主要象征
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
主要象征
梵文中有两个词：Pratika（近象）与Pratimā（像）。Pratika的意思是趋近、接近。在所有国家，你都能找到各种层次的崇拜。例如在这个国家，有些人崇拜圣徒的形象，有些人崇拜某些形式和符号。还有一些人崇拜不同的比人更高级的存在，而且他们的人数正在迅速增加——这些是崇拜离世亡灵的人。我读到在这里大约有八百万这样的人。还有另一些人崇拜更高级别的存在——天使、天神等等。虔信瑜伽（Bhakti-Yoga）并不谴责这些各种层次中的任何一种，但它们都被归于一个名称之下，即Pratika。这些人崇拜的并不是神，而是Pratika，一种近象，一个趋近神的阶梯。这种Pratika崇拜不能将我们引向解脱（Moksha）和自由；它只能给予我们崇拜它们所求的某种特定之物。例如，如果一个人崇拜他已故的祖先或逝去的朋友，他或许能从他们那里获得某些神通（Siddhis）或某些信息。从这些崇拜对象那里获得的任何特定的赐予，被称为Vidyā，即特殊的知识；而自由——最高的目标——只能通过崇拜神本身来获得。一些东方学者在诠释吠陀（Vedas）时认为，就连有人格的神本身也是一种Pratika。有人格的神或许是一种Pratika，但那些Pratika既不是有人格的神，也不是无人格的神。它们不能被当作神来崇拜。因此，如果人们以为通过崇拜这些不同的Pratika——无论是天使、祖先、大德（Mahātmās，圣人贤哲）等，还是离世的亡灵——他们就能达到自由，那将是一个极大的错误。他们至多只能获得某些神通，唯有神才能使我们得自由。但因此也不应谴责它们，崇拜它们能产生一些效果。不理解更高之物的人，通过崇拜这些Pratika，可能会获得某种神通，某种享受；而经过漫长的体验之后，当他准备好来追求自由时，他自然会放弃那些Pratika。
在这些各种各样的Pratika之中，最普遍的形式是崇拜离世的朋友。人类的本性——个人的感情，对我们朋友的爱——在我们心中是如此强烈，以至于当他们去世时，我们希望再次见到他们——紧紧依附于他们的形体。我们忘记了，这些形体在生时是不断变化的，而当他们死后，我们以为他们变成了不变的，我们将会如此见到他们。不仅如此，如果我有一个朋友或儿子，他曾经是个无赖，他一死，我便开始认为他是当今最高尚的圣人；他变成了一个神。在印度，有些人家的婴儿死了，他们不焚化，而是将其埋葬，并在上面建造庙宇；那个小婴儿便成了那座庙宇的神。这是许多国家中一种非常普遍的宗教形式，也有哲学家认为这就是所有宗教的起源。当然，他们无法证明这一点。然而我们必须记住，这种对Pratika的崇拜永远无法将我们引向解脱或自由。
其次，这是非常危险的。危险在于：这些Pratika，这些"趋近阶段"，就其引导我们走向更高阶段而言，都是好的；但有百分之九十九的可能性，我们会一生都执著于Pratika。在一个教会中出生是很好的，但在其中死去则不好。更清楚地说，在某个特定的宗派中出生并接受其训练是很好的——这能唤发我们更高的素质；但在绝大多数情况下，我们在那个小宗派中死去，从不走出来，也从未成长。这正是所有这些对Pratika崇拜的巨大危险所在。有人说，这些都是人必须经历的阶段，但人们却永远走不出来；当一个人变老时，他仍然执著于它们。如果一个年轻人不去教堂，他应该受到谴责。但如果一个老人去教堂，他也应该受到谴责；他在这孩子的游戏上已没有任何收获；教堂本应只是通往更高之物的预备。他还有什么理由与这些形式和Pratika以及所有这些初级阶段打交道呢？
经典崇拜是这种Pratika的另一种强烈形式，是最强烈的形式。你在每一个国家都会发现，书本成了神。在我的国家，有些宗派相信神化身成为人，但即使是化身为人的神也必须符合吠陀，若其教导与吠陀不符，他们便不接受。佛陀（Buddha）受到印度教徒的崇拜，但若你对他们说："如果你们崇拜佛陀，为何不接受祂的教导呢？"他们会说，因为佛教徒否定吠陀。经典崇拜就是这个意思。以宗教典籍之名撒下的谎言，无论多少都是允许的。在印度，如果我想教导任何新事物，仅仅凭借自己的权威，作为我的见解来陈述，没有人会来听我；但如果我拿出吠陀中的某段话，对其进行曲解，给出最不可能的含义，扼杀其中一切合理的东西，并以吠陀的本意来推出我自己的观点，所有的愚人都会蜂拥而来。还有一些人宣扬一种基督教，这会吓跑普通的基督徒，但他们说："这是耶稣基督的本意"，于是许多人聚拢到他们周围。人们不想要任何新事物，除非它出自吠陀或《圣经》。这是一种神经反应：当你听到一件新鲜而引人注目的事情，你会感到震惊；或当你看到一件新事物，你也会感到震惊；这是人的本能。对于思想来说，更是如此。心智已经在惯有的轨道上运行，接受一个新想法会造成太多的紧张；因此，那个想法必须被置于惯有轨道附近，然后我们才会慢慢接受它。这是一种好的策略，但却是不良的道德。想想今天改革者们，以及你们所称的自由派传道人，倾倒进社会中的那些矛盾之物吧。根据基督科学派，耶稣是一位伟大的治愈者；根据招魂派，祂是一位伟大的通灵者；根据神智学会，祂是一位大德（Mahātmā）。所有这些都必须从同一段文本中推导出来。吠陀中有一段文字说："存在（Sat）独存，亲爱的，起初别无他物。"这段文字中的"Sat"这个词被赋予了许多不同的含义。原子论者说这个词的意思是"原子"，世界由这些原子产生。自然主义者说它的意思是"自然"，万物皆由自然而来。空论者（Shūnyavādins，维持虚空之说的人）说它的意思是"虚无"、"零"，万物由虚无而生。有神论者说它的意思是"神"，不二论者（Advaitists）说它是"绝对的存在"，所有人都援引同一段文本作为自己的依据。
