九 先生
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
九
（译自孟加拉语）
1889年8月17日
亲爱的先生：
您在上封来信中因我对您使用敬语而感到不安。但过错不在于我，而在于您自身的卓越品德。我在之前的信中曾写道，从我被您崇高品德所吸引的感受来看，我们似乎前世便有缘分。在此事上，我不分在家人与游方僧——无论何时何处，只要我见到伟大、宽宏和圣洁，我便要低头致敬——平安！平安！平安！我的祈愿是：在当今众多出家为僧之人中，那些贪图名声、以弃世之名谋生、两头落空之辈，但愿十万人中至少能出一位如您这般高尚的灵魂！我的婆罗门师兄弟们听闻了您的崇高品德，都向您致以最诚挚的顶礼。
关于我向您提出的数个问题中的一个，您的回复纠正了我的错误认识。为此我将永远感激于您。另一个问题是：商羯罗阿阇梨是否就《摩诃婆罗多》等往世书中所述的以德性（Guna）为基础的种姓问题给出过任何结论？如果有，出处何在？我毫不怀疑，按照本国古代的观点，种姓是世袭的，同样也不可否认，首陀罗有时所受的压迫甚至超过了斯巴达人中的黑劳士和美国人中的黑人！就我本人而言，在种姓问题上不偏向任何一方，因为我知道这是一种社会法则，以德性和业力的差异为基础。如果一个致力于超越德性和业力的人心中还存有种姓分别，那也会造成严重的伤害。在这些问题上，蒙吾师恩泽，我已形成了一些确定的见解；但若能得知您的看法，或可印证其中某些观点，或可修正另一些。不捅蜂巢，蜂蜜不会自己流出——所以我还要向您提出更多问题；请将我视为无知少年，不要见怪，赐以恰当的回答。
一、《梵经》所说的解脱（Mukti），与《离尘歌》及其他经典所说的涅槃，是否为同一事物？
二、如果按照经文"无创造等功能"（同上，第四卷第四篇第七节）所言，无人能证得圆满的神性，那么涅槃的真正含义究竟是什么？
三、据说柴坦尼亚·提婆曾在普里对萨尔瓦博摩说："我理解毗耶娑的经（梵经），它们是二元论的；但注释者将它们解为一元论，这我不能理解。"此说是否属实？传说柴坦尼亚·提婆曾就此与普罗迦尚南达·萨罗斯瓦蒂辩论，柴坦尼亚·提婆获胜。据传，柴坦尼亚·提婆的一部注释曾存于普罗迦尚南达的道场中。
四、在密宗中，商羯罗阿阇梨被称为隐秘的佛教徒；佛教大乘典籍《般若波罗蜜多经》中所表达的观点，与阿阇梨所阐述的吠檀多观点完全一致。《十五章论》的作者也说："我们所称的梵，与佛教徒的空是同一真理。"这一切意味着什么？
五、在《梵经》中，为何未为吠陀的权威性提供任何根据？先是说吠陀是证明神存在的权威，然后又论证说吠陀的权威来自经文："它是神的气息。"那么，按照西方逻辑所说的循环论证，这一论述岂非有此弊病？
六、吠檀多要求我们信仰，因为仅凭推理论证无法达到确定性。那么，为何一旦在数论派和正理派的立论中发现丝毫瑕疵，便施以猛烈的辩证炮火？而且，我们该信赖谁呢？人人似乎都在疯狂地确立自己的观点；如果按照毗耶娑所说，即使伟大的牟尼迦毗罗——"圆满灵魂中最伟大者"——自身也深陷谬误之中，那么谁能保证毗耶娑本人不会更深地陷入谬误？难道迦毗罗未能理解吠陀吗？
七、按照正理派的说法，"圣言即吠陀（真理的标准），乃证悟至高者之言"；因此仙人们作为仙人是全知的。但按照《太阳悉檀多》的论证，他们竟然对如此简单的天文学事实一无所知，这又如何解释？既然他们说大地是三角形的、蛇王婆薮吉是大地的支撑等等，我们怎能接受他们的智慧作为渡过轮回苦海的依怙？
八、如果神在其创造行为中受制于善恶之业，那么崇拜他又有什么用？纳雷什钱德拉有一首好诗，其中写道："如果命中注定之事无论如何都会发生，母亲啊，那么口念杜尔迦圣名又有什么用呢？"
九、诚然，在同一主题上，不应以一两条经文来否定众多经文。但那么，为何以"马祭、牛祭、出家、祖先祭中的肉供"等一两条经文，就废除了蜜供等长期延续的习俗呢？如果吠陀是永恒的，那么"此法则适用于二分时代""此法则适用于争斗时代"等说法的意义和依据又何在？
十、同一位神颁布了吠陀，又化身为佛陀来废除吠陀；这两种教令该遵从哪一个？先前的还是后来的，哪一个具有权威？
十一、密宗说，在争斗时代，吠陀真言已无效力。那么，湿婆之神的哪一道旨令才应遵从？
十二、毗耶娑在《梵经》中指出，崇拜四相显现——婆薮天、桑卡尔尚纳等——是错误的，然而同一位毗耶娑又在《薄伽梵往世书》中大力赞颂这种崇拜的殊胜功德！这位毗耶娑难道是个疯子吗？
除此之外，我还有许多疑问，期望蒙您慈悲为我破除心中迷惑，日后再一一呈上。这些问题不是在书信中所能尽述的，也无法获得所期望的充分满足。所以我打算在面见您时将这些问题一一陈述，我期望在不久之后，蒙吾师恩泽，即可成行。
我曾听人说，若无宗教修行上的内在进步，仅凭推理论证不可能在这些问题上达到真正的结论；但在起步之时，至少获得某种程度的满足似乎还是必要的。
此致
辨喜
English
IX
(Translated from Bengali)
17th Aug., 1889.
DEAR SIR,
