何存在邪恶，其原因是什么？但同样的问题 78→现在已经变得精炼、抽象。不再从感官的平台上提问， 79→我们为何不幸福，而是从哲学的平台上。这唯一的原则如何 80→成为多元？而答案，正如我们已经见到的，印度所产生的 81→最佳答案，是幻象理论，它说它实际上 82→并未成为多元，它实际上并未失去其真实本性的任何东西。 83→多元性只是表象。人只是表面上是一个人，但 84→实质上他是非人格的存在。神只是表面上是一个人，但 85→实质上他是非人格的存在。 86→ 87→即便在这个答案中也有相继的阶段，哲学家们的意见 88→也各有不同。并非所有印度哲学家都承认这个幻象理论。 89→可能大多数人不承认。有些二元论者，持一种粗陋的 90→二元论，不允许提出这个问题，而是在其萌芽之时就将其扼杀。 91→他们说，"你无权提出这样的问题，你无权寻求解释； 92→这简单地是神的意志，我们必须安静地服从它。 93→人的灵魂没有自由。一切都是预定的——我们将做什么、 94→拥有什么、享受什么、受苦什么；当苦难来临， 95→忍耐是我们的责任；若我们不这样做，我们将受到更多惩罚。 96→我们怎么知道？因为吠陀如此说。" 97→如此他们有了自己的经文与含义，并想要强制执行它们。 98→ 99→还有其他一些人，虽然不承认幻象理论，但持中间立场。 100→他们说整个创造物如同神的身体。 101→神是一切灵魂和整个自然的灵魂。就个体灵魂而言， 102→收缩来自作恶。当一个人做了任何恶事，他的灵魂开始 103→收缩，他的力量减少并不断递减， 104→直到他做了善事，它才再次扩展。似乎有一个观念在 105→所有印度体系中，我认为，在世界上每一个体系中都共通， 106→无论他们是否意识到，那就是我应该称之为 107→人的神性的东西。世界上没有任何体系，没有任何真正的 108→宗教，不持有这样的观念：人的灵魂，无论它是什么， 109→无论其与神的关系如何，在本质上是纯洁而完美的， 110→无论是以神话、寓言还是哲学的语言表达。其真实本性是 111→福祉与力量，而非软弱与痛苦。苦难以某种方式出现了。 112→粗陋的体系可能将它称为人格化的邪恶，恶魔 113→或阿赫里曼，来解释这种苦难是如何出现的。其他体系可能试图 114→将神与恶魔合而为一，使某些人痛苦，另一些人 115→快乐，毫无任何理由。还有一些更为深思熟虑的，引入了幻象理论 116→等等。但有一个事实清晰地脱颖而出，而这正是我们 117→必须处理的。毕竟，这些哲学观念与体系不过是 118→心智的体操，智识的练习。通过每个国家、 119→每种宗教中大量迷信中显现出来的，对我来说似乎 120→清晰、且唯一的那个光辉观念，是人是神性的， 121→神性是我们本性的那一观念。 122→ 123→其他一切都是叠加，正如吠檀多所称。某些东西已被叠加， 124→但那神性的本性从不消逝。在最堕落的人以及 125→在最圣洁的人中，它永远存在。它必须被唤出， 126→它将自行显现。我们只需求问，它就会显现自身。古代的人 127→知道火居住于燧石与干木之中，但需要摩擦来将它唤出。如此， 128→这自由与纯洁之火是每一个灵魂的本性，而非一种特质，因为 129→特质可以被获取，因此也可以失去。灵魂与自由合而为一，而 130→灵魂与存在合而为一，而灵魂与知识合而为一。 131→存在-知识-至福绝对（Sat-Chit-Ananda）——绝对的存在-知识-极乐——是 132→灵魂的本性，是灵魂与生俱来的权利，而我们所见的所有显现 133→都是其表达，或暗淡或明亮地显现自身。即便死亡也不过是 134→那真实存在的显现。生与死、生命与衰朽、 135→退化与再生——都是那一体性的显现。如此，知识，无论它如何 136→显现自身，或以无知，或以学问，不过是那同一 137→知识（Chit），知识的本质的显现；差别仅在程度，而非种类。 138→在我们脚下爬行的最低等蠕虫与这个世界所能产生的 139→最高天才之间，知识的差别只是程度上的，而非种类上的。 140→吠檀多思想家大胆地说，今生的享乐，甚至最为堕落的欢乐， 141→也不过是那神性至福（那灵魂的本质）的显现。 142→ 143→这一观念在吠檀多中似乎最为突出，正如我所说， 144→我觉得每种宗教都持有它。我还没有了解到任何不持有它的宗教。 145→这是贯穿所有宗教的唯一普世观念。以圣经为例。 146→你在其中发现了关于第一个人亚当是纯洁的，而 147→其纯洁因随后的恶行而被玷污的寓言式陈述。从这个寓言 148→清楚可见，他们认为原始人的本性是完美的。我们所见的不纯， 149→我们所感受到的软弱，只是对那本性的叠加，而 150→基督教随后的历史表明他们也相信恢复那旧日状态的可能性， 151→不，是确定性。这是圣经整体的历史，旧约与新约合而为一。 152→伊斯兰教也一样：他们也相信亚当以及亚当的纯洁，并通过 153→穆罕默德，恢复那失去状态的道路被开辟。佛教亦然： 154→他们相信一种称为涅槃[Nirvana]的状态，那超越这个相对世界的境界。 155→它与吠檀多者所说的梵完全相同，而 156→整个佛教体系建立在恢复那涅槃失落状态的观念之上。在每个体系中， 157→我们都发现这一教义存在，你无法得到任何 158→不是本来就属于你的东西。你不欠这个宇宙中任何人。 159→你主张属于你自己的生而有之的权利，正如一位伟大的吠檀多哲学家 160→用其一部著作的题目最富诗意地表达的那样—— 161→"获取我们自己的帝国"。那帝国是我们的；我们失去了它，我们必须重新获取它。 162→然而幻象[Maya]论者说，失去帝国是一种幻觉； 163→你从未失去它。这是唯一的差别。 164→ 165→尽管所有体系都同意我们曾经拥有那帝国，并且我们失去了它， 166→但它们给了我们各种各样的关于如何重新获取它的建议。一方说 167→你必须履行某些仪式，向某些神像支付一定数量的钱， 168→吃某些种类的食物，以一种特别的方式生活， 169→才能重新获取那帝国。另一方说，若你哭泣，向 170→自然之外的某个存在叩头，祈求宽恕，你将重新获取那帝国。 171→又有一方说，若你全心全意地爱那样一个存在， 172→你将重新获取那帝国。所有这些各种各样的建议都在奥义书中。当我继续讲下去， 173→你会发现是这样的。但最后的，也是最伟大的忠告是，你根本 174→不需要哭泣。你不需要经历所有这些仪式，也不需要注意 175→如何重新获取你的帝国，因为你从未失去它。你为何 176→要去寻找你从未失去的东西？你已经是纯洁的，你已经是自由的。 177→若你认为你是自由的，在这一刻你便是自由的，而若 178→你认为你是被束缚的，你便会被束缚。这是一个非常大胆的陈述， 179→正如我在这个课程开始时告诉你们的，我必须非常大胆地与你们讲话。 180→它现在或许会令你们惊恐，但当你思考它， 181→在你自己的生命中实现它，你将认识到我所说的是真实的。 182→因为，假若自由不是你的本性，无论用什么方式 183→你都不可能变得自由。假若你曾经是自由的，并以某种方式 184→失去了那自由，那表明你一开始便不是自由的。