这些就是经典崇拜的缺陷。但另一方面，它也有一个巨大的优点：它赋予人力量。除了拥有经典的那些宗教宗派之外，所有的宗教宗派都已消失。似乎没有什么能消灭它们。你们中的一些人听说过帕西人。他们是古代波斯人，曾一度有大约一亿人之多。他们中的大多数被阿拉伯人征服，改宗伊斯兰教。一小部分人带着他们的经典逃离迫害者，那部经典至今仍在保全着他们。一部经典是神最有形可感的形式。想想犹太人；如果他们没有经典，他们早就简单地融入世界中了。但那使他们屹立不倒；《塔木德》使他们团结在一起，尽管遭受了最可怕的迫害。一部经典的一大优点在于，它将一切具体化为有形而便利的形式，是最方便的一切偶像崇拜之物。只需将一本书放在祭坛上，人人都能看到它；一本好书，人人都来阅读。我担心我可能被认为有所偏颇。但在我看来，书本产生的恶多于善。它们应当为许多有害的教义负责。所有的信条都源自书本，而书本单独应当为世界上的迫害和宗教狂热负责。当今时代，书本在到处制造说谎者。我对每个国家遍布各处的说谎者之数量感到震惊。
下一个需要考虑的事物是Pratimā，即像，以及偶像的使用。在世界各地，你都会以某种形式发现偶像。对于某些人，它以人的形式出现，这是最好的形式。如果我想崇拜一个偶像，我宁愿它以人的形式而非动物、建筑或任何其他形式出现。一个宗派认为某种特定的形式是正确的偶像形式，另一个宗派则认为那是错误的。基督徒认为当神以鸽子的形式降临时是对的，但如果祂以鱼的形式降临，像印度教徒所说的那样，则是非常错误且迷信的。犹太人认为，如果一个偶像是以一个有两个天使坐在上面、上面放着一本书的箱子形式制作的，那是对的，但如果它是以男人或女人的形式出现，则是可怕的。穆斯林认为，当他们祈祷时，如果他们试图在心中形成带有卡巴、其中有黑石的神殿的形象，并朝向西方，那是对的，但如果你在心中形成教堂的形象，那就是偶像崇拜。这是偶像崇拜的缺陷所在。然而，所有这些似乎都是必要的阶段。
在这件事上，最重要的是思考我们自己相信什么。问题是我们自己证悟了什么。耶稣、佛陀或摩西做了什么，对我们来说无关紧要，除非我们自己也为自己做到同样的事情。把自己关在房间里思考摩西吃了什么，并不能解除我们的饥饿，摩西所想的也不能拯救我们。我在这些问题上的观念是非常激进的。有时我认为，当我与所有古代教师一致时，我是正确的；有时，我认为当他们与我一致时，他们是正确的。我相信独立思考。我相信完全从神圣教师那里解放出来；向他们表达一切应有的崇敬，但将宗教视为独立的探索。我必须找到我自己的光，正如他们找到了他们的光一样。他们找到光，并不能使我们满足。你必须成为《圣经》本身，而不是仅仅跟随它，除了将对它的崇敬作为路上的一盏灯、一个路标、一个标记：这就是它所拥有的全部价值。但这些像和其他事物是完全必要的。你或许尝试专注你的心智，或者甚至投射任何一个思想。你会发现你自然而然地在心中形成像。你无法避免这一点。有两类人从不需要任何像——从不思考任何宗教的人类动物性之人，以及已经经历了这些阶段的完美之人。在这两个端点之间，我们所有人都需要某种内外两方面的理想。它或许是以一个已故之人的形式，或者以一个活着的男人或女人的形式。这是对人格和身体的依附，是相当自然的。我们倾向于具体化。如果我们不具体化，我们怎么可能身处这里？我们是具体化了的灵性，因此我们发现自己身处这个地球之上。具体化将我们带来这里，也将把我们带离这里。追逐感官之物使我们成为人类，我们注定要崇拜有人格的存在，无论我们说什么相反的话。说"不要执著于人格"很容易；但说这话的人通常是最执著于人格的。他对某些特定男女的依恋是非常强烈的；当他们死去，它也不会离开他，他想在死亡之后跟随他们。那是偶像崇拜；它是种子，是偶像崇拜的根本原因；只要原因存在，它就会以某种形式显现出来。依附于基督或佛陀的像，难道不比依附于一个普通的男人或女人更好吗？在西方，人们说在像面前跪拜是不好的，但他们可以在一个女人面前跪拜，说："你是我的生命，是我眼中的光，是我的灵魂。"那是更糟糕的偶像崇拜。这种"我的灵魂、我的生命"的谈论算什么？它很快就会消失。这不过是感官上的依恋。这是被大量花朵覆盖的自私的爱。诗人给它一个美好的名字，并向它洒上薰衣草水和各种诱人的东西。难道不是在佛陀或耆那征服者的塑像前跪拜，说"你是我的生命"更好吗？我宁愿那样做。
还有另一种Pratika，在西方国家不被承认，但在我们的典籍中有所教导。这种教导以心（心识）作为神来崇拜。任何被作为神来崇拜的东西，都是一个阶段，一种接近，可以这么说。这方面的一个例子，是指引人认识Arundhati（昂宿星，即印度天文中的某颗星）这颗精微星的方法，它靠近昴星团。人们先被指引注意其附近的一颗大星，当他将注意力集中在这颗大星上并认识它之后，再被指引注意一颗更精细、更接近的星；当他将注意力集中在那颗星上之后，他便被引向Arundhati。因此，所有这些不同的Pratika和Pratimā都将人引向神。崇拜佛陀和基督构成了一种Pratika——趋近对神崇拜的一步。但这种对佛陀和基督的崇拜并不能拯救一个人，他必须超越他们，达到在耶稣基督身上显现自己的那一位，因为唯有神才能赐予我们自由。甚至有一些哲学家说，这些应被视为神本身；他们不是Pratika，而是神自身。然而，我们可以接受所有这些不同的Pratika，这些不同的趋近阶段，而不受其伤害；但如果我们在崇拜它们的同时以为自己在崇拜神，那我们就错了。如果一个人崇拜耶稣基督，并以为通过此举便能得救，他完全错了。如果一个人以为通过崇拜偶像或离世者的鬼魂或亡灵便能得救，他也完全错了。我们可以在任何事物中崇拜神，只要我们能在其中见到神——忘记偶像而在那里见到神。我们不能将任何像投射到神身上。但我们可以用那生命——即神——来充满任何像。只要忘记像，你就完全正确——因为"万物出自祂"。祂即是一切。我们可以将一幅画作为神来崇拜，但不能将神作为那幅画来崇拜。画中的神是正确的，但将画作为神则是错误的。像中的神是完全正确的。那里没有任何危险。这才是对神真实的崇拜。但以像为神，则不过是一种Pratika。
