宗教的必要性
本译文由人工智能辅助工具生成，可能存在不准确之处。如需查阅权威文本，请参考英文原文。
AI-translated. May contain errors. For accurate text, refer to the original English.
中文
第一章
宗教之必要性
（在伦敦讲演）
在所有曾经发挥作用、至今仍在发挥作用、塑造人类命运的力量之中，没有任何一种力量比我们称之为宗教的那种力量的彰显更为强大。所有社会组织在某处都以那种特殊力量的运作为其背景，而在人类个体之间所曾产生的最强大的凝聚冲动，皆源于这种力量。对我们所有人而言，显而易见的是，在许多情况下，宗教的纽带已被证明比种族、气候、乃至血统的纽带更为牢固。众所周知，礼拜同一位神、信奉同一种宗教的人，彼此之间的守望相助，远比仅仅同出一脉、乃至骨肉兄弟更为有力而恒久。追溯宗教起源的尝试多种多样。在流传至今的所有古代宗教中，我们发现有一个共同的主张——它们都是超自然的，其起源并非在人脑之中，而是发源于人脑之外的某处。
现代学者中流行着两种理论。一是宗教的灵魂说，另一是无限观念的进化论。一派主张祖先崇拜是宗教观念的起点；另一派则认为宗教起源于对自然力量的人格化。人想要保存对已故亲人的记忆，认为即使肉身消解，亲人依然生存，他想要为他们供奉食物，并在某种意义上礼拜他们。由此产生了我们称之为宗教的成长。
研究古代埃及人、巴比伦人、中国人以及美洲及其他地区许多民族的古代宗教，我们发现祖先崇拜作为宗教起源这一主张有着极为清晰的痕迹。对古代埃及人而言，灵魂最初的观念是"双重体"——每一具人体内部都包含着一个与之极为相似的存在；当一个人死去，这个双重体便离开肉体，却依然存活。然而双重体的生命仅与死者肉身的完整性相维系，这正是我们在埃及人那里发现如此强烈的保存尸体之愿望的原因。这也是他们建造那些巨大金字塔来保存尸身的原因。因为，若外在的肉身任何部分受损，双重体也会相应受伤。这显然是祖先崇拜。在古代巴比伦人那里，我们发现了相同的双重体观念，但有所变化——双重体失去了一切爱的意识，它以恐吓的方式要求活人供给食物饮水并以各种方式相助，甚至对自己的子女和妻子也失去了所有情感。在古代印度人中，我们同样发现了祖先崇拜的痕迹。中国人宗教的基础也可以说是祖先崇拜，它至今仍渗透于那个幅员辽阔的国度的每一个角落。事实上，在中国真正可以说是蓬勃兴盛的唯一宗教，便是祖先崇拜。因此，从一方面来看，那些主张祖先崇拜是宗教起源的人，确实建立了相当有力的论据。
另一方面，有些学者从古代雅利安文献中证明，宗教起源于自然崇拜。尽管在印度，祖先崇拜的证据随处可见，然而在最古老的文献记录中，却完全没有这方面的踪迹。在雅利安民族最古老的文献记录《梨俱吠陀》本集中，我们找不到任何祖先崇拜的痕迹。现代学者认为，他们在那里发现的是自然崇拜。人类心灵似乎努力要窥探到幕后的真相。黎明、黄昏、飓风、自然界那令人叹为观止的巨大力量、自然之美，这一切都在激动着人类的心灵，人类渴望超越这一切，去理解某些关于它们的东西。在这一努力中，人们赋予这些自然现象以个人的属性，给予它们灵魂与躯体，有时美丽，有时崇高超凡。每一次尝试都以这些现象成为抽象而告终，无论是否已被人格化。古代希腊人亦然；他们的整个神话体系，不过是这种被抽象化了的自然崇拜。古代日耳曼人、斯堪的纳维亚人以及所有其他雅利安民族亦然。因此，从这一方面来看，同样建立了相当有力的论据：宗教起源于对自然力量的人格化。
这两种观点表面上相互矛盾，但可以在第三种基础上加以调和——在我看来，这才是宗教的真正萌芽，我拟将其称为超越感官局限的努力。无论是人类寻求祖先的魂灵、亡者的魂灵，也就是想要一瞥肉身消解之后存在着什么；还是他渴望理解在自然界那宏伟现象背后运作的力量——无论是哪种情形，有一点是确定无疑的：他试图超越感官的局限。他无法满足于自己的感官，他想要超越它们。对此无需神秘的解释。在我看来，宗教的第一瞥通过梦境而来，这是极为自然的。人关于不朽的最初观念，很可能正是通过梦境获得的。那难道不是一种最奇妙的状态吗？我们知道，儿童和未受教化的心灵几乎无法区分梦境与清醒状态。还有什么比下面这个发现更为自然：他们以自然的逻辑发现，即便在睡眠状态——肉身表面上已死——心灵仍以其全部复杂的运作方式持续运转？当一个人得出这样的结论——当这具肉身永远消解之后，同样的运作将继续下去——又有什么奇怪？在我看来，这将是一种对超自然现象更为自然的解释，通过这一梦境理念，人类心灵便上升到愈来愈高的认知层次。当然，随着时间的推移，绝大多数人类发现这些梦境无法得到清醒状态的证实，梦境中人并非拥有一种全新的存在，而不过是在重演清醒状态的经历。
然而此时探索已经开始，而且这一探索是向内的。人类继续深入探究心灵的不同状态，发现了超越清醒与梦境的更高状态。这种情形在世界所有有组织的宗教中均可见到，被称为入神境界或灵感。在所有有组织的宗教中，其创始人、先知与使者都被宣称曾进入一种既非清醒亦非睡眠的心灵状态，在那种状态中，他们与一系列关于所谓灵性王国的新事实面对面相遇。他们在那里所领悟的事实，其强烈程度远超我们在清醒状态中感知周围事实的程度。以婆罗门宗教为例：据说吠陀是由仙人（Rishis）所著。这些仙人是领悟了某些真理的圣哲。梵文"Rishi"一词的确切含义是曼陀罗[Mantra]的先见者——即《吠陀》赞歌所传递的思想的先见者。这些人宣称，他们已亲证——若能以"感知"这个词来指超感官之事的话——某些事实，并着手将这些事实记录下来。同样的真理在犹太人和基督徒中也有记载。
