心灵或灵性研究的基础
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
灵异或灵性研究的基础
辨喜（Vivekananda）在西方时，并不常参与辩论。伦敦有一次他参与辩论的场合，是在讨论一篇题为"灵异现象能否从科学基础上得到证明？"的讲座期间。他首先提及了他在此次辩论过程中所听到的一句话——这句话他在西方已经不是第一次听到了，他说：
有一点我想指出。曾有人向我们说，伊斯兰教徒不相信女人有灵魂——这是一个错误的陈述。我非常遗憾地说，这是基督教人士中一个古老的错误，而他们似乎乐于保持这一错误。这是人类天性中的一个特点：人们总想说一些他们不喜欢的人的坏话。顺便说一句，你们知道我不是伊斯兰教徒，然而我有机会研究了这一宗教，而《可兰经》中没有一句话说女人没有灵魂；事实上，它说的是她们有灵魂。
关于一直是讨论主题的那些灵异事物，我在这里几乎没有什么可说的。第一，问题在于，灵异的主题是否能够接受科学的论证。你们所说的这种论证是什么意思？首先，主观和客观两个方面都是必要的。以我们如此熟悉、读到如此多内容的化学和物理学为例，世界上每一个人真的都能够理解哪怕是最寻常主题的论证吗？找一个粗鄙之人，向他展示你的某个实验。他会理解什么？什么都不会理解。要达到能够理解一个实验的程度，需要大量预先的训练。在那之前，他根本无法理解它。这是一个很大的困难。如果科学论证意味着将某些事实带到一个对所有人类普遍适用的层面，所有人都能理解的地方，那么我否认任何主题在这个世界上可以有这样的科学论证。如果真是这样，我们所有的大学和教育便毫无意义。如果我们生来就能理解所有科学的东西，我们为什么要受教育呢？为什么要如此多的学习？那根本毫无用处。因此，表面上看，如果这就是科学论证的含义——即将复杂的事实带到我们现在所处的层面——那是荒谬的。下一个含义也许才是正确的：某些事实应当作为证明某些更为复杂事实的依据。有一些更为复杂繁密的现象，我们用不那么复杂的现象来解释，从而也许更接近于它们；通过这种方式，它们被逐渐带到我们目前普通意识的层面。但即使这样，也非常复杂，非常困难，同样需要训练，需要大量的教育。因此，我所要说的全部是：为了对灵异现象有科学的解释，我们不仅需要在现象本身方面有完善的证据，在想要观察的人这一方面也需要大量的训练。凡此皆具备后，我们才能就摆在我们面前的任何现象的证明或反证，说是或否。但在那之前，在我看来，在人类社会中发生过的最引人注目的现象，或者说最常被记录的现象，即便以随意的方式加以证明，也将是极为困难的。
其次，关于那些轻率的解释——即宗教是梦境的产物——对这一主题有过专门研究的人，会将这些解释视为不过是猜测而已。我们没有理由假定宗教是梦境的产物，就像已经被如此轻易地解释的那样。那样的话，采取不可知论者的立场将会非常容易，但不幸的是，这一问题不能如此简单地解释。即使在当今时代，也发生着许多其他奇妙的现象，所有这些都需要被探究，不仅需要，而且历来就一直在被探究。盲人说没有太阳，这并不能证明没有太阳。这些现象早在多年前便已被探究。整个人类种族几个世纪以来训练自己，使自己成为发现神经精微运作的合适工具；他们的记录几个时代前就已被公之于众，专门研究这些主题的学府已经创立，能够亲身验证这些现象的男男女女至今仍存在于世。当然，我承认整件事情中有相当大的成分是骗术，其中有许多是错误和不真实的；但哪件事不是这样呢？以任何普通的科学现象为例；科学家或普通人视为绝对真理的事实，只有两三件，其余的不过是泡沫一样的假设。现在，让不可知论者对自己的科学施用同样的检验，就如同他对他不想相信的事物所施用的那样。其一半会立刻被动摇到根基。我们注定要靠假设生活。我们不能满足于停留在我们所处的位置；这是人类灵魂自然的成长。我们不能在这一方面成为不可知论者，同时又到处寻求什么；我们必须有所拣择。正是出于这个原因，我们必须超越我们的限制，努力认知那看似不可知的；而这种努力必须持续下去。
