pagan and christian creeds-第49章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


er　self…consciousness　is　crude；　no　doubt；　but　it　has　very　little　misgiving。　If　the　question　of　the　nature　of　the　Self　is　propounded　to　the　boy　as　a　problem　he　has　no　difficulty　in　solving　it。　He　says　〃I　know　well　enough　who　I　am：　I　am　the　boy　with　red　hair　what　gave　Jimmy　Brown　such　a　jolly　good　licking　last　Monday　week。〃　He　knows　well　enoughor　thinks　he　knowswho　he　is。　And　at　a　later　age；　though　his　definition　may　change　and　he　may　describe　himself　chiefly　as　a　good　cricketer　or　successful　in　certain　examinations；　his　method　is　practically　the　same。　He　fixes　his　mind　on　a　certain　bundle　of　qualities　and　capacities　which　he　is　supposed　to　possess；　and　calls　that　bundle　Himself。　And　in　a　more　elaborate　way　we　most　of　us；　I　imagine；　do　the　same。

Presently；　however；　with　more　careful　thought；　we　begin　to　see　difficulties　in　this　view。　I　see　that　directly　I　think　of　myself　　as　a　certain　bundle　of　qualitiesand　for　that　matter　it　is　of　no　account　whether　the　qualities　are　good　or　bad；　or　in　what　sort　of　charming　confusion　they　are　mixedI　see　at　once　that　I　am　merely　looking　at　a　bundle　of　qualities：　and　that　the　real　〃I；〃　the　Self；　is　not　that　bundle；　but　is　the　being　INSPECTING　the　samesomething　beyond　and　behind；　as　it　were。　So　I　now　concentrate　my　thoughts　upon　that　inner　Something；　in　order　to　find　out　what　it　really　is。　I　imagine　perhaps　an　inner　being；　of　'astral'　or　ethereal　nature；　and　possessing　a　new　range　of　much　finer　and　more　subtle　qualities　than　the　bodya　being　inhabiting　the　body　and　perceiving　through　its　senses；　but　quite　capable　of　surviving　the　tenement　in　which　it　dwells　and　I　think　of　that　as　the　Self。　But　no　sooner　have　I　taken　this　step　than　I　perceive　that　I　am　committing　the　same　mistake　as　before。　I　am　only　contemplating　a　new　image　or　picture；　and　〃I〃　still　remain　beyond　and　behind　that　which　I　contemplate。　No　sooner　do　I　turn　my　attention　on　the　subjective　being　than　it　becomes　OBJECTIVE；　and　the　real　subject　retires　into　the　background。　And　so　on　indefinitely。　I　am　baffled；　and　unable　to　say　positively　what　the　Self　is。

Meanwhile　there　are　people　who　look　upon　the　foregoing　speculations　about　an　interior　Self　as　merely　unpractical。　Being　perhaps　of　a　more　materialistic　type　of　mind　they　fix　their　attention　on　the　body。　Frankly　they　try　to　define　the　Self　by　the　body　and　all　that　is　connected　therewiththat　is　by　the　mental　as　well　as　corporeal　qualities　which　exhibit　themselves　in　that　connection；　and　they　say；　〃At　any　rate　the　Selfwhatever　it　may　beis　in　some　way　limited　by　the　body；　each　person　studies　the　interest　of　his　body　and　of　the　feelings；　emotions　and　mentality　directly　associated　with　it；　and　you　cannot　get　beyond　that；　it　isn't　in　human　nature　to　do　so。　The　Self　is　limited　by　this　corporeal　phenomenon　and　doubtless　it　perishes　when　the　body　perishes。〃　But　here　again　the　conclusion；　though　specious　at　first；　soon　appears　to　be　quite　inadequate。　For　though　it　is　possibly　true　that　a　man；　if　left　alone　in　a　Robinson　Crusoe　life　on　a　desert　island；　might　ultimately　subside　into　a　mere　gratification　of　his　corporeal　needs　and　of　those　mental　needs　which　were　directly　concerned　with　the　body；　yet　we　know　that　such　a　case　would　by　no　means　be　representative。　On　the　contrary　we　know　that　vast　numbers　of　people　spend　their　lives　in　considering　other　people；　and　often　so　far　as　to　sacrifice　their　own　bodily　and　mental　comfort　and　well…being。　The　mother　spends　her　life　thinking　almost　day　and　night　about　her　babe　and　the　other　childrenspending　all　her　thoughts　and　efforts　on　them。　You　may　call　her　selfish　if　you　will；　but　her　selfishness　clearly　extends　beyond　her　personal　body　and　mind；　and　extends　to　the　personalities　of　her　children　around　her；　her　〃body〃if　you　insist　on　your　definition　must　be　held　to　include　the　bodies　of　all　her　children。　And　again；　the　husband　who　is　toiling　for　the　support　of　the　family；　he　is　thinking　and　working　and　toiling　and　suffering　for　a　'self'　which　includes　his　wife　and　children。　Do　you　mean　that　the　whole　family　is　his　〃body〃？　Or　a　man　belongs　to　some　society；　to　a　church　or　to　a　social　league　of　some　kind；　and　his　activities　are　largely　ruled　by　the　interests　of　this　larger　group。　Or　he　sacrifices　his　lifeas　many　have　been　doing　of　latewith　extraordinary　bravery　and　heroism　for　the　sake　of　the　nation　to　which　he　belongs。　Must　we　say　then　that　the　whole　nation　is　really　a　part　of　the　man's　body？　Or　again；　he　gives　his　life　and　goes　to　the　stake　for　his　religion。　Whether　his　religion　is　right　or　wrong　does　not　matter；　the　point　is　that　there　is　that　in　him　which　can　carry　him　far　beyond　his　local　self　and　the　ordinary　instincts　of　his　physical　organism；　to　dedicate　his　life　and　powers　to　a　something　of　far　wider　circumference　and　scope。