南方佛教所代表的佛教，或许会提出若干例外。有人可能会问：若佛教徒不相信任何神或灵魂，他们的宗教又怎能源自超感官的存在状态呢？对此的回答是：即便是佛教徒也发现了一种永恒的道德法则，而那道德法则并非以我们通常意义上的推理所得出，而是佛陀在超感官状态中发现、领悟到的。研究过佛陀生平的人——哪怕只是通过那部美丽的诗篇《亚洲之光》简略地了解——或许会记得，佛陀被描写为在菩提树下静坐，直至达到那超感官的心灵状态。他的一切教义皆源于此，而非源于智识上的思辨。
因此，所有宗教都发出一个震撼人心的宣告：人类的心灵在某些时刻，不仅超越了感官的局限，也超越了理性的能力。它彼时与一些它永远无法感知、永远无法推论的事实面对面相遇。这些事实是世界上所有宗教的基础。当然，我们有权质疑这些事实，将其置于理性的检验之下。尽管如此，世界上所有现存的宗教都为人类心灵主张这种超越感官极限与理性极限的特殊能力，并将其作为事实的陈述提出。
抛开这些宗教所主张的事实究竟在多大程度上是真实的这一问题不论，我们发现所有这些宗教有一个共同的特征。与物理学等学科具体的发现相比，它们都是抽象的；而在所有高度组织化的宗教中，它们采取了最纯粹的单一抽象形式——或是抽象临在的形式，作为无处不在的存在；或是被称为神的抽象人格；或是道德法则；或是一切存在背后的抽象本质。在现代，那些试图在不诉诸心灵超感官状态的情况下传播宗教的尝试，也不得不援引古人的旧有抽象概念，赋予其"道德法则"、"理想统一"等不同名称，由此表明这些抽象观念并不存在于感官之中。我们当中没有人见过"理想人类"，然而我们被告知要相信它。我们当中没有人见过理想的完人，然而没有那个理想，我们便无法进步。因此，从所有这些不同的宗教中，有一个事实清晰地呈现出来：存在着一种理想的单一抽象，它被置于我们面前，或以一个人格的形式，或以一种非人格的存在，或以一种法则，或以一种临在，或以一种本质。我们始终在努力将自己提升至那一理想。每一个人，无论是谁、在哪里，都对无限的力量有所理想。每一个人都对无限的欢乐有所理想。我们周围所见的大多数事业，无处不在展现的活动，都源于对这无限力量或无限欢乐的追求。然而少数人很快发现，尽管他们在追求无限的力量，却无法通过感官来获得。他们很快发现，那无限的欢乐无法通过感官来获取；换言之，感官过于有限，身体也过于有限，无法表达无限。通过有限来彰显无限是不可能的，人迟早会学会放弃这种尝试。这种放弃，这种对这一尝试的舍离，是伦理的背景。舍离是伦理赖以建立的根基。从未有过一种被宣扬的伦理法则，其基础不是舍离。
伦理始终说："不是我，而是你。"其座右铭是："不是自我，而是非自我。"当人试图通过感官寻找那无限的力量或无限的欢乐时所抱持的个人主义的虚妄观念，必须被放弃——伦理法则如是说。你必须将自己放在最后，将他人置于你之前。感官说："我自己优先。"伦理说："我必须将自己置于最后。"因此，所有伦理规范都以这种舍离为基础；是在物质层面对个人的毁灭，而非建构。那无限永远不会在物质层面上找到表达，这在事理上既不可能，也无从设想。
因此，人必须放弃物质的层面，上升到其他领域，去寻求那无限更深刻的表达。就这样，各种伦理法则得以形成，然而所有法则都有同一个中心理念：永恒的自我消融。完美的自我消灭是伦理的理想。若被要求不去想自己的个性，人们会大为震惊。他们似乎非常害怕失去他们所谓的个性。与此同时，这些人又会宣称最高的伦理理想是正确的，却从未想到伦理的范畴、目标与理念，正是个人的毁灭，而非建构。
功利主义的标准无法解释人类的伦理关系，因为首先，我们无法从效用的考量中推导出任何伦理法则。若没有超自然的认可——如其所称——或没有对超意识的感知——如我所更愿意称之——便不可能有伦理。没有对无限的追求，便不可能有理想。任何试图将人类束缚于各自社会限度之内的体系，都无力为人类的伦理法则提供解释。功利主义者希望我们放弃对无限的追求、对超感官的探求，视之为不切实际和荒谬，却在同一口气中要求我们承担伦理义务、为社会行善。我们为何要行善？行善是次要的考虑。我们必须先有理想。伦理本身不是目的，而是达到目的的手段。若没有目的，我们为何要讲伦理？我为何应当对他人行善而不是伤害他们？若幸福是人类的目标，我为何不使自己幸福而让他人不幸？有什么能阻止我？其次，效用的基础过于狭窄。所有当前的社会形式和方法都源于现存的社会，然而功利主义者凭什么权利假定社会是永恒的？久远之前社会并不存在，久远之后也可能不再存在。它很可能不过是我们正在经历的、走向更高进化的一个过渡阶段，而任何仅仅源于社会的法则都不可能是永恒的，都不可能涵盖人类本性的全部领域。因此，功利主义理论至多只能在当前社会条件下有效，超出这一范围便毫无价值。然而，一种源于宗教与灵性的道德——一种伦理法则——其范畴是无限的整体人类。它把握个人，但其关系指向无限；它也把握社会——因为社会不过是许多这样的个人的集合——既然它适用于个人及其永恒的关系，就必然适用于整个社会，无论其在任何特定时刻处于何种状态。由此我们看到，灵性宗教对人类始终是必要的。人不能永远思考物质，无论它多么令人愉悦。
据说，过多关注灵性事物会扰乱我们在这个世界上的实际关系。远在中国圣人孔子时代，便有人说："让我们先照管好这个世界，当我们料理完这个世界，再照管另一个世界。"照管好这个世界，是完全正当的。然而，若过多关注灵性也许会稍微影响我们的实际关系，那么过多关注所谓的实际，则会在此世与来世都伤害我们，使我们变得唯物主义。因为人不应将自然视为目标，而应以更高之物为目标。
