吠檀多的各个阶段
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
吠檀多（Vedanta）的各个面向
（于加尔各答（Calcutta）演讲）
在那遥远的年代，既无史册可考，甚至连传说的微光也难以穿透之处，有一道光明始终稳定地照耀着——有时因外部环境而暗淡，有时则光华灿烂，却永不熄灭，绵延不绝。这道光明不仅遍照印度，更以其力量渗透整个思想世界，无声、无形、柔和而无所不在，如清晨降下的甘露，无声无息，却使最娇艳的玫瑰绽放——这便是奥义书（Upanishads）的思想，即吠檀多（Vedanta）的哲学。无人知晓它何时在印度这片土地上初次兴盛。种种猜测皆属徒劳。尤其是西方学者的推测，彼此矛盾，难以确定任何确切的年代。然而我们印度教徒，从灵性的立场而言，并不承认它们有任何起源。这吠檀多，即奥义书的哲学，我斗胆宣称，乃是有史以来赐予人类的，在灵性领域中最初也是最终的思想。
从吠檀多这片汪洋大海中，光明的波涛不时涌向西方与东方。在久远的往昔，它曾西传，激荡起希腊人的心灵，无论是在雅典、亚历山大港，还是在安提俄克。数论（Sankhya）体系显然在古希腊人的心灵中留下了深刻印记；而印度的数论及其他所有体系，皆奉奥义书——即吠檀多——为唯一权威。在印度，尽管我们今日所见以及历史上曾有过种种纷争的教派，然而这一切体系的基础与权威，始终是奥义书，即吠檀多。无论你是二元论者，还是限定一元论者，是不二论（Advaita）者，还是殊限不二论（Vishishtadvaita）者，是纯粹不二论（Shuddhadvait）者，还是其他任何不二论派别，抑或是二元论派别，在你身后作为权威的，都是你的经典——奥义书。凡印度体系不奉奥义书为权威者，皆不得称为正统；就连耆那教与佛教的体系之所以被驱逐出印度这片土地，也正是因为它们不效忠于奥义书。因此，不论我们是否自知，吠檀多已渗透了印度所有的教派。我们所谓的印度教，这棵枝干无限蔓延的参天榕树，自始至终都被吠檀多的影响所贯穿。无论我们是否意识到，我们思考吠檀多，生活在吠檀多之中，以吠檀多为呼吸，也在吠檀多中辞世——每一位印度教徒皆是如此。因此，在印度这片土地上、在印度听众面前宣讲吠檀多，看似是一种悖论。然而，这偏偏是必须宣讲的，时代的需要也决定了它必须被宣讲。因为正如我方才所言，印度所有的教派都必须效忠于奥义书；然而这些教派之间存在着许多表面上的矛盾。往昔的伟大先圣，有时自身也无法理解奥义书内在的和谐。有时，甚至先圣们之间也争论不休，以至于流传出"圣哲无不异见"的谚语。然而时代要求我们对奥义书经文——无论其是二元论的、非二元论的、准二元论的，还是其他形式——所蕴含的内在和谐，给出更好的诠释。这一工作需要展示于世人面前，而且无论是在印度之内还是之外，都同样迫切需要。我有幸蒙上天恩典，得以在一位师尊座下受教。他的整个一生便是这种诠释，他的生命——比其言教更深刻千倍——是对奥义书经文的活的注脚，实际上便是奥义书的精神化身于人形之中。也许我已略微领略了那种和谐；我不知自己是否能够将其表达出来。然而，这是我的志业、我此生的使命——证明吠檀多各派并不相互矛盾，而是彼此需要、彼此成全，一者有如另一者的基石，直至达到那终极目标——不二（Advaita）、"汝即梵"（Tat Tvam Asi）。印度曾有一个时代，业分（Karma Kanda）占据主导。吠陀（Vedas）的那一部分固然包含许多崇高的理想。我们当今的部分日常礼拜仍依循业分的规定。然而尽管如此，吠陀的业分在印度几乎已销声匿迹。今日我们生活的大部分已不再受吠陀业分条令的约束与规范。我们平常的生活，大多是往世书（Pauranikas）或怛特罗（Tantrikas）的信奉者；即便印度婆罗门使用某些吠陀经文，其文本的运用方式也大多不是依照吠陀，而是依照怛特罗或往世书。因此，若以奉行吠陀业分的意义来自称吠陀信徒，我认为并不妥当。然而另一事实不容置疑——我们都是吠檀多信徒。自称印度教徒的人，更应被称为吠檀多信徒。正如我已向诸位所示，在吠檀多这一名号之下，涵盖了我们所有不同的教派，无论是二元论者还是非二元论者。
当今印度的各教派，大体可分为两大类：二元论派与一元论派。某些教派所坚持的细微区别，以及据此而欲取用诸如纯粹不二论或限定不二论等新名称，并不太重要。就分类而言，它们要么是二元论，要么是一元论。现存的各教派中，有些相当新兴，另一些则似乎是古老教派的复兴。对于一元论一类，我将以罗摩努阇（Ramanuja）的生平与哲学为代表；对于另一类，则以商羯罗（Shankaracharya）为代表。
罗摩努阇是印度后期最具代表性的二元论哲学家，其他所有二元论教派，无论是直接还是间接，都在教义的实质以及教派的组织方面追随着他，甚至在组织的某些极细微的方面亦然。若将罗摩努阇及其事业与印度其他二元论毗湿奴（Vaishnava）教派加以比较，你会惊讶地发现，它们在组织、教义与方法上是多么相似。有南印度的伟大传教士摩陀巴牟尼（Madhva Muni），以及追随他的我们孟加拉的伟大室底耶那（Chaitanya），他承接了摩陀巴的哲学并在孟加拉弘扬。南印度还有其他一些教派，如限定二元论的湿婆（Shaiva）派。印度大多数地区的湿婆派信奉不二论，除南印度部分地区及斯里兰卡之外。但这些地区的湿婆派不过是以湿婆（Shiva）代替毗湿奴（Vishnu），而在灵魂学说之外，其他一切皆与罗摩努阇派如出一辙。罗摩努阇的追随者认为灵魂是"阿努"（Anu），如微粒一般极其细小；而商羯罗的追随者则认为灵魂是"毗布"（Vibhu），即无所不在的。历史上曾有数个非二元论教派，似乎在古代有一些教派已被商羯罗运动所吞并同化。在某些注释书中，有时可见对商羯罗本人的抨击，尤其是在毗吉那那毕叉（Vijnana Bhikshu）的注释中——他虽是不二论者，却试图推翻商羯罗的幻论（Mayavada）。似乎确有一些学派不相信这幻论，他们甚至走到称商羯罗为"隐蔽的佛教徒"（Prachchhanna Bauddha）的地步，认为这幻论取自佛教，被移入吠檀多的范畴。不论如何，在现代，所有不二论者都聚集在商羯罗旗下；商羯罗及其门徒一直是南北印度不二论的伟大宣讲者。商羯罗的影响在我们孟加拉、克什米尔和旁遮普并未深入，但在南印度，斯玛塔派（Smartas）全都是商羯罗的追随者；以瓦拉纳西（Varanasi）为中心，他的影响力甚至在北印度许多地区也极为深远。
现在，商羯罗与罗摩努阇都不声称自己有何独创。罗摩努阇明确告知，他不过是遵循波陀耶那（Bodhayana）的伟大注释。"古代诸师将世尊波陀耶那所著的广博梵经注释加以节略；依其见解，经文的字义于此得以诠释。"——这是罗摩努阇在其注释《室利注》（Shri-Bhashya）开篇所言。他取其精华，加以撮要，即为我们今日所见之文本。我本人从未有机会亲见波陀耶那的这部注释。已故的达耶南陀·萨罗斯瓦蒂（Dayananda Saraswati）大师曾想拒绝接受除波陀耶那之外的一切毗耶娑经（Vyasa-Sutras）注释；尽管他从不放过任何机会抨击罗摩努阇，他本人也始终未能提出波陀耶那注释。我曾遍访印度各地寻觅此书，至今未能一见。但罗摩努阇对此非常坦诚，他告知我们，他正是从波陀耶那处汲取思想，有时甚至直接取用其文字，将其精炼浓缩为现今的罗摩努阇疏（Ramanuja Bhashya）。商羯罗似乎也做了同样的事。他的疏中有数处提及前人注释；既然我们知道他的上师及上师的上师，都是与他同一学派的吠檀多论者，有时甚至在某些方面比商羯罗本人更为彻底、更为大胆，那么他本人所宣讲的也并非什么极具独创性的东西，就显得相当明显了。他在自己的疏中，也做了罗摩努阇对待波陀耶那所做的同样工作，只是所依据的是哪部疏，目前已无从查考。
印度所有的论见（Darshanas），无论你曾见过或听闻过的，皆以奥义书为权威。每当他们欲引述启示（Shruti），所指的便是奥义书。他们始终在引述奥义书。继奥义书之后出现了印度其他哲学，但其中每一个都未能像毗耶娑（Vyasa）的哲学那样，在印度赢得深厚的地位——尽管毗耶娑的哲学本身是从一个更古老的体系，即数论（Sankhya）中发展而来。印度乃至世界每一个哲学与体系，都深受迦毗罗（Kapila）的影响。迦毗罗之名，在印度心理学与哲学领域的历史上，或许是最伟大的名字。迦毗罗的影响遍及世界各处。凡是有公认思想体系之处，皆可追溯其影响；即便相隔数千年，他依然屹立于那里，光辉灿烂、伟大神奇的迦毗罗。他的心理学与相当一部分哲学，已被印度所有教派以极少的差异所接受。在我们本国，我们的逻辑学（Naiyayika）哲学家，未能在印度哲学界留下深刻印记。他们过于专注于种属等细枝末节，以及那极为繁琐的术语体系——研究它本身就需耗费一生。因此，他们埋头于逻辑，而将哲学留给了吠檀多论者。然而，现代印度每一个哲学教派，都采用了孟加拉逻辑学家的逻辑术语。加嘉提萨（Jagadisha）、嘎达哈拉（Gadadhara）和锡拉摩尼（Shiromani）的名字，在那地亚（Nadia）与马拉巴尔（Malabar）的某些城市同样广为人知。但毗耶娑的哲学，即毗耶娑经，根基稳固，已获得永久的地位，达成了它意图向世人呈现之物——哲学的吠檀多一面的梵（Brahman）。理性完全隶属于启示，正如商羯罗所宣称的，毗耶娑毫不在乎推理。他撰写经典的用意，仅仅是将吠檀多经文的百花汇聚穿串，以一线串成花环。他的经典，仅在隶属于奥义书权威的范围内被接受，超出此范围则不然。
正如我所说，如今印度所有的教派都将这些毗耶娑经视为重大权威，每个新兴教派在印度的兴起，都始于依照自身见解对毗耶娑经撰写新的注释。这些注释者之间的分歧，有时极大；有时那种曲解经文的行为，令人十分不快。毗耶娑经已获得权威的地位，任何人在印度若不能撰写一部新的毗耶娑经注释，就无法创立教派。
次于此权威的，是著名的《薄伽梵歌》（Bhagavad Gita）。商羯罗的一大荣耀，便是他对《薄伽梵歌》的宣讲。这是这位伟人在其高贵一生中众多丰功之一——宣讲《薄伽梵歌》并撰写了最为精美的注释。此后，印度所有正统教派的创立者，也都效仿他，各自为《薄伽梵歌》撰写注释。
奥义书数目众多，据说有一百零八部，但也有人说数量更多。其中有些显然是较后期的著作，例如《阿拉真奥义书》（Allopanishad），其中称颂安拉，称穆罕默德为"罗阇速拉"（Rajasulla）。我曾被告知，这是在阿克巴尔（Akbar）统治时期为使印度教徒与伊斯兰教徒融合而写成的。有时他们取用某个词语，如梵歌集（Samhitas）中的"Allah"或"Illa"，便以此为题作成一部奥义书。于是在这部《阿拉真奥义书》中，穆罕默德成了"罗阇速拉"，不论其含义如何。还有其他同类的教派性奥义书，你会发现它们纯属现代之作，而伪造它们如此轻而易举——因为吠陀梵歌集部分的语言极为古奥，不受任何语法约束。多年前我曾有意研究吠陀语法，以极大的热忱开始学习帕尼尼（Panini）与《大疏》（Mahabhashya），却惊讶地发现，吠陀语法最好的部分，几乎全由规则的例外所组成。立下一条规则，随后便附上说明："此规则另有例外。"可见任何人在此有多大的创作自由——唯一的约束是耶斯迦（Yaska）的词典。然而即便如此，其中大部分也不过是大量的同义词。有了这一切，伪造任意数量的奥义书是多么容易。只需略懂梵文，足以使字句看上去像古代词语，毋须担心语法，便可随意引入"罗阇速拉"或任何"速拉"。就这样，许多奥义书被制造出来，据我所知，此事至今仍在进行。我确信，在印度某些地区，各教派正试图伪造此类奥义书。但在奥义书之中，也有那些自身便显现出真实性证据的篇章，这些篇章已被伟大的注释者们加以注释，尤其是商羯罗，其后是罗摩努阇及其他所有人。