Thus　in　the　FIRST　of　these　two　examples　of　a　search　for　the　nature　of　the　Self　we　are　led　INWARDS　from　point　to　point；　into　interior　and　ever　subtler　regions　of　our　being；　and　still　in　the　end　are　baffled；　while　in　the　SECOND　we　are　carried　outwards　into　an　ever　wider　and　wider　circumference　in　our　quest　of　the　Ego；　and　still　feel　that　we　have　failed　to　reach　its　ultimate　nature。　We　are　driven　in　fact　by　these　two　arguments　to　the　conclusion　that　that　which　we　are　seeking　is　indeed　something　very　vastsomething　far　extending　around；　yet　also　buried　deep　in　the　hidden　recesses　of　our　minds。　How　far；　how　deep；　we　do　not　know。　We　can　only　say　that　as　far　as　the　indications　point　the　true　self　is　profounder　and　more　far…reaching　than　anything　we　have　yet　fathomed。

In　the　ordinary　commonplace　life　we　shrink　to　ordinary　commonplace　selves；　but　it　is　one　of　the　blessings　of　great　experiences；　even　though　they　are　tragic　or　painful；　that　they　throw　us　out　into　that　enormously　greater　self　to　which　we　belong。　Sometimes；　in　moments　of　inspiration；　of　intense　enthusiasm；　of　revelation；　such　as　a　man　feels　in　the　midst　of　a　battle；　in　moments　of　love　and　dedication　to　another　person；　and　in　moments　of　religious　ecstasy；　an　immense　world　is　opened　up　to　the　astonished　gaze　of　the　inner　man；　who　sees　disclosed　a　self　stretched　far　beyond　anything　he　had　ever　imagined。　We　have　all　had　experiences　more　or　less　of　that　kind。　I　have　known　quite　a　few　people；　and　most　of　you　have　known　some；　who　at　some　time；　even　if　only　once　in　their　lives；　have　experienced　such　an　extraordinary　lifting　of　the　veil；　an　opening　out　of　the　back　of　their　minds　as　it　were；　and　have　had　such　a　vision　of　the　world；　that　they　have　never　afterwards　forgotten　it。　They　have　seen　into　the　heart　of　creation；　and　have　perceived　their　union　with　the　rest　of　mankind。　They　have　had　glimpses　of　a　strange　immortality　belonging　to　them；　a　glimpse　of　their　belonging　to　a　far　greater　being　than　they　have　ever　imagined。　Just　onceand　a　man　has　never　forgotten　it；　and　even　if　it　has　not　recurred　it　has　colored　all　the　rest　of　his　life。