人之所以为人，正在于他不断努力超越自然，而这种自然既是内在的，也是外在的。它不仅包括支配我们体外及体内物质微粒的规律，也包括更为微妙的内在本性——事实上，正是这内在本性构成了支配外在的动力。征服外在自然固然美好而崇高，但征服内在自然则更为崇高伟大。了解支配星辰与行星的规律，固然伟大而美好；了解支配人类激情、情感与意志的规律，则无限地更为崇高美好。征服内在之人、理解人类心灵内部微妙运作的奥秘，认识其奇妙的秘密，完全属于宗教的领域。普通的人类本性——我指的是普通的人类本性——渴望看到宏大的物质事实。普通人对任何微妙的事物都无从理解。有人曾一针见血地说，群众钦佩杀死千头羔羊的雄狮，却从未片刻想到这对于那些羔羊而言乃是死亡——尽管对于狮子而言只是片刻的胜利——因为他们只在肉体力量的彰显中发现乐趣。普通人类的状况便是如此。他们理解并在一切外在事物中找到乐趣。然而在每一个社会中，都有一部分人，其乐趣不在感官之中，而在感官之外；他们时而瞥见某种高于物质的存在，并努力去追及它。若我们在字里行间通读各民族的历史，便会始终发现：一个民族的兴起伴随着此类人数量的增加，而当这种对无限的追求——无论功利主义者如何称之为徒劳——已然停止时，衰落便随之开始。也就是说，每个民族的力量之源泉在于其灵性，而那个民族的死亡，从灵性衰退、唯物主义得势的那一天便已开始。
因此，撇开我们可能从宗教中学到的可靠事实与真理，撇开我们可能从中获得的安慰不谈，宗教作为一门学问，作为一种研究，是人类心灵所能进行的最伟大、最健康的锻炼。这种对无限的追求，这种把握无限的努力，这种试图超越感官的局限——仿佛从物质中挣脱出来——并发展灵性之人的奋斗，这种夜以继日地努力使无限与我们的存在合而为一的奋斗——这种奋斗本身，是人类所能进行的最崇高、最光荣的事业。有人在饮食中找到最大的乐趣，我们无权说他们不应该如此。有人在拥有某些事物中找到最大的乐趣，我们同样无权说他们不应该如此。但他们也无权对那个在灵性思想中找到最高乐趣的人说"不"。组织层次越低，在感官中的乐趣便越大。很少有人能以一只狗或一匹狼那样的贪婪享用一顿饭食。然而狗或狼的一切乐趣，可以说都已归入感官之中。各民族中组织层次较低的人类类型在感官中寻求乐趣，而有教养、受过教育的人则在思想、哲学、艺术与科学中寻找乐趣。灵性是更高的境界。主题既然是无限的，那个境界便是最高的，其中的乐趣对能够领略它的人来说也是最高的。因此，即便从人应寻求乐趣这一功利主义立场出发，他也应当培育宗教思想，因为这是现存的最高乐趣。宗教作为一门研究，在我看来是绝对必要的。
我们可以从其效用中看到这一点。它是推动人类心灵的最大动力。没有任何其他理想能为我们注入与灵性同等的能量。就人类历史所及，这一点对我们所有人来说显而易见：历来如此，而且其力量并未消逝。我不否认，仅凭功利的立场，人也能变得非常善良而有道德。这个世界上有许多伟大的人，仅凭功利的立场，便完全理智、道德而善良。然而那些推动世界的人——那些仿佛将一股磁力带入世界的人，其精神在数以百计、数以千计的人中起着作用，其生命点燃他人灵性之火的人——我们总是发现，他们都有那灵性的背景。他们的动力来自宗教。宗教是实现那无限能量的最大动力——而那无限能量是每一个人的天赋权利与本性。在建立品格、在为一切美好与伟大的事物服务、在为他人带来平安并为自己心灵带来平安方面，宗教是最高的动力，因此理应从这一立场来研究宗教。宗教必须在比过去更宽广的基础上加以研究。一切狭隘的、局限的、好斗的宗教观念必须被摒弃。一切宗派的观念以及宗教的部落或民族观念都必须放弃。每一个部落或民族都应有其自己特定的神，并认为其他一切都是错误的——这种迷信应当属于过去。所有这些观念都必须被舍弃。
随着人类心灵的拓展，其灵性的步伐也随之拓展。如今，一个人记录一个想法而不使其传播至世界每一个角落，已是不可能的事；仅凭物质的手段，我们已与整个世界接触；因此，未来世界的宗教必须同样变得普世，同样广博。
未来的宗教理想必须涵盖世界上存在的一切美好与伟大的事物，同时又为未来的发展留有无限的空间。一切过去美好的东西都必须被保存下来；通往已有宝藏的新增之门必须保持敞开。宗教也必须具有包容性，不因各自对神的理想不同而相互鄙视。在我的一生中，我见过许多有灵性的人、许多明智的人，他们根本不相信神——也就是说，不是以我们通常的意义上来相信。也许他们对神的理解，比我们所能理解的更深。对神的个人观念或非个人的、无限的、道德法则的或理想人类的观念——这些都必须纳入宗教的定义之中。当宗教如此拓宽，其行善的力量将增加百倍。宗教本身拥有巨大的力量，然而往往因其狭隘与局限而对世界造成的伤害多于益处。
即便在当下，我们也发现许多教派与团体，持有几乎相同的观念，却相互争斗，只因其中一方不愿以另一方所坚持的方式来阐述那些观念。因此，宗教必须拓宽。宗教观念必须变得普世、广博而无限；唯有如此，我们才能看到宗教的充分发挥，因为宗教的力量在世界上才刚刚开始彰显。有时人们说宗教正在消亡，灵性观念正在从世界上消逝。在我看来，它们不过是刚刚开始成长。经过拓宽与净化的宗教力量，将渗透人类生活的每一个部分。只要宗教还掌握在少数被选中的人或一批神职人员手中，它就存在于神庙、教堂、典籍、教条、礼仪、形式与仪式之中。然而当我们来到真正的、灵性的、普世的理念，唯有在那时，宗教才会变得真实而有生命力；它将进入我们的本性，活在我们的每一个举动中，渗透我们社会的每一个毛孔，成为一种比以往任何时候都更为强大的行善力量。
所需要的，是不同类型的宗教之间的同胞情谊——认识到它们同生共死，是一种从相互尊重与相互敬重中涌现的同胞情谊，而非那种不幸地在当今许多人中盛行的居高临下、施恩式的、小气的善意表达。尤其是，这种情谊在以下两类宗教表达之间是最为迫切需要的：一类来自对心理现象的研究——不幸的是，直到如今，它们仍独占"宗教"这一名称；另一类则是那些宗教表达，其头颅仿佛正更深地探入天堂的秘密，尽管其双脚仍依附于大地，我所说的，便是所谓的唯物主义科学。