若你曾经是自由的， 185→是什么能使你失去它？独立者永远不可能被使成依赖的； 186→若它真的是依赖的，其独立只是幻觉。 187→ 188→那么，在这两方面中，你将选择哪一方？若你说灵魂就其本性而言 189→是纯洁而自由的，自然地得出结论，宇宙中没有任何东西 190→能够使它受束缚或受限制。但若自然中有任何东西 191→能够束缚灵魂，自然地得出结论，它并不自由，而 192→你关于它是自由的陈述是一种妄想。因此，若我们可能达到自由， 193→那么不可避免的结论是，灵魂就其本性而言是自由的。 194→不可能是别的样子。自由意味着独立于任何外部的东西，那意味着 195→它外部的任何东西都不能作为原因对它起作用。灵魂是无因的，由此而来 196→我们拥有的一切伟大观念。除非你承认灵魂就其本性而言是自由的， 197→换句话说，它不能被任何外部的东西所影响，否则 198→你无法建立灵魂的不朽。因为死亡是某个外部原因所产生的结果。 199→我喝了毒药，我死了，这表明我的身体可以被某种 200→称为毒药的外部事物所影响。但若灵魂是自由的，自然地得出结论， 201→没有任何东西能够影响它，它永远不会死。自由、不朽、 202→福祉，都取决于灵魂超越因果律，超越这种幻象。在 203→这两方面中，你将选择哪一方？要么将第一个称为妄想， 204→要么将第二个称为妄想。我当然会将第二个称为妄想。这更符合
1→那么，这两方面，你将选择哪一方？若你说灵魂就其本性而言是纯洁而自由的， 2→那么自然而然地，这宇宙中没有任何东西能够使它受束缚或被限制。但若 3→自然中存在着能够束缚灵魂的东西，那么自然而然地，它 4→就不是自由的，而你关于它是自由的陈述只是妄想。因此，若我们 5→有可能达到自由，这个结论是不可避免的：灵魂就其本性而言是自由的。 6→不可能是别的样子。自由意味着独立于外部任何事物，这意味着其自身之外的任何事物 7→都不能对它产生因果作用。灵魂是无因的，由此产生了我们所有的 8→伟大观念。你无法确立灵魂的不朽，除非你承认它就其本性而言是自由的，或者换言之， 9→外部任何事物都不能对它起作用。因为死亡是由某种外部原因产生的效果。 10→我饮毒药而死，如此表明我的身体能够被称为毒药的外部事物所影响。但若 11→灵魂是自由的，这一点是真实的，那么自然而然地，没有任何东西能够 12→影响它，它永远不会死去。自由、不朽、福祉，一切 13→都取决于灵魂超越因果律，超越这幻象[Maya]。这 14→两者你将选择哪一个？要么使第一个成为妄想，要么使 15→第二个成为妄想。当然我会使第二个成为妄想。这更 16→与我所有的感受和愿望相符合。我完全清楚我就其本性而言是自由的， 17→我不会承认这种束缚是真实的，而我的自由是妄想。 18→ 19→ 20→这场讨论以某种形式在所有哲学中进行着。即便在 21→最现代的哲学中，你也会发现同样的讨论出现。有 22→两个派别。一方说根本没有灵魂，灵魂的观念是由 23→物质粒子不断流转所产生的妄想，带来了 24→你称之为身体或大脑的组合；自由的印象是这些 25→粒子的振动、运动与持续流转的结果。有些佛教派别持有 26→同样的观点，并以此例说明：若你拿一支火炬并迅速 27→旋转它，将会出现一个光圈。那个光圈实际上并不存在， 28→因为火炬每一时刻都在改变位置。我们不过是一束束 29→小粒子，在它们的快速旋转中产生了永久灵魂的幻觉。 30→另一方则陈述，在思想的迅速更迭中，物质作为妄想而呈现， 31→实际上并不存在。如此我们看到一方主张精神是妄想，另一方主张 32→物质是妄想。你将选择哪一方？当然，我们将选择精神而否认物质。 33→两方的论据相似，只是在精神一方， 34→论据略微更有力。因为没有人曾见过物质是什么。我们只能感受到自身。 35→我从未认识一个能够感受到自身之外物质的人。没有人 36→曾能够跳出自身之外。因此，论据在精神一方 37→略微更有力。其次，精神理论能够解释宇宙，而唯物主义则不能。因此 38→唯物主义的解释是不合逻辑的。若你将所有哲学提炼分析， 39→你会发现它们归结为这两种立场之一， 40→或此或彼。如此在这里，以更复杂、更具哲学性的形式，我们发现了同样关于 41→自然纯洁与自由的问题。一方说第一个是妄想，另一方说 42→第二个是妄想。当然，我们站在第二方，相信我们的束缚是妄想。 43→ 44→ 45→吠檀多的解决方案是，我们不受束缚，我们已经是自由的。不仅如此， 46→说或想我们受束缚是危险的——这是一个错误，是自我催眠。一旦你说 47→"我受束缚"、"我软弱"、"我无助"，祸哉！你在自己身上又铸了 48→一条锁链。不要说它，不要想它。我曾听说过一个人，住在森林中， 49→日夜重复着"希瓦哈姆"——我是那福者——某天一只老虎扑向他， 50→将他拖走欲置其于死地；河对岸的人看到了这一切， 51→并听到他的声音，只要声音还在他身上，就听到他说"希瓦哈姆"—— 52→即便在老虎的利爪中亦然。历史上有过许多这样的人。有过在被 53→碎刀剐割时仍祝福敌人的人。"我是祂，我是祂；你也是如此。 54→我是纯洁的、完美的，我所有的敌人也是如此。你是祂，我也是祂。" 55→那便是力量的立场。然而，二元论者的宗教中有着伟大而奇妙的东西； 56→超然于自然之外的人格神的观念，我们对祂的礼拜与热爱，是奇妙的。 57→有时这个观念非常令人安慰。但吠檀多说，这种安慰有如鸦片的效用， 58→并非自然的。从长远来看它带来软弱，而今天这个世界所需要的， 59→比以往任何时候都更甚，是力量。正是软弱，吠檀多说， 60→是这世界一切苦难的根源。软弱是受苦的唯一原因。我们变得可怜 61→是因为我们软弱。我们撒谎、偷窃、杀戮、犯下其他罪行， 62→是因为我们软弱。我们受苦是因为我们软弱。我们死亡是因为我们软弱。 63→在没有任何东西使我们软弱之处，既无死亡也无悲伤。我们 64→因妄想而悲苦。放弃妄想，整个问题就消散了。这确实简单明了。 65→通过所有这些哲学讨论与艰深的心智体操，我们来到这一个宗教 66→观念，这是整个世界中最简单的。 67→ 68→ 69→一元论的吠檀多是你能够表达真理的最简单形式。在印度及其他地方 70→教导二元论是一个巨大的错误，因为人们没有注目于最终原则， 71→而只思考那极其复杂的过程。对许多人来说，这些艰深 72→的哲学与逻辑命题令人惊惧。他们认为这些东西不能 73→变得普世化，不能在日常实际生活中遵循，而且在这样一种哲学的名义之下， 74→生活的放纵会大量产生。 75→ 76→ 77→但我根本不相信向世界宣扬一元论观念会产生不道德与软弱。 78→相反，我有理由相信这是唯一的疗法。若这是真理，为何让人们 79→喝沟渠里的水，而生命之流就在旁边流淌？若这是真理， 80→说他们都是纯洁的，为何不在此刻将它教导给全世界？为何不以 81→雷鸣般的声音将它告诉每一个降生的人，告诉圣人与罪人， 82→男人、女人与孩子，告诉坐在宝座上的人 83→和在街道上扫地的人？ 84→ 85→ 86→现在这看起来是一项非常宏大而伟大的事业；对许多人来说似乎令人震惊， 87→但那只是因为迷信，没有别的原因。