宗教的本质
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
在法国，"人权"长久以来是民族的口号；在美国，女权仍在恳求公众的倾听；在印度，我们所关心的始终是神的权利。 吠檀多包容一切宗派。在印度我们有一个独特的观念。假设我有一个孩子，我不会教他任何宗教，而只教他专注心神的修行——以及一句祈祷文——不是你们所理解的那种祈祷，而是这样的："我冥想那创造宇宙之主，愿他启明我的心智。"然后，当他长大到一定年龄，便四处聆听各种不同的哲学与教导，直到他找到在他看来是真理的那个。他于是成为教授此真理之导师（Guru）的弟子（Shishya）。他可以选择崇拜基督、佛陀或穆罕默德：我们承认其中每一位的权利，也承认一切灵魂选择自己本尊（Ishta）或自选之道的权利。因此，我的儿子完全可能是佛教徒，我的妻子可能是基督徒，而我自己可能是伊斯兰教徒——在同一时间内，彼此绝无摩擦。
我们都乐于记住，条条大路通向神；世界的改革并不取决于所有人都通过我们的眼睛来看神。我们的根本理念是：你的教义不能成为我的，我的也不能成为你的。我即是我自己的宗派。诚然，我们在印度创建了一套我们认为是现存唯一合理的宗教体系；但我们对其合理性的信心，建立在它对一切求神者的全面包容之上；建立在它对一切崇拜形式的绝对宽容之上；建立在它对那些趋向宇宙中神之进化的理念的永恒接纳之上。我们承认我们体系的不完善，因为实相必在一切体系之外；而在这种承认中，蕴含着永恒成长的征兆与应许。宗派、仪式和经典，只要它们是一个人实现自身本性的手段，便都是正确的；当他实现了那一点，他便放弃一切。"我拒斥吠陀！"——这是吠檀多哲学的最后之言。仪轨、赞歌和经文——他曾藉此旅行到达自由——对他而言已然消失。"我即是他，我即是他"（So'ham, So'ham）——从他唇间迸出，而对神说"你"便是亵渎，因为他与"父"合一了。
就个人而言，我只取吠陀中合乎理性的部分。吠陀的某些部分表面上是矛盾的。它们并不被视为西方意义上的"神启"，而被视为我们所拥有的关于神——全知——的知识之总和。但若说唯有我们所称为吠陀的那些经典才包含这种知识，则不过是诡辩。我们知道，各宗派的经典也在不同程度上分有这种知识。摩奴说，吠陀中唯有合乎理性的部分才是吠陀；我们的许多哲学家也持此观点。在世界一切经典中，唯有吠陀宣称对吠陀的研习是次要的。
真正的研习是"借以证悟那不变者"的研习，而那既非通过阅读，亦非通过信仰，亦非通过推理，而是通过超意识的感知与三摩地。当一个人达到那种完美的境界时，他便与人格神具有同一本性："我与父原为一体。"他知道自己与梵——绝对者——为一，并如人格神般投射自身。人格神是透过摩耶——无明——之雾霭所看到的绝对者。
当我们以五种感官接近他时，我们只能将他看作人格神。这个理念是：真我不能被客体化。认知者如何认知自身？但他可以投射一个影子，而那种将自我客体化的最高形式，便是人格神。真我是永恒的主体，而我们永远在努力将那真我客体化，而从这种努力中便产生了宇宙的现象：即我们所称之为物质的东西。但这些都是微弱的尝试，而我们所能达到的对真我的最高客体化，便是人格神。 "一个诚实的神是人最高贵的作品"，你们西方的一位思想家如此说。神如人所是。没有人能不通过这些人性的显现而看见神。你尽可以谈论，尽可以尝试，你无法不把神当作人来思维；而你是什么样的，他便是什么样的。一个无知的人被要求制作湿婆神像，经过多日艰苦的努力，他只造成了一只猴子的像！因此，当我们试图如神在其绝对完美中那样来思维他时，我们遭遇了可悲的失败，因为我们是有限的，受制于我们当前的构造，只能把神当作人来看。假如水牛想要崇拜神，它们依其自身本性，必将把神看作一头巨大的水牛；假如一条鱼想要崇拜神，它对神的概念必然是一条大鱼；而人必须把神当作人来思维。假设人、水牛和鱼代表许多不同的容器；这些容器都去到神之海中盛水，各按其形状与容量。在人中，水取人的形状；在水牛中，取水牛的形状；在鱼中，取鱼的形状；但在每一个容器中，都是同一神之海的水。
有两种心灵不把神当作人来崇拜——没有宗教的粗野之人，和已经超越了自身人类本性局限的至上天鹅（Paramahamsa）。
对至上天鹅而言，一切自然已成为他自己的真我；唯有他能如神之所是来崇拜神。粗野之人不崇拜，是因为他的无知；而解脱者（Jivanmuktas，即活着便已自由的灵魂）不崇拜，是因为他们已在自身中证悟了神。"我即是他，我即是他"（So'ham, So'ham）——他们如此说；他们又怎能崇拜自己？
我给你们讲一个小故事。从前有一只小狮子，被它垂死的母亲遗留在一群绵羊中间。绵羊喂养它，给它庇护。小狮子很快长大，当绵羊"咩咩"叫时，它也"咩咩"叫。有一天，另一头狮子路过。"你在这里做什么？"第二头狮子惊讶地说，因为他听到那头绵羊狮子正和其他羊一起咩咩叫。"咩咩"，那头狮子说。"我是一只小绵羊，我是一只小绵羊，我很害怕。""胡说！"第一头狮子怒吼道，"跟我来，我让你看看。"他带它到一条平静的溪流旁边，让它看水中的倒影。"你是一头狮子；看看我，看看绵羊，再看看你自己。"那头绵羊狮子看了，然后它说："咩咩，我看起来确实不像绵羊——不错，我是一头狮子！"说着，它发出一声震撼群山深处的吼叫。
这就是了。我们是披着习惯这件绵羊外衣的狮子，被周围的环境催眠而变得软弱。而吠檀多的职责便是自我去催眠。所要到达的目标是自由。我不赞同自由即是服从自然法则这一观念。我不理解那是什么意思。根据人类进步的历史，正是对自然的不服从构成了这种进步。或许可以说，对低级法则的征服是通过更高级的法则来实现的，但即便如此，那征服的心灵仍在追寻自由；它一旦发现斗争是通过法则进行的，便又想征服那法则。因此理想始终是自由。树木从不违抗法则。我从未见过一头牛偷窃。一只牡蛎从未说过谎。然而它们并不比人更伟大。
对法则的服从，到了最终，将使我们仅仅变成物质——无论在社会中、在政治中，还是在宗教中。这生命是自由的巨大宣示；过多的法则意味着死亡。没有哪个民族拥有如印度教徒那么多的法则，其结果便是民族的死亡。但印度教徒有一个独特的理念——他们从未在宗教中制定任何教条或信条；而宗教因此获得了最大的成长。在此方面我们是务实的——而你们在此方面是不务实的——在我们的宗教上。
几个美国人聚在一起说："我们要成立一家股份公司"；五分钟之内便完成了。在印度，二十个人可能讨论一家股份公司讨论上同样多的星期，公司仍可能成立不了；但如果一个人相信将双手举在空中四十年便能获得智慧，这件事就会做到！因此我们在我们的方式上是务实的，你们在你们的方式上是务实的。
但一切道路中通往证悟的最佳之道是爱。当一个人爱主时，整个宇宙对他都变得可爱，因为一切都是主的。"万物皆属于他，而他是我的爱人；我爱他"，虔信者如此说。这样，一切对虔信者都变得神圣，因为万物都是他的。那么，我们怎能伤害任何人？那么，我们怎能不爱他人？随着对神之爱的到来，其结果是——从长远来看——对所有人的爱也将到来。我们越接近神，便越开始看到万物皆安住于他之中，我们的心将成为爱的不竭源泉。人在这爱之光的面前得到转化，并最终证悟了那美丽而振奋的真理：爱、爱者与被爱者实为一体。