关于奥义书，我还想向诸位提出一两点见解。奥义书乃知识之海洋，即便像我这般浅陋之人谈论奥义书，也需要数年而非一次讲演所能尽述。因此，我希望在研究奥义书时，向诸位提示一两个要点。首先，奥义书是世界上最为奇妙的诗篇。若你阅读吠陀的梵歌集部分，不时会发现极其壮美的篇章。例如那著名的诗颂，描绘了混沌——"黑暗为黑暗所隐，覆于其中……"，如此展开。读来令人感受到诗歌震撼人心的崇高。请注意，在印度之外，乃至在印度之内，都曾有过描绘崇高的尝试。然而在印度之外，这种尝试始终是外在的无限——物质的无限，或空间的无限。当弥尔顿（Milton）、但丁（Dante），或其他任何伟大的欧洲诗人，无论古今，欲描绘无限之境，他们总是向外飞翔，试图借助肌肉感，即外部世界的力量，使你感受无限。这种尝试在印度也曾有过。你在梵歌集中可见延伸之无限被描绘得如此奇妙，置于读者眼前，是其他任何地方都未曾有过的。请注意那一句——"黑暗为黑暗所隐"——以及三位诗人对黑暗的描述。取我们自己的迦梨陀娑（Kalidasa）——"可以针尖穿透的黑暗"；再取弥尔顿——"无光，而毋宁是可见的黑暗"；但当你读到奥义书时——"黑暗覆于黑暗之上"，"黑暗隐于黑暗之中"。我们生活在热带的人能够理解这一点——季风突至的瞬间，地平线骤然变暗，乌云之上又叠加着更为翻滚的黑云。诗篇继续展开；然而在梵歌集部分，所有这些尝试仍是外在的。正如在其他地方，寻求人生重大问题之解答的努力，都是通过外部世界来进行的——如同希腊心灵或现代欧洲心灵，试图通过探索外部世界来寻找生命及一切神圣存在问题的解答。我们的先祖也曾如此，正如欧洲人失败，他们也失败了。然而西方人再未更进一步，他们停留在那里；他们在外部世界中寻求生死重大问题的解答而失败，便就此止步，遭遇了困境。我们的先祖也发现这是不可能的，但他们更为勇敢，坦然宣告感官在寻求解答上的彻底无能。奥义书对此有着最好的表达："言语所不能抵达、与心意一同折返之处"；"目不能至、言不能达。"有各种经句宣告感官的彻底无力，但先祖并未就此止步。他们返回人的内在本性，从自己的灵魂中寻求解答，转而向内观照；他们放弃了外部自然，因为那里一无所获，没有希望，没有答案；他们发现迟钝、死寂的物质不能给予他们真理，便返归人之光辉灵魂，在那里找到了答案。
"唯知此真我（Atman）"，他们宣告，"放弃一切其他虚妄之言，莫闻其他。"在真我（Atman）中，他们找到了解答——一切真我中最伟大者，上主，这宇宙的主宰，祂与人之真我的关系，我们对祂的责任，以及通过这一关系而来的人与人之间的关系。在这里，你会发现世界上最为崇高的诗篇。描绘这真我（Atman）时，不再借助物质语言。不，为此他们甚至放弃了一切肯定性语言。不再有任何诉诸感官以赋予无限观念的尝试，不再有外在的、迟钝的、死寂的、物质的、宽广的、官能的无限，代之而来的，是如同那经句所言的某种更为精微之物——
"日月星辰不能照耀于彼处，闪电亦不能明，何况凡火！万物因彼之光而照耀，彼之光辉令这一切闪耀。"
世界上还有什么诗歌能比这更为崇高！"太阳不能照耀于彼处，月亮星辰皆不能，闪电亦不能照耀；何须提及这凡俗之火！"这样的诗篇，你在其他任何地方都找不到。请看那最为奇妙的《卡塔奥义书》（Katha Upanishad）。这首诗展现了多么精妙的完成度，多么令人叹为观止的艺术！它以那个怀有"信愿"（Shraddha）的小男孩的故事奇妙地开篇——他渴望谒见阎摩（Yama），而那位最为奇妙的导师（Guru），死神本身，向他传授了生与死的伟大教义！他寻求的是什么？便是了知死亡的秘密。
我希望诸位记住的第二点，是奥义书完全非个人性的特质。尽管我们在奥义书中看到许多名字、许多讲述者和教师，没有一人以权威之身分凌驾于奥义书之上，没有一句经文是建立在他们任何人的生平之上的。这些人不过是如阴影般在背景中移动的身影，无法感知、无法辨见、难以觉察，而真正的力量在于奥义书那奇妙的、光辉的、灿烂的经文之中——完全的非个人性。纵使二十个耶若跋尔克耶（Yajnavalkyas）来了又去、生了又死，这都无关紧要；经文就在那里。然而它并不反对任何个人；它宽广博大，足以涵容世界迄今所产生的一切人格，以及将来所要诞生的一切。它对于崇拜人格、化身（Avataras）或先圣，毫无异议，反而始终加以肯定。与此同时，它又是完全非个人性的。这是一个最为奇妙的理念，犹如它所宣讲的上帝——奥义书的非个人性理念。对于睿智者、思想者、哲学家，对于理性主义者，它与任何现代科学家所能期望的一样非个人。而这些，便是我们的经典。你们必须记住，对基督徒而言是《圣经》，对穆斯林而言是《古兰经》，对佛教徒而言是《三藏》，对祆教徒而言是《阿维斯陀》，这奥义书，对我们便是如此。这些经典，唯此而已，是我们的圣典。往世书、怛特罗及所有其他典籍，乃至毗耶娑经，都属于次级、三级权威；而原初的权威是吠陀。摩奴法典（Manu）、往世书及所有其他典籍，皆须以其与奥义书权威相符的程度为准，一旦相悖，便须毫不留情地予以摒弃。我们应当始终铭记这一点，然而不幸的是，今日的印度已将此遗忘。一个偏僻村庄的习俗，如今似乎才是真正的权威，而非奥义书的教义。孟加拉路边某个小村庄里流行的某种浅陋观念，竟似乎具有吠陀的权威，甚至有过之而无不及。"正统"这个词，其影响是多么奇妙！对乡村人而言，遵循业分的每一细枝末节便是"正统"的极致，而不这样做的人便被告知："走开，你不再是印度教徒。"因此，在我的祖国，最不幸的是，有人会拿起某部怛特罗说，这部怛特罗的修行必须遵从；不如此者，便是在见解上不再正统。故此，我们最好牢记，奥义书才是首要权威，即便是居家经（Grihya）和祭祀经（Shrauta Sutras）也都从属于吠陀的权威。它们是仙人（Rishis）——我们先祖的话语，若你想成为印度教徒，便须信奉。你甚至可以对神性持有最奇特的见解，但若否认吠陀的权威，你便是无信者（Nastika）。印度教或佛教的经典与我们的经典之间的区别就在于此；他们的经典都是往世书，而非圣典，因为它们描述洪水的历史、国王与王朝的历史，记录伟人的生平，诸如此类。这是往世书的工作，凡与吠陀相符者，皆为善。凡《圣经》与其他民族经典与吠陀相符者，都完全可以接受；而当它们不符时，便不再可以接受。《古兰经》亦然。这些典籍中有许多道德教诲，凡与吠陀相符者，便具有往世书的权威，仅此而已。其基本理念是，吠陀从未被写就；其理念是，它们从未诞生于某一时刻。曾有一位基督教传教士告诉我，他们的经典具有历史性，因此是真实的，对此我回答道："我的经典没有历史性，因此是真实的；你的经典具有历史性，显然是某人近日所作。你的是人造的，我的不是；非历史性恰恰是对它们的有利证明。"这便是吠陀与当今所有其他经典的关系。
现在我们来谈奥义书的教义。其中经文各异，有些是完全二元论的，另一些是一元论的。然而，印度所有不同教派都认可某些学说。首先，是轮回（Samsara）或灵魂转世的学说。其次，他们在心理学上也达成共识：首先是身体，其后是他们所称的"精微身"（Sukshma Sharira），即心意，再其后是命我（Jiva）本身。这便是西方心理学与印度心理学之间的重大差异所在；在西方心理学中，心意即是灵魂，而在印度则不然。被称为内器（Antahkarana）的内在器官，即心意，不过是命我（Jiva）手中的工具，命我借此作用于身体或外部世界。在这一点上众派皆达成一致，他们也都同意，这命我（Jiva）或真我（Atman），即各教派所称的个体真我（Jivatman），是无始的永恒存在；它从生到生地流转，直至获得最终的解脱（Moksha）。他们在这一点上都达成一致，并且也都在另一个最为关键的要点上达成一致——这一要点最为鲜明、最为突出地标志着印度心灵与西方心灵的差异——那便是：一切皆在灵魂之中。没有所谓"吸纳"，确切地说，只有"呼出"。一切力量、一切净化、一切伟大——万事万物皆在灵魂之中。瑜伽（Yoga）行者会告诉你，他所追求的种种神通（Siddhis）——阿尼玛（Anima）、拉格希玛（Laghima）等等——严格说来并非有待获得，而是早已存在于灵魂之中；修行的工作，不过是使其显现。例如，帕丹阇利（Patanjali）会告诉你，即便是在你脚下爬行的最低等的虫子，八重瑜伽的神力也早已存在于其中。差异是由身体造成的。一旦获得一个更好的身体，这些神力便会显现，但它们本来就在那里。
"善恶行为并非自然转化的直接原因，而是通过破除自然演化的障碍而发挥作用：犹如农夫破除水流障碍，水便依其本性自然流下。"帕丹阇利在此给出了那个著名的例子：一位农夫从某处巨大的水库向自己的田地引水。水库已经蓄满，水随时可能淹没他的土地，只是在水库与田地之间有一道土墙。一旦障碍打破，水便凭借自身的力量与冲力涌入。这团力量、净化与圆满，早已在灵魂之中。唯一的差别便是那层"遮障"——那层遮盖在其上的面纱。一旦面纱被除去，灵魂便达到净化，其力量得以显现。这一点，诸位应当铭记，乃是东方思想与西方思想之间的重大差异。因此你会发现，有人宣讲诸如"我们都是生而有罪"这般骇人的教义，而因为我们不信奉这般骇人的教义，所以我们都是生而邪恶的。他们从不停下来想想，若我们从本性上便是邪恶的，我们便永远无法向善——因为本性如何能改变呢？若改变，便自相矛盾；那便不是本性了。我们应当记住这一点。在此，二元论者、不二论者和印度其他所有人都达成一致。
印度所有教派共同信奉的下一个要点，便是上帝。当然，各派对上帝的理解有所不同。二元论者信奉有人格的上帝，且唯一的是人格性的。我希望诸位对"人格"这个词有更为深入的理解。"人格"并不意味着上帝有形体、坐于某处宝座之上统治这个世界，而是指"萨古纳"（Saguna），即具有属性的。对有人格的上帝，有诸多描述。这位有人格的上帝，作为宇宙的统治者、创造者、维护者与毁灭者，是所有教派所信奉的。不二论者则信奉更高一层的境界——所谓"人格-非人格"的境界。没有任何形容词能够描述无限定之处，不二论者不会赋予祂任何属性，仅有三者——"萨—奇特—阿难陀"（Sat-Chit-Ananda），即绝对存在、绝对智识与绝对喜乐。这是商羯罗所做的。然而在奥义书本身，你会发现，其探讨更为深入，称对祂所能断言的，唯有"非此，非此"（Neti, Neti）。
至此，印度所有不同的教派都达成一致。但就二元论的一面而言，正如我所说，我将以罗摩努阇作为印度典型的二元论者，作为现代二元论体系的伟大代表。遗憾的是，我们孟加拉人对印度其他地方诞生的伟大宗教领袖，了解甚少。而就此而言，在整个伊斯兰统治时期，除我们的室底耶那（Chaitanya）之外，所有伟大的宗教领袖都诞生于南印度；而真正主导印度思想的，是南印度的智识。甚至室底耶那也属于这些教派之一，即摩陀巴（Madhvas）派的一个派别。依据罗摩努阇，以下三种实体是永恒的——上帝、灵魂与自然。灵魂是永恒的，它们将永远以个体化的形式存在，并将在整个永恒中保持其个体性。罗摩努阇说，你的灵魂在整个永恒中都将不同于我的灵魂；自然——这是一个现实存在的事实，与灵魂的存在或上帝的存在同样真实——也将始终有别。上帝渗透一切，是灵魂的本质，祂是内制者（Antaryamin）。在这个意义上，罗摩努阇有时认为，上帝与灵魂合而为一，是灵魂的本质；这些灵魂——在毁灭期（Pralaya），当整个自然变成他所称的"收缩"状态时——变得收缩而微小，在一段时间内保持这种状态。在下一个宇宙周期开始时，它们都依照过去的业力（Karma）而流出，承受业力的果报。罗摩努阇说，一切使灵魂天生的纯粹与完美得以收缩的行为，是恶业；一切使其展现与扩展的行为，是善业。凡有助于灵魂"展开"（Vikasha）者，皆为善；凡使其"收缩"（Sankuchita）者，皆为恶。如此，灵魂在行动中不断展开与收缩，直至因上帝的恩典而获得救赎。罗摩努阇说，这恩典降临于所有纯净并为此恩典而努力的灵魂。