因此，依我之见，我确实比这位演讲者更进一步，并且提出以下意见：大多数灵异现象——不只是像敲灵（spirit-rappings）或敲桌（table-rappings）这类小把戏，那不过是小孩子的玩意儿，也不只是像心灵感应（telepathy）这类小事，我甚至见过孩子们都能做到——大多数灵异现象，即上一位演讲者称之为"高级透视"（higher clairvoyance），而我宁愿称之为"心智超意识状态"（superconscious state of the mind）的体验，正是通往真正心理学研究的真正踏脚石。首先要看的是，心智能否达到那种状态。我的解释当然会与他的有些不同，但当我们解释清楚各自的术语时，我们大概会达成一致。在这个问题上，并不太多依赖于现有的这种意识是否在死后继续存在，因为这个宇宙，就其现状而言，并不必然受制于这种意识状态。意识与存在并非同一回事。在我自己的身体中，以及在我们所有人的身体中，我们必须承认，我们对身体的意识是极为有限的，而对身体更大的部分，我们是没有意识的。然而它存在着。例如，没有人有过对自己大脑的意识。我从未见过我的大脑，我从未意识到它的存在。然而我知道它存在。因此，我们可以说，我们所追求的，不是意识，而是某种非此粗糙物质的存在；而那种知识可以在此生获得，而且那种知识已经被获得和论证——就任何科学被论证的程度而言——这是事实。我们必须深入探究这些事物，我还要坚持提醒在座诸位另外一点。我们很多时候在这一点上受到了迷惑，这是值得记住的。某些人向我们展示了一个非寻常灵性本性之事实的论证，而我们否定了这个事实，因为我们说我们无法发现它是真实的。在许多情况下，这个事实也许并不正确。但在许多情况下，我们也忘记了去考虑，我们是否已准备好接受这一论证，我们是否已让自己的身体和心智成为发现它的合适载体。
English
THE BASIS FOR PSYCHIC OR SPIRITUAL RESEARCH
It was not often that Swami Vivekananda, while in the West, took part in debates. One such occasion in London when he did so was during the discussion of a lecture on, "Can Psychic Phenomena be proved from a Scientific Basis?" Referring first to a remark which he had heard in the course of this debate, not for the first time in the West, he said:
One point I want to remark upon. It is a mistaken statement that has been made to us that the Mohammedans do not believe that women have souls. I am very sorry to say it is an old mistake among Christian people, and they seem to like the mistake. That is a peculiarity in human nature, that people want to say something very bad about others whom they do not like. By the by, you know I am not a Mohammedan, but yet I have had opportunity for studying this religion, and there is not one word in the Koran which says that women have no souls, but in fact it says they have.