English
In France the "rights of man" was long a watchword of the race; in America the rights of women still beseech the public ear; in India we have concerned ourselves always with the rights of Gods. The Vedanta includes all sects. We have a peculiar idea in India. Suppose I had a child; I should not teach him any religion, but the practice of concentrating his mind; and just one line of prayer -- not prayer in your sense, but this: "I meditate on Him who is the Creator of the universe; may He enlighten my mind." Then, when old enough, he goes about hearing the different philosophies and teachings, till he finds that which seems the truth to him. He then becomes the Shishya or disciple of the Guru (teacher) who is teaching this truth. He may choose to worship Christ or Buddha or Mohammed: we recognise the rights of each of these, and the right of all souls to their own Ishta or chosen way. It is, therefore, quite possible for my son to be a Buddhist, my wife to be a Christian, and myself a Mohammedan at one and the same time with absolute freedom from friction.
We are all glad to remember that all roads lead to God; and that the reformation of the world does not depend upon all seeing God through our eyes. Our fundamental idea is that your doctrine cannot be mine, nor mine yours. I am my own sect. It is true that we have created a system of religion in India which we believe to be the only rational religious system extant; but our belief in its rationality rests upon its all - inclusion of the searchers after God; its absolute charity towards all forms of worship, and its eternal receptivity of those ideas trending towards the evolution of God in the universe. We admit the imperfection of our system, because the reality must be beyond all system; and in this admission lies the portent and promise of an eternal growth. Sects, ceremonies, and books, so far as they are the means of a man's realising his own nature, are all right; when he has realised that, he gives up everything. "I reject the Vedas!" is the last word of the Vedanta philosophy. Ritual, hymns, and scriptures, through which he has travelled to freedom, vanish for him. "So'ham, So'ham"-- i am He, I am He -- bursts from his lips, and to say "Thou" to God is blasphemy, for he is "one with the Father".
Personally, I take as much of the Vedas as agree with reason. Parts of the Vedas are apparently contradictory. They are not considered as inspired in the Western sense of the word, but as the sum total of the knowledge of God, omniscience, which we possess. But to say that only those books which we call the Vedas contain this knowledge is mere sophistry. We know it is shared in varying degrees by the scriptures of all sects. Manu says, that part only of the Vedas which agrees with reason is Vedas; and many of our philosophers have taken this view. Of all the scriptures of the world, it is the Vedas alone which declare that the study of the Vedas is secondary.