在虔信（Bhakti）中下一个需要考虑的重要事物是"名"，即名力（Nāmashakti），名字的力量。整个宇宙由名（name）与形（form）组成。我们所见的一切，要么是名与形的复合，要么是带有心象之形的名。所以，归根结底，没有任何东西不是名与形。我们都相信神是没有形式或形状的，但只要我们开始思考祂，祂便同时获得了名和形。心（Chitta）犹如平静的湖面，思想则犹如在此心湖上升起的波浪——而名和形是这些波浪升起的正常方式；没有名与形，任何波浪都无法升起。那无差别之物是无法被思考的；它超越思想；一旦它成为思想和物质，就必然具有名和形。我们无法将这两者分离。许多典籍中都说，神从"道"（Word）创造了宇宙。梵文中的Shabdabrahman（声梵），就是基督教关于"道"的理论。这是一种古老的印度理论，由印度传教士带到亚历山大里亚并在那里扎根。由此，"道"与"道成肉身"的观念便在那里确立起来。
在神从"道"创造万物这一思想中，蕴含着深刻的意义。神本身是无形的，这是描述形式显现或创造的最佳方式。梵文中"创造"一词是Srishti（投射）。"神从虚无中创造万物"是什么意思？宇宙是从神中投射出来的。祂化为宇宙，一切都归于祂，再次出发，又再次归来。在整个永恒中，这个过程将如此继续下去。我们已经看到，心中任何事物的投射，若没有名与形，都是不可能的。假设心完全平静，全然没有思想；然而，一旦思想开始升起，它就会立即获得名与形。每一个思想都有某种名和某种形。同样，创造这一事实本身，投射这一事实本身，永远与名和形相连。因此，我们发现，人所拥有或能够拥有的每一个观念，都必然与某个名或词作为其对应物相联系。既然如此，完全可以合理地推断，这个宇宙是心的产物，正如你的身体是你的观念的产物——你的观念，仿佛被具体化和外化了一样。如果这是真的，而且，如果整个宇宙是建立在同样的蓝图上的，那么，如果你了解一个原子的构建方式，你就能理解整个宇宙的构建方式。如果确实如此——在你身上，身体在外构成粗显的部分，而心在内构成精细的部分，两者永远不可分离——那么，当你失去身体，你也将失去心。当一个人的大脑受到干扰，他的思想也随之受到干扰，因为它们本是一体，是精细的与粗显的部分。物质与心不是两种东西。就像在一个高气柱中，同一种元素——空气——存在着稠密和稀薄的层次，身体也是如此；它自始至终是一件东西，从粗显到精细，层层叠叠。此外，身体就像指甲。指甲被剪掉后仍继续生长，同样地，从我们精微的观念中，一个又一个身体生长出来。一件东西越精细，它就越持久；我们总是发现这一点。越粗显，则越不持久。因此，形是粗显的，名是较精细的，两者是同一种叫做"思想"的显化力量的不同状态。但这三者是一体；这是同一件事物三种存在程度上的统一与三一，精细的、更凝聚的，以及最凝聚的。名在哪里，形与思想也在那里。
由此自然得出，如果宇宙是建立在与身体同样的蓝图上，宇宙也必须具有形、名和思想同样的划分。"思想"是宇宙最精细的部分，是真实的推动力。我们身体背后的思想被称为灵魂（soul），宇宙背后的思想被称为神（God）。然后是名，最后是我们所见所感的形。例如，你是一个特定的人，这个宇宙中的一个小宇宙，一个具有特定形式的身体；然后在那后面是一个名，约翰或简，在那后面再是一个思想；同样地，有这整个宇宙，在那后面是名，在所有宗教中被称为"道"（Word）的那个，而在那后面是神。宇宙的思想是摩诃（Mahat），即数论派（Sānkhyas）所称的宇宙意识。那个名是什么？一定有某个名。世界是同质的，现代科学毫无疑问地表明，每一个原子都与整个宇宙由同样的物质构成。如果你了解一块黏土，你就了解了整个宇宙。人是宇宙中最具代表性的存在，是小宇宙（microcosm），是他自身内的一个小宇宙。所以，在人身上，我们发现有形，在那后面有名，在那后面有思想，即那个思想的存在者。所以，这个宇宙一定是建立在完全相同的计划之上。问题是：那个名是什么？按照印度教徒的说法，那个词是唵（Om）。古埃及人也有同样的信仰。《卡塔奥义书》（Katha Upanishad）说："那个，为寻求它一个人修习梵行（Brahmacharya）的，我将简要地告诉你那是什么，那是唵（Om）。……这是梵（Brahman），那不灭的一者，是最高的；知道这不灭的一者，无论一个人渴望什么，他都能得到。"
