二至五 室利·苏伦德拉·纳特·森
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
二
印度信仰（Shraddha）的丧失及其复兴之必要——我们需要怎样的人——真正的社会改革
一八九八年一月二十二日，星期六。
清晨，我来到斯瓦米吉（辨喜）处，他当时住在加尔各答拉姆坎塔·博斯街五十七号巴拉拉姆老爷的宅邸。房间里挤满了听众。斯瓦米吉正在说："我们需要信仰（Shraddha），我们需要对自身的信心。力量即生命，软弱即死亡。'我们是真我（Atman），不死而自由；纯净，天性本自纯净。我们怎么可能犯罪？不可能！'——这样的信念是我们所需要的。这样的信念造就人，造就神。正是因为丧失了这种信仰的理念，国家才走向了衰败。"
问：我们是如何丧失这种信仰的？
斯瓦米吉：我们从小接受的一直是消极的教育。我们只被教导自己什么都不是。我们很少被告知我们的国家曾诞生过伟大的人物。没有任何积极正面的东西被教给我们。我们甚至不知道如何使用自己的双手双脚！我们精通关于英国人祖先的一切史实和数据，却对自己的历史可悲地漠不关心。我们所学到的只有软弱。作为一个被征服的民族，我们使自己相信我们是软弱的，在任何事情上都没有独立性。那么，信仰怎能不丧失呢？真正的信仰理念必须被重新带回给我们，对自身的信心必须被重新唤醒，唯有那时，我们国家面临的一切问题才能逐步由我们自己来解决。
问：这怎么可能呢？仅凭信仰如何能够治愈困扰我们社会的无数弊病？况且，国内有那么多亟待解决的问题，印度国民大会和其他爱国团体正为此进行着不懈的斗争和向英国政府请愿。还有什么更好的方式来表达他们的诉求呢？信仰与此有什么关系？
斯瓦米吉：请告诉我，这些需求是谁的——是你们的还是统治者的？如果是你们的，统治者会替你们满足这些需求，还是你们必须自己去争取？
问：但看顾臣民的需求是统治者的义务。如果不依靠国王，我们还能指望谁来解决一切呢？
斯瓦米吉：乞丐的需求永远不会得到满足。假如政府给了你们所需的一切，又有谁能够维持这些所求之物呢？所以，首先要造就人。我们需要人，而没有信仰，人如何能被造就？
问：但这并非多数人的看法，先生。
斯瓦米吉：你所谓的多数，主要由愚人和平庸之辈组成。在任何地方，能够独立思考的有头脑的人都是少数。这少数有头脑的人才是一切事务和各个领域的真正领导者；多数人被他们如牵线般引导，这是好事，因为跟随这些领导者的脚步，一切都能顺利进行。只有那些自以为高不可攀、不肯向任何人低头的人才是真正的愚人，他们凭自己的判断行事，只会自取灭亡。你们谈论社会改革？但你们做了什么？你们所谓的社会改革，无非是寡妇再婚，或妇女解放，或诸如此类的事情，不是吗？而这些改革又仅限于少数几个种姓之内。这样的改革方案无疑可以使少数人受益，但对整个民族又有什么用处呢？这是改革，还是不过是一种自私——只顾打扫自己的房间、保持整洁，却让别人每况愈下！
问：那么，您的意思是完全不需要社会改革了？
斯瓦米吉：谁说过这种话？当然需要改革。你们所谈论的大部分社会改革并没有触及贫苦大众；他们早已拥有那些东西——你们所呼吁的寡妇再婚、妇女解放等等。因此他们根本不会认为那些是什么改革。我要说的是，信仰的丧失带来了我们中间的一切弊病，而且正在带来越来越多的弊病。我的治疗方法是从根本上铲除疾病的根源，而不是仅仅将其压制。我们确实需要多方面的改革，谁会愚蠢到否认这一点呢？例如，在印度实行族际通婚就有充分的理由，因为缺少了它，这个民族的体质正在日益衰弱。
由于当天是日食之日，那位提问的先生向斯瓦米吉行礼后告辞说："我现在得去恒河沐浴了。不过我改日再来。"
三
智慧瑜伽（Jnana）与虔信瑜伽（Bhakti）的调和——善与恶中皆有神——用途决定事物之善恶——业（Karma）——创造——神——摩耶（Maya）
一八九八年一月二十三日，星期日。
傍晚时分，正值罗摩克里希纳（Ramakrishna）传道会的每周聚会，地点在巴格巴扎尔巴拉拉姆老爷的宅邸。斯瓦米·图里亚南达、斯瓦米·瑜伽南达、斯瓦米·普瑞玛南达等人从道场赶来。斯瓦米吉坐在东面的走廊上，走廊已经挤满了人，南北两段走廊亦是如此。每当斯瓦米吉留住加尔各答时，天天都是这般盛况。
许多前来参加聚会的人听说斯瓦米吉歌唱得好，都渴望一听。了解到这一点后，大师先生（M.）悄悄地对身旁几位先生耳语，请他们请求斯瓦米吉唱歌；但他看穿了他们的意图，戏谑地问道："大师先生，你们在那里窃窃私语说什么呢？请大声说出来。"在大师先生的请求下，斯瓦米吉便以他迷人的嗓音唱起了那首歌——"以爱心呵护亲爱的希亚玛母亲，将她安住于你心中……"仿佛一架维纳琴正在演奏。唱毕，他对大师先生说："好了，你现在满意了吧？不过不要再唱了！否则，陶醉其中，我会被它的迷醉之力带走。何况我的嗓子因在西方频繁演讲已经损坏了。我的声音颤抖得很厉害……"
斯瓦米吉随后让他的一位梵行弟子谈谈解脱（Mukti）的真正本质。于是，那位梵行者站起来讲了一番话。又有几位跟着发言。斯瓦米吉随后邀请大家就讲话内容进行讨论，并请他的一位在家弟子来主持；但当后者试图倡导不二论（Advaita）和智慧（Jnana），而将二元论和虔信（Bhakti）置于较低地位时，便遭到了听众中一位成员的抗议。两位论争者各自试图确立自己的观点，一场激烈的辩论由此展开。斯瓦米吉观察了一会儿，但见他们越来越激动，便以下面这番话使他们安静下来：
