普世宗教的理想
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
普世宗教的理想
论其如何涵容不同心灵类型与修行方式
无论我们的感官所及，无论我们的心智所想，皆可发现两种力量的相互作用与反应——一者制衡另一者，从而造就我们周遭所见的种种纷繁现象，以及我们内心所感受到的一切。在外部世界，这两种相对力量的作用表现为吸引与排斥，或表现为向心力与离心力；在内心世界，则表现为爱与恨、善与恶。我们排斥某些事物，又被另一些事物所吸引。我们为某者所吸引，又为另一者所排斥。在我们的生命历程中，有时会莫名其妙地对某些人产生亲近之感；有时同样莫名，又会对另一些人产生疏离之感。这对所有人而言都是显而易见的，而且行动领域越崇高，这两种相对力量的影响便越强大、越深刻。宗教是人类思想与生命的最高境界，在这一领域，这两种力量的运作最为突出。人类所曾感受过的最炽烈之爱，源自宗教；人类所曾经历过的最凶残之恨，同样源自宗教。世间所听闻最崇高的和平之声，来自置身于宗教境界的人；世间所听闻最辛辣的谴责之语，亦出自宗教人士之口。一种宗教的目标越崇高，组织越精密，其活动便越非凡。没有任何人类动机像宗教那样令世界血流漂杵；但同时，也没有任何力量像宗教那样建立了那么多济贫的医院与收容所；没有任何人类影响像宗教那样，不仅关怀人类，也爱护最卑微的动物。没有什么比宗教更能使我们残忍，也没有什么比宗教更能使我们温柔。过去如此，将来也极有可能如此。然而，在这喧嚣纷扰、争斗倾轧、宗教与宗派间的嫉恨之中，不时有洪钟大吕般的声音响起，淹没这一切噪嚣——如从极地到极地传遍天下——宣告和平与和谐。这一天终将到来吗？
在这激烈宗教争斗的境界上，真的有可能永久和谐共处吗？本世纪后半叶，世界正为和谐问题所困扰；社会上提出了各种方案，也有人尝试付诸实践；但我们深知这是何等困难。人们发现，要缓和生存斗争的激烈，要平息人内心那巨大的精神张力，几乎是不可能的。既然将和谐与安宁带入生命的物质层面——外在、粗粝、显明的那一面——已如此艰难，那么要将和平与和谐带入人的内在本性，便要难上千倍。我请求诸位暂时从文字的罗网中解脱出来。我们从童年起便听闻爱、和平、慈悲、平等与四海皆兄弟等话语；但这些词语对我们来说已成了空洞的符号，我们像鹦鹉一样重复，这几乎已成了我们的习性。我们无可奈何。那些最初在心中感受到这些伟大理念的伟大灵魂，创造了这些词语；那时，许多人理解它们的含义。后来，无知者拾取这些词语把玩，将宗教变成文字游戏，而非付诸实践的事业。它变成了"我父亲的宗教"、"我们民族的宗教"、"我们国家的宗教"等等。信奉某种宗教只不过成了爱国主义的一种表现，而爱国主义永远是偏颇的。要将和谐带入宗教，始终是艰难之事。然而我们仍将探讨这宗教和谐的问题。
我们看到，每种宗教——我是指每种伟大而公认的宗教——都包含三个部分。第一是哲学，它呈现那种宗教的整体面貌，阐明其基本原则、目标及达到目标的途径。第二部分是神话，即具体化的哲学。它由有关人或超自然存在之生平的传说构成。它是哲学的抽象，经由或多或少带有想象色彩的人物及超自然存在的生平而具体化。第三部分是仪式。这比神话更为具体，由形式与典礼、各种身体姿势、鲜花与香熏以及诸多诉诸感官之物所构成。仪式即在于此。你会发现，所有公认的宗教都具备这三种要素。有些宗教更重视其中一种，有些则更重视另一种。现在让我们考察第一部分——哲学。是否存在一种普世哲学？尚未。每种宗教都提出自己的教义，并坚持认为它们是唯一的真理。不仅如此，它还认为，不信奉这些教义的人必将堕入某个可怕之处。有些人甚至会拔刀相向，强迫他人接受自己的信仰。这并非出于邪恶，而是源于人类大脑的一种特殊疾病，名曰狂热主义。这些狂热者极为真诚，是人类中最真诚者；但他们与世间其他疯子一样，全然不负责任。这种狂热主义疾病是一切疾病中最危险的之一。人性中所有的邪恶都被它唤醒。怒火升腾，神经绷紧，人类变得如猛虎一般。
是否存在任何神话上的相似性，是否存在任何神话上的和谐，存在任何被所有宗教接受的普世神话？当然没有。所有宗教都有自己的神话，只是每种宗教都说："我的故事不是单纯的神话。"让我们试着通过举例来理解这个问题。我只是举例说明，并无批评任何宗教之意。基督徒相信上帝化为鸽子降临人间；对他们而言，这是历史，而非神话。印度教徒相信上帝显现于牛身之中。基督徒说，如此信仰不过是神话，而非历史，是迷信。犹太人认为，若以箱或柜的形状制成圣像，两侧各有一位天使，则可置于至圣所中；它是圣洁的，奉献给耶和华；但若圣像被制成美男或美女的形状，他们便会说："这是可怖的偶像，砸毁它！"这就是我们在神话上的统一！若有人站出来说："我的先知做了如此这般奇妙之事"，其他人会说："那不过是迷信"，但与此同时，他们又说自己的先知做了更为奇妙之事，并视之为历史。据我所见，世界上没有人能够厘清历史与神话之间的微妙区别，正如它存在于这些人的头脑之中。所有这类故事，无论属于哪种宗教，实际上都是神话，偶尔也许混杂了一点历史。
接下来是仪式。一个教派有其特定的仪式形式，认为那是神圣的，而另一教派的仪式则不过是十足的迷信。若一个教派崇拜某种特别的象征，另一教派便会说："啊，这太可怖了！"以一种普通的象征形式为例。男根象征确实是性爱象征，但渐渐地，这一面向已被遗忘，它如今已成为造物主的象征。以此为象征的民族从不将它视为男根；它只是一种象征，仅此而已。但来自另一种族或信仰的人在其中只看到男根，便开始加以谴责；然而与此同时，他自己也许正在做某些在所谓男根崇拜者看来极为可怖之事。让我举两点来说明：男根象征与基督徒的圣礼。对基督徒来说，男根象征是可怖的；对印度教徒来说，基督徒的圣礼是可怖的。他们说，基督徒的圣礼——杀死一个人，吃他的肉，喝他的血，以获得那人的良善品质——是食人行为。某些野蛮部落就是这样做的；若有人勇敢，他们便杀死他，吃掉他的心脏，因为他们认为这能赐予他们那人所具备的勇气与勇武。即便是约翰·卢伯克爵士这样虔诚的基督徒也承认这一点，并说这种基督教象征的起源正在于这种野蛮观念。基督徒当然不承认这种起源观点；其可能意味着什么，也从未进入他们的心思。它代表神圣之物，这就是他们想要知道的一切。因此，即便在仪式中，也没有任何普世象征可以赢得普遍的认同与接纳。那么，普世性何在？又如何可能有普世形式的宗教？然而，它已然存在。让我们看看它是什么。
我们都听说过四海皆兄弟，也听说过专门宣扬这一理念的社团。我记得一个古老的故事。在印度，饮酒被视为极为不好之事。有兄弟二人，某夜想要秘密饮酒；而他们的叔父是一位极为正统的人，正睡在离他们很近的房间里。于是，在他们开始饮酒之前，二人彼此说道："我们必须非常安静，否则叔父会醒来。"当他们饮酒时，不断互相叮嘱"安静！叔父会醒来"，每个人都试图压过另一个人的声音。随着叫喊声越来越大，叔父醒了，走进房间，发现了一切。现在，我们都像这些醉汉一样高喊："四海皆兄弟！我们都是平等的，因此让我们建立一个宗派。"可是一旦你建立了宗派，你就是在抗议平等，平等也就不复存在了。穆斯林大谈四海皆兄弟，但现实中结果如何？凡是非穆斯林者，均不得加入这一兄弟情谊；他更有可能遭到杀身之祸。基督徒大谈四海皆兄弟；但凡是非基督徒者，必须前往那个将被永火烧烤之处。
就这样，我们在这个世界上追寻着四海皆兄弟与平等。当你在世间听到此类言论时，我请求你稍加矜持，照顾好自己，因为在这一切言论背后，往往是最强烈的自私。"冬日有时雷云翻滚，轰鸣不止，却不降雨；但雨季时云朵无声，却将世界浸泡在水中。"同样，那些真正做事、真正发自内心感受到人类四海皆兄弟的人，话不多，不会为四海皆兄弟建立小宗派；但他们的行动、他们的举止、他们的整个生命，清晰地表明，他们确实具有对人类的兄弟情谊，他们对所有人都有爱心与同情。他们不说，他们去做，他们去活。这个世界充满了虚张声势的空谈。我们需要更多认真的工作，少一些空谈。
迄今为止，我们看到在宗教方面很难找到任何普世特征，然而我们知道它们确实存在。我们都是人类，但我们都平等吗？当然不。谁说我们平等？只有疯子才会这么说。我们的大脑、我们的能力、我们的身体都平等吗？一个人比另一个人强壮，一个人比另一个人有更强的脑力。如果我们都平等，为何存在这种不平等？是谁造成的？是我们自己。因为我们各有多少不等的能力、脑力、体力，这必然在我们之间造成差异。然而我们知道，平等的理念触动我们的心弦。我们都是人类；但有些是男人，有些是女人。这里是黑人，那里是白人；但都是人，都属于同一人类。我们的面孔各异，我看不到两张相同的脸，然而我们都是人类。这共同的人性在哪里？我见到一个男人或女人，或黑或白；在所有这些面孔中，我知道存在着一种对所有人共通的抽象人性。当我试图把握它、感受它、使之具体化时，也许找不到它；然而我确信无疑地知道它就在那里。若我对任何事情有把握，那便是这种对我们所有人共通的人性。正是通过这种概括性的实体，我才将你视为男人或女人。普世宗教亦是如此——它以上帝的形式贯穿世间所有各种宗教，它必然存在，且确实永恒存在。"我是贯穿这所有珍珠的丝线"，而每一颗珍珠都是一种宗教，乃至其中的一个宗派。这是各种各样的珍珠，而主是贯穿所有珍珠的丝线；只是人类中的绝大多数对此浑然不觉。
多样中的统一是宇宙的计划。我们都是人，然而彼此各有不同。作为人类的一员，我与你同为一体；作为某某先生，我又与你有所不同。作为男人，你与女人有别；作为人类，你又与女人同为一体。作为男人，你与动物有别；但作为有生命的存在，人、女人、动物与植物皆为一体；而作为存在本身，你与整个宇宙同为一体。那普世的存在便是上帝，宇宙中最终的统一体。在祂之中，我们皆为一体。与此同时，在显现层面，这些差异必将永远存在。在我们的工作中，在我们的能量中，当它们向外显现时，这些差异必将永远存在。我们于是发现，若所谓普世宗教的理念意指全人类都应信奉同一套教义，那是完全不可能的。永远不可能，永远不会有所有面孔都相同的时刻。同样，若我们期望将有一种普世神话，那也是不可能的；不可能实现。也不可能有一种普世仪式。这种状况永远不可能出现；若它真的出现，世界便将毁灭，因为多样性是生命的首要原则。是什么使我们成为有形的存在？分化。完美的平衡将是我们的毁灭。设想这房间中的热量，其趋势是朝向均等而完美的扩散，若真的获得这种扩散，那么就一切实际目的而言，那热量将不复存在。是什么使宇宙中的运动成为可能？失去平衡。同一性的统一只有在这个宇宙毁灭时才能出现，否则这种事情是不可能的。不仅如此，拥有它还会很危险。我们不应希望我们所有人都思想相同。那样的话便没有什么思想可以思考了。我们将彼此相同，如博物馆里的埃及木乃伊，面面相觑，毫无思想。正是这种差异、这种分化、这种我们之间平衡的失去，才是我们进步的真正灵魂，是我们所有思想的灵魂。这必须永远如此。