启示中有一著名经句："食物纯净，则萨埵（Sattva）纯净；萨埵纯净，则忆念"——对上主的忆念，或对我们自身完美的忆念，若你是不二论者——"变得更真实、更稳固、更为绝对。"此处引发了一场重要的讨论。首先，何谓萨埵？我们知道，依据数论（Sankhya）——此说已为我们所有哲学教派所接受——身体是由三种材料构成的，而非三种属性。一般的观念是，萨埵（Sattva）、罗阇（Rajas）与多摩（Tamas）是属性。不然，它们不是属性，而是构成这个宇宙的材料；通过"食物净化"（Ahara-shuddhi），当食物纯净时，萨埵的材料便趋于纯净。吠檀多的一贯主题，便是获得这种萨埵。正如我已告知诸位，灵魂本来纯净圆满，依据吠檀多，它被罗阇与多摩的粒子所遮覆。萨埵的粒子最为明净，灵魂的光辉穿透它们，犹如光线透过玻璃。故此，若罗阇与多摩的粒子消散，只留下萨埵的粒子，则灵魂的力量与纯净便会显现，令灵魂更为彰显。
因此，获得这种萨埵是必要的。经文说："当食物（Ahara）纯净时。"罗摩努阇将"食物"（Ahara）一词理解为饮食，并将其作为其哲学的重要基石之一。不仅如此，此说影响了整个印度以及所有不同的教派。因此，我们有必要理解其含义，因为依据罗摩努阇，"食物净化"（Ahara-shuddhi）是我们生活中的主要因素之一。罗摩努阇问道，何者使食物不净？三种缺陷使食物不净——第一是"类属缺陷"（Jati-dosha），即食物所属种类在本质上的缺陷，如洋葱、大蒜等的气味。其次是"来源缺陷"（Ashraya-dosha），即食物来源者身上的缺陷；来自邪恶之人的食物会使你不净。我本人曾见过许多印度大圣人，毕生严格遵守这一教导。他们当然具备辨知谁送来食物、甚至谁触碰过食物的能力，我在自己一生中亦已亲见，不止一次，而是数以百计。再次是"接触缺陷"（Nimitta-dosha），即不净之物或不净影响接触食物所造成的缺陷。我们最好对此多加注意。在印度，进食含有污秽、尘埃和发丝的食物，已变得过于普遍。若食物能免除这三种缺陷，便能净化萨埵（Sattva-shuddhi）。宗教似乎就此成为一件极为简便的事。若进食纯净食物便能获得宗教，那么人人皆可获得宗教。在我所知的世界上，没有任何人软弱或无能到无法使自己免于这些缺陷。随后商羯罗出现，他说，"食物"（Ahara）这个词，意指在心中所聚集的思想；当思想纯净时，萨埵才纯净，此前不然。你可以随意饮食。若仅凭饮食便能净化萨埵，那就终生用牛奶和米饭喂养猴子；它会成为伟大的瑜伽行者吗？那么牛和鹿就会是伟大的瑜伽行者了。诚如古人所言："若靠多次沐浴便能升天，鱼儿将率先升天。若靠素食便能升天，牛和鹿将率先升天。"
然而，解决之道是什么？两者皆有必要。当然，商羯罗所给予我们的"食物"（Ahara）的理念是首要的。然而纯净的饮食无疑有助于纯净的思想；两者之间有密切的关联；两者都应具备。然而问题在于，现代印度忘记了商羯罗的教导，而只取"纯净饮食"的含义。这就是为什么当我说"宗教已进了厨房"时，人们会对我大为愤慨；若你曾与我一同在马德拉斯（Madras），你便会同意我的看法。孟加拉人在这方面比较好。在马德拉斯，人们若有任何人看了食物一眼，便将食物丢弃。尽管如此，我看不出那里的人们在品德上有任何好转。若仅靠吃这种那种食物，以及保护食物免受这人那人的目光，就能使他们达到完美，你便应当期望他们都成为完美的人，然而他们并非如此。
因此，尽管这两者必须结合起来方能构成一个完整的整体，切勿本末倒置。如今有人对各种食物以及"种姓制度"（Varnashrama）大声疾呼，而孟加拉人在这些呼声中最为高亢。我想问在座每一位，你们对这"种姓制度"究竟了解多少？今日这个国家四种姓氏在哪里？请回答我；我看不到四种姓氏。正如我们孟加拉的谚语所言："没有头的头痛"，而你们却想在这里建立种姓制度。这里并没有四个种姓。我只看到婆罗门（Brahmin）和首陀罗（Shudra）。若刹帝利（Kshatriyas）和吠舍（Vaishyas）确实存在，他们在哪里？为何你们婆罗门不命令他们佩戴圣线（Yajnopavita）、研习吠陀，如同每位印度教徒理当做的那样？若吠舍和刹帝利根本不存在，而只有婆罗门和首陀罗，那么经典说，婆罗门不得居住在只有首陀罗的地方；那就带上行囊离去吧！你们知道经典对于那些在异族（Mlechchha）政权下生活并食用异族食物千余年的人有何定论吗？你们知道这要受何等的苦行惩戒吗？苦行的惩戒是亲手将自己焚烧。你们是否想以教师自居，却行虚伪之事？若你们信奉自己的经典，就先像那位随亚历山大大帝同行并因认为自己食用了异族食物而自焚的伟大婆罗门一样去做。这样做，你们便会看到整个民族都在你们脚下。你们不信奉自己的经典，却要让别人信奉。若你们认为在这个时代无法做到这些，就承认自己的软弱，也宽恕他人的软弱；扶持其他种姓，伸出援手，让他们研习吠陀，成为世界上任何地方同样优秀的雅利安人，你们孟加拉的婆罗门们，你们自己也同样做真正的雅利安人。
放弃这使你们国家走向毁灭的龌龊"左道"（Vamachara）。你们没有见过印度其他地方。当我看到"左道"渗入我们社会的程度，便发现这个以文化自傲的地方，竟是最为丑陋可耻的。这些左道派别正在蚕食孟加拉的社会。那些白天出来最高声宣讲礼仪规范的人，正是在夜间从事骇人放荡行为的人，他们受到最为可怖的典籍的支持。那些书籍命令他们做这些事。你们这些孟加拉人自己知道这一点。孟加拉的经典便是那些左道怛特罗。它们被大车大车地出版，你们用它们毒害孩子的心灵，而不是教导他们真正的启示（Shrutis）。加尔各答（Calcutta）的父亲们，难道你们不为此感到羞耻吗？这些骇人听闻的左道怛特罗，连同译文，都被塞入你们男孩和女孩的手中，毒害他们的心灵，让他们以为这些便是印度教徒的经典？若你们感到羞耻，就将它们从孩子们手中拿走，让他们阅读真正的经典——吠陀、薄伽梵歌（Bhagavad Gita）、奥义书。
依据印度各二元论教派，个体灵魂始终保持其个体性，上帝仅作为"能动因"，从预先存在的材料中创造宇宙。依据不二论者，上帝则既是宇宙的"质料因"，也是"能动因"。祂不仅是宇宙的创造者，更是从自身中创造宇宙。这是不二论者的立场。有些粗浅的二元论教派认为，这个世界是上帝从自身中创造出来的，而与此同时，上帝与宇宙永远分离，万物永远隶属于宇宙的统治者之下。也有些教派相信，上帝从自身中演化出这个宇宙，而个体最终通过涅槃（Nirvana）放弃有限而成为无限。然而这些教派已然消失。你在现代印度所见的唯一不二论教派，是商羯罗的追随者。依据商羯罗，上帝通过幻（Maya）而同时是宇宙的质料因与能动因，然而在实相上并非如此。上帝并未成为这个宇宙；宇宙并非实在，上帝才是。这是理解不二吠檀多最为深邃的要点之一——"幻"（Maya）的概念。我恐怕没有时间讨论我们哲学中这一最为困难的要点。熟悉西方哲学的诸位，会在康德（Kant）哲学中发现极为相似的东西。然而我必须警告那些研读过马克斯·缪勒（Max Müller）教授关于康德著作的诸位：其中有一个极具误导性的观念。正是商羯罗最先发现了时间、空间与因果律与"幻"（Maya）同一的概念，我有幸在商羯罗的注释中找到一两处段落，并将其寄给了我的朋友缪勒教授。因此，即使是这一概念，也早已在印度存在。现在，这是一个独特的理论——不二吠檀多论者的"幻"（Maya）理论。梵（Brahman）是一切存在的本体，而这"幻"（Maya）造成了分化。统一，即单一的梵，是终极目标；而这里，印度思想与西方思想之间再次存在着一种永恒的对立。印度数千年来向世界抛出了这一挑战，这一挑战被不同的民族所接受，结果是他们都屈服了，而你们却存续至今。这一挑战便是：此世界是一种幻觉，这一切皆是幻（Maya）；无论你用手指在地上进食，还是用金盘盛食，无论你住在宫殿之中、是最强大的君王，还是最贫困的乞丐，死亡是唯一的结局；这一切都一样，都是幻。这是古老的印度主题，各个民族一次又一次地崛起，试图否认它、反驳它；他们以享乐为座右铭而壮大，权力在握，将这权力发挥到极致，尽情享受，而转眼间便已消亡。我们永远屹立，因为我们看到一切皆是幻（Maya）。幻的子民永远长存，而享乐的子民则走向消亡。
这里还有另一重大差异。正如你在德国哲学中发现黑格尔（Hegel）与叔本华（Schopenhauer）的尝试，你也会在古代印度中发现极为相似的观念。幸运的是，对我们而言，黑格尔主义在萌芽阶段便被掐灭，未被允许在我们祖国的土地上抽枝散叶、产生有害的影响。黑格尔的核心观念是，那唯一者、那绝对者，不过是混沌；而个体化的形式才是更伟大的。世界比非世界更伟大，轮回（Samsara）比解脱（Moksha）更伟大。这便是那个观念；你愈是沉浸于这轮回，你的灵魂便愈是被生命的运作所覆裹，你便愈是优越。他们说，难道你看不见我们如何建造房屋、清洁街道、享受感官之乐？是的，在这一切之后，可能隐藏着怨恨、痛苦与恐惧——隐藏于那享受的每一角落之后。
另一方面，我们的哲学家从一开始便宣告，每一种显现，你所谓的"演化"，都是徒劳的——未显现者试图显现自身的徒劳努力。是的，你这宇宙的伟大本因，试图在小小的泥水坑中映照自身！然而在尝试了一段时间之后，你发现这一切都是徒劳，便重新退回到你来处。这便是"离欲"（Vairagya），即出离，它是宗教的起点。没有出离，宗教或道德如何能够开始？出离是始与终。"放弃"，吠陀说，"放弃。"这是唯一的道路，"放弃"。"非凭财富，非凭子嗣，唯凭放弃，方可达于不朽。"这便是印度典籍的箴言。当然，历史上有伟大的出离者，即便端坐于王座之上。然而即便是（迦纳迦）王（Janaka）本人，也不得不出离；还有谁比他更伟大的出离者？然而在现代，我们都想被称为迦纳迦（Janakas）！他们都是迦纳迦——字面意义上的"父亲"——衣不蔽体、食不果腹、苦难子女的父亲。"迦纳迦"这个词，就这个含义而言，用于他们是恰当的；他们没有任何古代迦纳迦所拥有的那种光辉神圣的思想。这便是我们现代的迦纳迦们！少一点这种"迦纳迦主义"，直接切入要点吧！若你能够放弃，你便拥有宗教。若不能，你可以阅读世上所有的书籍，从东到西，吞下所有图书馆，成为最伟大的博学者；然而若你只有业分，你便一无是处；没有灵性可言。唯通过出离，方可达于不朽。那是一种力量，伟大的力量，甚至不以宇宙为意；到那时，"整个宇宙便如一个牛蹄印般渺小。"