为了实现这种和谐，双方都必须作出让步，有时是很大的让步，乃至有时是痛苦的；然而双方都会发现，自己因这种牺牲而受益，在真理上更有进步。最终，被局限在时间与空间领域之内的知识，将与超越时间与空间的知识相遇并合而为一——在那里，心灵与感官都无法到达——那绝对、无限、无二之一体。
English
CHAPTER I
THE NECESSITY OF RELIGION
( Delivered in London )
Of all the forces that have worked and are still working to mould the destinies of the human race, none, certainly, is more potent than that, the manifestation of which we call religion. All social organisations have as a background, somewhere, the workings of that peculiar force, and the greatest cohesive impulse ever brought into play amongst human units has been derived from this power. It is obvious to all of us that in very many cases the bonds of religion have proved stronger than the bonds of race, or climate, or even of descent. It is a well-known fact that persons worshipping the same God, believing in the same religion, have stood by each other, with much greater strength and constancy, than people of merely the same descent, or even brothers. Various attempts have been made to trace the beginnings of religion. In all the ancient religions which have come down to us at the present day, we find one claim made — that they are all supernatural, that their genesis is not, as it were, in the human brain, but that they have originated somewhere outside of it.
Two theories have gained some acceptance amongst modern scholars. One is the spirit theory of religion, the other the evolution of the idea of the Infinite. One party maintains that ancestor worship is the beginning of religious ideas; the other, that religion originates in the personification of the powers of nature. Man wants to keep up the memory of his dead relatives and thinks they are living even when the body is dissolved, and he wants to place food for them and, in a certain sense, to worship them. Out of that came the growth we call religion.
Studying the ancient religions of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, and many other races in America and elsewhere, we find very clear traces of this ancestor worship being the beginning of religion. With the ancient Egyptians, the first idea of the soul was that of a double. Every human body contained in it another being very similar to it; and when a man died, this double went out of the body and yet lived on. But the life of the double