这个唵代表整个宇宙或神的名字。处于外部世界与神之间，它同时代表两者。但我们也可以按照不同的感官，将宇宙分解来理解，如触觉、色彩、味觉以及其他各种方式。在每一种情形中，我们都可以从不同的立场出发，从这个宇宙中构造出数百万个宇宙，其中每一个对自身而言都是一个完整的宇宙，每一个都将有一个名，一个形，以及其背后的一个思想。这些背后的思想就是Pratika。它们每一个都有一个名。这些神圣符号的名字在虔信瑜伽（Bhakti-Yoga）中被使用。它们拥有几乎无限的力量。仅仅通过重复这些词语，我们就能获得我们所渴望的一切，我们能臻于完美。但有两件事是必要的。《卡塔奥义书》说："教师必须是出众的，学生亦然。"这样的名必须来自通过正当传承而接受到它的人。从师到徒，灵性的电流一直传递而来；自远古时代起，承载着其力量。传递这样一个词的人被称为导师（Guru），而接受它的人被称为弟子（Shishya）。当这个词以正规的方式被接受，并且被反复重复之后，在虔信瑜伽中便已取得了很大的进步。仅仅通过重复那个词，甚至最高境界的虔信也会降临。"你有如此众多的名字。你理解它们所有这些名字的含义——所有这些名字都是你的，每一个之中都有你无限的力量；重复这些名字没有时间或地点的限制，因为所有的时间和地点都是神圣的。你是如此容易亲近，你是如此慈悲，我是多么不幸，竟对你没有任何爱！"
English
THE CHIEF SYMBOLS
There are two Sanskrit words, Pratika and Pratimâ. Pratika means coming towards, nearing. In all countries you find various grades of worship. In this country, for instance, there are people who worship images of saints, there are people who worship certain forms and symbols. Then there are people who worship different beings who are higher than men, and their number is increasing very rapidly — worshippers of departed spirits. I read that there are something like eight millions of them here. Then there are other people who worship certain beings of higher grade — the angels, the gods, and so forth. Bhakti-Yoga does not condemn any one of these various grades, but they are all classed under one name, Pratika. These people are not worshipping God, but Pratika, something which is near, a step towards God. This Pratika worship cannot lead us to salvation and freedom; it can only give us certain particular things for which we worship them. For instance, if a man worships his departed ancestors or departed friends, he may get certain powers or certain information from them. Any particular gift that is got from these objects of worship is called Vidyâ, particular knowledge; but freedom, the highest aim, comes only by worship of God Himself. Some Orientalists think, in expounding the Vedas, that even the Personal God Himself is a Pratika. The Personal God may be a Pratika, but the Pratikas are neither the Personal nor Impersonal God. They cannot be worshipped as God. So it would be a great mistake if people thought that by worshipping these different Pratikas, either as angels, or ancestors, or Mahâtmâs (holy men, saints), etc., or departed spirits, they could ever reach to freedom. At best they can only reach to certain powers, but God alone can make us free. But because of that they are not to be condemned, their worship produces some result. The man who does not understand anything higher may get some power, some enjoyment, by the worship of these Pratikas; and after a long course of experience, when he will be ready to come to freedom, he will of his own accord give up the Pratikas.