出离，这是印度的旗帜，飘扬于世界之上；这是印度一次又一次向走向衰亡的民族所发出的警告，是对世间一切专制的警告，是对世间一切邪恶的警告。是的，印度教徒们，莫要放开对那面旗帜的执守。将其高高举起。即便你软弱而无法出离，也不要降低这个理想。说"我软弱，无法弃绝世间"，但不要试图成为伪君子，曲解经文，提出似是而非的论证，试图在无知者眼前蒙上迷雾。不要这样做，而要承认自己的软弱。因为这个理想是崇高的——出离的理想。即便数百万人在尝试中失败，即便只有十名战士，甚至只有两名凯旋而归，又有何关系！逝去的数百万人是有福的！他们的鲜血换来了这场胜利。这出离，是各种吠陀教派中唯一的理想，除了一个例外——孟买地区的瓦拉巴恰里雅（Vallabhacharya）教派；而诸位大多清楚，没有出离之处会产生什么。我们需要正统——即便是极端正统者，即便是那些用灰尘覆盖全身的人，即便是那些高举双臂者。是的，我们需要他们，尽管他们不合自然之道；因为他们坚守着这种放弃的理想，作为对整个民族的警示，警示人们不要屈服于那些正在悄然渗入印度、蚕食我们精髓、使整个民族趋于沦为伪君子之族的阴柔奢靡之风。我们需要有一点苦行（Tapas）精神。出离在昔日征服了印度，如今它仍须征服印度。它至今仍屹立为印度最伟大、最崇高的理想——这出离。佛陀（Buddha）的土地，罗摩努阇（Ramanuja）的土地，罗摩克里希纳·帕拉玛汉沙（Ramakrishna Paramahamsa）的土地，出离的土地；在这片土地上，自久远的往昔便宣扬反对业分，而今日仍有数百人已放弃一切，成为即身解脱者（Jivanmuktas）——是的，这片土地会放弃自己的理想吗？当然不会。或许有些人的头脑已被西方奢靡的理想所扭转；或许有成千上万的人深深沉醉于享乐——西方的这种诅咒——感官之乐——世间的诅咒；然而纵然如此，在我的祖国仍将有另外数以千计的人，宗教对他们永远是一种现实，他们将永远准备好，在必要时义无反顾地放弃一切。
还有一个在我们所有教派中都极为普遍的理想，我想在诸位面前提出；这也是一个宏大的课题。唯有在印度，宗教需要被亲证这一独特理念才得以存在。"此真我（Atman）非凭多言可得，亦非凭智识之力，亦非凭大量诵读经典所能达。"是的，我们的经典是世界上唯一宣告，就连研读经典也不能使人证悟真我（Atman）的——非言谈，非讲演，这一切皆非，而是需要被亲证。它从导师（Guru）传递给弟子。当这种洞见降临于弟子，一切便豁然开朗，证悟随之而来。
还有一个要点。孟加拉有一种奇特的习俗，他们称之为"家族导师"（Kula-Guru），即世袭的师承。"我的父亲是你的上师，现在我将成为你的上师。我的父亲是你父亲的上师，我也将是你的上师。"何为导师（Guru）？让我们回到启示（Shrutis）——"他是知晓吠陀秘义者"，不是书虫，不是语法学家，不是泛泛的博学者，而是那知晓其义者。"负载檀香木的驴子只知木头的重量，而不知其珍贵的品质"；这些博学者便是如此。我们不需要这样的人。若没有亲证，他们能教什么？当我还是个孩子，在这加尔各答（Calcutta）城，我曾四处寻访宗教，听完一场场宏大的演讲之后，我总是问讲演者："你见过上帝吗？"提到"见到上帝"，那人便大为困惑；唯一告诉我"我见过"的人，是罗摩克里希纳·帕拉玛汉沙（Ramakrishna Paramahamsa），不仅如此，他还说："我将使你走上见到祂的道路。"真正的导师（Guru），不是那种曲解和折磨经文的人。"种种措辞方式，种种解释经典的技巧，这些是供博学者享用的，而非通往解脱之道。"懂得启示（Shrutis）秘义的"耳闻者"（Shrotriya），无罪垢的"阿维里吉那"（Avrijina），不被欲望所刺穿的"阿迦玛哈塔"（Akamahata）——不图以教诲换取金钱的人——他是那宁静者（Shanta），那圣者（Sadhu），他的到来如同春天，为各种植物带来叶与花，却不向植物索求任何东西，因为其本性便是行善。他行善，就在那里。这样的人才是导师（Guru），"他自己已渡越这可怖的生死大海，不出于任何私利，也帮助他人渡越此海。"这样的人才是导师（Guru），须知除此之外，无人可以成为导师，因为"那些自身沉浸于无明（Avidya）之中，却在内心的傲慢中自以为无所不知的愚者，渴望帮助他人，却在诸多曲折的道路上踉踉跄跄、东倒西歪；如同盲人领路盲人，两者都跌入沟壑。"吠陀如是说。请将此与你们当今的习俗加以对照。你们是吠檀多论者，你们是非常正统的，不是吗？你们是伟大的印度教徒，极为正统。是的，我想做的，是使你们更为正统。你们越正统，便越明智；你们越想着现代的正统，便越愚昧。回归你们古老的正统，因为在那个时代，从这些典籍中发出的每一声音、每一脉动，皆出自一颗强健、稳固而真诚的心；每一音符都是真实的。此后，在艺术上、在科学上、在宗教上、在一切方面，都出现了衰落，民族的衰落。我们没有时间探讨其原因，但所有写于那个时期的典籍，都散发着瘟疫的气息——民族的衰败；没有活力，只有哀叹与哭泣。回去吧，回到那个充满力量与活力的古代。再次振作起来，深饮这古老的源泉，这是印度唯一的生存条件。
依据不二论者，我们今日所拥有的这种个体性，是一种幻觉。这在世界各地都是一个难以破解的难题。一旦你告诉一个人他不是个体，他立刻便会害怕，担心自己的个体性——无论那是什么——将会消失！然而不二论者说，个体性从来就不曾存在，你的一生中每一时刻都在改变。你曾是一个孩子，以一种方式思考；现在你是一个成年人，以另一种方式思考；将来你会是一个老人，又会以不同的方式思考。每个人都在不断改变。若如此，你的个体性在哪里？它确实不在身体中，也不在心意中，不在思想中。而超越这一切的，是你的真我（Atman）；不二论者说，这真我（Atman）本身就是梵（Brahman）。不可能存在两个无限。只有一个个体，那便是无限。简而言之，我们是理性的存在，我们需要进行推理。推理是什么？多多少少是一种分类的过程，直至无法继续。而有限者只有当它被归入无限时，才能获得终极的安息。取一件有限的事物，不断地分析它，你在任何地方都找不到安息，直至达到那终极或无限；而那个无限，不二论者说，才是唯一真实存在的。其他一切皆是幻（Maya），没有任何其他东西拥有真实的存在；任何物质事物中凡有存在的成分，都是这个梵（Brahman）；我们就是这梵（Brahman），而形态与其他一切皆是幻（Maya）。除去形态与外貌，你与我，皆是同一。然而我们必须谨防"我"这个词。通常人们会说："若我是梵，为何我不能做这做那？"然而这是在以不同的含义使用这个词。一旦你认为自己是被束缚的，你便不再是梵（Brahman）、不再是那真我（Self）——那无欲求者，其光辉在内；其一切喜悦与极乐皆在内；对自身完全满足，无所欲求，无所期待，完全无惧，完全自由。那便是梵（Brahman）。在那之中，我们皆是一。
如此看来，这便是二元论者与不二论者之间的重大分歧所在。你甚至会发现，像商羯罗这样的伟大注释者，有时对经文所作的解释，在我看来似乎难以成立。有时你也会发现罗摩努阇处理经文的方式并不十分清晰。即便在我们的博学者之中，长期以来也存在一种观念：这些教派中只有一个可以是真实的，其余必然是虚假的——尽管启示（Shrutis）中有一个最为奇妙的思想，是印度尚待给予世界的："存在者是一，智者以不同的名称称呼它。"这一直是那个主题，整个民族生命问题的展开，便是对这一主题的阐发——"存在者是一，智者以不同的名称称呼它。"然而，除了极少数的智者，我是说，除了极少数的灵性人士，印度始终忘记了这一点。我们忘记了这个伟大的思想；你们会发现，在博学者当中——我认为有百分之九十八——都持有这样的观点：要么不二论是真实的，要么殊限不二论（Vishishtadvaita）是真实的，要么二元论是真实的；若你去瓦拉纳西（Varanasi），在那里的某个河坛上坐五分钟，你便会亲眼目睹我所说的情形。你会看到关于这些不同教派及其是非的一场真正的角斗。
如此状况持续着。随后来了一位，其生命便是那诠释，其生命便是印度所有不同教派背后那和谐的展现——我所说的，是罗摩克里希纳·帕拉玛汉沙（Ramakrishna Paramahamsa）。正是他的生命表明，两者都是必要的，它们如同天文学中的地心说与日心说。当一个孩子学习天文学时，首先学的是地心说，并在地心说框架下推算出相似的天文观念。然而当他接触到天文学更为精微的方面时，日心说将是必要的，他也将更好地理解它。二元论是感官的自然观念；只要我们被感官所束缚，我们便只能看到一位完全有人格性的上帝，除此之外别无其他；我们便只能看到世界的本来面目。罗摩努阇说："只要你认为自己是一个身体，只要你认为自己是一个心意，只要你认为自己是一个命我（Jiva），每一次知觉行为都会给你呈现三个——灵魂、自然，以及某种作为两者之因的存在。"然而即便如此，当心意本身变得越来越精微，直至几乎消失，当一切使我们恐惧、使我们软弱、将我们束缚于此身体生命的事物都消失之时——那时，唯有那时，人才能发现那古老崇高教义的真理。那是什么教义？
"心意稳固于一切平等之人，他们已在此生征服生死的轮回；因为梵（Brahman）是纯净的，对一切平等，故此等人被称为安住于梵中。"
"在一切处见到同一主宰之人，圣者，不以自我伤害真我（Self），故而达于至高的归宿。"
English
THE VEDANTA IN ALL ITS PHASES
(Delivered in Calcutta)
Away back, where no recorded history, nay, not even the dim light of tradition, can penetrate, has been steadily shining the light, sometimes dimmed by external circumstances, at others effulgent, but undying and steady, shedding its lustre not only over India, but permeating the whole thought-world with its power, silent, unperceived, gentle, yet omnipotent, like the dew that falls in the morning, unseen and unnoticed, yet bringing into bloom the fairest of roses: this has been the thought of the Upanishads, the philosophy of the Vedanta. Nobody knows when it first came to flourish on the soil of India. Guesswork has been vain. The guesses, especially of Western writers, have been so conflicting that no certain date can be ascribed to them. But we Hindus, from the spiritual standpoint, do not admit that they had any origin. This Vedanta, the philosophy of the Upanishads, I would make bold to state, has been the first as well as the final thought on the spiritual plane that has ever been vouchsafed to man.