lasted only so long as the dead body remained intact, and that is why we find among the Egyptians so much solicitude to keep the body uninjured. And that is why they built those huge pyramids in which they preserved the bodies. For, if any portion of the external body was hurt, the double would be correspondingly injured. This is clearly ancestor worship. With the ancient Babylonians we find the same idea of the double, but with a variation. The double lost all sense of love; it frightened the living to give it food and drink, and to help it in various ways. It even lost all affection for its own children and its own wife. Among the ancient Hindus also, we find traces of this ancestor worship. Among the Chinese, the basis of their religion may also be said to be ancestor worship, and it still permeates the length and breadth of that vast country. In fact, the only religion that can really be said to flourish in China is that of ancestor worship. Thus it seems, on the one hand, a very good position is made out for those who hold the theory of ancestor worship as the beginning of religion.
On the other hand, there are scholars who from the ancient Aryan literature show that religion originated in nature worship. Although in India we find proofs of ancestor worship everywhere, yet in the oldest records there is no trace of it whatsoever. In the Rig-Veda Samhitâ, the most ancient record of the Aryan race, we do not find any trace of it. Modern scholars think, it is the worship of nature that they find there. The human mind seems to struggle to get a peep behind the scenes. The dawn, the evening, the hurricane, the stupendous and gigantic forces of nature, its beauties, these have exercised the human mind, and it aspires to go beyond, to understand something about them. In the struggle they endow these phenomena with personal attributes, giving them souls and bodies, sometimes beautiful, sometimes transcendent. Every attempt ends by these phenomena becoming abstractions whether personalised or not. So also it is found with the ancient Greeks; their whole mythology is simply this abstracted nature worship. So also with the ancient Germans, the Scandinavians, and all the other Aryan races. Thus, on this side, too, a very strong case has been made out, that religion has its origin in the personification of the powers of nature.