你们为什么在争论中如此激动，把一切都搞糟了？听着！室利·罗摩克里希纳常说，纯粹的知识与纯粹的虔信是一而二、二而一的。按照虔信的教义，神被视为"一切之爱"。人甚至不能说"我爱他"，因为他本身就是一切之爱。在他之外不存在爱；你心中用以爱他的那份爱，甚至就是他本身。同样，一个人所感受到的一切吸引力或倾向，都是他自己。小偷偷窃，妓女出卖身体，母亲爱自己的孩子——这其中每一样都有他在！一个星系吸引另一个星系——那里也有他。他无处不在。按照智慧的教义，他同样在万处被觉悟。智慧与虔信的调和正在于此。唯有当一个人沉浸于神圣灵视的最高狂喜（Bhava）中，或处于三摩地（Samadhi）的状态时，二元的观念才会消失，信徒与其神之间的区别才会泯灭。在虔信的经典中，提到了五种不同的关系路径，通过其中任何一种都可以达到神；但还可以再加上一种，即冥想与神不二、与神为一的路径。这样，虔信者也可以称不二论者（Advaitin）为虔信者，只不过是不二型的虔信者。只要一个人还在摩耶（Maya）的范围之内，二元的观念无疑就会持续存在。时间-空间-因果，或名与色，就是所谓的摩耶。当一个人超越了摩耶，唯一性才被觉悟，那时人既非二元论者，也非不二论者——对他而言一切皆是一。你们所注意到的虔信者与智者之间的一切差异，都在准备阶段——一个在外面看见神，另一个在内在看见他。但还有另一要点：室利·罗摩克里希纳常说，还有一种虔信的阶段，称为至上虔信（Parabhakti），即在确立不二意识并证得解脱之后再去爱他。这似乎自相矛盾，人们可能会问，一个已经证得解脱的人为什么还要保持虔信的精神？答案是：解脱者（Mukta）超越一切法则；没有任何法则适用于他，因此关于他不能提出任何问题。即使证得了解脱，有些人出于自由意志，仍然保持虔信以品尝其甘美。
问：神或许存在于母亲对孩子的爱中；但是先生，说神甚至以罪恶之自然倾向的形式存在于小偷和妓女之中，这个观念实在令人困惑！这样说来，神对这世上的罪恶负有与美德同样的责任了。
斯瓦米吉：那种意识出现在最高觉悟的阶段，当一个人看到凡是具有爱或吸引力性质的一切都是神。但一个人必须达到那个境界，才能在实际生活中亲自看见和觉悟那个道理。
问：但人们仍然不得不承认神也存在于罪恶之中！
斯瓦米吉：你看，实际上根本没有所谓善与恶的区分。它们不过是约定俗成的名词。同一件事物，我们这次称之为坏的，另一次又称之为好的，取决于我们如何使用它。以这盏灯火为例：因为它的燃烧，我们能够看见并做各种有用的事情，这是使用灯光的一种方式。再者，如果你把手指伸进去，它们就会被烧伤，这是使用同一盏灯光的另一种方式。所以我们应该知道，一件事物是好是坏，取决于我们使用它的方式。美德与恶行也是如此。概括地说，我们身心任何一种官能的正当使用称为美德，其不当的应用或浪费则称为恶行。
就这样，问题接连不断地被提出和回答。有人说道："天体相互吸引之处也有神存在的理论，作为事实未必属实，但其中所蕴含的诗意之美是不可否认的。"
斯瓦米吉：不，亲爱的先生，那不是诗意。当一个人获得知识时，可以亲自看到其真实性。
从斯瓦米吉在这一点上进一步的阐述中，我理解他的意思是：物质与精神，虽然在一切表象上似乎是两种截然不同的东西，实际上是同一本体的两种不同形式；同样，我们所知的一切不同力量，无论在物质世界还是内在世界，都不过是同一力量的不同显现形式。我们称一种东西为物质，是因为那精神力量在其中显现得较少；称之为生命，是因为它在其中显现得较多；但没有任何东西在任何时候、任何条件下是绝对的物质。同一种力量在物质世界中表现为引力或万有引力，在更精微的状态下，在更高的灵性觉悟阶段，则被感知为爱及其他类似之物。
问：为什么在个人使用方面还要有这种差异呢？人为什么会有对其任何官能进行不当或错误使用的倾向？
斯瓦米吉：那种倾向是一个人过去行为（业/Karma）的结果；一个人所拥有的一切都是自己造就的。因此可以推论，完全掌握在每个人自己手中的是控制自己的倾向并正确引导它们。
问：即使一切都是我们业力的结果，它也必须有一个开端，那么在开端时，我们的倾向为什么会有善恶之分呢？
斯瓦米吉：你怎么知道有一个开端？创造（Srishti）是无始的——这是吠陀（Vedas）的教义。只要有神存在，就同样有创造存在。
问：那好，先生，这摩耶为什么在这里，它从何而来？
斯瓦米吉：对于神，问"为什么"是一种错误；我们只能对有需求或不完美的人这样问。对于那没有需求、本身即是完整之一的存在，怎么能有"为什么"呢？"摩耶从何而来？"这样的问题是不能问的。时间-空间-因果就是所谓的摩耶。你、我以及所有人都在这摩耶之中；而你却在问超越摩耶之外的事！你身处摩耶之中，怎么能问这样的问题呢？
此后又有许多问题接踵而来。话题转到了穆勒、汉密尔顿、赫伯特·斯宾塞等人的哲学，斯瓦米吉对此一一阐述，令所有人都感到满意。每个人都惊叹于他在西方哲学方面的渊博学识和他回答问题的敏捷。
聚会在一番闲谈之后散去。
四
同种姓内部分支间的通婚——反对早婚——印度人所需要的教育——梵行（Brahmacharya）
一八九八年一月二十四日，星期一。
上周六向斯瓦米吉提问的那位先生又来了。他再次提起通婚的话题，问道："不同民族之间应该如何推行通婚？"
斯瓦米吉：我不主张我们与信仰不同宗教的民族通婚。至少在目前，那肯定会削弱社会的纽带，并引起种种弊端。我所提倡的是同一宗教内部的人之间的通婚。
问：即便如此，也会带来很多困扰。假如我有一个在孟加拉出生和长大的女儿，我把她嫁给一个马拉地人或马德拉斯人。女孩听不懂丈夫的语言，丈夫也听不懂女孩的。再者，他们各自的习惯和风俗差异很大。这还只是夫妻之间的困难。至于社会方面，那更是乱上加乱。
斯瓦米吉：那种婚姻能够广泛实行的时代还很遥远。况且，现在贸然全面推行也不明智。工作的秘诀之一就是沿着阻力最小的路线前进。所以，首先应在自己种姓范围内实行通婚。以孟加拉的卡雅斯塔为例。他们之中有几个分支，如乌塔尔-拉希、达钦-拉希、邦加贾等，彼此之间不通婚。现在，就让乌塔尔-拉希和达钦-拉希之间通婚吧；如果目前做不到，就让邦加贾和达钦-拉希之间通婚。这样，我们是在已有的基础上建设，在我们力所能及的范围内付诸实践——改革并不意味着全盘推翻。