You have expressed embarrassment in your last favour for being addressed reverentially. But the blame attaches not to me but to your own excellent qualities. I wrote in one letter before that from the way I feel attracted by your lofty virtues, it seems we had some affinity from previous births. I make no distinction as to householder or Sannyasin in this, that for all time my head shall bend low in reverence wherever I see greatness, broadness of heart, and holiness—Shântih! Shântih! Shântih! My prayer is that among the many people embracing Sannyâsa nowadays, greedy of honour, posing renunciation for the sake of a living, and fallen off from the ideal on both sides, may one in a lakh at least become high-souled like you! To you my Brahmin fellow-disciples who have heard of your noble virtues tender their best prostrations.
About one amongst my several questions to which you sent your replies, my wrong idea is corrected. For this I shall remain indebted to you for ever. Another of these questions was: Whether Acharya Shankara gives any conclusion regarding caste based on Gunas as mentioned in Puranâs like the Mahabharata. If he does, where is it to be found? I have no doubt that according to the ancient view in this country, caste was hereditary, and it cannot also be doubted that sometimes the Shudras used to be oppressed more than the helots among the Spartans and the negroes among the Americans! As for myself, I have no partiality for any party in this caste question, because I know it is a social law and is based on diversity of Guna and Karma. It also means grave harm if one bent on going beyond Guna and Karma cherishes in mind any caste distinctions. In these matters, I have got some settled ideas through the grace of my Guru but, if I come to know of your views, I may just confirm some points or rectify others in them. One doesn't have honey dripping unless one pokes at the hive—so I shall put you some more questions; and looking upon me as ignorant and as a boy, please give proper replies without taking any offence.
1. Is the Mukti, which the Vedanta-Sutras speaks of, one and the same with the Nirvana of the Avadhuta-Gitâ and other texts?
2. What is really meant by Nirvana if, according to the aphorism, "Without the function of creating etc." (ibid., IV. iv. 7), none can attain to the fullest Godhead?
