八 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
八
一切荣耀归于神！
1889年8月7日
亲爱的先生：
收到您的来信已逾一周，但因再度发热，一直未能回复，敬请见谅。有一个半月的间隔我身体尚好，但过去十天又受了苦；现在已有好转。
我有若干问题想请教，先生您梵文学识渊博，烦请赐答以下各问：
一、关于杰跋罗之子萨蒂亚迦摩和阇那修路提的故事，在吠陀中除了奥义书之外，是否还有其他记载？
二、在商羯罗阿阇梨注释《梵经》时引用传承经典之处，他多援引《摩诃婆罗多》之权威。但鉴于我们在《摩诃婆罗多》的《毗湿摩篇》以及其中阿阇伽罗的故事和乌摩与大自在天的故事中，都能找到种姓以资质为基础的明确证据，他在其著作中是否提及过这一事实？
三、吠陀《原人歌》中的种姓学说并未将种姓定为世袭——那么吠陀中有哪些例证将种姓定为世袭传承？
四、阿阇梨未能从吠陀中举出首陀罗不应学习吠陀的任何证据。他仅引用"यज्ञेऽनवक्लृप्तः"（《泰帝利耶本集》第七卷第一篇第一节第六段）来论证：既然首陀罗无权执行祭祀，那么他也无权研习奥义书等。然而，同一位阿阇梨在注释"अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा"（《梵经》第一卷第一篇第一节）时又主张："अथ"（此后）一词在此并非意指"研习吠陀之后"，因为认为不先研习吠陀真言和梵书部分就不能研习奥义书，这与事实相悖；而且吠陀的事业篇和智慧篇之间也没有内在的先后次序。因此显而易见，不必先研习吠陀的仪轨部分，也可以证得梵的知识。既然祭祀修行与智慧之间并无先后次序，那么当涉及首陀罗时，阿阇梨为何要插入"依同理可推"这一限定语来否定自己先前的论述呢？首陀罗为何不能研习奥义书？
我正寄给您一本名为《效法基督》的书，作者是一位基督教的游方僧。这是一本奇书。令人惊叹的是，如此高度的离欲（Vairāgya）和仆从虔信（Dāsya-Bhakti）竟然在基督教徒中也有存在。您可能以前已经读过此书；若未曾读过，您若肯赐览，将使我无比欣慰。
此致
辨喜
English
VIII
All Glory to God!
7th Aug., 1889.
DEAR SIR,
It is more than a week since I received your letter, but having had another attack of fever, I could not send a reply all this time, for which please excuse me. For an interval of a month and a half I kept well, but I have suffered again for the last ten days; now I am doing well.
I have certain questions to put, and you, sir, have a wide knowledge of Sanskrit; so please favour me with answers to the following:
1. Does any narrative occur about Satyakâma, son of Jabâlâ, and about Jânashruti, anywhere else in the Vedas excepting the Upanishads?
2. In most cases where Shankaracharya quotes Smriti in his commentary on the Vedânta-Sutras, he cites the authority of the Mahâbhârata. But seeing that we find clear proofs about caste being based on qualification both in the Bhishmaparva of the Mahabharata and in the stories there of the Ajagara and of Umâ and Maheshvara, has he made any mention in his writings of this fact?
3. The doctrine of caste in the Purusha-Sukta of the Vedas does not make it hereditary—so what are those instances in the Vedas where caste has been made a matter of hereditary transmission?
4. The Achârya could not adduce any proof from the Vedas to the effect that the Shudra should not study the Vedas. He only quotes "यज्ञेऽनवक्लृप्तः" (Tai. Samhita, VII. i. 1. 6) to maintain that when he is not entitled to perform Yajnas, he has neither any right to study the Upanishads and the like. But the same Acharya contends with reference to "अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा", (Vedânta-Sutras, I. i. 1) that the word अथ (Ath) here does not mean "subsequent to the study of the Vedas", because it is contrary to proof that the study of the Upanishad is not permissible without the previous study of the Vedic Mantras and Brâhmanas and because there is no intrinsic sequence between the Vedic Karma-kânda and Vedic Janâna-kânda. It is evident, therefore, that one may attain to the knowledge of Brahman without having studied the ceremonial parts of the Vedas. So if there is no sequence between the sacrificial practices and Jnana, why does the Acharya contradict his own statement when it is a case of the Shudras,by inserting the clause "by force of the same logic"? Why should the Shudra not study the Upanishad?
I am mailing you, sir, a book named Imitation of Christ written by a Christian Sannyasin. It is a wonderful book. One is astonished to find that such renunciation, Vairâgya, and Dâsya-Bhakti have existed even among the Christians. Probably you may have read this book before; if not, it will give me the greatest pleasure if you will kindly read it.
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。