问：好吧，就照您说的来；但这样做能带来什么相应的好处呢？
斯瓦米吉：你难道没有看到，在我们的社会中，婚姻数百年来一直限制在每个种姓的同一分支内部，如今已经发展到实际上等于表亲和近亲之间的联姻了吗？正因如此，这个民族的体质正在退化，各种疾病和其他弊病正轻而易举地侵入其中？由于血液不得不在有限的少数人组成的狭小圈子内循环，血液已经败坏了；因此新生儿从出生起就遗传了父辈的先天性疾病。这样，生来血液贫乏，他们的身体几乎没有抵抗任何疾病微生物的能力，而那些微生物时刻准备着侵袭他们。只有通过扩大婚姻的范围，我们才能为后代注入一种新的、不同的血液，使他们免受当今许多疾病和其他相关弊端的侵害。
问：请问先生，您对早婚有什么看法？
斯瓦米吉：在孟加拉的受教育阶层中，过早为男孩成婚的习俗正在逐渐消亡。女孩出嫁的年龄也比从前大了一两岁，但这是出于不得已——经济拮据所迫。不管原因是什么，女孩出嫁的年龄应该进一步提高。但可怜的父亲又能怎么办呢？女孩刚长大一点，从母亲到亲戚邻居，所有女性都会嚷嚷着叫他赶紧找个女婿，不找到就不让他安宁！至于那些宗教伪善者，越少提越好。如今没人听他们的了，但他们仍然要自封为领袖。当统治者通过了《承诺年龄法案》，以刑罚威胁禁止男子与十二岁以下的女孩同居时，这些所谓的宗教领袖们立刻大肆鼓噪，发出警报："哎呀，我们的宗教完了！"好像宗教就在于让一个女孩在十二三岁就做母亲！所以统治者自然也会想："天哪！他们的宗教是什么宗教！而这些人还在搞政治运动，要求政治权利！"
问：那么依您之见，男女双方都应该在较大的年龄结婚？
斯瓦米吉：当然。但教育必须同步跟进，否则将会出现不检点和堕落。我说的教育不是现行的教育体制，而是积极正面的教育路线。光读书是不够的。我们需要的是那种能够塑造品格、增强心智力量、拓展智力、并使人能够自立的教育。
问：我们需要在许多方面改革我们的妇女。
斯瓦米吉：有了这样的教育，妇女们将自己解决自己的问题。她们一直以来被训练得无助、奴性地依赖他人，因此只会在任何灾祸或危险稍一临近时就痛哭流涕。除了其他方面，她们还应该获得勇气和英雄气概。在当今时代，她们也有必要学习自我防卫。看看占西女王多么伟大！
问：您提出的建议是全新的尝试，恐怕还需要很长时间才能那样培养我们的妇女。
斯瓦米吉：不管怎样，我们必须尽最大努力。我们不仅要教育她们，还要教育我们自己。仅仅生养孩子并不能成为父亲；还有许多重大责任需要承担。要开始妇女教育：我们的印度教妇女很容易理解贞洁意味着什么，因为那是她们的传承。现在，首先要在她们心中把这一理想提升到高于一切的地位，使她们藉此培养出坚强的品格，凭借这一品格的力量，在她们生命的每个阶段——无论已婚，还是愿意保持单身——她们都丝毫不会畏惧，甚至宁可舍弃生命，也决不在贞洁上退让分毫。为了自己的理想——无论那理想是什么——能够牺牲生命，难道不是一种伟大的英雄主义吗？审视当今时代的需要，似乎有必要按照出离的理想来培养一些妇女，使她们立下终身独身的誓愿，以那从远古以来就根植于她们血脉中的贞洁之美德的力量为燃料。与此同时，还应教给她们科学和其他有益的知识，不仅有益于她们自身，也有益于他人。明了这一点后，她们将乐于学习这些知识，并在其中感受到快乐。我们的祖国需要她的一些儿女成为这样纯净的梵行者（Brahmacharin）和梵行女（Brahmacharini），以促进她的福祉。
问：这如何有助于国家的福祉？
斯瓦米吉：通过她们的榜样和努力，将民族理想树立在人民面前，思想和志向上将会发生一场革命。现在情况怎样呢？不管怎样，父母必须在女孩九十岁时就把她嫁出去！如果她十三岁就生了孩子，全家该是多么欢天喜地！如果这种观念的趋势能够逆转，那么古老的信仰才有希望回归。且不说那些将如上所述实践梵行的人——想想她们将对自己怀有多么大的信心！她们将成为多么巨大的向善之力！
提问者向斯瓦米吉行礼，准备告辞。斯瓦米吉请他常来。"一定的，先生，"那位先生回答说，"我受益匪浅。我从您这里听到了许多新的道理，这是我在任何其他地方都不曾听过的。"时近饭时，我也回家了。
五
甜蜜之爱（Madhura-Bhava）——至上之爱（Prema）——唱诵圣名（Namakirtana）——其危险——以智慧调和的虔信——一个奇异的梦
一八九八年一月二十四日，星期一。
下午我又来到斯瓦米吉处，见到他周围聚集了不少人。话题是甜蜜之爱（Madhura-Bhava），即将神作为丈夫来崇拜的方式，这种方式在室利·柴坦尼亚的某些追随者中颇为流行。他不时妙语连珠，引得众人大笑，这时有人说道："主的行止有什么好嘲笑的？你以为他不是一位伟大的圣人吗？你以为他所做的一切不是为了人类的福祉吗？"
斯瓦米吉：那是谁！难道我该拿你开玩笑吗，亲爱的先生！你只看到了笑话的一面，是吗？而你，先生，却没有看到我为了按照他那燃烧般的出离于财富和情欲的理想来塑造此生所经历的毕生奋斗，以及我为在大众中灌输那一理想所付出的努力！室利·柴坦尼亚是一位彻底出离的人，与女色和肉欲毫无关系。但在后来，他的弟子们把女性纳入了他们的教团，以他的名义与女性不加分别地混杂在一起，把整件事搞得一塌糊涂。主在其一生中所体现的爱的理想是完全无私的、没有丝毫情欲痕迹的；那种超越性别的爱决不可能成为大众的财产。但后来的毗湿奴派导师们（Guru），不是首先特别强调大师生平中出离的方面，而是把全部热忱都用在向大众宣讲和灌输他的爱的理想上，结果是普通人无法领会和消化那神圣之爱的崇高理想，自然而然地将其扭曲为男女之间最低劣的情爱形式。