Of these various Pratikas the most prevalent form is the worship of departed friends. Human nature — personal love, love for our friends — is so strong in us that when they die, we wish to see them once more — clinging on to their forms. We forget that these forms while living were constantly changing, and when they die, we think they become constant, and that we shall see them so. Not only so, but if I have a friend or a son who has been a scoundrel, as soon as he dies, I begin to think he is the saintliest person in existence; he becomes a god. There are people in India who, if a baby dies, do not burn it, but bury it and build a temple over it; and that little baby becomes the god of that temple. This is a very prevalent form of religion in many countries, and there are not wanting philosophers who think this has been the origin of all religions. Of course they cannot prove it. We must remember, however, that this worship of Pratikas can never bring us to salvation or to freedom.
Secondly, it is very dangerous. The danger is that these Pratikas, "nearing-stages", so far as they lead us on to a further stage, are all right; but the chances are ninety-nine to one that we shall stick to the Pratikas all our lives. It is very good to be born in a church, but it is very bad to die there. To make it clearer, it is very good to be born in a certain sect and have its training — it brings out our higher qualities; but in the vast majority of cases we die in that little sect, we never come out or grow. That is the great danger of all these worships of Pratikas. One says that these are all stages which one has to pass, but one never gets out of them; and when one becomes old, one still sticks to them. If a young man does not go to church, he ought to be condemned. But if an old man goes to church, he also ought to be condemned; he has no business with this child's play any more; the church should have been merely a preparation for something higher. What business has he any more with forms and Pratikas and all these preliminaries?