From this ocean of the Vedanta, waves of light from time to time have been going Westward and Eastward. In the days of yore it travelled Westward and gave its impetus to the mind of the Greeks, either in Athens, or in Alexandria, or in Antioch. The Sânkhya system must clearly have made its mark on the minds of the ancient Greeks; and the Sankhya and all other systems in India hail that one authority, the Upanishads, the Vedanta. In India, too, in spite of all these jarring sects that we see today and all those that have been in the past, the one authority, the basis of all these systems, has yet been the Upanishads, the Vedanta. Whether you are a dualist, or a qualified monist, an Advaitist, or a Vishishtâdvaitist, a Shuddhâdvaitist, or any other Advaitist, or Dvaitist, or whatever you may call yourself, there stand behind you as authority, your Shastras, your scriptures, the Upanishads. Whatever system in India does not obey the Upanishads cannot be called orthodox, and even the systems of the Jains and the Buddhists have been rejected from the soil of India only because they did not bear allegiance to the Upanishads. Thus the Vedanta, whether we know it or not, has penetrated all the sects in India, and what we call Hinduism, this mighty banyan with its immense, almost infinite ramifications, has been throughout interpenetrated by the influence of the Vedanta. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we think the Vedanta, we live in the Vedanta, we breathe the Vedanta, and we die in the Vedanta, and every Hindu does that. To preach Vedanta in the land of India, and before an Indian audience, seems, therefore, to be an anomaly. But it is the one thing that has to be preached, and it is the necessity of the age that it must be preached. For, as I have just told you, all the Indian sects must bear allegiance to the Upanishads; but among these sects there are many apparent contradictions. Many times the great sages of yore themselves could not understand the underlying harmony of the Upanishads. Many times, even sages quarrelled, so much so that it became a proverb that there are no sages who do not differ. But the time requires that a better interpretation should be given to this underlying harmony of the Upanishadic texts, whether they are dualistic, or non-dualistic, quasi-dualistic, or so forth. That has to be shown before the world at large, and this work is required as much in India as outside of India; and I, through the grace of God, had the great good fortune to sit at the feet of one whose whole life was such an interpretation, whose life, a thousandfold more than whose teaching, was a living commentary on the texts of the Upanishads, was in fact the spirit of the Upanishads living in a human form. Perhaps I have got a little of that harmony; I do not know whether I shall be able to express it or not. But this is my attempt, my mission in life, to show that the Vedantic schools are not contradictory, that they all necessitate each other, all fulfil each other, and one, as it were, is the stepping-stone to the other, until the goal, the Advaita, the Tat Tvam Asi, is reached. There was a time in India when the Karma Kânda had its sway. There are many grand ideals, no doubt, in that portion of the Vedas. Some of our present daily worship is still according to the precepts of the Karma Kanda. But with all that, the Karma Kanda of the Vedas has almost disappeared from India. Very little of our life today is bound and regulated by the orders of the Karma Kanda of the Vedas. In our ordinary lives we are mostly Paurânikas or Tântrikas, and, even where some Vedic texts are used by the Brahmins of India, the adjustment of the texts is mostly not according to the Vedas, but according to the Tantras or the Puranas. As such, to call ourselves Vaidikas in the sense of following the Karma Kanda of the Vedas, I do not think, would be proper. But the other fact stands that we are all of us Vedantists. The people who call themselves Hindus had better be called Vedantists, and, as I have shown you, under that one name Vaidantika come in all our various sects, whether dualists or non-dualists.
The sects that are at the present time in India come to be divided in general into the two great classes of dualists and monists. The little differences which some of these sects insist upon, and upon the authority of which want to take new names as pure Advaitists, or qualified Advaitists, and so forth, do not matter much. As a classification, either they are dualists or monists, and of the sects existing at the present time, some of them are very new, and others seem to be reproductions of very ancient sects. The one class I would present by the life and philosophy of Râmânuja, and the other by Shankarâchârya.
Ramanuja is the leading dualistic philosopher of later India, whom all the other dualistic sects have followed, directly or indirectly, both in the substance of their teaching and in the organization of their sects even down to some of the most minute points of their organization. You will be astonished if you compare Ramanuja and his work with the other dualistic Vaishnava sects in India, to see how much they resemble each other in organization, teaching, and method. There is the great Southern preacher Madhva Muni, and following him, our great Chaitanya of Bengal who took up the philosophy of the Madhvas and preached it in Bengal. There are some other sects also in Southern India, as the qualified dualistic Shaivas. The Shaivas in most parts of India are Advaitists, except in some portions of Southern India and in Ceylon. But they also only substitute Shiva for Vishnu and are Ramanujists in every sense of the term except in the doctrine of the soul. The followers of Ramanuja hold that the soul is Anu, like a particle, very small, and the followers of Shankaracharya hold that it is Vibhu, omnipresent. There have been several non-dualistic sects. It seems that there have been sects in ancient times which Shankara's movement has entirely swallowed up and assimilated. You find sometimes a fling at Shankara himself in some of the commentaries, especially in that of Vijnâna Bhikshu who, although an Advaitist, attempts to upset the Mâyâvâda of Shankara. It seems there were schools who did not believe in this Mayavada, and they went so far as to call Shankara a crypto-Buddhist, Prachchhanna Bauddha, and they thought this Mayavada was taken from the Buddhists and brought within the Vedantic fold. However that may be, in modern times the Advaitists have all ranged themselves under Shankaracharya; and Shankaracharya and his disciples have been the great preachers of Advaita both in Southern and in Northern India. The influence of Shankaracharya did not penetrate much into our country of Bengal and in Kashmir and the Punjab, but in Southern India the Smârtas are all followers of Shankaracharya, and with Varanasi as the centre, his influence is simply immense even in many parts of Northern India.
Now both Shankara and Ramanuja laid aside all claim to originality. Ramanuja expressly tells us he is only following the great commentary of Bodhâyana. भगवद् बोधायनकृतां विस्तीर्णां ब्रह्मसूत्रवृत्तिं पूर्वाचार्याः संचिक्षिपुः तन्मतानुसारेण सूत्राक्षराणि व्याख्यास्यन्ते। — "Ancient teachers abridged that extensive commentary on the Brahma-sutras which was composed by the Bhagavân Bodhayana; in accordance with their opinion, the words of the Sutra are explained." That is what Ramanuja says at the beginning of his commentary, the Shri-Bhâshya. He takes it up and makes of it a Samkshepa, and that is what we have today. I myself never had an opportunity of seeing this commentary of Bodhayana. The late Swami Dayânanda Saraswati wanted to reject every other commentary of the Vyâsa-Sutras except that of Bodhayana; and although he never lost an opportunity of having a fling at Ramanuja, he himself could never produce the Bodhayana. I have sought for it all over India, and never yet have been able to see it. But Ramanuja is very plain on the point, and he tells us that he is taking the ideas, and sometimes the very passages out of Bodhayana, and condensing them into the present Ramanuja Bhashya. It seems that Shankaracharya was also doing the same. There are a few places in his Bhashya which mention older commentaries, and when we know that his Guru and his Guru's Guru had been Vedantists of the same school as he, sometimes corn more thorough-going, bolder even than Shankara himself on certain points, it seems pretty plain that he also was not preaching anything very original, and that even in his Bhashya he himself had been doing the same work that Ramanuja did with Bodhayana, but from what Bhashya, it cannot be discovered at the present time.
All these Darshanas that you have ever seen or heard of are based upon Upanishadic authority. Whenever they want to quote a Shruti, they mean the Upanishads. They are always quoting the Upanishads. Following the Upanishads there come other philosophies of India, but every one of them failed in getting that hold on India which the philosophy of Vyasa got, although the philosophy of Vyasa is a development out of an older one, the Sankhya, and every philosophy and every system in India — I mean throughout the world — owes much to Kapila, perhaps the greatest name in the history of India in psychological and philosophical lines. The influence of Kapila is everywhere seen throughout the world. Wherever there is a recognised system of thought, there you can trace his influence; even if it be thousands of years back, yet he stands there, the shining, glorious, wonderful Kapila. His psychology and a good deal of his philosophy have been accepted by all the sects of India with but very little differences. In our own country, our Naiyâyika philosophers could not make much impression on the philosophical world of India. They were too busy with little things like species and genus, and so forth, and that most cumbersome terminology, which it is a life's work to study. As such, they were very busy with logic and left philosophy to the Vedantists, but every one of the Indian philosophic sects in modern times has adopted the logical terminology of the Naiyayikas of Bengal. Jagadisha, Gadadhara, and Shiromani are as well known at Nadia as in some of the cities in Malabar. But the philosophy of Vyasa, the Vyasa-Sutras, is firm-seated and has attained the permanence of that which it intended to present to men, the Brahman of the Vedantic side of philosophy. Reason was entirely subordinated to the Shrutis, and as Shankaracharya declares, Vyasa did not care to reason at all. His idea in writing the Sutras was just to bring together, and with one thread to make a garland of the flowers of Vedantic texts. His Sutras are admitted so far as they are subordinate to the authority of the Upanishads, and no further.