问：但是先生，他将主哈里的圣名传给了所有人，甚至包括旃陀罗；那么为什么普通大众不应该有权利呢？
斯瓦米吉：我说的不是他的传道，而是他那伟大的爱的理想——罗陀之爱（Radha-prema），他日日夜夜沉醉其中，在罗陀中失去了自我。
问：为什么那不能成为一切人的共同财产？
斯瓦米吉：看看这个国家，看看这种尝试的结果是什么。通过广泛传播那种爱，整个民族变得柔弱了——成了一个女性化的民族！整个奥里萨变成了一片懦夫之地；而孟加拉，追逐罗陀之爱这四百年来，几乎丧失了一切阳刚之气！人们只善于哭泣和悲叹，这已成为他们的民族特征。看看他们的文学，那是一个民族思想和观念的可靠标志。为什么四百年来孟加拉文学的主旋律就是同一曲呻吟和哭泣的调子？它未能孕育出任何真正充满英雄精神的诗歌！
问：那么，谁才是真正有资格拥有那至上之爱（Prema）的人？
斯瓦米吉：只要心中还有情欲——哪怕有微尘般的一丝——就不可能有爱。唯有大出离者，唯有人中之巨人，才有资格拥有那神圣之爱。如果把那最高的爱的理想向大众展示，它将间接地刺激其世俗对应物——那主宰着人心的世俗之爱——因为，冥想对神之爱，将自己想象为他的妻子或爱人，一个人极有可能大部分时间想的是自己的妻子——其结果不言自明。
问：那么，对于在家人来说，通过那条爱的道路——将神作为丈夫或爱人来崇拜、将自己视为他的伴侣——来觉悟神，是不可能的了？
斯瓦米吉：除了极少数例外，对于普通在家人来说无疑是不可能的。而且，为什么要在所有其他道路之上如此强调这条微妙的道路呢？难道除了这种甜蜜之爱的方式，就没有其他关系可以用来崇拜神了吗？为什么不走其他四条道路，全心全意地念诵主的圣名呢？先让心灵敞开，其余一切将自然跟随。但要确知这一点：有情欲的地方就不可能有至上之爱。为什么不先尝试去除肉欲呢？你会说："那怎么可能？我是在家人啊。"胡说！因为一个人是在家人，就意味着他必须是纵欲的化身，或者必须终生过夫妻生活吗？而且，说到底，一个男人把自己变成女人来修行这种甜蜜之爱，是多么不合体统啊！
问：是的，先生。集体唱诵神名（Namakirtana）是一种极好的帮助，给人一种欢欣的感受。我们的经典如是说，室利·柴坦尼亚也如此向大众宣讲。当鼓（Khole）被敲响时，它使心灵激荡得让人忍不住想要起舞。
斯瓦米吉：这很好，但不要以为唱诵（Kirtana）仅仅意味着跳舞。它意味着以任何适合你的方式歌颂神的荣耀。毗湿奴派那种激烈的情感激荡和舞蹈固然很好，也极具感染力；但修行中也有一种危险，你必须防范。危险在于——反作用。一方面，情感一下子被推到最高点，泪流满面，头脑似乎在陶醉中旋转——另一方面，合唱一停止，那股情感就如同涨起时一样急剧地跌落下去。海洋上的浪涛涨得越高，以同样的力量跌得越低。在那个阶段，要控制住自己不受反作用的冲击是非常困难的；除非一个人有适当的辨别力，否则很可能屈服于情欲等低劣的倾向。我在美国也注意到了同样的现象。许多人去教堂，虔诚祈祷，满怀感情地歌唱，听布道时甚至泪流满面；但走出教堂后，他们就会产生巨大的反作用，屈服于肉欲的倾向。
问：那么先生，请指点我们，室利·柴坦尼亚所宣讲的思想中，哪些是适合我们的，这样我们才不会误入歧途。
斯瓦米吉：以智慧（Jnana）来调和的虔信（Bhakti）来崇拜神。在虔信中保持辨别的精神。除此之外，从室利·柴坦尼亚那里汲取他的心——他对一切众生的慈爱、他对神的炽热热情——并以他的出离精神作为你一生的理想。
提问者此时双手合十向斯瓦米吉致意说："先生，请恕我之前的冒犯。现在我才明白您是对的。看到您以戏谑的态度批评毗湿奴派的甜蜜之爱，我起初没有理解您话语的深意，因此我提出了异议。"
斯瓦米吉：好吧，你看，如果我们非要批评什么，不如批评神或圣者。如果你辱骂我，我很可能对你发怒；如果我辱骂你，你会试图报复。不是吗？但神或圣者决不会以恶报恶。
那位先生随即向斯瓦米吉俯首礼拜后离去。我已经说过，每当斯瓦米吉住在加尔各答时，这样的聚会天天都有。从清晨到晚上八九点，整天每个时刻都有人蜂拥而至。这自然使他进餐的时间变得极不规律。因此，许多人迫切希望改变这种状况，强烈建议斯瓦米吉除了约定的时间外不接待访客。但斯瓦米吉那颗充满爱的心，时刻准备不遗余力地帮助他人，看到人们对宗教如此渴求，他满怀悲悯之心，尽管身体欠佳，仍不肯答应任何此类请求。他唯一的回答是："他们不辞辛苦从家中一路步行而来，难道我就因为稍稍有损健康的顾虑，就坐在这里不跟他们说几句话吗？"
大约下午四时，大家的交谈告一段落，众人散去，只剩下几位先生，斯瓦米吉继续与他们谈论各种话题，如英国和美国的见闻等。谈话中他说道：
"从英国回来的途中我做了一个奇异的梦。当我们的船经过地中海时，在睡梦中，一位容貌极为苍老而庄严的人，仪态如仙人（Rishi）一般，站在我面前说：'请来帮助我们复兴。我是那个古老的特拉普塔（Therapeutae）修会的成员之一，该修会源于印度仙人的教导。我们所宣讲的真理和理想后来被基督徒说成是耶稣所教，但事实上，从来就没有一个叫耶稣的人出生过。证明这一事实的各种证据将通过在此处发掘而重见天日。''在哪里发掘可以找到你所说的那些证据和遗物？'我问道。那位白发苍苍的长者指向土耳其附近的一个地方说：'看这里。'紧接着我就醒了，立刻冲上甲板，问船长：'我们现在在什么海域？''看那边，'船长回答说，'那里就是土耳其和克里特岛。'"
那仅仅是一个梦，还是上面的异象中蕴含着什么？谁知道呢！
——
注释
English
II
The Loss of Shraddha in India and Need of Its Revival—Men We Want—Real Social Reform
Saturday, the 22nd January, 1898.