Book worship is another strong form of this Pratika, the strongest form. You find in every country that the book becomes the God. There are sects in my country who believe that God incarnates and becomes man, but even God incarnate as man must conform to the Vedas, and if His teachings do not so conform, they will not take Him. Buddha is worshipped by the Hindus, but if you say to them, "If you worship Buddha, why don't you take His teachings?" they will say, because they, the Buddhists, deny the Vedas. Such is the meaning of book worship. Any number of lies in the name of a religious book are all right. In India if I want to teach anything new, and simply state it on my own authority, as what I think, nobody will come to listen to me; but if I take some passage from the Vedas, and juggle with it, and give it the most impossible meaning, murder everything that is reasonable in it, and bring out my own ideas as the ideas that were meant by the Vedas, all the fools will follow me in a crowd. Then there are men preaching a sort of Christianity that would frighten the ordinary Christian out of his wits; but they say, "This is what Jesus Christ meant", and many come round them. People do not want anything new, if it is not in the Vedas or the Bible It is a case of nerves: when you hear a new and striking thing, you are startled; or when you see a new thing, you are startled; it is constitutional. It is much more so with thoughts. The mind has been running in ruts, and to take up a new idea is too much of a strain; so the idea has to be put near the ruts, and then we slowly take it. It is a good policy, but bad morality. Think of the mass of incongruities that reformers, and what you call the liberal preachers, pour into society today. According to Christian Scientists, Jesus was a great healer; according to the Spiritualists, He was a great psychic; according to the Theosophists, He was a Mahâtmâ. All these have to be deduced from the same text. There is a text in the Vedas which says, "Existence (Sat) alone existed, O beloved, nothing else existed in the beginning". Many different meanings are given to the word Sat in this text. The Atomists say the word meant "atoms", and out of these atoms the world has been produced. The Naturalists say it meant "nature", and out of nature everything has come. The Shunyavâdins (maintainers of the Void) say it meant "nothing", "zero", and out of nothing everything has been produced. The Theists say it meant "God", and the Advaitists say it was "Absolute Existence", and all refer to the same text as their authority.
These are the defects of book worship. But there is, on the other hand, a great advantage in it: it gives strength. All religious sects have disappeared excepting those that have a book. Nothing seems to kill them. Some of you have heard of the Parsees. They were the ancient Persians, and at one time there were about a hundred millions of them. The majority of them were conquered by the Arabs, and converted to Mohammedanism. A handful fled from their persecutors with their book, which is still preserving them. A book is the most tangible form of God. Think of the Jews; if they had not had a book, they would have simply melted into the world. But that keeps them up; the Talmud keeps them together, in spite of the most horrible persecution. One of the great advantages of a book is that it crystallises everything in tangible and convenient form, and is the handiest of all idols. Just put a book on an altar and everyone sees it; a good book everyone reads. I am afraid I may be considered partial. But, in my opinion books have produced more evil than good. They are accountable for many mischievous doctrines. Creeds all come from books, and books are alone responsible for the persecution and fanaticism in the world. Books in modern times are making liars everywhere. I am astonished at the number of liars abroad in every country.
The next thing to be considered is the Pratima, or image, the use of images. All over the world you will find images in some form or other. With some, it is in the form of a man, which is the best form. If I wanted to worship an image I would rather have it in the form of a man than of an animal, or building, or any other form. One sect thinks a certain form is the right sort of image, and another thinks it is bad. The Christian thinks that when God came in the form of a dove it was all right, but if He comes in the form of a fish, as the Hindus say, it is very wrong and superstitious. The Jews think if an idol be made in the form of a chest with two angels sitting on it, and a book on it, it is all right, but if it is in the form of a man or a woman, it is awful. The Mohammedans think that when they pray, if they try to form a mental image of the temple with the Caaba, the black stone in it, and turn towards the west, it is all right, but if you form the image in the shape of a church it is idolatry. This is the defect of image-worship. Yet all these seem to be necessary stages.