Now；　this　subject　has　been　thought　aboutsince　the　beginning　of　the　world；　I　was　going　to　saybut　it　has　been　thought　about　since　the　beginnings　of　history。　Some　three　thousand　years　ago　certain　groups　ofI　hardly　like　to　call　them　philosophers　but；　let　us　say；　people　who　were　meditating　and　thinking　upon　these　problems；　were　in　the　habit　of　locating　themselves　in　the　forests　of　Northern　India；　and　schools　arose　there。　In　the　case　of　each　school　some　teacher　went　into　the　woods　and　collected　groups　of　disciples　around　him；　who　lived　there　in　his　company　and　listened　to　his　words。　Such　schools　were　formed　in　very　considerable　numbers；　and　the　doctrines　of　these　teachers　were　gathered　together；　generally　by　their　disciples；　in　notes；　which　notes　were　brought　together　into　little　pamphlets　or　tracts；　forming　the　books　which　are　called　the　'Upanishads'　of　the　Indian　sages。　They　contain　some　extraordinary　words　of　wisdom；　some　of　which　I　want　to　bring　before　you。　The　conclusions　arrived　at　were　not　so　much　what　we　should　call　philosophy　in　the　modern　sense。　They　were　not　so　much　the　result　of　the　analysis　of　the　mind　and　the　following　out　of　concatenations　of　strict　argument；　but　they　were　flashes　of　intuition　and　experience；　and　all　through　the　'Upanishads'　you　find　these　extraordinary　flashes　embedded　in　the　midst　of　a　great　deal　of　what　we　should　call　a　rather　rubbishy　kind　of　argument；　and　a　good　deal　of　merely　conventional　Brahmanical　talk　of　those　days。　But　the　people　who　wrote　and　spoke　thus　had　an　intuition　into　the　heart　of　things　which　I　make　bold　to　say　very　few　people　in　modern　life　have。　These　'Upanisihads；'　however　various　their　subject；　practically　agree　on　one　point　in　the　definition　of　the　〃self。〃　They　agree　in　saying：　that　the　self　of　each　man　is　continuous　with　and　in　a　sense　identical　with　the　Self　of　the　universe。　Now　that　seems　an　extraordinary　conclusion；　and　one　which　almost　staggers　the　modern　mind　to　conceive　of。　But　that　is　the　conclusion；　that　is　the　thread　which　runs　all　through　the　'Upanishads'the　identity　of　the　self　of　each　individual　with　the　self　of　every　other　individual　throughout　mankind；　and　even　with　the　selves　of　the　animals　and　other　creatures。

Those　who　have　read　the　Khandogya　Upanishad　remember　how　in　that　treatise　the　father　instructs　his　son　Svetakeitu　on　this　very　subjectpointing　him　out　in　succession　the　objects　of　Nature　and　on　each　occasion　exhorting　him　to　realize　his　identity　with　the　very　essence　of　the　object〃Tat　twam　asi；　THAT　thou　art。〃　He　calls　Svetaketu's　attention　to　a　tree。　What　is　the　ESSENCE　of　the　tree？　When　they　have　rejected　the　external　characteristicsthe　leaves；　the　branches；　etc。and　agreed　that　the　SAP　is　the　essence；　then　the　father　says；　〃TAT　TWAM　ASI　THAT　thou　art。〃　He　gives　his　son　a　crystal　of　salt；　and　asks　him　what　is　the　essence　of　that。　The　son　is　puzzled。　Clearly　neither　the　form　nor　the　transparent　quality　are　essential。　The　father　says；　〃Put　the　crystal　in　water。〃　Then　when　it　is　melted　he　says；　〃Where　is　the　crystal？〃　The　son　replies；　〃I　do　not　know。〃　〃Dip　your　finger　in　the　bowl；〃　says　the　father；　〃and　taste。〃　Then　Svetaketu　dips　here　and　there；　and　everywhere　there　is　a　salt　flavor。　They　agree　that　THAT　is　the　essence　of　salt；　and　the　father　says　again；　〃TAt　twam　asi。〃　I　am　of　course　neither　defending　nor　criticizing　the　scientific　attitude　here　adopted。　I　am　only　pointing　out　that　this　psychological　identification　of　the　observer　with　the　object　observed　runs　through　the　Upanishads；　and　is　I　think　worthy　of　the　deepest　consideration。

In　the　'Bhagavat　Gita；'　which　is　a　later　book；　the　author　speaks　of　〃him　whose　soul　is　purified；　whose　self　is　the　Self　of　all　creatures。〃　A　phrase　like　that　challenges　opposition。　It　is　so　bold；　so　sweeping；　and　so　immense；　that　we　hesitate　to　give　our　adhesion　to　what　it　implies。　But　what　does　it　mean　〃whose　soul　is　purified〃？　I　believe　that　it　means　this；　that　with　most　of　us　our　souls　are　anything　but　clean　or　purified；　they　are　by　no　means　transparent；　so　that　all　the　time　we　are　continually　deceiving　ourselves　and　making　clouds　between　us　and　others。　We　are　all　the　time　grasping　things　from　other　people；　and；　if　not　in　words；　are　mentally　boasting　ourselves　against　others；　trying　to　think　of　our　own　superiority　to　the　rest　of　the　people　around　us。　Sometimes　we　try　to　run　our　neighbors　down　a　little；　just　to　show　that　they　are　not　quite　equal　to　our　lev