These two views, though they seem to be contradictory, can be reconciled on a third basis, which, to my mind, is the real germ of religion, and that I propose to call the struggle to transcend the limitations of the senses. Either, man goes to seek for the spirits of his ancestors, the spirits of the dead, that is, he wants to get a glimpse of what there is after the body is dissolved, or, he desires to understand the power working behind the stupendous phenomena of nature. Whichever of these is the case, one thing is certain, that he tries to transcend the limitations of the senses. He cannot remain satisfied with his senses; he wants to go beyond them. The explanation need not be mysterious. To me it seems very natural that the first glimpse of religion should come through dreams. The first idea of immortality man may well get through dreams. Is that not a most wonderful state? And we know that children and untutored minds find very little difference between dreaming and their awakened state. What can be more natural than that they find, as natural logic, that even during the sleep state when the body is apparently dead, the mind goes on with all its intricate workings? What wonder that men will at once come to the conclusion that when this body is dissolved for ever, the same working will go on? This, to my mind, would be a more natural explanation of the supernatural, and through this dream idea the human mind rises to higher and higher conceptions. Of course, in time, the vast majority of mankind found out that these dreams are not verified by their waking states, and that during the dream state it is not that man has a fresh existence, but simply that he recapitulates the experiences of the awakened state.
But by this time the search had begun, and the search was inward, arid man continued inquiring more deeply into the different stages of the mind and discovered higher states than either the waking or the dreaming. This state of things we find in all the organised religions of the world, called either ecstasy or inspiration. In all organised religions, their founders, prophets, and messengers are declared to have gone into states of mind that were neither waking nor sleeping, in which they came face to face with a new series of facts relating to what is called the spiritual kingdom. They realised things there much more intensely than we realise facts around us in our waking state. Take, for instance, the religions of the Brahmins. The Vedas are said to be written by Rishis. These Rishis were sages who realised certain facts. The exact definition of the Sanskrit word Rishi is a Seer of Mantras — of the thoughts conveyed in the Vedic hymns. These men declared that they had realised — sensed, if that word can be used with regard to the supersensuous — certain facts, and these facts they proceeded to put on record. We find the same truth declared amongst both the Jews and the Christians.
Some exceptions may be taken in the case of the Buddhists as represented by the Southern sect. It may be asked — if the Buddhists do not believe in any God or soul, how can their religion be derived from the supersensuous state of existence? The answer to this is that even the Buddhists find an eternal moral law, and that moral law was not reasoned out in our sense of the word But Buddha found it, discovered it, in a supersensuous state. Those of you who have studied the life of Buddha even as briefly given in that beautiful poem, The Light of Asia, may remember that Buddha is represented as sitting under the Bo-tree until he reached that supersensuous state of mind. All his teachings came through this, and not through intellectual cogitations.
Thus, a tremendous statement is made by all religions; that the human mind, at certain moments, transcends not only the limitations of the senses, but also the power of reasoning. It then comes face to face with facts which it could never have sensed, could never hive reasoned out. These facts are the basis of all the religions of the world. Of course we have the right to challenge these facts, to put them to the test of reason. Nevertheless, all the existing religions of the world claim for the human mind this peculiar power of transcending the limits of the senses and the limits of reason; and this power they put forward as a statement of fact.
Apart from the consideration of tie question how far these facts claimed by religions are true, we find one characteristic common to them all. They are all abstractions as contrasted with the concrete discoveries of physics, for instance; and in all the highly organised religions they take the purest form of Unit Abstraction, either in the form of an Abstracted Presence, as an Omnipresent Being, as an Abstract Personality called God, as a Moral Law, or in the form of an Abstract Essence underlying every existence. In modern times, too, the attempts made to preach religions without appealing to the supersensuous state if the mind have had to take up the old abstractions of the Ancients and give different names to them as "Moral Law", the "Ideal Unity", and so forth, thus showing that these abstractions are not in the senses. None of us have yet seen an "Ideal Human Being", and yet we are told to believe in it. None of us have yet seen an ideally perfect man, and yet without that ideal we cannot progress. Thus, this one fact stands out from all these different religions, that there is an Ideal Unit Abstraction, which is put before us, either in the form of a Person or an Impersonal Being, or a Law, or a Presence, or an Essence. We are always struggling to raise ourselves up to that ideal. Every human being, whosoever and wheresoever he may be, has an ideal of infinite power. Every human being has an ideal of infinite pleasure. Most of the works that we find around us, the activities displayed everywhere, are due to the struggle for this infinite power or this infinite pleasure. But a few quickly discover that although they are struggling for infinite power, it is not through the senses that it can be reached. They find out very soon that that infinite pleasure is not to be got through the senses, or, in other words, the senses are too limited, and the body is too limited, to express the Infinite. To manifest the Infinite through the finite is impossible, and sooner or later, man learns to give up the attempt to express the Infinite through the finite. This giving up, this renunciation of the attempt, is the background of ethics. Renunciation is the very basis upon which ethics stands. There never was an ethical code preached which had not renunciation for its basis.