那么，我所说的普世宗教的理想是什么？我并非指任何一种普世哲学，或任何一种普世神话，或任何一种被所有人同等持守的普世仪式；因为我知道，这个世界必须继续运转——轮中之轮，这错综复杂、奇妙无比的机器。那么我们能做什么？我们可以使它运转顺畅，减少摩擦，给车轮上油，如此而已。如何做到？通过承认差异的自然必然性。正如我们凭借自身本性而承认统一一样，我们也必须承认差异。我们必须认识到，真理可以用千百万种方式表达，而每一种方式就其所及而言都是真实的。我们必须学会，同一件事可以从一百个不同角度来看，而仍是同一件事。以太阳为例。设想一个人站在地球上，在清晨日出时仰望太阳；他看见一个大球。设想他出发向太阳旅行，随身携带一架照相机，每隔一段旅程便拍下一张照片，直到抵达太阳。每个阶段的照片看起来与其他阶段的照片不同；事实上，当他返回时，他带回了许多各个不同阶段的不同太阳的照片；然而我们知道，同一个太阳在那人旅程的不同阶段被拍摄下来。对于主也是如此。无论是通过高深的哲学还是粗浅的哲学，无论是通过最崇高的神话还是最粗陋的神话，无论是通过最精致的仪礼还是十足的拜物教——每一宗派、每一灵魂、每一民族、每一宗教，有意无意地，都在向上攀登，朝向上帝；人对真理的每一种洞见，都是对祂的洞见，而非其他。设想我们都拿着容器去湖中取水。有人拿杯子，有人拿罐子，有人拿桶，等等，我们都装满了容器。每种情况下，水自然呈现出每个人所携容器的形状。拿杯子来的人，水呈杯形；拿罐子来的人，水呈罐形；如此类推；但在每种情况下，容器中都是水，只是水。宗教亦是如此；我们的心灵就像这些容器，我们每一个人都在努力实现对上帝的体悟。上帝就像那充满这些不同容器的水，在每个容器中，对上帝的洞见以容器的形状呈现。然而祂是一。祂在每种情况下都是上帝。这是我们所能获得的对普世性的唯一认识。
理论上至此一切尚好。但是否有任何实际可行的方式来实现宗教间的和谐？我们发现，这种承认所有各种宗教观点都是真实的认识，已经非常古老了。印度、亚历山大、欧洲、中国、日本、西藏，最近在美洲，都曾有过数百次尝试，力图制定一种和谐的宗教信条，使所有宗教在爱中汇聚。它们都失败了，因为它们未采取任何实际可行的方案。许多人承认世界上所有宗教都是正确的，但他们没有提出切实可行的方法将它们汇聚在一起，使每一种宗教都能在汇流中保持自身的个性。唯有那个不摧毁任何人之宗教个性，同时又向他指明与所有其他人联结之点的方案，才是切实可行的。然而迄今为止，所有已被尝试的宗教和谐方案，在声称接纳所有各种宗教观点的同时，在实践中却试图用几条教义束缚所有人，从而产生了更多相互争斗、角力、冲突的新宗派。
我也有自己的小小方案。我不知道它是否行得通，我想将它呈现给大家讨论。我的方案是什么？首先，我会请人类承认这一格言："不要破坏。"破坏偶像的改革者对世界没有益处。不要打碎，不要拆毁任何东西，而要建设。如果你能帮忙，就帮；如果不能，就袖手旁观，看着事情自然发展。不要伤害，即便你无力提供帮助。对任何人的信念，只要它是真诚的，就不要出言攻击。其次，接受人之本来面目，从那里给予他提升。若真如所言，上帝是所有宗教的中心，我们每个人都沿着其中一条半径朝祂运动，那么可以确定，我们所有人必将到达那个中心。在那个中心，所有半径相交之处，我们所有的差异将会消失；但在到达那里之前，差异必然存在。所有这些半径都汇聚于同一个中心。一个人按照自己的本性沿着其中一条线前行，另一个人沿着另一条线；若我们都沿着自己的路向前推进，我们必将到达中心，因为"条条大路通罗马"。我们每个人都在按照自己的本性自然生长、发展；每个人终将知晓最高真理——毕竟，人必须自我教化。你和我能做什么？你以为你能教导一个孩子吗？你不能。孩子自我教化。你的责任是提供机会，消除障碍。植物生长。你使植物生长吗？你的责任是在它周围筑一道藩篱，确保没有动物吃掉它，你的责任到此为止。植物自行生长。每个人的灵性成长亦是如此。没有人能教导你；没有人能使你成为灵性的人。你必须自我教化；你的成长必须来自内在。
外在的老师能做什么？他能稍微消除一些障碍，到此为止，他的责任便告终结。因此，若能帮助，便帮助；但不要破坏。放弃一切你能使人灵性化的想法。这是不可能的。除了你自己的灵魂，没有其他老师能教导你。承认这一点。由此得出什么？在社会中，我们看到如此多不同的本性。心灵与性情有千百种差异。对它们进行彻底归类是不可能的，但为了实际目的，将它们分为四类便已足够。首先是行动者，即工作的人；他想要工作，他的肌肉与神经中有着巨大的能量。他的目标是工作——建造医院，做慈善事业，修筑道路，计划与组织。然后是情感者，他对崇高与美丽有着过度的爱好。他喜欢思考美的事物，享受大自然的美学面向，崇拜爱与爱的上帝。他用整颗心热爱历代的伟大灵魂、宗教先知与降世于世的化身；他不在乎理性能否证明基督或佛陀是否存在；他不关心登山宝训宣讲的确切日期，也不关心奎师那[Krishna]诞生的确切时刻；他所关心的是他们的人格、他们可爱的形象。这就是他的理想。这是爱者、情感者的本性。然后是神秘主义者，他的心灵想要分析自身，理解人类心灵的运作，了解内在运作的力量是什么，以及如何认识、运用并掌控它们。这是神秘的心灵。然后是哲学家，他想要权衡一切，运用自己的理智，甚至超越所有人类哲学可能性的极限。
一种宗教若要满足人类最大比例的需求，就必须能够为所有这些不同类型的心灵提供食粮；缺乏这种能力，现有的各宗派都变成了片面的。设想你去一个宣扬爱与情感的宗派。他们歌唱，他们哭泣，他们宣扬爱。但一旦你说："朋友，这一切固然好，但我需要比这更扎实的东西——一点理性与哲学；我想要逐步地、更理性地理解事物"，他们就说："出去"；他们不仅要你出去，若有可能，还会把你送到另一个地方去。结果是，那个宗派只能帮助情感型的人。他们不仅不帮助其他人，还试图摧毁他们；而这一切中最邪恶的部分是，他们不仅不帮助其他人，而且不相信他人的真诚。再来看那些谈论印度与东方智慧的哲学家，他们使用五十个音节长的宏大心理学术语，但若是像我这样的普通人去找他们，说："你能告诉我什么让我变得灵性的方法吗？"，他们首先会微微一笑，说："哦，你的理性距离我们太遥远了。你能理解什么是灵性吗？"这些都是高高在上的哲学家。他们只是把你指向门口。然后还有神秘主义宗派，他们谈论各种存在层面、各种心灵状态，以及心灵力量能做什么等等；若你是个普通人，说："给我看任何我能做的好事；我不太倾向于思辨；你能给我任何适合我的东西吗？"，他们会微笑着说："听这个傻瓜；他什么都不知道，他的存在毫无意义。"这种情况在世界各地随处可见。我很想把所有这些不同宗派的极端代表都请来，把他们关在一个房间里，拍下他们那美丽的嘲讽微笑！
这就是宗教的现状，事物的现状。我想要传播的是一种对所有心灵都同样可接受的宗教；它必须同等地具有哲学性、同等地具有情感性、同等地具有神秘性，同样有益于行动。如果大学教授来了，科学家和物理学家，他们会追求理性。让他们尽情追求。在某一点上，他们会认为自己若不打破理性，便无法更进一步。他们会说："上帝与救赎的观念是迷信，放弃它们！"我说："哲学家先生，你这具身体才是更大的迷信。放弃它，别回家吃饭，也别回你的哲学椅子。放弃这具身体，如果你做不到，就认输坐下来。"因为宗教必须能够展示如何实现这样的哲学——它教导我们这个世界是一体的，宇宙中只有一个存在。同样，如果神秘主义者来了，我们必须欢迎他，准备好给他心理分析的科学，并在他面前实际演示。如果情感性的人来了，我们必须在主的名下与他们同坐、同笑、同哭；我们必须"饮下爱的杯盏，直至如醉如痴"。如果精力充沛的工作者来了，我们必须以我们所有的能量与他一同工作。这种结合将是最接近普世宗教的理想。愿上帝使我们所有人的构成如此，以至于在我们心中，哲学、神秘主义、情感与工作这四种要素都能均等地充分呈现！这就是理想，我对完美之人的理想。凡是只具备这四种性格要素中的一两种的人，我都认为是"片面的"；而这个世界几乎充满了这样的"片面"之人，他们只知道自己行走其中的那一条路；任何其他道路对他们来说都是危险而可怖的。在这四个方向上达到和谐的平衡，这就是我的宗教理想。而这种宗教，正是通过我们印度所称的瑜伽[Yoga]——合一——来实现的。对工作者而言，它是人与全人类之间的合一；对神秘主义者而言，是他的低等自我与高等自我之间的合一；对爱者而言，是他自身与爱的上帝之间的合一；对哲学家而言，是所有存在的合一。这就是瑜伽[Yoga]的含义。这是一个梵文术语，这四种瑜伽[Yoga]分支在梵文中各有不同的名称。追求这种合一的人称为瑜伽修行者。工作者称为业瑜伽[Karma Yoga]修行者。通过爱寻求合一的人称为虔诚瑜伽[Bhakti Yoga]修行者。通过神秘主义寻求合一的人称为胜王瑜伽[Raja Yoga]修行者。通过哲学寻求合一的人称为智慧瑜伽[Jnana Yoga]修行者。因此，瑜伽修行者这一词语涵盖了所有这些人。
现在，首先让我来谈谈胜王瑜伽[Raja Yoga]。什么是这种胜王瑜伽[Raja Yoga]，这种对心灵的控制？在这个国家，恐怕大家把各种各样的鬼怪与瑜伽[Yoga]这个词联系在一起。因此，我必须首先告诉你们，它与那些事物毫无关系。这些瑜伽[Yoga]中没有一种放弃理性，没有一种要求你蒙住眼睛，或将你的理性交到任何类型的祭司手中。它们中没有一种要求你效忠于任何超凡的使者。每一种都告诉你要坚守你的理性，紧紧抓住它。我们发现，在所有存在中都有三种知识工具。第一种是本能，你会发现它在动物身上发育得最为充分；这是最低级的知识工具。第二种知识工具是什么？推理。你会发现它在人类身上发育得最为充分。现在，首先，本能是不充分的工具；对动物来说，行动范围非常有限，本能在那个范围内发挥作用。当你来到人类，你看到它在很大程度上发展成了推理。行动范围在这里也扩大了。然而，即便是推理，也仍然非常不足。推理只能走很短的一段路，然后就停下来，无法更进一步；如果你试图推进，结果是无助的混乱，理性本身变得不理性。逻辑变成了循环论证。以我们感知的最基本前提为例——物质与力。什么是物质？被力作用的东西。那力是什么？作用于物质的东西。你看到了这种复杂性，逻辑学家所称的跷跷板——一种观念依赖于另一种观念，而那另一种观念又依赖于这种观念。你在理性面前发现了一道强大的屏障，超越这道屏障，推理无法更进；然而它始终急切地想要进入那道屏障之外的无限领域。这个世界，这个我们的感官所感知或心灵所思考的宇宙，不过是无限的一颗原子，可以说是投射在意识平面上；而在那个由意识之网所界定的狭窄范围内，我们的理性在运作，而非在其外。因此，必须有某种其他工具能带我们超越，那种工具就称为灵感。本能、推理与灵感是三种知识工具。本能属于动物，推理属于人，灵感属于神人。但在所有人类中，都能或多或少地找到这三种知识工具的萌芽，发育程度各有不同。要使这些心灵工具得到发展，萌芽必须已然存在。同样必须记住的是，一种工具是另一种工具的发展，因此不会与它相矛盾。正是理性发展成了灵感，因此灵感不与理性相矛盾，而是成全它。理性所无法到达的事物，由灵感带入光明；它们不与理性相矛盾。老人并不与孩子相矛盾，而是成全孩子。因此，你必须始终铭记，巨大的危险在于将较低形式的工具误认为较高形式。许多时候，本能被呈现在世人面前充作灵感，随之而来的便是所有关于先知天赋的虚假声称。一个愚人或半疯子认为他脑中的混乱就是灵感，并要人们追随他。世界上所宣扬的最为相互矛盾、最为非理性的胡言乱语，不过是混乱的疯子头脑中的本能呓语，试图冒充灵感的语言。