And, as I have said, all the sects of India now hold these Vyasa-Sutras to be the great authority, and every new sect in India starts with a fresh commentary on the Vyasa-Sutras according to its light. The difference between some of these commentators is sometimes very great, sometimes the text-torturing is quite disgusting. The Vyasa-Sutras have got the place of authority, and no one can expect to found a sect in India until he can write a fresh commentary on the Vyasa-Sutras.
Next in authority is the celebrated Gita. The great glory of Shankaracharya was his preaching of the Gita. It is one of the greatest works that this great man did among the many noble works of his noble life — the preaching of the Gita and writing the most beautiful commentary upon it. And he has been followed by all founders of the orthodox sects in India, each of whom has written a commentary on the Gita.
The Upanishads are many, and said to be one hundred and eight, but some declare them to be still larger in number. Some of them are evidently of a much later date, as for instance, the Allopanishad in which Allah is praised and Mohammed is called the Rajasulla. I have been told that this was written during the reign of Akbar to bring the Hindus and Mohammedans together, and sometimes they got hold of some word, as Allah, or Illa in the Samhitâs, and made an Upanishad on it. So in this Allopanishad, Mohammed is the Rajasulla, whatever that may mean. There are other sectarian Upanishads of the same species, which you find to be entirely modern, and it has been so easy to write them, seeing that this language of the Samhitâ portion of the Vedas is so archaic that there is no grammar to it. Years ago I had an idea of studying the grammar of the Vedas, and I began with all earnestness to study Panini and the Mahâbhâshya, but to my surprise I found that the best part of the Vedic grammar consists only of exceptions to rules. A rule is made, and after that comes a statement to the effect, "This rule will be an exception". So you see what an amount of liberty there is for anybody to write anything, the only safeguard being the dictionary of Yâska. Still, in this you will find, for the most part, but a large number of synonyms. Given all that, how easy it is to write any number of Upanishads you please. Just have a little knowledge of Sanskrit, enough to make words look like the old archaic words, and you have no fear of grammar. Then you bring in Rajasulla or any other Sulla you like. In that way many Upanishads have been manufactured, and I am told that that is being done even now. In some parts of India, I am perfectly certain, they are trying to manufacture such Upanishads among the different sects. But among the Upanishads are those, which, on the face of them, bear the evidence of genuineness, and these have been taken up by the great commentators and commented upon, especially by Shankara, followed by Ramanuja and all the rest.
There are one or two more ideas with regard to the Upanishads which I want to bring to your notice, for these are an ocean of knowledge, and to talk about the Upanishads, even for an incompetent person like myself, takes years and not one lecture only. I want, therefore, to bring to your notice one or two points in the study of the Upanishads. In the first place, they are the most wonderful poems in the world. If you read the Samhita portion of the Vedas, you now and then find passages of most marvellous beauty. For instance, the famous Shloka which describes Chaos — तम आसीत्तमसा गूढमगे etc. — "When darkness was hidden in darkness", so on it goes. One reads and feels the wonderful sublimity of the poetry. Do you mark this that outside of India, and inside also, there have been attempts at painting the sublime. But outside, it has always been the infinite in the muscles the external world, the infinite of matter, or of space. When Milton or Dante, or any other great European poet, either ancient or modern, wants to paint a picture of the infinite, he tries to soar outside, to make you feel the infinite through the muscles. That attempt has been made here also. You find it in the Samhitas, the infinite of extension most marvellously painted and placed before the readers, such as has been done nowhere else. Mark that one sentence — तम आसीत् तमसा गूढम् , — and now mark the description of darkness by three poets. Take our own Kâlidâsa — "Darkness which can be penetrated with the point of a needle"; then Milton — "No light but rather darkness visible"; but come now to the Upanishad, "Darkness was covering darkness", "Darkness was hidden in darkness". We who live in the tropics can understand it, the sudden outburst of the monsoon, when in a moment, the horizon becomes darkened and clouds become covered with more rolling black clouds. So on, the poem goes; but yet, in the Samhita portion, all these attempts are external. As everywhere else, the attempts at finding the solution of the great problems of life have been through the external world. Just as the Greek mind or the modern European mind wants to find the solution of life and of all the sacred problems of Being by searching into the external world. So also did our forefathers, and just as the Europeans failed, they failed also. But the Western people never made a move more, they remained there, they failed in the search for the solution of the great problems of life and death in the external world, and there they remained, stranded; our forefathers also found it impossible, but were bolder in declaring the utter helplessness of the senses to find the solution. Nowhere else was the answer better put than in the Upanishad: यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह। — "From whence words come back reflected, together with the mind"; न तत्रचक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति। — "There the eye cannot go, nor can speech reach". There are various sentences which declare the utter helplessness of the senses, but they did not stop there; they fell back upon the internal nature of man, they went to get the answer from their own soul, they became introspective; they gave up external nature as a failure, as nothing could be done there, as no hope, no answer could be found; they discovered that dull, dead matter would not give them truth, and they fell back upon the shining soul of man, and there the answer was found.
तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम् अन्या वाचो विमुञ्चथ। — "Know this Atman alone," they declared, "give up all other vain words, and hear no other." In the Atman they found the solution — the greatest of all Atmans, the God, the Lord of this universe, His relation to the Atman of man, our duty to Him, and through that our relation to each other. And herein you find the most sublime poetry in the world. No more is the attempt made to paint this Atman in the language of matter. Nay, for it they have given up even all positive language. No more is there any attempt to come to the senses to give them the idea of the infinite, no more is there an external, dull, dead, material, spacious, sensuous infinite, but instead of that comes something which is as fine as even that mentioned in the saying —
न तत्र सूर्यो भाति न चन्द्रतारकं नेमा वेद्युतो भान्ति कुतोऽयमग्निः।
तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति॥
न तत्र सूर्यो भाति न चन्द्रतारकं नेमा वेद्युतो भान्ति कुतोऽयमग्निः।
तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति॥
What poetry in the world can be more sublime than this! "There the sun cannot illumine, nor the moon, nor the stars, there this flash of lightning cannot illumine; what to speak of this mortal fire!" Such poetry you find nowhere else. Take that most marvellous Upanishad, the Katha. What a wonderful finish, what a most marvellous art displayed in that poem! How wonderfully it opens with that little boy to whom Shraddhâ came, who wanted to see Yama, and how that most marvellous of all teachers, Death himself, teaches him the great lessons of life and death! And what was his quest? To know the secret of death.
The second point that I want you to remember is the perfectly impersonal character of the Upanishads. Although we find many names, and many speakers, and many teachers in the Upanishads, not one of them stands as an authority of the Upanishads, not one verse is based upon the life of any one of them. These are simply figures like shadows moving in the background, unfelt, unseen, unrealised, but the real force is in the marvellous, the brilliant, the effulgent texts of the Upanishads, perfectly impersonal. If twenty Yâjnavalkyas came and lived and died, it does not matter; the texts are there. And yet it is against no personality; it is broad and expansive enough to embrace all the personalities that the world has yet produced, and all that are yet to come. It has nothing to say against the worship of persons, or Avataras, or sages. On the other hand, it is always upholding it. At the same time, it is perfectly impersonal. It is a most marvellous idea, like the God it preaches, the impersonal idea of the Upanishads. For the sage, the thinker, the philosopher, for the rationalist, it is as much impersonal as any modern scientist can wish. And these are our scriptures. You must remember that what the Bible is to the Christians, what the Koran is to the Mohammedans, what the Tripitaka is to the Buddhist, what the Zend Avesta is to the Parsees, these Upanishads are to us. These and nothing but these are our scriptures. The Purânas, the Tantras, and all the other books, even the Vyasa-Sutras, are of secondary, tertiary authority, but primary are the Vedas. Manu, and the Puranas, and all the other books are to be taken so far as they agree with the authority of the Upanishads, and when they disagree they are to be rejected without mercy. This we ought to remember always, but unfortunately for India, at the present time we have forgotten it. A petty village custom seems now the real authority and not the teaching of the Upanishads. A petty idea current in a wayside village in Bengal seems to have the authority of the Vedas, and even something better. And that word "orthodox", how wonderful its influence! To the villager, the following of every little bit of the Karma Kanda is the very height of "orthodoxy", and one who does not do it is told, "Go away, you are no more a Hindu." So there are, most unfortunately in my motherland, persons who will take up one of these Tantras and say, that the practice of this Tantra is to be obeyed; he who does not do so is no more orthodox in his views. Therefore it is better for us to remember that in the Upanishads is the primary authority, even the Grihya and Shrauta Sutras are subordinate to the authority of the Vedas. They are the words of the Rishis, our forefathers, and you have to believe them if you want to become a Hindu. You may even believe the most peculiar ideas about the Godhead, but if you deny the authority of the Vedas, you are a Nâstika. Therein lies the difference between the scriptures of the Christians or the Buddhists and ours; theirs are all Puranas, and not scriptures, because they describe the history of the deluge, and the history of kings and reigning families, and record the lives of great men, and so on. This is the work of the Puranas, and so far as they agree with the Vedas, they are good. So far as the Bible and the scriptures of other nations agree with the Vedas, they are perfectly good, but when they do not agree, they are no more to be accepted. So with the Koran. There are many moral teachings in these, and so far as they agree with the Vedas they have the authority of the Puranas, but no more. The idea is that the Vedas were never written; the idea is, they never came into existence. I was told once by a Christian missionary that their scriptures have a historical character, and therefore are true, to which I replied, "Mine have no historical character and therefore they are true; yours being historical, they were evidently made by some man the other day. Yours are man-made and mine are not; their non-historicity is in their favour." Such is the relation of the Vedas with all the other scriptures at the present day.
We now come to the teachings of the Upanishads. Various texts are there. Some are perfectly dualistic, while others are monistic. But there are certain doctrines which are agreed to by all the different sects of India. First, there is the doctrine of Samsâra or reincarnation of the soul. Secondly, they all agree in their psychology; first there is the body, behind that, what they call the Sukshma Sharira, the mind, and behind that even, is the Jiva. That is the great difference between Western and Indian psychology; in the Western psychology the mind is the soul, here it is not. The Antahkarana, the internal instrument, as the mind is called, is only an instrument in the hands of that Jiva, through which the Jiva works on the body or on the external world. Here they all agree, and they all also agree that this Jiva or Atman, Jivatman as it is called by various sects, is eternal, without beginning; and that it is going from birth to birth, until it gets a final release. They all agree in this, and they also all agree in one other most vital point, which alone marks characteristically, most prominently, most vitally, the difference between the Indian and the Western mind, and it is this, that everything is in the soul. There is no inspiration, but properly speaking, expiration. All powers and all purity and all greatness — everything is in the soul. The Yogi would tell you that the Siddhis - Animâ, Laghimâ, and so on — that he wants to attain to are not to be attained, in the proper sense of the word, but are already there in the soul; the work is to make them manifest. Patanjali, for instance, would tell you that even in the lowest worm that crawls under your feet, all the eightfold Yogi's powers are already existing. The difference has been made by the body. As soon as it gets a better body, the powers will become manifest, but they are there.
