七月十七日，星期三
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
（由弟子S·E·沃尔多小姐记录）
一八九五年七月十七日，星期三。
罗摩奴阇将宇宙分为"有情"（Chit）、"无情"（Achit）与"自在天"（Ishvara）——即人、自然与神；亦即有意识者、潜意识者与超意识者。商羯罗则持相反之见，认为有情即灵魂，与神无二无别。神即真理，即知识，即无限——此非属性之谓。一切关于神的思想皆属限定，凡能言说于神者，唯"唵·彼·实"（Om tat sat）而已。
商羯罗进而追问：你能否将"存在"从万物中孤立而观之？两个对象之间的差异究竟在何处？并非在感官知觉之中，否则一切于知觉中当归为一。我们必须依次序而感知。在获得关于某物之知识的同时，我们亦获得了某些"非此物"之知识。差异存于记忆之中，乃通过与记忆所储之物相比较而得。差异并非事物的本性，而在于心智。同质之一在外，差异在内（在心中）；因此，"多"之观念乃心智之造作。
当差异虽各自分离却共存于同一对象时，便成为"属性"。我们无法从正面断言差异究竟为何。我们对事物所见所感者，纯然是存在，是"如其所是"。其余一切皆在我们之内。"存在"是我们对任何事物所拥有的唯一正面证明。一切差异实为"次等实在"，犹如绳中之蛇——因为那蛇亦具有某种实在性，毕竟确有某物被看见，只是被误认了。当关于绳的知识变为否定时，关于蛇的知识便变为肯定，反之亦然；但你仅见其一，并不能证明另一者不存在。世界之观念乃遮蔽神之观念的障碍，当予以去除，然而世界确有其存在。
商羯罗又言，知觉是存在的最终证明。知觉乃自明、自觉者，因为即便超越感官，我们仍需知觉。知觉独立于感官，独立于一切工具，乃无条件者。无意识则无知觉；知觉具有自明性，此自明性在较低程度上被称为意识。没有任何一个知觉行为是无意识的；实际上，意识即是知觉的本性。存在与知觉是一，而非二者之结合。凡无限者，如是——故知觉既为最终者，即为永恒者。知觉始终是主观的，是自身的知觉者。知觉并非"有"：知觉引出心智。知觉是绝对的，是唯一的知者，故知觉实为真我（Atman）。知觉自身即在感知，但真我不可能是"知者"，因为"知者"是通过知识的作用才成为知者的；然而商羯罗说："此真我非'我'"，因为"我是"（Aham）之意识并不在真我之中。我们不过是真我之映像；而真我与梵，本为一体。
当你谈论和思维绝对者时，你不得不在相对中进行；因此，一切逻辑论证皆适用于此。在瑜伽中，知觉与证悟合而为一。限定不二论/Vishishtadvaita——罗摩奴阇为其宗师——见部分之统一，乃通向不二/Advaita之阶梯。"限定"意为差异。原质（Prakriti）乃世界之本性，变化加诸其上。变易之思想以变易之言辞表达，永远无法证明绝对者。你所达到的不过是某种减去了若干属性之物，而非梵本身；不过是语言上的统一，最高的抽象，而非相对之不存在。
English
(RECORDED BY MISS S. E. WALDO, A DISCIPLE)
WEDNESDAY, July 17, 1895.
Râmânuja divides the universe into Chit, Achit, and Ishvara — man, nature, and God; conscious, subconscious, and superconscious. Shankara, on the contrary, says that Chit, the soul, is the same as God. God is truth, is knowledge, is infinity; these are not qualities. Any thought of God is a qualification, and all that can be said of Him is "Om tat sat".
Shankara further asks, can you see existence separate from everything else? Where is the differentiation between two objects? Not in sense-perception, else all would be one in it. We have to perceive in sequence. In getting knowledge of what a thing is, we get also something which it is not. The differentiae are in the memory and are got by comparison with what is stored there. Difference is not in the nature of a thing, it is in the brain. Homogeneous one is outside, differentiae are inside (in the mind); so the idea of "many" is the creation of the mind.
Differentiae become qualities when they are separate but joined in one object. We cannot say positively what differentiation is. All that we see and feel about things is pure and simple existence, "isness". All else is in us. Being is the only positive proof we have of anything. All differentiation is really "secondary reality", as the snake in the rope, because the serpent, too, had a certain reality, in that something was seen although misapprehended. When the knowledge of the rope becomes negative, the knowledge of the snake becomes positive, and vice versa; but the fact that you see only one does not prove that the other is non-existent. The idea of the world is an obstruction covering the idea of God and is to be removed, but it does have an existence.
Shankara says again, perception is the last proof of existence. It is self-effulgent and self-conscious, because to go beyond the senses we should still need perception. Perception is independent of the senses, of all instruments, unconditioned. There can be no perception without consciousness; perception has self-luminosity, which in a lesser degree is called consciousness. Not one act of perception can be unconscious; in fact, consciousness is the nature of perception. Existence and perception are one thing, not two things joined together. That which is infinite; so, as perception is the last it is eternal. It is always subjective; is its own perceiver. Perception is not: perception brings mind. It is absolute, the only knower, so perception is really the Atman. Perception itself perceives, but the Atman cannot be a knower, because a "knower" becomes such by the action of knowledge; but, Shankara says, "This Atman is not I", because the consciousness "I am" (Aham) is not in the Atman. We are but the reflections of that Atman; and Atman and Brahman are one.
When you talk and think of the Absolute, you have to do it in the relative; so all these logical arguments apply. In Yoga, perception and realisation are one. Vishishtâdvaita, of which Ramanuja is the exponent, is seeing partial unity and is a step toward Advaita. Vishishta means differentiation. Prakriti is the nature of the world, and change comes upon it. Changeful thoughts expressed in changeful words can never prove the Absolute. You reach only something that is minus certain qualities, not Brahman Itself; only a verbal unification, the highest abstraction, but not the nonexistence of the relative.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。