真正教义的首要检验，必须是那教义不应与理性相矛盾。你可以看到，这正是所有这些瑜伽[Yoga]的基础。我们采取胜王瑜伽[Raja Yoga]，即心理的瑜伽[Yoga]，走向合一的心理之路。这是一个庞大的课题，我现在只能向你们指出这种瑜伽[Yoga]的核心理念。我们只有一种获取知识的方法。从最低等的人到最高深的瑜伽修行者，所有人都必须使用同一种方法；那种方法就是所谓的专注。在实验室里工作的化学家，将心灵的所有力量集中，使之聚焦，并将其投射到元素上；于是元素得到分析，他的知识由此而来。天文学家同样将心灵的力量集中，使之聚焦；他通过望远镜将其投射到天体上；于是星辰与星系向前涌现，向他揭示它们的秘密。在每种情况下都是如此——无论是讲台上的教授、手捧书本的学生，还是所有努力求知的人。你在听我讲，如果我的话引起了你的兴趣，你的心灵便会对其专注；然后假设时钟响了，由于这种专注，你不会听到它；你越能专注心灵，就越能理解我；我越能集中我的爱与力量，就越能表达我想传达给你的东西。专注的力量越强，获取的知识越多，因为这是获取知识的唯一方法。即便是最低等的擦鞋匠，如果他更加专注，擦鞋也会擦得更好；厨师专注地做饭，饭菜会做得更好。无论是在赚钱、礼拜上帝还是做任何事情中，专注的力量越强，那件事就会做得越好。这是唯一的召唤，唯一敲开自然之门的叩击，让涌流的光明涌现出来。这种专注的力量，是知识宝库的唯一钥匙。胜王瑜伽[Raja Yoga]的体系几乎完全处理这个问题。在我们身体的现状中，我们是如此分心，心灵将其能量挥霍在百件事上。一旦我试图平静我的思想，将心灵专注于任何一个知识对象，成千上万个不想要的冲动涌入大脑，成千上万个念头涌入心灵，使其分散。如何制止这一切，使心灵受到控制，这就是胜王瑜伽[Raja Yoga]研习的整个课题。
现在来看业瑜伽[Karma Yoga]，即通过工作达到对上帝的体悟。很明显，社会上有许多人，他们似乎生来就为了某种活动，他们的心灵无法专注于单纯的思考层面，而只有一种理念，具体化为工作，可见而有形。这种生命方式也必须有一种科学。我们每个人都从事着某种工作，但我们大多数人挥霍了我们大部分的能量，因为我们不知道工作的秘诀。业瑜伽[Karma Yoga]解释了这个秘诀，并教导我们在何处以何种方式工作，如何将我们在当前工作中最大部分的能量发挥到最大优势。但对于这个秘诀，我们必须考虑到反对工作的重大异议，即工作造成痛苦。所有的苦难与痛苦都来自执著。我想工作，我想对某个人行善；而那个我所帮助过的人，十之八九会忘恩负义，转而反对我；对我而言，其结果是痛苦。这类事情使人类不愿工作；它损害了人类工作与能量的很大一部分，这对痛苦与苦难的恐惧。业瑜伽[Karma Yoga]教导我们如何为工作而工作，不执著，不在乎谁得到了帮助，也不在乎为了什么。业瑜伽[Karma Yoga]修行者工作，是因为这是他的本性，因为他感到这样做对他有益，他除此之外没有任何目标。他在这世上的位置是一个给予者，他从不在乎接受任何东西。他知道自己是在给予，不要求任何回报；因此，他逃脱了苦难的掌握。每当痛苦之掌出现时，都是"执著"之反应的结果。
然后是虔诚瑜伽[Bhakti Yoga]，适合情感本性的人，即爱者。他想要爱上帝，他依赖并使用各种仪式、鲜花、香熏、精美的建筑、形象及所有这类事物。你是否认为它们是错误的？有一件事我必须告诉你。这在这个国家尤其值得你们记住：世界上伟大的灵性巨人，都只是由那些拥有极为丰富神话与仪式的宗教宗派所造就的。所有试图不借助任何形式或典礼来礼拜上帝的宗派，都无情地粉碎了宗教中一切美丽崇高的东西。他们的宗教充其量不过是一种狂热，是一种枯燥的东西。世界历史就是这一事实的明证。因此，不要轻视这些仪式与神话。让人们拥有它们；让那些希望拥有的人得以拥有。不要露出那种不值得有的嘲讽微笑，说："他们是愚人；让他们拥有吧。"不，不是这样；我一生中所见过的最伟大的人，在灵性上发展得最为奇妙的人，都是通过这些仪式的磨炼而来的。我不认为自己有资格坐在他们脚下，我又怎能批评他们！我怎么知道这些观念如何作用于人类心灵——其中哪些是我该接受的，哪些是该拒绝的？我们倾向于不加充分依据地批评世界上的一切。让人们拥有他们想要的所有神话，连同其美丽的灵感；因为你必须始终铭记，情感本性的人不在乎对真理的抽象定义。上帝对他们来说是可以触及的，是唯一真实的；他们感受祂、听见祂、看见祂，并爱祂。让他们拥有自己的上帝。你的理性主义者在他们看来，如同那个见到美丽雕像却想要打碎它以查明其由何材料制成的愚人。虔诚瑜伽[Bhakti Yoga]教导他们如何去爱，不带任何功利动机，爱上帝，爱善良，只因这样做是美善的，而不是为了上天堂，或得到子嗣、财富，或任何其他东西。它教导他们，爱本身就是爱的最高报偿——上帝本身就是爱。它教导他们向上帝作为造物主、无处不在者、全知者、全能者的主宰、父与母，献上各种敬礼。能表达祂的最高语言，人类心灵所能构想的关于祂的最高观念，是祂是爱的上帝。无论哪里有爱，都是祂。"无论哪里有任何爱，都是祂，主在那里显现。"丈夫亲吻妻子时，祂就在那亲吻中；母亲亲吻孩子时，祂就在那亲吻中；朋友握手相会时，主作为爱的上帝就在那里。当一位伟人爱着并希望帮助人类时，祂就在那里，从祂对人类的爱中自由地给予祂的恩赐。无论心灵扩展之处，祂就在那里显现。这就是虔诚瑜伽[Bhakti Yoga]所教导的。
最后我们来到智慧瑜伽[Jnana Yoga]修行者——哲学家、思考者、那个想要超越可见之物的人。他是那个对这个世界的琐事不满足的人。他的理念是超越日常的饮食起居等惯例；即便是成千上万部书籍的教义也无法满足他。即便所有的科学也无法满足他；充其量，它们只是将这个小小的世界呈现在他面前。还有什么能给他满足？即便是无数个世界的星系也无法满足他；对他来说，它们不过是存在之大海中的一滴水。他的灵魂想要超越这一切，进入存在的最深处，通过如实地洞见实在，通过体悟实在，通过成为实在，通过与那普世存在合为一体。这就是哲学家。对他来说，说上帝是这个宇宙的父或母、造物主、保护者与引导者，已完全不足以表达祂。对他来说，上帝是他生命的生命，是他灵魂的灵魂。上帝是他自己的真我[Atman]。再没有任何其他的东西不是上帝。他凡俗的部分，都被哲学沉重的打击捣碎，被扫除殆尽。最终真正留下的，只有上帝自身。
同一棵树上有两只鸟，一只在顶端，另一只在下方。顶端那只宁静、沉默而威严，沉浸在自身的荣光之中；下方枝桠上的那只，轮番啄食甜果与苦果，在枝桠间跳跃，时而欢喜时而悲苦。过了一段时间，下方那只鸟吃到一颗异常苦涩的果子，满心厌恶，抬头望向另一只鸟——那只金羽奇鸟，它不吃甜果也不吃苦果，既不欢喜也不悲苦，而是宁静、以自我为中心，目光不及自身之外。下方那只鸟渴望这种状态，但很快便将其忘却，又开始啄食果子。不久，它又吃到另一颗异常苦涩的果子，感到痛苦，又抬头望去，试图靠近上方那只鸟。再次忘却，过了一段时间，又抬头望去，如此反复，直到它来到那美丽的鸟儿近旁，见到从其羽毛上折射出的光芒在自己身上映照，感到一种变化，似乎正在消融；更近了，它周围的一切都消融了，最终它领悟了这奇妙的变化。下方那只鸟，可以说，只不过是上方那只鸟的看似实质的影子，是其倒影；它本身在本质上一直是上方那只鸟。这啄食甜苦果子、时悲时喜的下方小鸟，不过是虚幻的空想，不过是梦境：始终，真正的鸟儿在上方，宁静沉默，荣耀威严，超越悲愁，超越哀苦。上方那只鸟是上帝，这宇宙的主；而下方那只鸟是人类灵魂，啄食着这个世界的甜果与苦果。有时会有沉重的一击降临灵魂。有那么一段时间，他停止啄食，转向那未知的上帝，一道光明涌来。他认为这世界不过是虚妄的幻象[Maya]。然而感官又将他拉下，他又开始像以前一样啄食世界的甜果与苦果。又来了一记异常沉重的击打。他的心再次向神圣的光明敞开；就这样，他逐渐趋近上帝，随着他越来越近，他发现自己旧有的自我正在消融。当他足够近时，他看到自己不是别的，正是上帝，他呼喊道："我曾向你描述为这宇宙之生命、存在于原子之中、存在于日月星辰之中的那位——祂是我们自己生命的基础，是我们灵魂的灵魂。不，你就是那个。"这就是智慧瑜伽[Jnana Yoga]所教导的。它告诉人，他本质上是神圣的。它向人类展示存在的真正统一，以及我们每个人本身就是在大地上显现的主上帝自身。我们所有人，从在我们脚下爬行的最卑微的虫子，到我们以敬畏之心仰望的最高存在——所有人都是同一个主的显现。
最后，所有这些各种各样的瑜伽[Yoga]都必须付诸实践；关于它们的单纯理论于事无补。首先，我们必须听闻它们，然后我们必须思考它们。我们必须将这些思想进行推理，将其铭印于心，必须对其冥想，体悟它们，直至它们最终成为我们整个生命。宗教将不再是一束观念或理论，也不再是理智的赞同；它将进入我们的整个存在之中。借助理智的赞同，我们今天也许会认同许多愚蠢的事情，明天又会将想法完全改变。但真正的宗教永不改变。宗教是体悟；不是空谈，不是教义，不是理论，无论它们多么美丽。它是存在与成为，而非听闻或认可；它是整个灵魂蜕变成其所信仰之物。这就是宗教。
English
THE IDEAL OF A UNIVERSAL RELIGION
How It Must Embrace Different Types Of Minds And Methods