In this matter it is of supreme importance to think what we ourselves believe. What we have realised, is the question. What Jesus, or Buddha, or Moses did is nothing to us, unless we too do it for ourselves. It would not satisfy our hunger to shut ourselves up in a room and think of what Moses ate, nor would what Moses thought save us. My ideas are very radical on these points. Sometimes I think that I am right when I agree with all the ancient teachers, at other times I think they are right when they agree with me. I believe in thinking independently. I believe in becoming entirely free from the holy teachers; pay all reverence to them, but look at religion as an independent research. I have to find my light, just as they found theirs. Their finding the light will not satisfy us at all. You have to become the Bible, and not to follow it, excepting as paying reverence to it as a light on the way, as a guide-post, a mark: that is all the value it has. But these images and other things are quite necessary. You may try to concentrate your mind, or even to project any thought. You will find that you naturally form images in your mind. You cannot help it. Two sorts of persons never require any image — the human animal who never thinks of any religion, and the perfected being who has passed through these stages. Between these two points all of us require some sort of ideal, outside and inside. It may be in the form of a departed human being, or of a living man or woman. This is clinging to personality and bodies, and is quite natural. We are prone to concretise. How could we be here if we did not concretise? We are concreted spirits, and so we find ourselves here on this earth. Concretisation has brought us here, and it will take us out. Going after things of the senses has made us human beings, and we are bound to worship personal beings, whatever we may say to the contrary. It is very easy to say "Don't be personal"; but the same man who says so is generally most personal. His attachment for particular men and women is very strong; it does not leave him when they die, he wants to follow them beyond death. That is idolatry; it is the seed, the very cause of idolatry; and the cause being there it will come out in some form. Is it not better to have a personal attachment to an image of Christ or Buddha than to an ordinary man or woman? In the West, people say that it is bad to kneel before images, but they can kneel before a woman and say, "You are my life, the light of my eyes, my soul." That is worse idolatry. What ifs this talk about my soul my life? It will soon go away. It is only sense-attachment. It is selfish love covered by a mass of flowers. Poets give it a good name and throw lavender-water and all sorts of attractive things over it. Is it not better to kneel before a statue of Buddha or the Jina conqueror and say, "Thou art my life"? I would rather do that.
There is another sort of Pratika which is not recognised in Western countries, bout is taught in our books. This teaches the worship of mind as God. Anything that is worshipped as God is a stage, a nearing, as it were. An example of this is the method of showing the fine star known as Arundhati, near the group Pleiades. One is shown a big star near to it, and when he has fixed his attention on this and has come to know it, he is shown a finer and still nearer star; and when he has fixed his attention on that, he is led up to Arundhati. So all these various Pratikas and Pratimas lead to God. The worship of Buddha and of Christ constitute a Pratika. A drawing near to the worship of God. But this worship of Buddha and of Christ will not save a man, he must go beyond them to Him who manifested Himself as Jesus Christ, for God alone can give us freedom. There are even some philosophers who say these should he regarded as God; they are not Pratikas, but God Himself. However, we can take all these different Pratikas, these different stages of approach, and not be hurt by them: but if we think while we are worshipping them that we are worshipping God, we are mistaken. If a man worships Jesus Christ, and thinks he will be saved by that, he is mistaken entirely. If a man thinks that by worshipping an idol or the ghosts or spirits of the departed he will be saved, he is entirely mistaken. We may worship anything by seeing God in it, if we can forget the idol and see God there. We must not project any image upon God. But we may fill any image with that Life which is God. Only forget the image, and you are right enough — for "Out of Him comes everything". He is everything. We may worship a picture as God, but not God as the picture. God in the picture is right, but the picture as God is wrong. God in the image is perfectly right. There is no danger there. This is the real worship of God. But the image-God is a mere Pratika.
The next great thing to consider in Bhakti is the "word", the Nâmashakti, the power of the name. The whole universe is composed of name and form. Whatever we see is either a compound of name and form, or simply name with form which is a mental image. So, after all, there is nothing that is not name and form. We all believe God to be without form or shape, but as soon as we begin to think of Him, He acquires both name and form The Chitta is like the calm lake, thoughts being like waves upon this Chitta — and name and form are the normal ways in which these waves arise; no wave can rise without name and form. The uniform cannot be thought of; it is beyond thought; as soon as it becomes thought and matter, it must have name and form. We cannot separate these. It is said in many books that God created the universe out of the Word. Shabdabrahman, in Sanskrit, is the Christian theory of the Word. An old Indian theory, it was taken to Alexandria by Indian preachers and was planted there. Thus the idea of the Word and the Incarnation became fixed there.