Early in the morning I came to Swamiji who was then staying in the house of Balaram Babu at 57 Ramkanta Bose Street, Calcutta. The room was packed full with listeners. Swamiji was saying, "We want Shraddhâ, we want faith in our own selves. Strength is life, weakness is death. 'We are the Âtman, deathless and free; pure, pure by nature. Can we ever commit any sin? Impossible!'—such a faith is needed. Such a faith makes men of us, makes gods of us. It is by losing this idea of Shraddha that the country has gone to ruin."
Question: How did we come to lose this Shraddha?
Swamiji: We have had a negative education all along from our boyhood. We have only learnt that we are nobodies. Seldom are we given to understand that great men were ever born in our country. Nothing positive has been taught to us. We do not even know how to use our hands and feet! We master all the facts and figures concerning the ancestors of the English, but we are sadly unmindful about our own. We have learnt only weakness. Being a conquered race, we have brought ourselves to believe that we are weak and have no independence in anything. So, how can it be but that the Shraddha is lost? The idea of true Shraddha must be brought back once more to us, the faith in our own selves must be reawakened, and, then only, all the problems which face our country will gradually be solved by ourselves.
Q. How can that ever be? How will Shraddha alone remedy the innumerable evils with which our society is beset? Besides, there are so many crying evils in the country, to remove which the Indian National Congress and other patriotic associations are carrying on a strenuous agitation and petitioning the British government. How better can their wants be made known? What has Shraddha to do with the matter?
Swamiji: Tell me, whose wants are those—yours or the ruler's? If yours, will the ruler supply them for you, or will you have to do that for yourselves?
Q. But it is the ruler's duty to see to the wants of the subject people. Whom should we look up to for everything, if not to the king?
Swamiji: Never are the wants of a beggar fulfilled. Suppose the government give you all you need, where are the men who are able to keep up the things demanded? So make men first. Men we want, and how can men be made unless Shraddha is there?
Q. But such is not the view Of the majority, sir.
Swamiji: What you call majority is mainly composed of fools and men of common intellect. Men who have brains to think for themselves are few, everywhere. These few men with brains are the real leaders in everything and in every department of work; the majority are guided by them as with a string, and that is good, for everything goes all right when they follow in the footsteps of these leaders. Those are only fools who think themselves too high to bend their heads to anyone, and they bring on their own ruin by acting on their own judgment. You talk of social reform? But what do you do? All that you mean by your social reform is either widow remarriage, or female emancipation, or something of that sort. Do you not? And these again are directed within the confines of a few of the castes only. Such a scheme of reform may do good to a few no doubt, but of what avail is that to the whole nation? Is that reform or only a form of selfishness—somehow to cleanse your own room and keep it tidy and let others go from bad to worse!
Q. Then, you mean to say that there is no need of social reform at all?
Swamiji: Who says so? Of course there is need of it. Most of what you talk of as social reform does not touch the poor masses; they have already those things—the widow remarriage, female emancipation, etc.—which you cry for. For this reason they will not think of those things as reforms at all. What I mean to say is that want of Shraddha has brought in all the evils among us, and is bringing in more and more. My method of treatment is to take out by the roots the very causes of the disease and not to keep them merely suppressed. Reforms we should have in many ways; who will be so foolish as to deny it? There is, for example, a good reason for intermarriage in India, in the absence of which the race is becoming physically weaker day by day.
Since it was a day of a solar eclipse, the gentleman who was asking these questions saluted Swamiji and left saying "I must go now for a bath in the Ganga. I shall, however, come another day."
III
Reconciliation of Jnana-Yoga and Bhakti-Yoga—God in Good and in Evil Too—Use Makes a Thing Good or Evil—Karma—Creation—God—Maya
Sunday, The 23rd January, 1898.
It was evening and the occasion of the weekly meeting of the Ramakrishna Mission, at the house of Balaram Babu of Baghbazar. Swami Turiyananda, Swami Yogananda, Swami Premananda, and others had come from the Math. Swamiji was seated in the verandah to the east, which was now full of people, as were the northern and the southern sections of the verandah. But such used to be the case every day when Swamiji stayed in Calcutta.
Many of the people who came to the meeting had heard that Swamiji could sing well, and so were desirous of hearing him. Knowing this, Master Mahâshaya (M.) whispered to a few gentlemen near him to request Swamiji to sing; but he saw through their intention and playfully asked, "Master Mahashaya, what are you talking about among yourselves in whispers? Do speak out." At the request of Master Mahashaya, Swamiji now began in his charming voice the song—"Keep with loving care the darling Mother Shyâmâ in thy heart. . . ." It seemed as if a Vinâ was playing. At its close, he said to Master Mahashaya, "Well, are you now satisfied? But no more singing! Otherwise, being in the swing of it, I shall be carried away by its intoxication. Moreover, my voice is now spoilt be frequent lecturing in the West. My voice trembles a great deal. . . ."