Wheresoever our senses reach, or whatsoever our minds imagine, we find therein the action and reaction of two forces, the one counteracting the other and causing the constant play of the mixed phenomena that we see around us, and of those which we feel in our minds. In the external world, the action of these opposite forces is expressing itself as attraction and repulsion, or as centripetal and centrifugal forces; and in the internal, as love and hatred, good and evil. We repel some things, we attract others. We are attracted by one, we are repelled by another. Many times in our lives we find that without any reason whatsoever we are, as it were, attracted towards certain persons; at other times, similarly, we are repelled by others. This is patent to all, and the higher the field of action, the more potent, the more remarkable, are the influences of these opposite forces. Religion is the highest plane of human thought and life, and herein we find that the workings of these two forces have been most marked. The intensest love that humanity has ever known has come from religion, and the most diabolical hatred that humanity has known has also come from religion. The noblest words of peace that the world has ever heard have come from men on the religious plane, and the bitterest denunciation that the world has ever known has been uttered by religious men. The higher the object of any religion and the finer its organisation, he more remarkable are its activities. No other human motive has deluged the world with blood so much as religion; at the same time, nothing has brought into existence so many hospitals and asylums for the poor; no other human influence has taken such care, not only of humanity, but also of the lowest of animals, as religion has done. Nothing makes us so cruel as religion, and nothing makes us so tender as religion. This has been so in the past, and will also, in all probability, be so in the future. Yet out of the midst of this din and turmoil, this strife and struggle, this hatred and jealousy of religions and sects, there have arisen, from time to time, potent voices, drowning all this noise — making themselves heard from pole to pole, as it were — proclaiming peace and harmony. Will it ever come?
Is it possible that there should ever reign unbroken harmony in this plane of mighty religious struggle. The world is exercised in the latter part of this century by the question of harmony; in society, various plans are being proposed, and attempts are made to carry them into practice; but we know how difficult it is to do so. People find that it is almost impossible to mitigate the fury of the struggle of life, to tone down the tremendous nervous tension that is in man. Now, if it is so difficult to bring harmony and peace to the physical plane of life — the external, gross, and outward side of it — then a thousand times more difficult is it to bring peace and harmony to rule over the internal nature of man. I would ask you for the time being to come out of the network of words. We have all been hearing from childhood of such things as love, peace, charity, equality, and universal brotherhood; but they have become to us mere words without meaning, words which we repeat like parrots, and it has become quite natural for us to do so. We cannot help it. Great souls, who first felt these great ideas in their hearts, manufactured these words; and at that time many understood their meaning. Later on, ignorant people have taken up those words to play with them and made religion a mere play upon words, and not a thing to be carried into practice. It becomes "my father's religion", "our nation's religion", "our country's religion", and so forth. It becomes only a phase of patriotism to profess any religion, and patriotism is always partial. To bring harmony into religion must always be difficult. Yet we will consider this problem of the harmony of religions.
We see that in every religion there are three parts — I mean in every great and recognised religion. First, there is the philosophy which presents the whole scope of that religion, setting forth its basic principles, the goal and the means of reaching it. The second part is mythology, which is philosophy made concrete. It consists of legends relating to the lives of men, or of supernatural beings, and so forth. It is the abstractions of philosophy concretised in the more or less imaginary lives of men and supernatural beings. The third part is the ritual. This is still more concrete and is made up of forms and ceremonies, various physical attitudes, flowers and incense, and