通过吃各种劣质难消化的食物， 88→或通过饥饿自己，我们变得无力享用一顿美餐。我们从 89→童年起就听惯了软弱的言辞。你会听到人们说他们不相信鬼魂，但 90→与此同时，很少有人在黑暗中不会产生一点毛骨悚然的感觉。这纯粹是迷信。 91→宗教迷信也是如此。在这个国家有一些人，若我告诉他们 92→没有什么叫魔鬼的存在，他们会认为所有宗教都完了。许多人 93→对我说，没有魔鬼怎么能有宗教？没有某人来引导我们怎么能有宗教？ 94→我们怎么能在不被某人统治的情况下生活？我们喜欢被如此对待， 95→因为我们已习以为常。除非每天被某人斥责，否则我们就不快乐。 96→同样的迷信！但无论现在看起来多么可怕，时机终将到来， 97→我们每个人都会回望，并对每一个遮蔽了那纯洁永恒灵魂的迷信微笑， 98→并以欢愉、以真理、以力量重复：我是自由的，曾是自由的， 99→将永远是自由的。这个一元论观念将从吠檀多涌现，它是唯一 100→值得存活的观念。经典或许明日便会消逝。这个观念 101→最初是在希伯来人还是住在北极地区的人们脑中闪现，没有人在乎。 102→因为这是真理，而真理是永恒的；真理自身教导它并非任何 103→个人或国家的特有财产。人类、动物与神明都是这 104→唯一真理的共同受益者。让他们都接受它吧。为何使生命悲苦？ 105→为何让人们陷入各种迷信？若二十个人能因此放弃他们的迷信，我愿付出一万条生命。 106→不仅在这个国家，即便在它诞生的土地上，若你告诉人们 107→这个真理，他们也会感到恐惧。他们说，"这个观念是为那些 108→放弃世界、住在森林中的桑雅辛准备的；对他们来说这完全正确。 109→但对于我们这些可怜的在家人，我们必须有某种恐惧， 110→我们必须有仪式，"如此等等。 111→ 112→ 113→二元论的观念已经统治了世界很长时间，这就是结果。 114→为何不做一个新的实验？所有心智接受一元论可能需要数个世纪， 115→但为何不现在就开始？若我们在自己的一生中已经将其告诉了二十个人， 116→我们便已做了一件伟大的工作。 117→ 118→ 119→有一个观念常常与之相悖。那就是这个观念。说"我是纯洁的、是福者"固然很好， 120→但我无法在生活中时时彰显它。诚然如此；理想总是非常艰难。每一个 121→降生的孩子都看到头顶的天空遥遥在上，但这难道是我们 122→不应仰望天空的理由吗？向迷信靠拢能改善状况吗？ 123→若我们无法得到甘露，饮下毒药能改善状况吗？ 124→因为我们无法立刻实现真理，便堕入黑暗、屈服于软弱与迷信， 125→这对我们有任何帮助吗？ 126→ 127→ 128→我对许多形式的二元论并无异议。我喜欢它们大多数， 129→但我反对每一种宣扬软弱的教导形式。这是我向每一个 130→男人、女人或孩子提出的唯一问题，无论他们在进行 131→身体、精神还是灵性的修炼。你是强壮的吗？你感受到力量了吗？ 132→——因为我知道唯有真理才能赐予力量。我知道 133→唯有真理才能赋予生命，唯有趋向实在才能使我们 134→强壮，没有人能达到真理，除非他是强壮的。因此，每一个 135→使心智软弱、使人迷信、使人消沉、使人渴望各种荒诞的 136→不可能之事、神秘与迷信的体系，我都不喜欢，因为它的效果是危险的。 137→这样的体系从不带来任何益处；这样的事物在心灵中产生病态， 138→使它软弱，软弱至极，以致久而久之，几乎不可能接受 139→真理或依真理而活。因此，力量是唯一必需之物。 140→力量是世界疾病的良药。力量是穷人在被富人暴虐时 141→必须拥有的良药。力量是无知者在被有学识者压迫时必须拥有的良药； 142→力量是罪人在被其他罪人暴虐时必须拥有的良药； 143→没有任何东西能赐予如此力量，如同这个一元论的观念。没有任何东西 144→能使我们如此具有道德，如同这个一元论的观念。没有任何东西能 145→使我们在最高最好的状态下如此勤勉工作，如同将全部责任 146→都放在我们自身身上。我向你们每一个人发出挑战。若我把一个 147→小婴儿放在你们手中，你们将如何表现？你整个人生在那一刻将会 148→改变；无论你是什么样的人，你必须在那段时间内变得无私。一旦 149→责任被赋予你，你将放弃所有罪恶的念头—— 150→你整个品格将会改变。因此，若全部责任都被 151→放在我们自己的肩上，我们将处于最高最好的状态；当我们没有 152→任何人可以摸索求助，没有魔鬼可以推卸罪责，没有人格神 153→可以承担我们的重担，当我们独自担负责任，我们将升至 154→最高最好的境界。我对自己的命运负责，我是给自己带来善的人， 155→我是给自己带来恶的人。我是纯洁而有福的人。我们 156→必须拒绝一切主张相反之事的思想。"我既无死亡也无恐惧， 157→我既无种姓也无信条，我既无父也无母也无兄弟， 158→既无朋友也无敌人，因为我是存在、知识与绝对极乐； 159→我是那福者，我是那福者。我既不受美德也不受罪恶束缚， 160→既不受快乐也不受痛苦束缚。朝圣、书籍与仪式永远无法束缚我。 161→我既无饥渴；身体非我所有，我亦不受那降临于 162→身体的迷信与衰朽所支配，我是存在、知识与绝对极乐； 163→我是那福者，我是那福者。" 164→ 165→ 166→这，吠檀多说，是我们应当拥有的唯一祈祷。这是 167→达到目标的唯一途径，告诉我们自己，并告诉所有人， 168→我们是神圣的。当我们不断重复这一点时，力量就来临了。最初踌躇的人 169→将变得越来越强壮，声音将越来越洪亮，直到真理占据我们的心， 170→流淌在我们的血脉中，渗透我们的全身。妄想将消散， 171→如同光芒变得愈来愈辉煌，一重又一重的无明将消逝， 172→然后将来临这样一个时刻：一切其他都已消逝，唯有 173→太阳独自照耀。
English
CHAPTER X
THE FREEDOM OF THE SOUL
(Delivered in London, 5th November 1896)
The Katha Upanishad, which we have been studying, was written much later than that to which we now turn — the Chhândogya. The language is more modern, and the thought more organised. In the older Upanishads the language is very archaic, like that of the hymn portion of the Vedas, and one has to wade sometimes through quite a mass of unnecessary things to get at the essential doctrines. The ritualistic literature about which I told you which forms the second division of the Vedas, has left a good