Ethics always says, "Not I, but thou." Its motto is, "Not self, but non-self." The vain ideas of individualism, to which man clings when he is trying to find that Infinite Power or that Infinite Pleasure through the senses, have to be given up — say the laws of ethics. You have to put yourself last, and others before you. The senses say, "Myself first." Ethics says, "I must hold myself last." Thus, all codes of ethics are based upon this renunciation; destruction, not construction, of the individual on the material plane. That Infinite will never find expression upon the material plane, nor is it possible or thinkable.
So, man has to give up the plane of matter and rise to other spheres to seek a deeper expression of that Infinite. In this way the various ethical laws are being moulded, but all have that one central idea, eternal self-abnegation. Perfect self-annihilation is the ideal of ethics. People are startled if they are asked not to think of their individualities. They seem so very much afraid of losing what they call their individuality. At the same time, the same men would declare the highest ideals of ethics to be right, never for a moment thinking that the scope, the goal, the idea of all ethics is the destruction, and not the building up, of the individual.
Utilitarian standards cannot explain the ethical relations of men, for, in the first place, we cannot derive any ethical laws from considerations of utility. Without the supernatural sanction as it is called, or the perception of the superconscious as I prefer to term it, there can be no ethics. Without the struggle towards the Infinite there can be no ideal. Any system that wants to bind men down to the limits of their own societies is not able to find an explanation for the ethical laws of mankind. The Utilitarian wants us to give up the struggle after the Infinite, the reaching-out for the Supersensuous, as impracticable and absurd, and, in the same breath, asks us to take up ethics and do good to society. Why should we do good? Doing good is a secondary consideration. We must have an ideal. Ethics itself is not the end, but the means to the end. If the end is not there, why should we be ethical? Why should I do good to other men, and not injure them? If happiness is the goal of mankind, why should I not make myself happy and others unhappy? What prevents me? In the second place, the basis of utility is too narrow. All the current social forms and methods are derived from society as it exists, but what right has the Utilitarian to assume that society is eternal? Society did not exist ages ago, possibly will not exist ages hence. Most probably it is one of the passing stages through which we are going towards a higher evolution, and any law that is derived from society alone cannot be eternal, cannot cover the whole ground of man's nature. At best, therefore, Utilitarian theories can only work under present social conditions. Beyond that they have no value. But a morality an ethical code, derived from religion and spirituality, has the whole of infinite man for its scope. It takes up the individual, but its relations are to the Infinite, and it takes up society also — because society is nothing but numbers of these individuals grouped together; and as it applies to the individual and his eternal relations, it must necessarily apply to the whole of society, in whatever condition it may be at any given time. Thus we see that there is always the necessity of spiritual religion for mankind. Man cannot always think of matter, however pleasurable it may be.
It has been said that too much attention to things spiritual disturbs our practical relations in this world. As far back as in the days of the Chinese sage Confucius, it was said, "Let us take care of this world: and then, when we have finished with this world, we will take care of other world." It is very well that we should take care of this world. But if too much attention to the spiritual may affect a little our practical relations, too much attention to the so-called practical hurts us here and hereafter. It makes us materialistic. For man is not to regard nature as his goal, but something higher.
Man is man so long as he is struggling to rise above nature, and this nature is both internal and external. Not only does it comprise the laws that govern the particles of matter outside us and in our bodies, but also the more subtle nature within, which is, in fact, the motive power governing the external. It is good and very grand to conquer external nature, but grander still to conquer our internal nature. It is grand and good to know the laws that govern the stars and planets; it is infinitely grander and better to know the laws that govern the passions, the feelings, the will, of mankind. This conquering of the inner man, understanding the secrets of the subtle workings that are within the human mind, and knowing its wonderful secrets, belong entirely to religion. Human nature — the ordinary human nature, I mean — wants to see big material facts. The ordinary man cannot understand anything that is subtle. Well has it been said that the masses admire the lion that kills a thousand lambs, never for a moment thinking that it is death to the lambs. Although a momentary triumph for the lion; because they find pleasure only in manifestations of physical strength. Thus it is with the ordinary run of mankind. They understand and find pleasure in everything that is external. But in every society there is a section whose pleasures are not in the senses, but beyond, and who now and then catch glimpses of something higher than matter and struggle to reach it. And if we read the history of nations between the lines, we shall always find that the rise of a nation comes with an increase in the number of such men; and the fall begins when this pursuit after the Infinite, however vain Utilitarians may call it, has ceased. That is to say, the mainspring of the strength Of every race lies in its spirituality, and the death of that race begins the day that spirituality wanes and materialism gains ground.