many other things, that appeal to the senses. In these consists the ritual. You will find that all recognised religions have these three elements. Some lay more stress on one, some on another. Let us now take into consideration the first part, philosophy. Is there one universal philosophy? Not yet. Each religion brings out its own doctrines and insists upon them as being the only true ones. And not only does it do that, but it thinks that he who does not believe in them must go to some horrible place. Some will even draw the sword to compel others to believe as they do. This is not through wickedness, but through a particular disease of the human brain called fanaticism. They are very sincere, these fanatics, the most sincere of human beings; but they are quite as irresponsible as other lunatics in the world. This disease of fanaticism is one of the most dangerous of all diseases. All the wickedness of human nature is roused by it. Anger is stirred up, nerves are strung high, and human beings become like tigers.
Is there any mythological similarity, is there any mythological harmony, any universal mythology accepted by all religions? Certainly not. All religions have their own mythology, only each of them says, "My stories are not mere myths." Let us try to understand the question by illustration. I simply mean to illustrate, I do not mean criticism of any religion. The Christian believes that God took the shape of a dove and came down to earth; to him this is history, and not mythology. The Hindu believes that God is manifested in the cow. Christians say that to believe so is mere mythology, and not history, that it is superstition. The Jews think that if an image be made in the form of a box, or a chest, with an angel on either side, then it may be placed in the Holy of Holies; it is sacred to Jehovah; but if the image be made in the form of a beautiful man or woman, they say, "This is a horrible idol; break it down! " This is our unity in mythology! If a man stands up and says, "My prophet did such and such a wonderful thing", others will say, "That is only superstition", but at the same time they say that their own prophet did still more wonderful things, which they hold to be historical. Nobody in the world, as far as I have seen, is able to make out the fine distinction between history and mythology, as it exists in the brains of these persons. All such stories, to whatever religion they may belong, are really mythological, mixed up occasionally, it may be with, a little history.
Next come the rituals. One sect has one particular form of ritual and thinks that that is holy, while the rituals of another sect are simply arrant superstition. If one sect worships a peculiar sort of symbol, another sect says, "Oh, it is horrible!" Take, for instance, a general form of symbol. The phallus symbol is certainly a sexual symbol, but gradually that aspect of it has been forgotten, and it stands now as a symbol of the Creator. Those nations which have this as their symbol never think of it as the phallus; it is just a symbol, and there it ends. But a man from another race or creed sees in it nothing but the phallus, and begins to condemn it; yet at the same time he may be doing something which to the so-called phallic worshippers appears most horrible. Let me take two points for illustration, the phallus symbol and the sacrament of the Christians. To the Christians the phallus is horrible, and to the Hindus the Christian sacrament is horrible. They say that the Christian sacrament, the killing of a man and the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood to get the good qualities of that man, is cannibalism. This is what some of the savage tribes do; if a man is brave, they kill him and eat his heart, because they think that it will give them the qualities of courage and bravery possessed by that man. Even such a devout Christian as Sir John Lubbock admits this and says that the origin of this Christian symbol is in this savage idea. The Christians, of course, do not admit this view of its origin; and what it may imply never comes to their mind. It stands for holy things, and that is all they want to know. So even in rituals there is no universal symbol, which can command general recognition and acceptance. Where then is any universality? How is it possible then to have a universal form of religion? That, however, already exists. And let us see what it is.