deal of its mark upon this old Upanishad, so that more than half of it is still ritualistic. There is, however, one great gain in studying the very old Upanishads. You trace, as it were, the historical growth of spiritual ideas. In the more recent Upanishads, the spiritual ideas have been collected and brought into one place; as in the Bhagavad Gitâ, for instance, which we may, perhaps, look upon as the last of the Upanishads, you do not find any inkling of these ritualistic ideas. The Gita is like a bouquet composed of the beautiful flowers of spiritual truths collected from the Upanishads. But in the Gita you cannot study the rise of the spiritual ideas, you cannot trace them to their source. To do that, as has been pointed out by many, you must study the Vedas. The great idea of holiness that has been attached to these books has preserved them, more than any other book in the world, from mutilation. In them, thoughts at their highest and at their lowest have all been preserved, the essential and the non-essential, the most ennobling teachings and the simplest matters of detail stand side by side; for nobody has dared to touch them. Commentators came and tried to smooth them down and to bring out wonderful new ideas from the old things; they tried to find spiritual ideas in even the most ordinary statements, but the texts remained, and as such, they are the most wonderful historical study. We all know that in the scriptures of every religion changes were made to suit the growing spirituality of later times; one word was changed here and another put in there, and so on. This, probably, has not been done with the Vedic literature, or if ever done, it is almost imperceptible. So we have this great advantage, we are able to study thoughts in their original significance, to note how they developed, how from materialistic ideas finer and finer spiritual ideas are evolved, until they attained their greatest height in the Vedanta. Descriptions of some of the old manners and customs are also there, but they do not appear much in the Upanishads. The language used is peculiar, terse, mnemonic.
The writers of these books simply jotted down these lines as helps to remember certain facts which they supposed were already well known. In a narrative, perhaps, which they are telling, they take it for granted that it is well known to everyone they are addressing. Thus a great difficulty arises, we scarcely know the real meaning of any one of these stories, because the traditions have nearly died out, and the little that is left of them has been very much exaggerated. Many new interpretations have been put upon them, so that when you find them in the Purânas they have already become lyrical poems. Just as in the West, we find this prominent fact in the political development of Western races that they cannot bear absolute rule, that they are always trying to prevent any one man from ruling over them, and are gradually advancing to higher and higher democratic