There is deep meaning in the thought that God created everything out of the Word. God Himself being formless, this is the best way to describe the projection of forms, or the creation. The Sanskrit word for creation is Srishti, projection. What is meant by "God created things out of nothing"? The universe is projected out of God. He becomes the universe, and it all returns to Him, and again it proceeds forth, and again returns. Through all eternity it will go on in that way. We have seen that the projection of anything in the mind cannot be without name and form. Suppose the mind to be perfectly calm, entirely without thought; nevertheless, as soon as thought begins to rise it will immediately take name and form. Every thought has a certain name and a certain form. In the same way the very fact of creation, the very fact of projection is eternally connected with name and form. Thus we find that every idea that man has, or can have, must be connected with a certain name or word as its counterpart. This being so, it is quite natural to suppose that this universe is the outcome of mind, just as your body is the outcome of your idea — your idea, as it were, made concrete and externalised. If it be true, moreover, that the whole universe is built on the same plan, then, if you know the manner in which one atom is built, you can understand how the whole universe is built. If it is true that in you, the body forms the gross part outside and the mind forms the fine part inside, and both are eternally inseparable, then, when you cease to have the body, you will cease to have the mind also. When a man's brain is disturbed, his ideas also get disturbed, because they are but one, the finer and the grosser parts. There are not two such things as matter and mind. As in a high column of air there are dense and rarefied strata of one and the same element air, so it is with the body; it is one thing throughout, layer on layer, from grosser to finer. Again, the body is like the finger nails. As these continue growing even when they are cut, so from our subtle ideas grows body after body. The finer a thing the more persistent it is; we find that always. The grosser it is the less persistent. Thus, form is the grosser and name the finer state of a single manifesting power called thought. But these three are one; it is the Unity and the Trinity, the three degrees of existence of the same thing. Finer, more condensed, and most condensed. Wherever the one is, the others are there also. Wherever name is, there is form and thought.
It naturally follows that if the universe is built upon the same plan as the body, the universe also must have the same divisions of form, name, and thought. The "thought" is the finest part of the universe, the real motive power. The thought behind our body is called soul, and the thought behind the universe is called God. Then after that is the name, and last of all is the form which we see and feel. For instance, you are a particular person, a little universe in this universe, a body with a particular form; then behind that a name, John or Jane, and behind that again a thought; similarly there is this whole universe, and behind that is the name, what is called the "Word" in all religions, and behind that is God. The universal thought is Mahat, as the Sânkhyas call it, universal consciousness. What is that name? There must be some name. The world is homogeneous, and modern science shows beyond doubt that each atom is composed of the same material as the whole universe. If you know one lump of clay you know the whole universe. Man is the most representative being in the universe, the microcosm, a small universe in himself. So in man we find there is the form, behind that the name, and behind that the thought, the thinking being. So this universe must be on exactly the same plan. The question is: What is that name? According to the Hindus that word is Om. The old Egyptians also believed that. The Katha Upanishad says, "That, seeking which a man practices Brahmacharya, I will tell you in short what that is, that is Om. ... This is Brahman, the Immutable One, and is the highest; knowing this Immutable One, whatever one desires one gets."
This Om stands for the name of the whole universe, or God. Standing midway between the external world and God, it represents both. But then we can take the universe piecemeal, according to the different senses, as touch, as colour, as taste, and in various other ways. In each case we can make of this universe millions of universes from different standpoints, each of which will be a complete universe by itself, and each one will have a name, and a form, and a thought behind. These thoughts behind are Pratikas. Each of them has a name. These names of sacred symbols are used in Bhakti-Yoga. They have almost infinite power. Simply by repetition of these words we can get anything we desire, we can come to perfection. But two things are necessary. "The teacher must be wonderful, so also must be the taught", says the Katha Upanishad. Such a name must come from a person to whom it has descended through right succession. From master to disciple, the spiritual current has been coming; from ancient times, bearing its power. The person from whom such a word comes is called a Guru, and the person to whom it goes is called Shishya, the disciple. When the word has been received in the regular way, and when it has been repeated, much advance has been made in Bhakti-Yoga. Simply by the repetition of that word will come even the highest state of Bhakti. "Thou hast so many names. Thou understandest what is meant by them all these names are Thine, and in each is Thine infinite power; there is neither time nor place for repeating these names, for all times and places are holy. Thou art so easy, Thou art so merciful, how unfortunate am I, that I have no love for Thee!"
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。