Thus, apart from the solid facts and truths that we may learn from religion, apart from the comforts that we may gain from it, religion, as a science, as a study, is the greatest and healthiest exercise that the human mind can have. This pursuit of the Infinite, this struggle to grasp the Infinite, this effort to get beyond the limitations of the senses — out of matter, as it were — and to evolve the spiritual man — this striving day and night to make the Infinite one with our being — this struggle itself is the grandest and most glorious that man can make. Some persons find the greatest pleasure in eating. We have no right to say that they should not. Others find the greatest pleasure in possessing certain things. We have no right to say that they should not. But they also have no right to say "no" to the man who finds his highest pleasure in spiritual thought. The lower the organisation, the greater the pleasure in the senses. Very few men can eat a meal with the same gusto as a dog or a wolf. But all the pleasures of the dog or the wolf have gone, as it were into the senses. The lower types of humanity in all nations find pleasure in the senses, while the cultured and the educated find it in thought, in philosophy, in arts and sciences. Spirituality is a still higher plane. The subject being infinite, that plane is the highest, and the pleasure there is the highest for those who can appreciate it. So, even on the utilitarian ground that man is to seek for pleasure, he should cultivate religious thought, for it is the highest pleasure that exists. Thus religion, as a study, seems to me to be absolutely necessary.
We can see it in its effects. It is the greatest motive power that moves the human mind No other ideal can put into us the same mass of energy as the spiritual. So far as human history goes, it is obvious to all of us that this has been the case and that its powers are not dead. I do not deny that men, on simply utilitarian grounds, can be very good and moral. There have been many great men in this world perfectly sound, moral, and good, simply on utilitarian grounds. But the world-movers, men who bring, as It were, a mass of magnetism into the world whose spirit works in hundreds and in thousands, whose life ignites others with a spiritual fire — such men, we always find, have that spiritual background. Their motive power came from religion. Religion is the greatest motive power for realising that infinite energy which is the birthright and nature of every man. In building up character in making for everything that is good and great, in bringing peace to others and peace to one's own self, religion is the highest motive power and, therefore, ought to be studied from that standpoint. Religion must be studied on a broader basis than formerly. All narrow limited, fighting ideas of religion have to go. All sect ideas and tribal or national ideas of religion must be given up. That each tribe or nation should have its own particular God and think that every other is wrong is a superstition that should belong to the past. All such ideas must be abandoned.
As the human mind broadens, its spiritual steps broaden too. The time has already come when a man cannot record a thought without its reaching to all corners of the earth; by merely physical means, we have come into touch with the whole world; so the future religions of the world have to become as universal, as wide.
The religious ideals of the future must embrace all that exists in the world and is good and great, and, at the same time, have infinite scope for future development. All that was good in the past must be preserved; and the doors must be kept open for future additions to the already existing store. Religions must also be inclusive and not look down with contempt upon one another because their particular ideals of God are different. In my life I have seen a great many spiritual men, a great many sensible persons, who did not believe in God at all that is to say, not in our sense of the word. Perhaps they understood God better than we can ever do. The Personal idea of God or the Impersonal, the Infinite, Moral Law, or the Ideal Man — these all have to come under the definition of religion. And when religions have become thus broadened, their power for good will have increased a hundredfold. Religions, having tremendous power in them, have often done more injury to the world than good, simply on account of their narrowness and limitations.
Even at the present time we find many sects and societies, with almost the same ideas, fighting each other, because one does not want to set forth those ideas in precisely the same way as another. Therefore, religions will have to broaden. Religious ideas will have to become universal, vast, and infinite; and then alone we shall have the fullest play of religion, for the power of religion has only just begun to manifest in the world. It is sometimes said that religions are dying out, that spiritual ideas are dying out of the world. To me it seems that they have just begun to grow. The power of religion, broadened and purified, is going to penetrate every part of human life. So long as religion was in the hands of a chosen few or of a body of priests, it was in temples, churches, books, dogmas, ceremonials, forms, and rituals. But when we come to the real, spiritual, universal concept, then, and then alone religion will become real and living; it will come into our very nature, live in our every movement, penetrate every pore of our society, and be infinitely more a power for good than it has ever been before.
What is needed is a fellow-feeling between the different types of religion, seeing that they all stand or fall together, a fellow-feeling which springs from mutual esteem and mutual respect, and not the condescending, patronising, niggardly expression of goodwill, unfortunately in vogue at the present time with many. And above all, this is needed between types of religious expression coming from the study of mental phenomena — unfortunately, even now laying exclusive claim to the name of religion — and those expressions of religion whose heads, as it were, are penetrating more into the secrets of heaven though their feet are clinging to earth, I mean the so-called materialistic sciences.
To bring about this harmony, both will have to make concessions, sometimes very large, nay more, sometimes painful, but each will find itself the better for the sacrifice and more advanced in truth. And in the end, the knowledge which is confined within the domain of time and space will meet and become one with that which is beyond them both, where the mind and senses cannot reach — the Absolute, the Infinite, the One without a second.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。