ideas, higher and higher ideas of physical liberty, so, in Indian metaphysics, exactly the same phenomenon appears in the development of spiritual life. The multiplicity of gods gave place to one God of the universe, and in the Upanishads there is a rebellion even against that one God. Not only was the idea of many governors of the universe ruling their destinies unbearable, but it was also intolerable that there should be one person ruling this universe. This is the first thing that strikes us. The idea grows and grows, until it attains its climax. In almost all of the Upanishads, we find the climax coming at the last, and that is the dethroning of this God of the universe. The personality of God vanishes, the impersonality comes. God is no more a person, no more a human being, however magnified and exaggerated, who rules this universe, but He has become an embodied principle in every being, immanent in the whole universe. It would be illogical to go from the Personal God to the Impersonal, and at the same time to leave man as a person. So the personal man is broken down, and man as principle is built up. The person is only a phenomenon, the principle is behind it. Thus from both sides, simultaneously, we find the breaking down of personalities and the approach towards principles, the Personal God approaching the Impersonal, the personal man approaching the Impersonal Man. Then come the succeeding stages of the gradual convergence of the two advancing lines of the Impersonal God and the Impersonal Man. And the Upanishads embody the stages through which these two lines at last become one, and the last word of each Upanishad is, "Thou art That". There is but One Eternally Blissful Principle, and that One is manifesting Itself as all this variety.
Then came the philosophers. The work of the Upanishads seems to have ended at that point; the next was taken up by the philosophers. The framework was given them by the Upanishads, and they had to fill in the details. So, many questions would naturally arise. Taking for granted that there is but One Impersonal Principle which is manifesting Itself in all these manifold forms, how is it that the One becomes many? It is another way of putting the same old question which in its crude form comes into the human heart as the inquiry into the cause of evil and so forth. Why does evil exist in the world, and what is its cause? But the same question has now become refined, abstracted. No more is it asked from the platform of the senses why we are unhappy, but from the platform of philosophy. How is it that this One Principle becomes manifold? And the answer, as we have seen, the best answer that India has produced is the theory of Maya which says that It really has not become manifold, that It really has not lost any of Its real nature. Manifoldness is only apparent. Man is only apparently a person, but in reality he is the Impersonal Being. God is a person only apparently, but really He is the Impersonal Being.