निमित्तमप्रयोजकं प्रकृतीनां वरणभेदस्तु ततः क्षेत्रिकवत्। — "Good and bad deeds are not the direct causes in the transformations of nature, but they act as breakers of obstacles to the evolutions of nature: as a farmer breaks the obstacles to the course of water, which then runs down by its own nature." Here Patanjali gives the celebrated example of the cultivator bringing water into his field from a huge tank somewhere. The tank is already filled and the water would flood his land in a moment, only there is a mud-wall between the tank and his field. As soon as the barrier is broken, in rushes the water out of its own power and force. This mass of power and purity and perfection is in the soul already. The only difference is the Âvarana — this veil — that has been cast over it. Once the veil is removed, the soul attains to purity, and its powers become manifest. This, you ought to remember, is the great difference between Eastern and Western thought. Hence you find people teaching such awful doctrines as that we are all born sinners, and because we do not believe in such awful doctrines we are all born wicked. They never stop to think that if we are by our very nature wicked, we can never be good — for how can nature change? If it changes, it contradicts itself; it is not nature. We ought to remember this. Here the dualist, and the Advaitist, and all others in India agree.
The next point, which all the sects in India believe in, is God. Of course their ideas of God will be different. The dualists believe in a Personal God, and a personal only. I want you to understand this word personal a little more. This word personal does not mean that God has a body, sits on a throne somewhere, and rules this world, but means Saguna, with qualities. There are many descriptions of the Personal God. This Personal God as the Ruler, the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer of this universe is believed in by all the sects. The Advaitists believe something more. They believe in a still higher phase of this Personal God, which is personal-impersonal. No adjective can illustrate where there is no qualification, and the Advaitist would not give Him any qualities except the three —Sat-Chit-Ananda, Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss Absolute. This is what Shankara did. But in the Upanishads themselves you find they penetrate even further, and say, nothing can be predicated of it except Neti, Neti, "Not this, Not this".
Here all the different sects of India agree. But taking the dualistic side, as I have said, I will take Ramanuja as the typical dualist of India, the great modern representative of the dualistic system. It is a pity that our people in Bengal know so very little about the great religious leaders in India, who have been born in other parts of the country; and for the matter of that, during the whole of the Mohammedan period, with the exception of our Chaitanya, all the great religious leaders were born in Southern India, and it is the intellect of Southern India that is really governing India now; for even Chaitanya belonged to one of these sects, a sect of the Mâdhvas. According to Ramanuja, these three entities are eternal — God, and soul, and nature. The souls are eternal, and they will remain eternally existing, individualised through eternity, and will retain their individuality all through. Your soul will be different from my soul through all eternity, says Ramanuja, and so will this nature — which is an existing fact, as much a fact as the existence of soul or the existence of God — remain always different. And God is interpenetrating, the essence of the soul, He is the Antaryâmin. In this sense Ramanuja sometimes thinks that God is one with the soul, the essence of the soul, and these souls — at the time of Pralaya, when the whole of nature becomes what he calls Sankuchita, contracted — become contracted and minute and remain so for a time. And at the beginning of the next cycle they all come out, according to their past Karma, and undergo the effect of that Karma. Every action that makes the natural inborn purity and perfection of the soul get contracted is a bad action, and every action that makes it come out and expand itself is a good action, says Ramanuja. Whatever helps to make the Vikâsha of the soul is good, and whatever makes it Sankuchita is bad. And thus the soul is going on, expanding or contracting in its actions, till through the grace of God comes salvation. And that grace comes to all souls, says Ramanuja, that are pure and struggle for that grace.
There is a celebrated verse in the Shrutis,आहारशुध्दौ सत्त्वशुध्दिः सत्त्वशुध्दौ ध्रुवास्मृतिः "When the food is pure, then the Sattva becomes pure; when the Sattva is pure, then the Smriti" — the memory of the Lord, or the memory of our own perfection — if you are an Advaitist — "becomes truer, steadier, and absolute". Here is a great discussion. First of all, what is this Sattva? We know that according to the Sankhya — and it has been admitted by all our sects of philosophy — the body is composed of three sorts of materials — not qualities. It is the general idea that Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas are qualities. Not at all, not qualities but the materials of this universe, and with Âhâra-shuddhi, when the food is pure, the Sattva material becomes pure. The one theme of the Vedanta is to get this Sattva. As I have told you, the soul is already pure and perfect, and it is, according to the Vedanta, covered up by Rajas and Tamas particles. The Sattva particles are the most luminous, and the effulgence of the soul penetrates through them as easily as light through glass. So if the Rajas and Tamas particles go, and leave the Sattva particles, in this state the power and purity of the soul will appear, and leave the soul more manifest.
Therefore it is necessary to have this Sattva. And the text says, "When Ahara becomes pure". Ramanuja takes this word Ahara to mean food, and he has made it one of the turning points of his philosophy. Not only so, it has affected the whole of India, and all the different sects. Therefore it is necessary for us to understand what it means, for that, according to Ramanuja, is one of the principal factors in our life, Ahara-shuddhi. What makes food impure? asks Ramanuja. Three sorts of defects make food impure — first, Jâti-dosha, the defect in the very nature of the class to which the food belongs, as the smell in onions, garlic, and suchlike. The next is Âshraya-dosha, the defect in the person from whom the food comes; food coming from a wicked person will make you impure. I myself have seen many great sages in India following strictly that advice all their lives. Of course they had the power to know who brought the food, and even who had touched the food, and I have seen it in my own life, not once, but hundreds of times. Then Nimitta-dosha, the defect of impure things or influences coming in contact with food is another. We had better attend to that a little more now. It has become too prevalent in India to take food with dirt and dust and bits of hair in it. If food is taken from which these three defects have been removed, that makes Sattva-shuddhi, purifies the Sattva. Religion seems to be a very easy task then. Then every one can have religion if it comes by eating pure food only. There is none so weak or incompetent in this world, that I know, who cannot save himself from these defects. Then comes Shankaracharya, who says this word Ahara means thought collected in the mind; when that becomes pure, the Sattva becomes pure, and not before that. You may eat what you like. If food alone would purify the Sattva, then feed the monkey with milk and rice all its life; would it become a great Yogi? Then the cows and the deer would be great Yogis. As has been said, "If it is by bathing much that heaven is reached, the fishes will get to heaven first. If by eating vegetables a man gets to heaven, the cows and the deer will get to heaven first."
But what is the solution? Both are necessary. Of course the idea that Shankaracharya gives us of Ahara is the primary idea. But pure food, no doubt, helps pure thought; it has an intimate connection; both ought to be there. But the defect is that in modern India we have forgotten the advice of Shankaracharya and taken only the "pure food" meaning. That is why people get mad with me when I say, religion has got into the kitchen; and if you had been in Madras with me, you would have agreed with me. The Bengalis are better than that. In Madras they throw away food if anybody looks at it. And with all this, I do not see that the people are any the better there. If only eating this and that sort of food and saving it from the looks of this person and that person would give them perfection, you would expect them all to be perfect men, which they are not.
Thus, although these are to be combined and linked together to make a perfect whole, do not put the cart before the horse. There is a cry nowadays about this and that food and about Varnâshrama, and the Bengalis are the most vociferous in these cries. I would ask every one of you, what do you know about this Varnashrama? Where are the four castes today in this country? Answer me; I do not see the four castes. Just as our Bengali proverb has it, "A headache without a head", so you want to make this Varnashrama here. There are not four castes here. I see only the Brâhmin and the Shudra. If there are the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas, where are they and why do not you Brahmins order them to take the Yajnopavita and study the Vedas, as every Hindu ought to do? And if the Vaishyas and the Kshatriyas do not exist, but only the Brahmins and the Shudras, the Shastras say that the Brahmin must not live in a country where there are only Shudras; so depart bag and baggage! Do you know what the Shastras say about people who have been eating Mlechchha food and living under a government of the Mlechchhas, as you have for the past thousand years? Do you know the penance for that? The penance would be burning oneself with one's own hands. Do you want to pass as teachers and walk like hypocrisies? If you believe in your Shastras, burn yourselves first like the one great Brahmin did who went with Alexander the Great and burnt himself because he thought he had eaten the food of a Mlechchha. Do like that, and you will see that the whole nation will be at your feet. You do not believe in your own Shastras and yet want to make others believe in them. If you think you are not able to do that in this age, admit your weakness and excuse the weakness of others, take the other castes up, give them a helping hand, let them study the Vedas and become just as good Aryans as any other Aryans in the world, and be you likewise Aryans, you Brahmins of Bengal.
Give up this filthy Vâmâchâra that is killing your country. You have not seen the other parts of India. When I see how much the Vamachara has entered our society, I find it a most disgraceful place with all its boast of culture. These Vamachara sects are honeycombing our society in Bengal. Those who come out in the daytime and preach most loudly about Âchâra, it is they who carry on the horrible debauchery at night and are backed by the most dreadful books. They are ordered by the books to do these things. You who are of Bengal know it. The Bengali Shastras are the Vamachara Tantras. They are published by the cart-load, and you poison the minds of your children with them instead of teaching them your Shrutis. Fathers of Calcutta, do you not feel ashamed that such horrible stuff as these Vamachara Tantras, with translations too, should be put into the hands of your boys and girls, and their minds poisoned, and that they should be brought up with the idea that these are the Shastras of the Hindus? If you are ashamed, take them away from your children, and let them read the true Shastras, the Vedas, the Gita, the Upanishads.
According to the dualistic sects of India, the individual souls remain as individuals throughout, and God creates the universe out of pre-existing material only as the efficient cause. According to the Advaitists, on the other hand, God is both the material and the efficient cause of the universe. He is not only the Creator of the universe, but He creates it out of Himself. That is the Advaitist position. There are crude dualistic sects who believe that this world has been created by God out of Himself, and at the same time God is eternally separate from the universe, and everything is eternally subordinate to the Ruler of the universe. There are sects too who also believe that out of Himself God has evolved this universe, and individuals in the long run attain to Nirvâna to give up the finite and become the Infinite. But these sects have disappeared. The one sect of Advaitists that you see in modern India is composed of the followers of Shankara. According to Shankara, God is both the material and the efficient cause through Mâyâ, but not in reality. God has not become this universe; but the universe is not, and God is. This is one of the highest points to understand of Advaita Vedanta, this idea of Maya. I am afraid I have no time to discuss this one most difficult point in our philosophy. Those of you who are acquainted with Western philosophy will find something very similar in Kant. But I must warn you, those of you who have studied Professor Max Müller's writings on Kant, that there is one idea most misleading. It was Shankara who first found out the idea of the identity of time, space, and causation with Maya, and I had the good fortune to find one or two passages in Shankara's commentaries and send them to my friend the Professor. So even that idea was here in India. Now this is a peculiar theory — this Maya theory of the Advaita Vedantists. The Brahman is all that exists, but differentiation has been caused by this Maya. Unity, the one Brahman, is the ultimate, the goal, and herein is an eternal dissension again between Indian and Western thought. India has thrown this challenge to the world for thousands of years, and the challenge has been taken up by different nations, and the result is that they all succumbed and you live. This is the challenge that this world is a delusion, that it is all Maya, that whether you eat off the ground with your fingers or dine off golden plates, whether you live in palaces and are one of the mightiest monarchs or are the poorest of beggars, death is the one result; it is all the same, all Maya. That is the old Indian theme, and again and again nations are springing up trying to unsay it, to disprove it; becoming great, with enjoyment as their watchword, power in their hands, they use that power to the utmost, enjoy to the utmost, and the next moment they die. We stand for ever because we see that everything is Maya. The children of Maya live for ever, but the children of enjoyment die.
Here again is another great difference. Just as you find the attempts of Hegel and Schopenhauer in German philosophy, so you will find the very same ideas brought forward in ancient India. Fortunately for us, Hegelianism was nipped in the bud and not allowed to sprout and cast its baneful shoots over this motherland of ours. Hegel's one idea is that the one, the absolute, is only chaos, and that the individualized form is the greater. The world is greater than the non-world, Samsâra is greater than salvation. That is the one idea, and the more you plunge into this Samsara the more your soul is covered with the workings of life, the better you are. They say, do you not see how we build houses, cleanse the streets, enjoy the senses? Ay, behind that they may hide rancour, misery, horror — behind every bit of that enjoyment.