We all hear about universal brotherhood, and how societies stand up especially to preach this. I remember an old story. In India, taking wine is considered very bad. There were two brothers who wished, one night, to drink wine secretly; and their uncle, who was a very orthodox man was sleeping in a room quite close to theirs. So, before they began to drink, they said to each other, "We must be very silent, or uncle will wake up." When they were drinking, they continued repeating to each other "Silence! Uncle will wake up", each trying to shout the other down. And, as the shouting increased, the uncle woke up, came into the room, and discovered the whole thing. Now, we all shout like these drunken men," Universal brotherhood! We are all equal, therefore let us make a sect." As soon as you make a sect you protest against equality, and equality is no more. Mohammedans talk of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Why, anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into the brotherhood; he will more likely have his throat cut. Christians talk of universal brotherhood; but anyone who is not a Christian must go to that place where he will be eternally barbecued.
And so we go on in this world in our search after universal brotherhood and equality. When you hear such talk in the world, I would ask you to be a little reticent, to take care of yourselves, for, behind all this talk is often the intensest selfishness. "In the winter sometimes a thunder-cloud comes up; it roars and roars, but it does not rain; but in the rainy season the clouds speak not, but deluge the world with water." So those who are really workers, and really feel at heart the universal brotherhood of man, do not talk much, do not make little sects for universal brotherhood; but their acts, their movements, their whole life, show out clearly that they in truth possess the feeling of brotherhood for mankind, that they have love and sympathy for all. They do not speak, they do and they live. This world is too full of blustering talk. We want a little more earnest work, and less talk.
So far we see that it is hard to find any universal features in regard to religion, and yet we know that they exist. We are all human beings, but are we all equal? Certainly not. Who says we are equal? Only the lunatic. Are we all equal in our brains, in our powers, in our bodies? One man is stronger than another, one man has more brain power than another. If we are all equal, why is there this inequality? Who made it? We. Because we have more or less powers, more or less brain, more or less physical strength, it must make a difference between us. Yet we know that the doctrine of equality appeals to our heart. We are all human beings; but some are men, and some are women. Here is a black man, there is a white man; but all are men, all belong to one humanity. Various are our faces; I see no two alike, yet we are all human beings. Where is this one humanity? I find a man or a woman, either dark or fair; and among all these faces I know that there is an abstract humanity which is common to all. I may not find it when I try to grasp it, to sense it, and to actualise it, yet I know for certain that it is there. If I am sure of anything, it is of this humanity which is common to us all. It is through this generalised entity that I see you as a man or a woman. So it is with this universal religion, which runs through all the various religions of the world in the form of God; it must and does exist through eternity. "I am the thread that runs through all these pearls," and each pearl is a religion or even a sect thereof. Such are the different pearls, and the Lord is the thread that runs through all of them; only the majority of mankind are entirely unconscious of it.
Unity in variety is the plan of the universe. We are all men, and yet we are all distinct from one another. As a part of humanity I am one with you, and as Mr. So-and-so I am different from you. As a man you are separate from the woman; as a human being you are one with the woman. As a man you are separate from the animal, but as living beings, man, woman, animal, and plant are all one; and as existence, you are one with the whole universe. That universal existence is God, the ultimate Unity in the universe. In Him we are all one. At the same time, in manifestation, these differences must always remain. In our work, in our energies, as they are being manifested outside, these differences must always remain. We find then that if by the idea of a universal religion it is meant that one set of doctrines should be believed in by all mankind it is wholly impossible. It can never be, there can never be a time when all faces will be the same. Again, if we expect that there will be one universal mythology, that is also impossible; it cannot be. Neither can there be one universal ritual. Such a state of things can never come into existence; if it ever did, the world would be destroyed, because variety is the first principle of life. What makes us formed beings? Differentiation. Perfect balance would be our destruction. Suppose the amount of heat in this room, the tendency of which is towards equal and perfect diffusion, gets that kind of diffusion, then for all practical purposes that heat will cease to be. What makes motion possible in this universe? Lost balance. The unity of sameness can come only when this universe is destroyed, otherwise such a thing is impossible. Not only so, it would be dangerous to have it. We must not wish that all of us should think alike. There would then be no thought to think. We should be all alike, as the Egyptian mummies in a museum, looking at each other without a thought to think. It is this difference, this differentiation, this losing of the balance between us, which is the very soul of our progress, the soul of all our thought. This must always be.
What then do I mean by the ideal of a universal religion? I do not mean any one universal philosophy, or any one universal mythology, or any one universal ritual held alike by all; for I know that this world must go on working, wheel within wheel, this intricate mass of machinery, most complex, most wonderful. What can we do then? We can make it run smoothly, we can lessen the friction, we can grease the wheels, as it were. How? By recognising the natural necessity of variation. Just as we have recognised unity by our very nature, so we must also recognise variation. We must learn that truth may be expressed in a hundred thousand ways, and that each of these ways is true as far as it goes. We must learn that the same thing can be viewed from a hundred different standpoints, and vet be the same thing. Take for instance the sun. Suppose a man standing on the earth looks at the sun when it rises in the morning; he sees a big ball. Suppose he starts on a journey towards the sun and takes a camera with him, taking photographs at every stage of his journey, until he reaches the sun. The photographs of each stage will be seen to be different from those of the other stages; in fact, when he gets back, he brings with him so many photographs of so many different suns, as it would appear; and yet we know that the same sun was photographed by the man at the different stages of his progress. Even so is it with the Lord. Through high philosophy or low, through the most exalted mythology or the grossest, through the most refined ritualism or arrant fetishism, every sect, every soul, every nation, every religion, consciously or unconsciously, is struggling upward, towards God; every vision of truth that man has, is a vision of Him and of none else. Suppose we all go with vessels in our hands to fetch water from a lake. One has a cup, another a jar, another a bucket, and so forth, and we all fill our vessels. The water in each case naturally takes the form of the vessel carried by each of us. He who brought the cup has the water in the form of a cup; he who brought the jar — his water is in the shape of a jar, and so forth; but, in every case, water, and nothing but water, is in the vessel. So it is in the case of religion; our minds are like these vessels, and each one of us is trying to arrive at the realisation of God. God is like that water filling these different vessels, and in each vessel the vision of God comes in the form of the vessel. Yet He is One. He is God in every case. This is the only recognition of universality that we can get.
So far it is all right theoretically. But is there any way of practically working out this harmony in religions? We find that this recognition that all the various views of religion are true has been very very old. Hundreds of attempts have been made in India, in Alexandria, in Europe, in China, in Japan, in Tibet, and lastly in America, to formulate a harmonious religious creed, to make all religions come together in love. They have all failed, because they did not adopt any practical plan. Many have admitted that all the religions of the world are right, but they show no practical way of bringing them together, so as to enable each of them to maintain its own individuality in the conflux. That plan alone is practical, which does not destroy the individuality of any man in religion and at the same time shows him a point of union with all others. But so far, all the plans of religious harmony that have been tried, while proposing to take in all the various views of religion, have, in practice, tried to bind them all down to a few doctrines, and so have produced more new sects, fighting, struggling, and pushing against each other.
I have also my little plan. I do not know whether it will work or not, and I want to present it to you for discussion. What is my plan? In the first place I would ask mankind to recognise this maxim, "Do not destroy". Iconoclastic reformers do no good to the world. Break not, pull not anything down, but build. Help, if you can; if you cannot, fold your hands and stand by and see things go on. Do not injure, if you cannot render help. Say not a word against any man's convictions so far as they are sincere. Secondly, take man where he stands, and from there give him a lift. If it be true that God is the centre of all religions, and that each of us is moving towards Him along one of these radii, then it is certain that all of us must reach that centre. And at the centre, where all the radii meet, all our differences will cease; but until we reach there, differences there must be. All these radii converge to the same centre. One, according to his nature, travels along one of these lines, and another, along another; and if we all push onward along our own lines, we shall surely come to the centre, because, "All roads lead to Rome". Each of us is naturally growing and developing according to his own nature; each will in time come to know the highest truth for after all, men must teach themselves. What can you and I do? Do you think you can teach even a child? You cannot. The child teaches himself. Your duty is to afford opportunities and to remove obstacles. A plant grows. Do you make the plant grow? Your duty is to put a hedge round it and see that no animal eats up the plant, and there your duty ends. The plant grows of itself. So it is in regard to the spiritual growth of every man. None can teach you; none can make a spiritual man of you. You have to teach yourself; your growth must come from inside.