Even in this answer there have been succeeding stages, and philosophers have varied in their opinions. All Indian philosophers did not admit this theory of Maya. Possibly most of them did not. There are dualists, with a crude sort of dualism, who would not allow the question to be asked, but stifled it at its very birth. They said, "You have no right to ask such a question, you have no right to ask for an explanation; it is simply the will of God, and we have to submit to it quietly. There is no liberty for the human soul. Everything is predestined — what we shall do, have, enjoy, and suffer; and when suffering comes, it is our duty to endure it patiently; if we do not, we shall be punished all the more. How do we know that? Because the Vedas say so." And thus they have their texts and their meanings and they want to enforce them.
There are others who, though not admitting the Maya theory, stand midway. They say that the whole of this creation forms, as it were, the body of God. God is the Soul of all souls and of the whole of nature. In the case of individual souls, contraction comes from evil doing. When a man does anything evil, his soul begins to contract and his power is diminished and goes on decreasing, until he does good works, when it expands again. One idea seems to be common in all the Indian systems, and I think, in every system in the world, whether they know it or not, and that is what I should call the divinity of man. There is no one system in the world, no real religion, which does not hold the idea that the human soul, whatever it be, or whatever its relation to God, is essentially pure and perfect, whether expressed in the language of mythology, allegory, or philosophy. Its real nature is blessedness and power, not weakness and misery. Somehow or other this misery has come. The crude systems may call it a personified evil, a devil, or an Ahriman, to explain how this misery came. Other systems may try to make a God and a devil in one, who makes some people miserable and others happy, without any reason whatever. Others again, more thoughtful, bring in the theory of Maya and so forth. But one fact stands out clearly, and it is with this that we have to deal. After all, these philosophical ideas and systems are but gymnastics of the mind, intellectual exercises. The one great idea that to me seems to be clear, and comes out through masses of superstition in every country and in every religion, is the one luminous idea that man is divine, that divinity is our nature.
Whatever else comes is a mere superimposition, as the Vedanta calls it. Something has been superimposed, but that divine nature never dies. In the most degraded as well as in the most saintly it is ever present. It has to be called out, and it will work itself out. We have to ask and it will manifest itself. The people of old knew that fire lived in the flint and in dry wood, but friction was necessary to call it out. So this fire of freedom and purity is the nature of every soul, and not a quality, because qualities can be acquired and therefore can be lost. The soul is one with Freedom, and the soul is one with Existence, and the soul is one with Knowledge. The Sat-Chit-Ânanda — Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute — is the nature, the birthright of the Soul, and all the manifestations that we see are Its expressions, dimly or brightly manifesting Itself. Even death is but a manifestation of that Real Existence. Birth and death, life and decay, degeneration and regeneration — are all manifestations of that Oneness. So, knowledge, however it manifests itself, either as ignorance or as learning, is but the manifestation of that same Chit, the essence of knowledge; the difference is only in degree, and not in kind. The difference in knowledge between the lowest worm that crawls under our feet and the highest genius that the world may produce is only one of degree, and not of kind. The Vedantin thinker boldly says that the enjoyments in this life, even the most degraded joys, are but manifestations of that One Divine Bliss, the Essence of the Soul.
This idea seems to be the most prominent in Vedanta, and, as I have said, it appears to me that every religion holds it. I have yet to know the religion which does not. It is the one universal idea working through all religions. Take the Bible for instance. You find there the allegorical statement that the first man Adam was pure, and that his purity was obliterated by his evil deeds afterwards. It is clear from this allegory that they thought that the nature of the primitive man was perfect. The impurities that we see, the weaknesses that we feel, are but superimpositions on that nature, and the subsequent history of the Christian religion shows that they also believe in the possibility, nay, the certainty of regaining that old state. This is the whole history of the Bible, Old and New Testaments together. So with the Mohammedans: they also believed in Adam and the purity of Adam, and through Mohammed the way was opened to regain that lost state. So with the Buddhists: they believe in the state called Nirvana which is beyond this relative world. It is exactly the same as the Brahman of the Vedantins, and the whole system of the Buddhists is founded upon the idea of regaining that lost state of Nirvana. In every system we find this doctrine present, that you cannot get anything which is not yours already. You are indebted to nobody in this universe. You claim your own birthright, as it has been most poetically expressed by a great Vedantin philosopher, in the title of one of his books — "The attainment of our own empire". That empire is ours; we have lost it and we have to regain it. The Mâyâvâdin, however, says that this losing of the empire was a hallucination; you never lost it. This is the only difference.
Although all the systems agree so far that we had the empire, and that we have lost it, they give us varied advice as to how to regain it. One says that you must perform certain ceremonies, pay certain sums of money to certain idols, eat certain sorts of food, live in a peculiar fashion to regain that empire. Another says that if you weep and prostrate yourselves and ask pardon of some Being beyond nature, you will regain that empire. Again, another says if you love such a Being with all your heart, you will regain that empire. All this varied advice is in the Upanishads. As I go on, you will find it so. But the last and the greatest counsel is that you need not weep at all. You need not go through all these ceremonies, and need not take any notice of how to regain your empire, because you never lost it. Why should you go to seek for what you never lost? You are pure already, you are free already. If you think you are free, free you are this moment, and if you think you are bound, bound you will be. This is a very bold statement, and as I told you at the beginning of this course, I shall have to speak to you very boldly. It may frighten you now, but when you think over it, and realise it in your own life, then you will come to know that what I say is true. For, supposing that freedom is not your nature, by no manner of means can you become free. Supposing you were free and in some way you lost that freedom, that shows that you were not free to begin with. Had you been free, what could have made you lose it? The independent can never be made dependent; if it is really dependent, its independence was a hallucination.