Swamiji then asked one of his Brahmacharin disciples to speak on the real nature of Mukti. So, the Brahmacharin stood up and spoke at some length. A few others followed him. Swamiji then invited discussion on the subject of the discourse, and called upon one of his householder disciples to lead it; but as the latter tried to advocate the Advaita and Jnâna and assign a lower place to dualism and Bhakti, he met with a protest from one of the audience. As each of the two opponents tried to establish his own viewpoint, a lively word-fight ensued. Swamiji watched them for a while but, seeing that they were getting excited, silenced them with the following words:
Why do you get excited in argument and spoil everything? Listen! Shri Ramakrishna used to say that pure knowledge and pure Bhakti are one and the same. According to the doctrine of Bhakti, God is held to be "All-Love". One cannot even say, "I love Him", for the reason that He is All-Love. There is no love outside of Himself; the love that is in the heart with which you love Him is even He Himself. In a similar way, whatever attractions or inclinations one feels drawn by, are all He Himself. The thief steals, the harlot sells her body to prostitution, the mother loves her child—in each of these too is He! One world system attracts another—there also is He. Everywhere is He. According to the doctrine of Jnana also, He is realised by one everywhere. Here lies the reconciliation of Jnana and Bhakti. When one is immersed in the highest ecstasy of divine vision (Bhâva), or is in the state of Samâdhi, then alone the idea of duality ceases, and the distinction between the devotee and his God vanishes. In the scriptures on Bhakti, five different paths of relationship are mentioned, by any of which one can attain to God; but another one can very well be added to them, viz. the path of meditation on the non-separateness, or oneness with God. Thus the Bhakta can call the Advaitins Bhaktas as well, but of the non-differentiating type. As long as one is within the region of Mâya, so long the idea of duality will no doubt remain. Space-time-causation, or name-and-form, is what is called Maya. When one goes beyond this Maya, then only the Oneness is realised, and then man is neither a dualist nor an Advaitist—to him all is One. All this difference that you notice between a Bhakta and a Jnani is in the preparatory stage—one sees God outside, and the other sees Him within. But there is another point: Shri Ramakrishna used to say that there is another stage of Bhakti which is called the Supreme Devotion (Parâbhakti) i.e. to love Him after becoming established in the consciousness of Advaita and after having attained Mukti. It may seem paradoxical, and the question may be raised here why such a one who has already attained Mukti should be desirous of retaining the spirit of Bhakti? The answer is: The Mukta or the Free is beyond all law; no law applies in his case, and hence no question can be asked regarding him. Even becoming Mukta, some, out of their own free will, retain Bhakti to taste of its sweetness.
Q. God may be in the love of the mother for her child; but, sir, this idea is really perplexing that God is even in thieves and the harlots in the form of their natural inclinations to sin! It follows then that God is as responsible for the sin as for all the virtue in this world.
Swamiji: That consciousness comes in a stage of highest realization, when one sees that whatever is of the nature of love or attraction is God. But one has to reach that state to see and realise that idea for oneself in actual life.
Q. But still one has to admit that God is also in the sin!
Swamiji: You see, there are, in reality, no such different things as good and evil. They are mere conventional terms. The same thing we call bad, and again another time we call good, according to the way we make use of it. Take for example this lamplight; because of its burning, we are able to see and do various works of utility; this is one mode of using the light. Again, if you put your fingers in it, they will be burnt; that is another mode of using the same light. So we should know that a thing becomes good or bad according to the way we use it. Similarly with virtue and vice. Broadly speaking, the proper use of any of the faculties of our mind and body is termed virtue, and its improper application or waste is called vice.
Thus questions after questions were put and answered. Someone remarked, "The theory that God is even there, where one heavenly body attracts another, may or may not be true as a fact, but there is no denying the exquisite poetry the idea conveys."
Swamiji: No, my dear sir, that is not poetry. One can see for oneself its truth when one attains knowledge.
From what Swamiji further said on this point, I understood him to mean that matter and spirit, though to all appearances they seem to be two distinct things, are really two different forms of one substance; and similarly, all the different forces that are known to us, whether in the material or in the internal world, are but varying forms of the manifestation of one Force. We call a thing matter, where that spirit force is manifested less; and living, where it shows itself more; but there is nothing which is absolutely matter at all times and in all conditions. The same Force which presents itself in the material world as attraction or gravitation is felt in its finer and subtler state as love and the like in the higher spiritual stages of realisation.
Q. Why should there be even this difference relating to individual use? Why should there be at all this tendency in man to make bad or improper use of any of his faculties?
Swamiji: That tendency comes as a result of one's own past actions (Karma); everything one has is of his own doing. Hence it follows that it is solely in the hands of every individual to control his tendencies and to guide them properly.
Q. Even if everything is the result of our Karma, still it must have had a beginning, and why should our tendencies have been good or bad at the beginning?
Swamiji: How do you know that there is a beginning? The Srishti (creation) is without beginning—this is the doctrine of the Vedas. So long as there is God, there is creation as well.
Q. Well, sir, why is this Maya here, and whence has it come?
Swamiji: It is a mistake to ask "why" with respect to God; we can only do so regarding one who has wants or imperfections. How can there be an, "why" concerning Him who has no wants and who is the One Whole? No such question as "Whence has Maya come?" can be asked. Time-space-causation is what is called Maya. You, I, and everyone else are within this Maya; and you are asking about what is beyond Maya! How can you do so while living within Maya?
Again, many questions followed. The conversation turned on the philosophies of Mill, Hamilton, Herbert Spencer, etc., and Swamiji dwelt on them to the satisfaction of all. Everyone wondered at the vastness of his Western philosophical scholarship and the promptness of his replies.
The meeting dispersed after a short conversation on miscellaneous subjects.
IV
Intermarriage Among Subdivisions of a Varna—Against Early Marriage—The Education that Indians Need—Brahmacharya
Monday, The 24th January, 1898.
The same gentleman who was asking questions of Swamiji on Saturday last came again. He raised again the topic of intermarriage and enquired, "How should intermarriage be introduced between different nationalities?"
Swamiji: I do not advise our intermarriage with nations professing an alien religion. At least for the present, that will, of a certainty, slacken the ties of society and be a cause of manifold mischief. It is the intermarriage between people of the same religion that I advocate.
Q. Even then, it will involve much perplexity. Suppose I have a daughter who is born and brought up in Bengal, and I marry her to a Marathi or a Madrasi. Neither will the girl understand her husband's language nor the husband the girl's. Again, the difference in their individual habits and customs is so great. Such are a few of the troubles in the case of the married couple. Then as regards society, it will make confusion worse confounded.