3. Chaitanya-deva is said to have told Sârvabhauma at Puri, "I understand the Sutras (aphorisms) of Vyasa, they are dualistic; but the commentator makes them, monistic, which I don't understand." Is this true? Tradition says, Chaitanya-deva had a dispute with Prakashananda Sarasvati on the point, and Chaitanya-deva won. One commentary by Chaitanya-deva was rumoured to have been existing in Prakashananda's Math.
4. In the Tantra, Acharya Shankara has been called a crypto-Buddhist; views expressed in Prajnâparamitâ, the Buddhist Mâhâyana book, perfectly tally with the Vedantic views propounded by the Acharya. The author of Panchadashi also says, "What we call Brahman is the same truth as the Shunya of the Buddhist." What does all this mean?
5. Why has no foundation for the authority of the Vedas been adduced in the Vedanta-Satras? First, it has been said that the Vedas are the authority for the existence of God, and then it has been argued that the authority for the Vedas is the text: "It is the breath of God." Now, is this statement not vitiated by what in Western logic is called an argument in a circle?
6. The Vedanta requires of us faith, for conclusiveness cannot be reached by mere argumentation. Then why, has the slightest flaw, detected in the position of the schools of Sânkhya and Nyâya, been overwhelmed with a fusillade of dialectics? In whom, moreover, are we to put our faith? Everybody seems to be mad over establishing his own view; if, according to Vyasa, even the great Muni Kapila, "the greatest among perfected souls", is himself deeply involved in error, then who would say that Vyasa may not be so involved in a greater measure? Did Kapila fail to understand the Vedas?
7. According to the Nyaya, "Shabda or Veda (the criterion of truth), is the word of those who have realised the highest"; so the Rishis as such are omniscient. Then how are they proved, according to the Surya-siddhânta, to be ignorant of such simple astronomical truths? How can we accept their intelligence as the refuge to ferry us across the ocean of transmigratory existence, seeing that they speak of the earth as triangular, of the serpent Vâsuki as the support of the earth and so on?
8. If in His acts of creation God is dependent on good and evil Karmas, then what does it avail us to worship Him? There is a fine song of Nareshchandra, where occurs the following: "If what lies in one's destiny is to happen anyhow, O Mother, then what good all this invoking by the holy name of Durgâ?"
9. True, it is improper to hold many texts on the same subject to be contradicted by one or two. But why then are the long-continued customs of Madhuparka and the like repealed by one or two such texts as, "The horse sacrifice, the cow sacrifice, Sannyasa, meat-offerings in Shrâddha", etc.? If the Vedas are eternal, then what are the meaning and justification of such specifications as "this rule of Dharma is for the age of Dvâpara," "this for the age of Kali", and so forth?
10. The same God who gives out the Vedas becomes Buddha again to annul them; which of these dispensations is to be obeyed? Which of these remains authoritative, the earlier or the later one?
11. The Tantra says, in the Kali-Yuga the Veda-Mantras are futile. So which behest of God, the Shiva, is to be followed?
12. Vyasa makes out in the Vedanta-Sutras that it is wrong to worship the tetrad of divine manifestation, Vâsudeva, Sankarshana, etc., and again that very Vyasa expatiates on the great merits of that worship in the Bhâgavata! Is this Vyasa a madman?
I have many doubts besides these, and, hoping to have them dispelled from my mind through your kindness, I shall lay them before you in future. Such questions cannot be all set forth except in a personal interview; neither can as much satisfaction be obtained as one expects to. So I have a mind to lay before you all these facts when presenting myself to you, which I expect will be very soon, by the grace of the Guru.
I have heard it said that without inner progress in the practice of religion, no true conclusion can be reached concerning these matters, simply by means of reasoning; but satisfaction, at least to some extent, seems to be necessary at the outset.
Yours etc.,
Vivekananda.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。