On the other hand, our philosophers have from the very first declared that every manifestation, what you call evolution, is vain, a vain attempt of the unmanifested to manifest itself. Ay, you the mighty cause of this universe, trying to reflect yourself in little mud puddles! But after making the attempt for a time you find out it was all in vain and beat a retreat to the place from whence you came. This is Vairâgya, or renunciation, and the very beginning of religion. How can religion or morality begin without renunciation itself ? The Alpha and Omega is renunciation. "Give up," says the Veda, "give up." That is the one way, "Give up".न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैकेऽमृतत्वमानशुः — "Neither through wealth, nor through progeny, but by giving up alone that immortality is to be reached." That is the dictate of the Indian books. Of course, there have been great givers-up of the world, even sitting on thrones. But even (King) Janaka himself had to renounce; who was a greater renouncer than he? But in modern times we all want to be called Janakas! They are all Janakas (lit. fathers) of children — unclad, ill-fed, miserable children. The word Janaka can be applied to them in that sense only; they have none of the shining, Godlike thoughts as the old Janaka had. These are our modern Janakas! A little less of this Janakism now, and come straight to the mark! If you can give up, you will have religion. If you cannot, you may read all the books that are in the world, from East to West, swallow all the libraries, and become the greatest of Pandits, but if you have Karma Kanda only, you are nothing; there is no spirituality. Through renunciation alone this immortality is to be reached. It is the power, the great power, that cares not even for the universe; then it is that ब्रह्माण्डम् गोष्पदायते। "The whole universe becomes like a hollow made by a cow's foot."
Renunciation, that is the flag, the banner of India, floating over the world, the one undying thought which India sends again and again as a warning to dying races, as a warning to all tyranny, as a warning to wickedness in the world. Ay, Hindus, let not your hold of that banner go. Hold it aloft. Even if you are weak and cannot renounce, do not lower the ideal. Say, "I am weak and cannot renounce the world", but do not try to be hypocrites, torturing texts, and making specious arguments, and trying to throw dust in the eyes of people who are ignorant. Do not do that, but own you are weak. For the idea is great, that of renunciation. What matters it if millions fail in the attempt, if ten soldiers or even two return victorious! Blessed be the millions dead! Their blood has bought the victory. This renunciation is the one ideal throughout the different Vedic sects except one, and that is the Vallabhâchârya sect in Bombay Presidency, and most of you are aware what comes where renunciation does not exist. We want orthodoxy — even the hideously orthodox, even those who smother themselves with ashes, even those who stand with their hands uplifted. Ay, we want them, unnatural though they be, for standing for that idea of giving up, and acting as a warning to the race against succumbing to the effeminate luxuries that are creeping into India, eating into our very vitals, and tending to make the whole race a race of hypocrites. We want to have a little of asceticism. Renunciation conquered India in days of yore, it has still to conquer India. Still it stands as the greatest and highest of Indian ideals — this renunciation. The land of Buddha, the land of Ramanuja, of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, the land of renunciation, the land where, from the days of yore, Karma Kanda was preached against, and even today there are hundreds who have given up everything, and become Jivanmuktas — ay, will that land give up its ideals? Certainly not. There may be people whose brains have become turned by the Western luxurious ideals; there may be thousands and hundreds of thousands who have drunk deep of enjoyment, this curse of the West — the senses — the curse of the world; yet for all that, there will be other thousands in this motherland of mine to whom religion will ever be a reality, and who will be ever ready to give up without counting the cost, if need be.
Another ideal very common in all our sects, I want to place before you; it is also a vast subject. This unique idea that religion is to be realised is in India alone.नायमात्मा प्रवचनेन लभ्यो न मेधया न बहुना श्रुतेन — "This Atman is not to be reached by too much talking, nor is it to be reached by the power of intellect, nor by much study of the scriptures." Nay, ours is the only scripture in the world that declares, not even by the study of the scriptures can the Atman be realised — not talks, not lecturing, none of that, but It is to be realised. It comes from the teacher to the disciple. When this insight comes to the disciple, everything is cleared up and realisation follows.
One more idea. There is a peculiar custom in Bengal, which they call Kula-Guru, or hereditary Guruship. "My father was your Guru, now I shall be your Guru. My father was the Guru of your father, so shall I be yours." What is a Guru? Let us go back to the Shrutis — "He who knows the secret of the Vedas", not bookworms, not grammarians, not Pandits in general, but he who knows the meaning. यथा खरश्चन्दनभारवाही भारस्य वेत्ता न तु चन्दनस्य। — "An ass laden with a load of sandalwood knows only the weight of the wood, but not its precious qualities"; so are these Pandits. We do not want such. What can they teach if they have no realisation? When I was a boy here, in this city of Calcutta, I used to go from place to place in search of religion, and everywhere I asked the lecturer after hearing very big lectures, "Have you seen God?" The man was taken aback at the idea of seeing God; and the only man who told me, "I have", was Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, and not only so, but he said, "I will put you in the way of seeing Him too". The Guru is not a man who twists and tortures texts. वाग्वैखरी शब्दझरी शास्त्रव्याख्यानकौशलं वैदुष्यं विदुषां तव्दद् भुक्तये न तु मुक्तये। — "Different ways of throwing out words, different ways of explaining texts of the scriptures, these are for the enjoyment of the learned, not for freedom." Shrotriya, he who knows the secret of the Shrutis, Avrijina, the sinless, and Akâmahata, unpierced by desire — he who does not want to make money by teaching you — he is the Shânta, the Sâdhu, who comes as the spring which brings the leaves and blossoms to various plants but does not ask anything from the plant, for its very nature is to do good. It does good and there it is. Such is the Guru, तीर्णाः स्वयं भीमभवार्णवं जनानहेतुनान्यानपि तारयन्तः — "Who has himself crossed this terrible ocean of life, and without any idea of gain to himself, helps others also to cross the ocean." This is the Guru, and mark that none else can be a Guru, for अविद्यायामन्तरे वर्तमानाः स्वयं धीराः पण्डितम्मन्यमानाः। दन्द्रम्यमाणाः परियन्ति मूढाः अन्धेनैव नीयमाना यथान्धाः — "Themselves steeped in darkness, but in the pride of their hearts, thinking they know everything, the fools want to help others, and they go round and round in many crooked ways, staggering to and fro, and thus like the blind leading the blind, both fall into the ditch." Thus say the Vedas. Compare that and your present custom. You are Vedantists, you are very orthodox, are you not? You are great Hindus and very orthodox. Ay, what I want to do is to make you more orthodox. The more orthodox you are, the more sensible; and the more you think of modern orthodoxy, the more foolish you are. Go back to your old orthodoxy, for in those days every sound that came from these books, every pulsation, was out of a strong, steady, and sincere heart; every note was true. After that came degradation in art, in science, in religion, in everything, national degradation. We have no time to discuss the causes, but all the books written about that period breathe of the pestilence — the national decay; instead of vigour, only wails and cries. Go back, go back to the old days when there was strength and vitality. Be strong once more, drink deep of this fountain of yore, and that is the only condition of life in India.
According to the Advaitist, this individuality which we have today is a delusion. This has been a hard nut to crack all over the world. Forthwith you tell a man he is not an individual, he is so much afraid that his individuality, whatever that may be, will be lost! But the Advaitist says there never has been an individuality, you have been changing every moment of your life. You were a child and thought in one way, now you are a man and think another way, again you will be an old man and think differently. Everybody is changing. If so, where is your individuality? Certainly not in the body, or in the mind, or in thought. And beyond that is your Atman, and, says the Advaitist, this Atman is the Brahman Itself. There cannot be two infinites. There is only one individual and it is infinite. In plain words, we are rational beings, and we want to reason. And what is reason? More or less of classification, until you cannot go on any further. And the finite can only find its ultimate rest when it is classified into the infinite. Take up a finite thing and go on analysing it, but you will find rest nowhere until you reach the ultimate or infinite, and that infinite, says the Advaitist, is what alone exists. Everything else is Maya, nothing else has real existence; whatever is of existence in any material thing is this Brahman; we are this Brahman, and the shape and everything else is Maya. Take away the form and shape, and you and I are all one. But we have to guard against the word, "I". Generally people say, "If I am the Brahman, why cannot I do this and that?" But this is using the word in a different sense. As soon as you think you are bound, no more you are Brahman, the Self, who wants nothing, whose light is inside. All His pleasures and bliss are inside; perfectly satisfied with Himself, He wants nothing, expects nothing, perfectly fearless, perfectly free. That is Brahman. In That we are all one.
Now this seems, therefore, to be the great point of difference between the dualist and the Advaitist. You find even great commentators like Shankaracharya making meanings of texts, which, to my mind, sometimes do not seem to be justified. Sometimes you find Ramanuja dealing with texts in a way that is not very clear. The idea has been even among our Pandits that only one of these sects can be true and the rest must be false, although they have the idea in the Shrutis, the most wonderful idea that India has yet to give to the world: एकं सव्दिप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति। — "That which exists is One; sages call It by various names." That has been the theme, and the working out of the whole of this life-problem of the nation is the working out of that theme — एकं सव्दिप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति। Yea, except a very few learned men, I mean, barring a very few spiritual men, in India, we always forget this. We forget this great idea, and you will find that there are persons among Pandits — I should think ninety-eight per cent — who are of opinion that either the Advaitist will be true, or the Vishishtadvaitist will be true, or the Dvaitist will be true; and if you go to Varanasi, and sit for five minutes in one of the Ghats there, you will have demonstration of what I say. You will see a regular bull-fight going on about these various sects and things.
Thus it remains. Then came one whose life was the explanation, whose life was the working out of the harmony that is the background of all the different sects of India, I mean Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. It is his life that explains that both of these are necessary, that they are like the geocentric and the heliocentric theories in astronomy. When a child is taught astronomy, he is taught the geocentric first, and works out similar ideas of astronomy to the geocentric. But when he comes to finer points of astronomy, the heliocentric will be necessary, and he will understand it better. Dualism is the natural idea of the senses; as long as we are bound by the senses we are bound to see a God who is only Personal, and nothing but Personal, we are bound to see the world as it is. Says Ramanuja, "So long as you think you are a body, and you think you are a mind, and you think you are a Jiva, every act of perception will give you the three — Soul, and nature, and something as causing both." But yet, at the same time, even the idea of the body disappears where the mind itself becomes finer and finer, till it has almost disappeared, when all the different things that make us fear, make us weak, and bind us down to this body-life have disappeared. Then and then alone one finds out the truth of that grand old teaching. What is the teaching?
इहैव तैर्जितः सर्गो येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः।
निर्दोषं हि समं ब्रह्म तस्माद् ब्रह्मणि ते स्थिताः॥
इहैव तैर्जितः सर्गो येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः।
निर्दोषं हि समं ब्रह्म तस्माद् ब्रह्मणि ते स्थिताः॥
"Even in this life they have conquered the round of birth and death whose minds are firm-fixed on the sameness of everything, for God is pure and the same to all, and therefore such are said to be living in God."
समं पश्यन् हि सर्वत्रि समवस्थितमीश्वरम्।
न हिनस्त्यात्मनात्मानं ततो याति परां गतिम्॥
समं पश्यन् हि सर्वत्रि समवस्थितमीश्वरम्।
न हिनस्त्यात्मनात्मानं ततो याति परां गतिम्॥
"Thus seeing the Lord the same everywhere, he, the sage, does not hurt the Self by the self, and so goes to the highest goal."
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。