Swamiji: The time is yet very long in coming when marriages of that kind will be widely possible. Besides, it is not judicious now to go in for that all of a sudden. One of the secrets of work is to go along the line of least resistance. So, first of all, let there be marriages within the sphere of one's own caste-people. Take for instance, the Kayasthas of Bengal. They have several subdivisions amongst them, such as, the Uttar-rârhi, Dakshin-rârhi, Bangaja, etc., and they do not intermarry with each other. Now, let there be intermarriages between the Uttar-rarhis and the Dakshin-rarhis, and if that is not possible at present, let it be between the Bangajas and the Dakshin-rarhis. Thus we are to build up that which is already existing, and which is in our hands to reduce into practice—reform does not mean wholesale breaking down.
Q. Very well, let it be as you say: but what corresponding good can come of it?
Swamiji: Don't you see how in our society, marriage, being restricted for several hundreds of years within the same subdivisions of each caste, has come to such a pass nowadays as virtually to mean marital alliance between cousins and near relations; and how for this very reason the race is getting deteriorated physically, and consequently all sorts of disease and other evils are finding a ready entrance into it? The blood having had to circulate within the narrow circle of a limited number of individuals has become vitiated; so the new-born children inherit from their very birth the constitutional diseases of their fathers. Thus, born with poor blood, their bodies have very little power to resist the microbes of any disease, which are ever ready to prey upon them. It is only by widening the circle of marriage that we can infuse a new and a different kind of blood into our progeny, so that they may be saved from the clutches of many of our present-day diseases and other consequent evils.
Q. May I ask you, sir, what is your opinion about early marriage?
Swamiji: Amongst the educated classes in Bengal, the custom of marrying their boys too early is dying out gradually. The girls are also given in marriage a year or two older than before, but that has been under compulsion —from pecuniary want. Whatever might be the reason for it, the age of marrying girls should be raised still higher. But what will the poor father do? As soon as the girl grows up a little, every one of the female sex, beginning with the mother down to the relatives and neighbours even, will begin to cry out that he must find a bridegroom for her, and will not leave him in peace until he does so! And, about your religious hypocrites, the less said the better. In these days no one hears them, but still they will take up the role of leaders themselves. The rulers passed the Age of Consent Bill prohibiting a man under the threat of penalty to live with a girl of twelve years, and at once all these so-called leaders of your religion raised a tremendous hue and cry against it, sounding the alarm, "Alas, our religion is lost! As if religion consisted in making a girl a mother at the age of twelve or thirteen! So the rulers also naturally think, "Goodness gracious! What a religion is theirs! And these people lead political agitations and demand political rights!"
Q. Then, in your opinion, both men and women should be married at an advanced age?
Swamiji: Certainly. But education should be imparted along with it, otherwise irregularity and corruption will ensue. By education I do not mean the present system, but something in the line of positive teaching. Mere book-learning won't do. We want that education by which character is formed, strength of mind is increased, the intellect is expanded, and by which one can stand on one's own feet.
Q. We have to reform our women in many ways.
Swamiji: With such an education women will solve their own problems. They have all the time been trained in helplessness, servile dependence on others, and so they are good only to weep their eyes out at the slightest approach of a mishap or danger. Along with other things they should acquire the spirit of valour and heroism. In the present day it has become necessary for them also to learn self-defence. See how grand was the Queen of Jhansi!
Q. What you advise is quite a new departure, and it will, I am afraid, take a very long time yet to train our women in that way.
Swamiji: Anyhow, we have to try our best. We have not only to teach them but to teach ourselves also. Mere begetting children does not make a father; a great many responsibilities have to be taken upon one's shoulders as well. To make a beginning in women's education: our Hindu women easily understand what chastity means, because it is their heritage. Now, first of all, intensify that ideal within them above everything else, so that they may develop a strong character by the force of which, in every stage of their life, whether married, or single if they prefer to remain so, they will not be in the least afraid even to give up their lives rather than flinch an inch from their chastity. Is it little heroism to be able to sacrifice one's life for the sake of one's ideal whatever that ideal may be? Studying the present needs of the age, it seems imperative to train some women up in the ideal of renunciation, so that they will take up the vow of lifelong virginity, fired with the strength of that virtue of chastity which is innate in their life-blood from hoary antiquity. Along with that they should be taught sciences and other things which would be of benefit, not only to them but to others as well, and knowing this they would easily learn these things and feel pleasure in doing so. Our motherland requires for her well-being some of her children to become such pure-souled Brahmachârins and Brahmachârinis.
Q. In what way will that conduce to her well-being?
Swamiji: By their example and through their endeavours to hold the national ideal before the eyes of the people, a revolution in thoughts and aspirations will take place. How do matters stand now? Somehow, the parents must dispose of a girl in marriage, if she he nine or ten years of age! And what a rejoicing of the whole family if a child is born to her at the age of thirteen! If the trend of such ideas is reversed, then only there is some hope for the ancient Shraddhâ to return. And what to talk of those who will practice Brahmacharya as defined above—think how much faith in themselves will be theirs! And what a power for good they will be!
The questioner now saluted Swamiji and was ready to take leave. Swamiji asked him to come now and then "Certainly, sir," replied the gentleman, "I feel so much benefited. I have heard from you many new things, which I have not been told anywhere before." I also went home as it was about time for dinner.
V
Madhura-Bhava—Prema—Namakirtana—Its Danger—Bhakti Tempered With Jnana—A Curious Dream
Monday, The 24th January, 1898.
In the afternoon I came again to Swamiji and saw quite a good gathering round him. The topic was the Madhura-Bhâva or the way of worshipping God as husband, as in vogue with some followers of Shri Chaitanya. His occasional bons mots were raising laughter, when someone remarked, "What is there to make so much fun of about the Lord's doings? Do you think that he was not a great saint, and that he did not do everything for the good of humanity?"
Swamiji: Who is that! Should I poke fun at you then, my dear sir! You only see the fun of it, do you? And you, sir, do not see the lifelong struggle through which I have passed to mould this life after his burning ideal of renunciation of wealth and lust, and my endeavours to infuse that ideal into the people at large! Shri Chaitanya was a man of tremendous renunciation and had nothing to do with woman and carnal appetites. But, in later times, his disciples admitted women into their order, mixed indiscriminately with them in his name, and made an awful mess of the whole thing. And the ideal of love which the Lord exemplified in his life was perfectly selfless and bereft of any vestige of lust; that sexless love can never be the property of the masses. But the subsequent Vaishnava Gurus, instead of laying particular stress first on the aspect of renunciation in the Master's life, bestowed all their zeal on preaching and infusing his ideal of love among the masses, and the consequence was that the common people could not grasp and assimilate that high ideal of divine love, and naturally made of it the worst form of love between man and woman.