Of the two sides, then, which will you take? If you say that the soul was by its own nature pure and free, it naturally follows that there was nothing in this universe which could make it bound or limited. But if there was anything in nature which could bind the soul, it naturally follows that it was not free, and your statement that it was free is a delusion. So if it is possible for us to attain to freedom, the conclusion is inevitable that the soul is by its nature free. It cannot be otherwise. Freedom means independence of anything outside, and that means that nothing outside itself could work upon it as a cause. The soul is causeless, and from this follow all the great ideas that we have. You cannot establish the immortality of the soul, unless you grant that it is by its nature free, or in other words, that it cannot be acted upon by anything outside. For death is an effect produced by some outside cause. I drink poison and I die, thus showing that my body can be acted upon by something outside that is called poison. But if it be true that the soul is free, it naturally follows that nothing can affect it, and it can never die. Freedom, immortality, blessedness, all depend upon the soul being beyond the law of causation, beyond this Maya. Of these two which will you take? Either make the first a delusion, or make the second a delusion. Certainly I will make the second a delusion. It is more consonant with all my feelings and aspirations. I am perfectly aware that I am free by nature, and I will not admit that this bondage is true and my freedom a delusion.
This discussion goes on in all philosophies, in some form or other. Even in the most modern philosophies you find the same discussion arising. There are two parties. One says that there is no soul, that the idea of soul is a delusion produced by the repeated transit of particles or matter, bringing about the combination which you call the body or brain; that the impression of freedom is the result of the vibrations and motions and continuous transit of these particles. There were Buddhistic sects who held the same view and illustrated it by this example: If young take a torch and whirl it round rapidly, there will be a circle of light. That circle does not really exist, because the torch is changing place every moment. We are but bundles of little particles, which in their rapid whirling produce the delusion of a permanent soul. The other party states that in the rapid succession of thought, matter occurs as a delusion, and does not really exist. So we see one side claiming that spirit is a delusion and the other, that matter is a delusion. Which side will you take? Of course, we will take the spirit and deny matter. The arguments are similar for both, only on the spirit side the argument is little stronger. For nobody has ever seen what matter is. We can only feel ourselves. I never knew a man who could feel matter outside of himself. Nobody was ever able to jump outside of himself. Therefore the argument is a little stronger on the side of the spirit. Secondly, the spirit theory explains the universe, whiles materialism does not. Hence the materialistic explanation is illogical. If you boil down all the philosophies and analyse them, you will find that they are reduced to one; or the other of these two positions. So here, too, in a more intricate form, in a more philosophical form, we find the same question about natural purity and freedom. Ones side says that the first is a delusion, and the other, that the second is a delusion. And, of course, we side with the second, in believing that our bondage is a delusion.
The solution of the Vedanta is that we are not bound, we are free already. Not only so, but to say or to think that we are bound is dangerous — it is a mistake, it is self-hypnotism. As soon as you say, "I am bound," "I am weak," "I am helpless," woe unto you; you rivet one more chain upon yourself. Do not say it, do not think it. I have heard of a man who lived in a forest and used to repeat day and night, "Shivoham" — I am the Blessed One — and one day a tiger fell upon him and dragged him away to kill him; people on the other side of the river saw it, and heard the voice so long as voice remained in him, saying, "Shivoham" — even in the very jaws of the tiger. There have been many such men. There have been cases of men who, while being cut to pieces, have blessed their enemies. "I am He, I am He; and so art thou. I am pure and perfect and so are all my enemies. You are He, and so am I." That is - the position of strength. Nevertheless, there are great and wonderful things in the religions of the dualists; wonderful is the idea of the Personal God apart from nature, whom we worship and love. Sometimes this idea is very soothing. But, says the Vedanta, the soothing is something like the effect that comes from an opiate, not natural. It brings weakness in the long run, and what this world wants today, more than it ever did before, is strength. It is weakness, says the Vedanta, which is the cause of all misery in this world. Weakness is the one cause of suffering. We become miserable because we are weak. We lie, steal, kill, and commit other crimes, because we are weak. We suffer because we are weak. We die because we are weak. Where there is nothing to weaken us, there is no death nor sorrow. We are miserable through delusion. Give up the delusion, and the whole thing vanishes. It is plain and simple indeed. Through all these philosophical discussions and tremendous mental gymnastics we come to this one religious idea, the simplest in the whole world.
The monistic Vedanta is the simplest form in which you can put truth. To teach dualism was a tremendous mistake made in India and elsewhere, because people did not look at the ultimate principles, but only thought of the process which is very intricate indeed. To many, these tremendous philosophical and logical propositions were alarming. They thought these things could not be made universal, could not be followed in everyday practical life, and that under the guise of such a philosophy much laxity of living would arise.
