出家人与在家人
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
游方僧与在家人
世俗之人不应对游方僧（Sannyasin）的事务指手画脚。游方僧不应与富人有任何瓜葛，他的职责在于穷人。他应当以慈爱之心关怀穷人，全力以赴地欢喜为他们服务。向富人献殷勤、依附富人以求供养，一直是我国一切游方僧团体的祸根。一位真正的游方僧应当严格避免此等行为。这种行为与其说像一位宣称已弃绝尘世之人，不如说更像一个卖笑求生之辈。一个沉溺于欲贪（Kama-Kanchana，色欲与贪财）之中的人，怎能成为一位以弃绝欲贪为核心理念之人的信徒呢？室利罗摩克里希纳（Ramakrishna）曾哭泣着向神圣母亲祈祷，求她赐给他一位没有丝毫欲贪气息的人来与之交谈；因为他常说："与世俗之人交谈，我的嘴唇都在灼烧。"他还常说，他甚至无法忍受世俗之人和不洁之人的触碰。这位游方僧之王（室利罗摩克里希纳）绝不可能由世俗之人来弘扬。后者永远不可能做到完全真诚；因为他不可能没有某些自私的动机要去达成。如果薄伽梵（Bhagavan，即神）化身为一个在家人，我绝不会相信他是真诚的。当一个在家人担当了一个宗教派别的领袖时，他便开始假借原则之名谋取私利，将前者伪装在后者的外衣之下，结果便是这个教派从根上腐烂了。所有由在家人领导的宗教运动都落得同样的下场。没有弃绝，宗教便无法立足。
在此，斯瓦米吉被问道——作为游方僧，我们应当如何理解弃绝财富（Kanchana）？他如下回答：
为了达到某些目的，我们必须采取某些手段。这些手段随时间、地点、个人等条件的不同而各异；但目的始终不变。对于游方僧而言，目的就是自我的解脱（Moksha）以及利益人类——"为自身解脱，为世间利益"；而在达成此目的的诸多途径中，弃绝欲贪是最重要的。请记住，弃绝在于一切自私动机的彻底消除，而非仅仅是外在接触的回避，比如避免触碰自己寄存在他人处的金钱，同时却享受着它所带来的一切好处。那算得上弃绝吗？为了实现上述两个目的，在在家人严格遵守摩奴（Manu）及其他立法者的教令、每天从餐食中分出一部分留给苦行者的时代，托钵乞食对游方僧来说是极大的助益。如今情况已大为不同，尤其是在孟加拉这样的地方，摩度迦利（Madhukari）制度并不盛行。在这里，试图靠摩度迦利生活只是白费力气，你不会从中获得任何益处。托钵乞食（Bhiksha）的教令是服务于上述两个目的的手段，而如今这种方式已无法达成此目的。因此，在这样的情况下，如果一位游方僧只为最基本的生活所需作些准备，并将全部精力投入到他出家所要达成的目的之上，这并不违背弃绝的原则。无知地过分执着于手段会造成混乱。目的永远不应被忽视。
笔记
English
THE SANNYASIN AND THE HOUSEHOLDER
The men of the world should have no voice in the affairs of the Sannyâsins. The Sannyasin should have nothing to do with the rich, his duty is with the poor. He should treat the poor with loving care and serve them joyfully with all his might. To pay respects to the rich and hang on them for support has been the bane of all the Sannyasin communities of our country. A true Sannyasin should scrupulously avoid that. Such conduct becomes a public woman rather than one who professes to have renounced the world. How should a man immersed in Kâma-Kânchana (lust and greed) become a devotee of one whose central ideal is the renunciation of Kama-Kanchana? Shri Ramakrishna wept and prayed to the Divine Mother to send him such a one to talk with as would not have in him the slightest tinge of Kama-Kanchana; for he would say, "My lips burn when I talk with the worldly-minded." He also used to say that he could not even bear the touch of the worldly-minded and the impure. That King of Sannyasins (Shri Ramakrishna) can never be preached by men of the world. The latter can never be perfectly sincere; for he cannot but have some selfish motives to serve. If Bhagavân (God) incarnates Himself as a householder, I can never believe Him to be sincere. When a householder takes the position of the leader of a religious sect, he begins to serve his own interests in the name of principle, hiding the former in the garb of the latter, and the result is the sect becomes rotten to the core. All religious movements headed by householders have shared the same fate. Without renunciation religion can never stand.
Here Swamiji was asked — What are we Sannyasins to understand by renunciation of Kanchana (wealth)? He answered as follows:
With a view to certain ends we have to adopt certain means. These means vary according to the conditions of time, place, individual, etc.; but the end always remains unaltered. In the case of the Sannyasin, the end is the liberation of the Self and doing good to humanity — "आत्मनो मोक्षार्थं जगद्धिताय च"; and of the ways to attain it, the renunciation of Kama-Kanchana is the most important. Remember, renunciation consists in the total absence of all selfish motives and not in mere abstinence from external contact, such as avoiding to touch one's money kept with another at the same time enjoying all its benefits. Would that be renunciation? For accomplishing the two above-mentioned ends, the begging excursion would be a great help to a Sannyasin at a time when the householders strictly obeyed the injunctions of Manu and other law-givers, by setting apart every day a portion of their meal for ascetic guests. Nowadays things have changed considerably, especially, as in Bengal, where no Mâdhukari system prevails. Here it would be mere waste of energy to try to live on Madhukari, and you would profit nothing by it. The injunction of Bhikshâ (begging) is a means to serve the above two ends, which will not be served by that way now. It does not, therefore, go against the principle of renunciation under such circumstances if a Sannyasin provides for mere necessaries of life and devotes all his energy to the accomplishment of his ends for which he took Sannyasa. Attaching too much importance ignorantly to the means brings confusion. The end should never be lost sight of.
Notes
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。