Q. But, sir, he preached the name of the Lord Hari to all, even to the Chandâlas; so why should not the common masses have a right to it?
Swamiji: I am talking not of his preaching, but of his great ideal of love —the Râdhâ-prema, with which he used to remain intoxicated day and night, losing his individuality in Radha.
Q. Why may not that be made the common property of all?
Swamiji: Look at this nation and see what has been the outcome of such an attempt. Through the preaching of that love broadcast, the whole nation has become effeminate—a race of women! The whole of Orissa has been turned into a land of cowards; and Bengal, running after the Radha-prema, these past four hundred years, has almost lost all sense of manliness! The people are very good only at crying and weeping; that has become their national trait. Look at their literature, the sure index of a nation's thoughts and ideas. Why, the refrain of the Bengali literature for these four hundred years is strung to that same tune of moaning and crying. It has failed to give birth to any poetry which breathes a true heroic spirit!
Q. Who are then truly entitled to possess that Prema (love)?
Swamiji: There can be no love so long as there is lust—even as speck of it, as it were, in the heart. None but men of great renunciation, none but mighty giants among men, have a right to that Love Divine. If that highest ideal of love is held out to the masses, it will indirectly tend to stimulate its worldly prototype which dominates the heart of man—for, meditating on love to God by thinking of oneself as His wife or beloved, one would very likely be thinking most of the time of one's own wife—the result is too obvious to point out.
Q. Then is it impossible for householders to realise God through that path of love, worshipping God as one's husband or lover and considering oneself as His spouse?
Swamiji : With a few exceptions; for ordinary householders it is impossible no doubt. And why lay so much stress on this delicate path, above all others? Are there no other relationships by which to worship God, except this Madhura idea of love? Why not follow the four other paths, and take the name of the Lord with all your heart? Let the heart be opened first, and all else will follow of itself. But know this for certain, that Prema cannot come while there is lust. Why not try first to get rid of carnal desires? You will say, "How is that possible? I am a householder." Nonsense! Because one is a householder, does it mean that one should be a personification of incontinence, or that one has to live in marital relations all one's life? And, after all, how unbecoming of a man to make of himself a woman, so that he may practice this Madhura love!
Q. True, sir. Singing God's name in a party (Nâmakirtana) is an excellent help and gives one a joyous feeling. So say our scriptures, and so did Shri Chaitanya Deva also preach to the masses. When the Khole (drum) is played upon, it makes the heart leap with such a transport that one feels inclined to dance.
Swamiji: That is all right, but don't think that Kirtana means dancing only. It means singing the glories of God, in whatever way that suits you. That vehement stirring up of feeling and that dancing of the Vaishnavas are good and very catching no doubt; but there is also a danger in practising them, from which you must save yourself. The danger lies here—in the reaction. On the one hand, the feelings are at once roused to the highest pitch, tears flow from the eyes, the head reels as it were under intoxication—on the other hand, as soon as the Sankirtan stops, that mass of feeling sinks down as precipitately as it rose. The higher the wave rises on the ocean, the lower it falls, with equal force. It is very difficult at that stage to contain oneself against the shock of reaction; unless one has proper discrimination, one is likely to succumb to the lower propensities of lust etc. I have noticed the same thing in America also. Many would go to church, pray with much devotion, sing with great feeling, and even burst into tears when hearing the sermons; but after coming out of church, they would have a great reaction and succumb to carnal tendencies.
Q. Then, sir, do instruct us which of the ideas preached by Shri Chaitanya we should take up as well suited to us, so that we may not fall into errors.
Swamiji: Worship God with Bhakti tempered with Jnâna. Keep the spirit of discrimination along with Bhakti. Besides this, gather from Shri Chaitanya, his heart, his loving kindness to all beings, his burning passion for God, and make his renunciation the ideal of your life.
The questioner now addressed the Swamiji with folded hands, "I beg your pardon, sir. Now I come to see you are right. Seeing you criticise in a playful mood the Madhura love of the Vaishnavas, I could not at first understand the drift of your remarks; hence I took exception to them."
Swamiji: Well, look here, if we are to criticise at all, it is better to criticise God or God-men. If you abuse me I shall very likely get angry with you, and if I abuse you, you will try to retaliate. Isn't it so? But God or God-men will never return evil for evil. The gentleman now left, after bowing down at the feet of Swamiji. I have already said that such a gathering was an everyday occurrence when Swamiji used to stay in Calcutta. From early in the morning till eight or nine at night, men would flock to him at every hour of the day. This naturally occasioned much irregularity in the time of his taking his meals; so, many desiring to put a stop to this state of things, strongly advised Swamiji not to receive visitors except at appointed hours. But the loving heart of Swamiji, ever ready to go to any length to help others, was so melted with compassion at the sight of such a thirst for religion in the people, that in spite of ill health, he did not comply with any request of the kind. His only reply was, "They take so much trouble to come walking all the way from their homes, and can I, for the consideration of risking my health a little, sit here and not speak a few words to them?"
At about 4 p.m. the general conversation came to a close, and the gathering dispersed, except for a few gentlemen with whom Swamiji continued his talk on different subjects, such as England and America, and so on. In the course of conversation he said:
"I had a curious dream on my return voyage from England. While our ship was passing through the Mediterranean Sea, in my sleep, a very old and venerable looking person, Rishi-like in appearance, stood before me and said, 'Do ye come and effect our restoration. I am one of that ancient order of Therâputtas (Theraputae) which had its origin in the teachings of the Indian Rishis. The truths and ideals preached by us have been given out by Christians as taught by Jesus; but for the matter of that, there was no such personality by the name of Jesus ever born. Various evidences testifying to this fact will be brought to light by excavating here.' 'By excavating which place can those proofs and relics you speak of be found?' I asked. The hoary-headed one, pointing to a locality in the vicinity of Turkey, said, 'See here.' Immediately after, I woke up, and at once rushed to the upper deck and asked the Captain, 'What neighbourhood is the ship in just now?' 'Look yonder', the Captain replied, 'there is Turkey and the Island of Crete.'"
Was it but a dream, or is there anything in the above vision? Who knows!
——
Notes
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。