What can an external teacher do? He can remove the obstructions a little, and there his duty ends. Therefore help, if you can; but do not destroy. Give up all ideas that you can make men spiritual. It is impossible. There is no other teacher to you than your own soul. Recognise this. What comes of it? In society we see so many different natures. There are thousands and thousands of varieties of minds and inclinations. A thorough generalisation of them is impossible, but for our practical purpose it is sufficient to have them characterised into four classes. First, there is the active man, the worker; he wants to work, and there is tremendous energy in his muscles and his nerves. His aim is to work — to build hospitals, do charitable deeds, make streets, to plan and to organise. Then there is the emotional man who loves the sublime and the beautiful to an excessive degree. He loves to think of the beautiful, to enjoy the aesthetic side of nature, and adore Love and the God of Love. He loves with his whole heart the great souls of all times, the prophets of religions, and the Incarnations of God on earth; he does not care whether reason can or cannot prove that Christ or Buddha existed; he does not care for the exact date when the Sermon on the Mount was preached, or for the exact moment of Krishna's birth; what he cares for is their personalities, their lovable figures. Such is his ideal. This is the nature of the lover, the emotional man. Then, there is the mystic whose mind wants to analyse its own self, to understand the workings of the human mind, what the forces are that are working inside, and how to know, manipulate, and obtain control over them. This is the mystical mind. Then, there is the philosopher who wants to weigh everything and use his intellect even beyond the possibilities of all human philosophy.
Now a religion, to satisfy the largest proportion of mankind, must be able to supply food for all these various types of minds; and where this capability is wanting, the existing sects all become one-sided. Suppose you go to a sect which preaches love and emotion. They sing and weep, and preach love. But as soon as you say, "My friend, that is all right, but I want something stronger than this — a little reason and philosophy; I want to understand things step by step and more rationally", they say, "Get out"; and they not only ask you to get out but would send you to the other place, if they could. The result is that that sect can only help people of an emotional turn of mind. They not only do not help others, but try to destroy them; and the most wicked part of the whole thing is that they will not only not help others, but do not believe in their sincerity. Again, there are philosophers who talk of the wisdom of India and the East and use big psychological terms, fifty syllables long, but if an ordinary man like me goes to them and says, "Can you tell me anything to make me spiritual?", the first thing they would do would be to smile and say, "Oh, you are too far below us in your reason. What can you understand about spirituality?" These are high-up philosophers. They simply show you the door. Then there are the mystical sects who speak all sorts of things about different planes of existence, different states of mind, and what the power of the mind can do, and so on; and if you are an ordinary man and say, "Show me anything good that I can do; I am not much given to speculation; can you give me anything that will suit me?", they will smile and say, "Listen to that fool; he knows nothing, his existence is for nothing." And this is going on everywhere in the world. I would like to get extreme exponents of all these different sects, and shut them up in a room, and photograph their beautiful derisive smiles!
This is the existing condition of religion, the existing condition of things. What I want to propagate is a religion that will be equally acceptable to all minds; it must be equally philosophic, equally emotional, equally mystic, and equally conducive to action. If professors from the colleges come, scientific men and physicists, they will court reason. Let them have it as much as they want. There will be a point beyond which they will think they cannot go, without breaking with reason. They will say, "These ideas of God and salvation are superstitious, guise them up! " I say, "Mr. Philosopher, this body of yours is a bigger superstition. Give it up, don't go home to dinner or to your philosophic chair. Give up the body, and if you cannot, cry quarter and sit down." For religion must be able to show how to realise the philosophy that teaches us that this world is one, that there is but one Existence in the universe. Similarly, if the mystic comes, we must welcome him, be ready to give him the science of mental analysis, and practically demonstrate it before him. And if emotional people come, we must sit, laugh, and weep with them in the name of the Lord; we must "drink the cup of love and become mad". If the energetic worker comes, we must work with him, with all the energy that we have. And this combination will be the ideal of the nearest approach to a universal religion. Would to God that all men were so constituted that in their minds all these elements of philosophy, mysticism, emotion, and of work were equally present in full! That is the ideal, my ideal of a perfect man. Everyone who has only one or two of these elements of character, I consider "one-sided"; and this world is almost full of such "one-sided" men, with knowledge of that one road only in which they move; and anything else is dangerous and horrible to them. To become harmoniously balanced in all these four directions is my ideal of religion. And this religion is attained by what we, in India, call Yoga — union. To the worker, it is union between men and the whole of humanity; to the mystic, between his lower and Higher Self; to the lover, union between himself and the God of Love; and to the philosopher; it is the union of all existence. This is what is meant by Yoga. This is a Sanskrit term, and these four divisions of Yoga have in Sanskrit different names. The man who seeks after this kind of union is called a Yogi. The worker is called the Karma-Yogi. He who seeks the union through love is called the Bhakti-Yogi. He who seeks it through mysticism is called the Râja-Yogi. And he who seeks it through philosophy is called the Jnâna-Yogi So this word Yogi comprises them all.
Now first of all let me take up Râja-Yoga. What is this Raja-Yoga, this controlling of the mind? In this country you are associating all sorts of hobgoblins with the word Yoga, I am afraid. Therefore, I must start by telling you that it has nothing to do with such things. No one of these Yogas gives up reason, no one of them asks you to be hoodwinked, or to deliver your reason into the hands of priests of any type whatsoever. No one of them asks that you should give your allegiance to any superhuman messenger. Each one of them tells you to cling to your reason to hold fast to it. We find in all beings three sorts of instruments of knowledge. The first is instinct, which you find most highly developed in animals; this is the lowest instrument of knowledge. What is the second instrument of knowledge? Reasoning. You find that most highly developed in man. Now in the first place, instinct is an inadequate instrument; to animals, the sphere of action is very limited, and within that limit instinct acts. When you come to man, you see it is largely developed into reason. The sphere of action also has here become enlarged. Yet even reason is still very insufficient. Reason can go only a little way and then it stops, it cannot go any further; and if you try to push it, the result is helpless confusion, reason itself becomes unreasonable. Logic becomes argument in a circle. Take, for instance, the very basis of our perception, matter and force. What is matter? That which is acted upon by force. And force? That which acts upon matter. You see the complication, what the logicians call see-saw, one idea depending on the other, and this again depending on that. You find a mighty barrier before reason, beyond which reasoning cannot go; yet it always feels impatient to get into the region of the Infinite beyond. This world, this universe which our senses feel, or our mind thinks, is but one atom, so to say, of the Infinite, projected on to the plane of consciousness; and within that narrow limit, defined by the network of consciousness, works our reason, and not beyond. Therefore, there must be some other instrument to take us beyond, and that instrument is called inspiration. So instinct, reason, and inspiration are the three instruments of knowledge. Instinct belongs to animals, reason to man, and inspiration to God-men. But in all human beings are to be found, in a more or less developed condition, the germs of all these three instruments of knowledge. To have these mental instruments evolved, the germs must be there. And this must also be remembered that one instrument is a development of the other, and therefore does not contradict it. It is reason that develops into inspiration, and therefore inspiration does not contradict reason, but fulfils it. Things which reason cannot get at are brought to light by inspiration; and they do not contradict reason. The old man does not contradict the child, but fulfils the child. Therefore you must always bear in mind that the great danger lies in mistaking the lower form of instrument to be the higher. Many times instinct is presented before the world as inspiration, and then come all the spurious claims for the gift of prophecy. A fool or a semi-lunatic thinks that the confusion going on in his brain is inspiration, and he wants men to follow him. The most contradictory irrational nonsense that has been preached in the world is simply the instinctive jargon of confused lunatic brains trying to pass for the language of inspiration.