The real study is that "by which we realise the Unchangeable", and that is neither by reading, nor believing, nor reasoning, but by superconscious perception and Samadhi. When a man has reached that perfect state, he is of the same nature as the Personal God: "I and my Father are one." He knows himself one with Brahman, the Absolute, and projects himself as does the Personal God. The Personal God is the Absolute looked at through the haze of Maya -- ignorance.
When we approach Him with the five senses, we can only see Him as the Personal God. The idea is that the Self cannot be objectified. How can the knower know himself? But he can cast a shadow, as it were, and the highest form of that shadow, that attempt of objectifying one's Self is the Personal God. The Self is the eternal subject, and we are eternally struggling to objectify that Self, and out of that struggle has come this phenomenon of the universe: that which we call matter. But these are weak attempts, and the highest objectification of the Self, possible to us, is the Personal God. "An honest God's the noblest work of man", said one of your Western thinkers. God is as man is. No man can see God but through these human manifestations. Talk as you may, try as you may, you cannot think of God but as a man; and as you are, He is. An ignorant man was asked to make an image of the God Shiva; and after many days of hard struggle he succeeded only in manufacturing the image of a monkey! So, when we try to think of God as He is in His absolute perfection, we meet with miserable failure, because we are limited and bound by our present constitution to see God as man. If the buffaloes desire to worship God, they, in keeping with their own nature, will see Him as a huge buffalo; if a fish wishes to worship God, its concept of Him would inevitably be a big fish; and man must think of Him as man. Suppose man, the buffalo, and the fish represent so many different vessels; that these vessels all go to the sea of God to be filled, each according to its shape and capacity. In man the water takes the shape of man; in the buffalo the shape of the buffalo; and in the fish the shape of the fish; but in each of these vessels is the same water of the sea of God.
Two kinds of mind do not worship God as man -- the human brute who has no religion, and the Paramahamsa who has transcended the limits of his own human nature.
To him all nature has become his own Self; he alone can worship God as He is. The human brute does not worship because of his ignorance, and the Jivanmuktas (free souls) do not worship because they have realised God in themselves. "So'ham, So'ham"-- i am He, I am He -- they say; and how shall they worship themselves?
I will tell you a little story. There was once a baby lion left by its dying mother among some sheep. The sheep fed it and gave it shelter. The lion grew apace and said "Ba - a - a" when the sheep said "Ba - a - a". One day another lion came by. "What do you do here?" said the second lion in astonishment: for he heard the sheep - lion bleating with the rest. "Ba - a - a," said the other. "I am a little sheep, I am a little sheep, I am frightened." "Nonsense!" roared the first lion, "come with me; I will show you." And he took him to the side of a smooth stream and showed him that which was reflected therein. "You are a lion; look at me, look at the sheep, look at yourself." And the sheep - lion looked, and then he said, "Ba - a - a, I do not look like the sheep -- it is true, I am a lion!" and with that he roared a roar that shook the hills to their depths.
That is it. We are lions in sheep's clothing of habit, we are hypnotised into weakness by our surroundings. And the province of Vedanta is the self - dehypnotisation. The goal to be reached is freedom. I disagree with the idea that freedom is obedience to the laws of nature. I do not understand what that means. According to the history of human progress, it is disobedience to nature that has constituted that progress. It may be said that the conquest of lower laws was through the higher, but even there the conquering mind was still seeking freedom; as soon as it found the struggle was through law, it wished to conquer that also. So the ideal is always freedom. The trees never disobey law. I never saw a cow steal. An oyster never told a lie. Yet these are not greater than man.
Obedience to law, in the last issue, would make of us simply matter -- either in society, or in politics, or religion. This life is a tremendous assertion of freedom; excess of laws means death. No nation possesses so many laws as the Hindus, and the result is the national death. But the Hindus had one peculiar idea -- they never made any doctrines or dogmas in religion; and the latter has had the greatest growth. Therein are we practical -- wherein you are impractical -- in our religion.
A few men come together in America and say, "We will have a stock company"; in five minutes it is done. In India twenty men may discuss a stock company for as many weeks, and it may not be formed; but if one believes that by holding up his hands in air for forty years he will attain wisdom, it will be done! So we are practical in ours, you in your way.
But the way of all ways to realisation is love. When one loves the Lord, the whole universe becomes dear to one, because it is all His. "Everything is His, and He is my Lover; I love Him", says the Bhakta. In this way everything becomes sacred to the Bhakta, because all things are His. How, then, may we hurt any one? How, then, may we not love another? With the love of God will come, as its effect, the love of every one in the long run. The nearer we approach God, the more do we begin to see that all things abide in Him, our heart will become a perennial fountain of love. Man is transformed in the presence of this Light of Love and realises at last the beautiful and inspiring truth that Love, Lover, and the Beloved are really one.
文本来自Wikisource公共领域。原版由阿德瓦伊塔修道院出版。