But I do not believe at all that monistic ideas preached to the world would produce immorality and weakness. On the contrary, I have reason to believe that it is the only remedy there is. If this be the truth, why let people drink ditch water when the stream of life is flowing by? If this be the truth, that they are all pure, why not at this moment teach it to the whole world? Why not teach it with the voice of thunder to every man that is born, to saints and sinners, men, women, and children, to the man on the throne and to the man sweeping the streets?
It appears now a very big and a very great undertaking; to many it appears very startling, but that is because of superstition, nothing else. By eating all sorts of bad and indigestible food, or by starving ourselves, we are incompetent to eat a good meal. We have listened to words of weakness from our childhood. You hear people say that they do not believe in ghosts, but at the same time, there are very few who do not get a little creepy sensation in the dark. It is simply superstition. So with all religious superstitions There are people in this country who, if I told them there was no such being as the devil, will think all religion is gone. Many people have said to me, how can there be religion without a devil? How can there be religion without someone to direct us? How can we live without being ruled by somebody? We like to be so treated, because we have become used to it. We are not happy until we feel we have been reprimanded by somebody every day. The same superstition! But however terrible it may seem now, the time will come when we shall look back, each one of us, and smile at every one of those superstitions which covered the pure and eternal soul, and repeat with gladness, with truth, and with strength, I am free, and was free, and always will be free. This monistic idea will come out of Vedanta, and it is the one idea that deserves to live. The scriptures may perish tomorrow. Whether this idea first flashed into the brains of Hebrews or of people living in the Arctic regions, nobody cares. For this is the truth and truth is eternal; and truth itself teaches that it is not the special property of any individual or nation. Men, animals, and gods are all common recipients of this one truth. Let them all receive it. Why make life miserable? Why let people fall into all sorts of superstitions? I will give ten thousand lives, if twenty of them will give up their superstition. Not only in this country, but in the land of its very birth, if you tell people this truth, they are frightened. They say, "This idea is for Sannyâsins who give up the world and live in forests; for them it is all right. But for us poor householders, we must all have some sort of fear, we must have ceremonies," and so on.
Dualistic ideas have ruled the world long enough, and this is the result. Why not make a new experiment? It may take ages for all minds to receive monism, but why not begin now? If we have told it to twenty persons in our lives, we have done a great work.
There is one idea which often militates against it. It is this. It is all very well to say, "I am the Pure, the Blessed," but I cannot show it always in my life. That is true; the ideal is always very hard. Every child that is born sees the sky overhead very far away, but is that any reason why we should not look towards the sky? Would it mend matters to go towards superstition? If we cannot get nectar, would it mend matters for us to drink poison? Would it be any help for us, because we cannot realise the truth immediately, to go into darkness and yield to weakness and superstition?
I have no objection to dualism in many of its forms. I like most of them, but I have objections to every form of teaching which inculcates weakness. This is the one question I put to every man, woman, or child, when they are in physical, mental, or spiritual training. Are you strong? Do you feel strength? — for I know it is truth alone that gives strength. I know that truth alone gives life, and nothing but going towards reality will make us strong, and none will reach truth until he is strong. Every system, therefore, which weakens the mind, makes one superstitious, makes one mope, makes one desire all sorts of wild impossibilities, mysteries, and superstitions, I do not like, because its effect is dangerous. Such systems never bring any good; such things create morbidity in the mind, make it weak, so weak that in course of time it will be almost impossible to receive truth or live up to it. Strength, therefore, is the one thing needful. Strength is the medicine for the world's disease. Strength is the medicine which the poor must have when tyrannised over by the rich. Strength is the medicine that the ignorant must have when oppressed by the learned; and it is the medicine that sinners must have when tyrannised over by other sinners; and nothing gives such strength as this idea of monism. Nothing makes us so moral as this idea of monism. Nothing makes us work so well at our best and highest as when all the responsibility is thrown upon ourselves. I challenge everyone of you. How will you behave if I put a little baby in your hands? Your whole life will be changed for the moment; whatever you may be, you must become selfless for the time being. You will give up all your criminal ideas as soon as responsibility is thrown upon you — your whole character will change. So if the whole responsibility is thrown upon our own shoulders, we shall be at our highest and best; when we have nobody to grope towards, no devil to lay our blame upon, no Personal God to carry our burdens, when we are alone responsible, then we shall rise to our highest and best. I am responsible for my fate, I am the bringer of good unto myself, I am the bringer of evil. I am the Pure and Blessed One. We must reject all thoughts that assert the contrary. "I have neither death nor fear, I have neither caste nor creed, I have neither father nor mother nor brother, neither friend nor foe, for I am Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss Absolute; I am the Blissful One, I am the Blissful One. I am not bound either by virtue or vice, by happiness or misery. Pilgrimages and books and ceremonials can never bind me. I have neither hunger nor thirst; the body is not mine, nor am I subject to the superstitions and decay that come to the body, I am Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss Absolute; I am the Blissful One, I am the Blissful One."
This, says the Vedanta, is the only prayer that we should have. This is the only way to reach the goal, to tell ourselves, and to tell everybody else, that we are divine. And as we go on repeating this, strength comes. He who falters at first will get stronger and stronger, and the voice will increase in volume until the truth takes possession of our hearts, and courses through our veins, and permeates our bodies. Delusion will vanish as the light becomes more and more effulgent, load after load of ignorance will vanish, and then will come a time when all else has disappeared and the Sun alone shines.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。