The first test of true teaching must be, that the teaching should not contradict reason. And you may see that such is the basis of all these Yogas. We take the Raja-Yoga, the psychological Yoga, the psychological way to union. It is a vast subject, and I can only point out to you now the central idea of this Yoga. We have but one method of acquiring knowledge. From the lowest man to the highest Yogi, all have to use the same method; and that method is what is called concentration. The chemist who works in his laboratory concentrates all the powers of his mind, brings them into one focus, and throws them on the elements; and the elements stand analysed, and thus his knowledge comes. The astronomer has also concentrated the powers of his mind and brought them into one focus; and he throws them on to objects through his telescope; and stars and systems roll forward and give up their secrets to him. So it is in every case — with the professor in his chair, the student with his book — with every man who is working to know. You are hearing me, and if my words interest you, your mind will become concentrated on them; and then suppose a clock strikes, you will not hear it, on account of this concentration; and the more you are able to concentrate your mind, the better you will understand me; and the more I concentrate my love and powers, the better I shall be able to give expression to what I want to convey to you. The more this power of concentration, the more knowledge is acquired, because this is the one and only method of acquiring knowledge. Even the lowest shoeblack, if he gives more concentration, will black shoes better; the cook with concentration will cook a meal all the better. In making money, or in worshipping God, or in doing anything, the stronger the power of concentration, the better will that thing be done. This is the one call, the one knock, which opens the gates of nature, and lets out floods of light. This, the power of concentration, is the only key to the treasure-house of knowledge. The system of Raja-Yoga deals almost exclusively with this. In the present state of our body we are so much distracted, and the mind is frittering away its energies upon a hundred sorts of things. As soon as I try to calm my thoughts and concentrate my mind upon any one object of knowledge, thousands of undesired impulses rush into the brain, thousands of thoughts rush into the mind and disturb it. How to check it and bring the mind under control is the whole subject of study in Raja-Yoga.
Now take Karma-Yoga, the attainment of God through work. It is evident that in society there are many persons who seem to be born for some sort of activity or other, whose minds cannot be concentrated on the plane of thought alone, and who have but one idea, concretised in work, visible and tangible. There must be a science for this kind of life too. Each one of us is engaged in some work, but the majority of us fritter away the greater portion of our energies, because we do not know the secret of work. Karma-Yoga explains this secret and teaches where and how to work, how to employ to the greatest advantage the largest part of our energies in the work that is before us. But with this secret we must take into consideration the great objection against work, namely that it causes pain. All misery and pain come from attachment. I want to do work, I want to do good to a human being; and it is ninety to one that that human being whom I have helped will prove ungrateful and go against me; and the result to me is pain. Such things deter mankind from working; and it spoils a good portion of the work and energy of mankind, this fear of pain and misery. Karma-Yoga teaches us how to work for work's sake, unattached, without caring who is helped, and what for. The Karma-Yogi works because it is his nature, because he feels that it is good for him to do so, and he has no object beyond that. His position in this world is that of a giver, and he never cares to receive anything. He knows that he is giving, and does not ask for anything in return and, therefore, he eludes the grasp of misery. The grasp of pain, whenever it comes, is the result of the reaction of "attachment".
There is then the Bhakti-Yoga for the man of emotional nature, the lover. He wants to love God, he relies upon and uses all sorts of rituals, flowers, incense, beautiful buildings, forms and all such things. Do you mean to say they are wrong? One fact I must tell you. It is good for you to remember, in this country especially, that the world's great spiritual giants have all been produced only by those religious sects which have been in possession of very rich mythology and ritual. All sects that have attempted to worship God without any form or ceremony have crushed without mercy everything that is beautiful and sublime in religion. Their religion is a fanaticism at best, a dry thing. The history of the world is a standing witness to this fact. Therefore do not decry these rituals and mythologies. Let people have them; let those who so desire have them. Do not exhibit that unworthy derisive smile, and say, "They are fools; let them have it." Not so; the greatest men I have seen in my life, the most wonderfully developed in spirituality, have all come through the discipline of these rituals. I do not hold myself worthy to sit at their feet, and for me to criticise them! How do I know how these ideas act upon the human minds which of them I am to accept and which to reject? We are apt to criticise everything in the world: without sufficient warrant. Let people have all the mythology they want, with its beautiful inspirations; for you must always bear in mind that emotional natures do not care for abstract definitions of the truth. God to them is something tangible, the only thing that is real; they feel, hear, and see Him, and love Him. Let them have their God. Your rationalist seems to them to be like the fool who, when he saw a beautiful statue, wanted to break it to find out of what material it was made. Bhakti-Yoga: teaches them how to love, without any ulterior motives, loving God and loving the good because it is good to do so, not for going to heaven, nor to get children, wealth, or anything else. It teaches them that love itself is the highest recompense of love --- that God Himself is love. It teaches them to pay all kinds of tribute to God as the Creator, the Omnipresent, Omniscient, Almighty Ruler, the Father and the Mother. The highest phrase that can express Him, the highest idea that the human mind can conceive of Him, is that He is the God of Love. Wherever there is love, it is He. "Wherever there is any love, it is He, the Lord is present there." Where the husband kisses the wife, He is there in the kiss; where the mother kisses the child, He is there in the kiss; where friends clasp hands, He, the Lord, is present as the God of Love. When a great man loves and wishes to help mankind, He is there giving freely His bounty out of His love to mankind. Wherever the heart expands, He is there manifested. This is what the Bhakti-Yoga teaches.
We lastly come to the Jnana-Yogi, the philosopher, the thinker, he who wants to go beyond the visible. He is the man who is not satisfied with the little things of this world. His idea is to go beyond the daily routine of eating, drinking, and so on; not even the teaching of thousands of books will satisfy him. Not even all the sciences will satisfy him; at the best, they only bring this little world before him. What else will give him satisfaction? Not even myriads of systems of worlds will satisfy him; they are to him but a drop in the ocean of existence. His soul wants to go beyond all that into the very heart of being, by seeing Reality as It is; by realising It, by being It, by becoming one with that Universal Being. That is the philosopher. To say that God is the Father or the Mother, the Creator of this universe, its Protector and Guide, is to him quite inadequate to express Him. To him, God is the life of his life, the soul of his soul. God is his own Self. Nothing else remains which is other than God. All the mortal parts of him become pounded by the weighty strokes of philosophy and are brushed away. What at last truly remains is God Himself.
Upon the same tree there are two birds, one on the top, the other below. The one on the top is calm, silent, and majestic, immersed in his own glory; the one on the lower branches, eating sweet and bitter fruits by turns, hopping from branch to branch, is becoming happy and miserable by turns. After a time the lower bird eats an exceptionally bitter fruit and gets disgustful and looks up and sees the other bird, that wondrous one of golden plumage, who eats neither sweet nor bitter fruit, who is neither happy nor miserable, but calm, Self-centred, and sees nothing beyond his Self. The lower bird longs for this condition but soon forgets it, and again begins to eat the fruits. In a little while, he eats another exceptionally bitter fruit, which makes him feel miserable, and he again looks up, and tries to get nearer to the upper bird. Once more he forgets and after a time he looks up, and so on he goes again and again, until he comes very near to the beautiful bird and sees the reflection of light from his plumage playing around his own body, and he feels a change and seems to melt away; still nearer he comes, and everything about him melts away, and at last he understands this wonderful change. The lower bird was, as it were, only the substantial-looking shadow, the reflection of the higher; he himself was in essence the upper bird all the time. This eating of fruits, sweet and bitter, this lower, little bird, weeping and happy by turns, was a vain chimera, a dream: all along, the real bird was there above, calm and silent, glorious and majestic, beyond grief, beyond sorrow. The upper bird is God, the Lord of this universe; and the lower bird is the human soul, eating the sweet and bitter fruits of this world. Now and then comes a heavy blow to the soul. For a time, he stops the eating and goes towards the unknown God, and a flood of light comes. He thinks that this world is a vain show. Yet again the senses drag hint down, and he begins as before to eat the sweet and bitter fruits of the world. Again an exceptionally hard blow comes. His heart becomes open again to divine light; thus gradually he approaches God, and as he gets nearer and nearer, he finds his old self melting away. When he has come near enough, he sees that he is no other than God, and he exclaims, "He whom I have described to you as the Life of this universe, as present in the atom, and in suns and moons — He is the basis of our own life, the Soul of our soul. Nay, thou art That." This is what this Jnana-Yoga teaches. It tells man that he is essentially divine. It shows to mankind the real unity of being, and that each one of us is the Lord God Himself, manifested on earth. All of us, from the lowest worm that crawls under our feet to the highest beings to whom we look up with wonder and awe — all are manifestations of the same Lord.
Lastly, it is imperative that all these various Yogas should be carried out in, practice; mere theories about them will not do any good. First we have to hear about them, then we have to think about them. We have to reason the thoughts out, impress them on our minds, and we have to meditate on them, realise them, until at last they become our whole life. No longer will religion remain a bundle of ideas or theories, nor an intellectual assent; it will enter into our very self. By means of intellectual assent we may today subscribe to many foolish things, and change our minds altogether tomorrow. But true religion never changes. Religion is realisation; not talk, nor doctrine, nor theories, however beautiful they may be. It is being and becoming, not hearing or acknowledging; it is the whole soul becoming changed into what it believes. That is religion.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。