About the psychical things that have been the subject of discussion, I have very little to say here, for in the first place, the question is whether psychical subjects are capable of scientific demonstration. What do you mean by this demonstration? First of all, there will be the subjective and the objective side necessary. Taking chemistry and physics, with which we are so familiar, and of which we have read so much, is it true that everyone in this world is able to understand the demonstration even of the commonest subjects? Take any boor and show him one of your experiments. What will he understand of it? Nothing. It requires a good deal of previous training to be brought up to the point of understanding an experiment. Before that he cannot understand it at all. That is a area difficulty in the way. If scientific demonstration mean bringing down certain facts to a plane which is universe for all human beings, where all beings can understand it I deny that there can be any such scientific demonstration for any subject in the world. If it were so, all our universities and education would be in vain. Why are we educated if by birth we can understand everything scientific? Why so much study? It is of no use whatsoever. So, on the face of it, it is absurd if this be the meaning of scientific demonstration, the bringing down of intricate facts to the plane on which we are now. The next meaning should be the correct one, perhaps, that certain facts should be adduced as proving certain more intricate facts. There are certain more complicated intricate phenomena, which we explain by less intricate ones, and thus get, perhaps, nearer to them; in this way they are gradually brought down to the plane of our present ordinary consciousness. But even this is very complicated and very difficult, and means a training also, a tremendous amount of education. So an I have to say is that in order to have scientific explanation of psychical phenomena, we require not only perfect evidence on the side of the phenomena themselves, but a good deal of training on the part of those who want to see. All this being granted, we shall be in a position to say yea or nay, about the proof or disproof of any phenomena which are presented before us. But, before that, the most remarkable phenomena or the most oft-recorded phenomena that have happened in human society, in my opinion, would be very hard indeed to prove even in an offhand manner.
Next, as to those hasty explanations that religions are the outcome of dreams, those who have made a particular study of them would think of them but as mere guesses. We no reason to suppose that religions were the outcome of dreams as has been so easily explained. Then it would be very easy indeed to take even the agnostic's position, but unfortunately the matter cannot be explained so easily. There are many other wonderful phenomena happening, even at the present time, and these have all to be investigated, and not only have to be, but have been investigated all along. The blind man says there is no sun. That does not prove that there is no sun. These phenomena have been investigated years before. Whole races of mankind have trained themselves for centuries to become fit instruments for discovering the fine workings of the nerves; their records have been published ages ago, colleges have been created to study these subjects, and men and women there are still who are living demonstrations of these phenomena. Of course I admit that there is a good deal of hoax in the whole thing, a good deal of what is wrong and untrue in these things; but with what is this not the case? Take any common scientific phenomenon; there are two or three facts which either scientists or ordinary men may regard as absolute truths, and the rest as mere frothy suppositions. Now let the agnostic apply the same test to his own science which he would apply to what he does not want to believe. Half of it would be shaken to its foundation at once. We are bound to live on suppositions. We cannot live satisfied where we are; that is the natural growth of the human soul. We cannot become agnostics on this side and at the same time go about seeking for anything here; we have to pick. And, for this reason, we have to get beyond our limits, struggle to know what seems to be unknowable; and this struggle must continue.
In my opinion, therefore, I go really one step further than the lecturer, and advance the opinion that most of the psychical phenomena — not only little things like spirit-rappings or table-rappings which are mere child's play, not merely little things like telepathy which I have seen boys do even — most of the psychical phenomenal which the last speaker calls the higher clairvoyance, but which I would rather beg to call the experiences of the superconscious state of the mind, are the very stepping-stones to real psychological investigation. The first thing to be; seen is whether the mind can attain to that state or not. My explanation would, of course, be a little different from his, but we should probably agree when we explain terms. Not much depends on the question whether this present consciousness continues after death or not, seeing that this universe, as it is now, is not bound to this state of consciousness. Consciousness is not co-existent with existence. In my own body, and in all of our bodies, we must all admit that we are conscious of very little of the body, and of the greater part of it we are unconscious. Yet it exists. Nobody is ever conscious of his brain, for example. I never saw my brain, and I am never conscious of it. Yet I know that it exists. Therefore we may say that it is not consciousness that we want, but the existence of something which is not this gross matter; and that that knowledge can be gained even in this life, and that that knowledge has been gained and demonstrated, as far as any science has been demonstrated, is a fact. We have to look into these things, and I would insist on reminding those who are here present on one other point. It is well to remember that very many times we are deluded on this. Certain people place before us the demonstration of a fact which is not ordinary to the spiritual nature, and we reject that fact because we say we cannot find it to be true. In many cases the fact may not be correct. But in many cases also we forget to consider whether we are fit to receive the demonstration or not, whether we have permitted our bodies and our minds to become fit subjects for their discovery.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。