orthodoxy-第32部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


that　these　two　Eastern　teachers；　by　a　singular　coincidence；　both　had



to　do　with　the　washing　of　feet。　　You　might　as　well　say　that　it　was



a　remarkable　coincidence　that　they　both　had　feet　to　wash。　　And　the



other　class　of　similarities　were　those　which　simply　were　not　similar。　



Thus　this　reconciler　of　the　two　religions　draws　earnest　attention



to　the　fact　that　at　certain　religious　feasts　the　robe　of　the　Lama



is　rent　in　pieces　out　of　respect；　and　the　remnants　highly　valued。　



But　this　is　the　reverse　of　a　resemblance；　for　the　garments　of　Christ



were　not　rent　in　pieces　out　of　respect；　but　out　of　derision；



and　the　remnants　were　not　highly　valued　except　for　what　they　would



fetch　in　the　rag　shops。　　It　is　rather　like　alluding　to　the　obvious



connection　between　the　two　ceremonies　of　the　sword：　　when　it　taps



a　man's　shoulder；　and　when　it　cuts　off　his　head。　　It　is　not　at　all



similar　for　the　man。　　These　scraps　of　puerile　pedantry　would　indeed



matter　little　if　it　were　not　also　true　that　the　alleged　philosophical



resemblances　are　also　of　these　two　kinds；　either　proving　too　much



or　not　proving　anything。　　That　Buddhism　approves　of　mercy　or　of



self…restraint　is　not　to　say　that　it　is　specially　like　Christianity；



it　is　only　to　say　that　it　is　not　utterly　unlike　all　human　existence。　



Buddhists　disapprove　in　theory　of　cruelty　or　excess　because　all



sane　human　beings　disapprove　in　theory　of　cruelty　or　excess。　



But　to　say　that　Buddhism　and　Christianity　give　the　same　philosophy



of　these　things　is　simply　false。　　All　humanity　does　agree　that　we　are



in　a　net　of　sin。　　Most　of　humanity　agrees　that　there　is　some　way　out。　



But　as　to　what　is　the　way　out；　I　do　not　think　that　there　are　two



institutions　in　the　universe　which　contradict　each　other　so　flatly



as　Buddhism　and　Christianity。







　　　　　Even　when　I　thought；　with　most　other　well…informed；　though



unscholarly；　people；　that　Buddhism　and　Christianity　were　alike；



there　was　one　thing　about　them　that　always　perplexed　me；



I　mean　the　startling　difference　in　their　type　of　religious　art。　



I　do　not　mean　in　its　technical　style　of　representation；



but　in　the　things　that　it　was　manifestly　meant　to　represent。　



No　two　ideals　could　be　more　opposite　than　a　Christian　saint



in　a　Gothic　cathedral　and　a　Buddhist　saint　in　a　Chinese　temple。　



The　opposition　exists　at　every　point；　but　perhaps　the　shortest



statement　of　it　is　that　the　Buddhist　saint　always　has　his　eyes　shut；



while　the　Christian　saint　always　has　them　very　wide　open。　



The　Buddhist　saint　has　a　sleek　and　harmonious　body；　but　his　eyes



are　heavy　and　sealed　with　sleep。　　The　mediaeval　saint's　body　is



wasted　to　its　crazy　bones；　but　his　eyes　are　frightfully　alive。　



There　cannot　be　any　real　community　of　spirit　between　forces　that



produced　symbols　so　different　as　that。　　Granted　that　both　images



are　extravagances；　are　perversions　of　the　pure　creed；　it　must　be



a　real　divergence　which　could　produce　such　opposite　extravagances。　



The　Buddhist　is　looking　with　a　peculiar　intentness　inwards。　



The　Christian　is　staring　with　a　frantic　intentness　outwards。　　If　we



follow　that　clue　steadily　we　shall　find　some　interesting　things。







　　　　　A　short　time　ago　Mrs。　Besant；　in　an　interesting　essay；



announced　that　there　was　only　one　religion　in　the　world；　that　all



faiths　were　only　versions　or　perversions　of　it；　and　that　she　was



quite　prepared　to　say　what　it　was。　　According　to　Mrs。　Besant　this



universal　Church　is　simply　the　universal　self。　　It　is　the　doctrine



that　we　are　really　all　one　person；　that　there　are　no　real　walls　of



individuality　between　man　and　man。　　If　I　may　put　it　so；　she　does　not



tell　us　to　love　our　neighbours；　she　tells　us　to　be　our　neighbours。　



That　is　Mrs。　Besant's　thoughtful　and　suggestive　description　of



the　religion　in　which　all　men　must　find　themselves　in　agreement。　



And　I　never　heard　of　any　suggestion　in　my　life　with　which　I　more



violently　disagree。　　I　want　to　love　my　neighbour　not　because　he　is　I；



but　precisely　because　he　is　not　I。　I　want　to　adore　the　world；



not　as　one　likes　a　looking…glass；　because　it　is　one's　self；



but　as　one　loves　a　woman；　because　she　is　entirely　different。　



If　souls　are　separate　love　is　possible。　　If　souls　are　united　love



is　obviously　impossible。　　A　man　may　be　said　loosely　to　love　himself；



but　he　can　hardly　fall　in　love　with　himself；　or；　if　he　does；　it　must



be　a　monotonous　courtship。　　If　the　world　is　full　of　real　selves；



they　can　be　really　unselfish　selves。　　But　upon　Mrs。　Besant's　principle



the　whole　cosmos　is　only　one　enormously　selfish　person。







　　　　　It　is　just　here　that　Buddhism　is　on　the　side　of　modern　pantheism



and　immanence。　　And　it　is　just　here　that　Christianity　is　on　the



side　of　humanity　and　liberty　and　love。　　Love　desires　personality；



therefore　love　desires　division。　　It　is　the　instinct　of　Christianity



to　be　glad　that　God　has　broken　the　universe　into　little　pieces；



because　they　are　living　pieces。　　It　is　her　instinct　to　say　〃little



children　love　one　another〃　rather　than　to　tell　one　large　person



to　love　himself。　　This　is　the　intellectual　abyss　between　Buddhism



and　Christianity；　that　for　the　Buddhist　or　Theosophist　personality



is　the　fall　of　man；　for　the　Christian　it　is　the　purpose　of　God；



the　whole　point　of　his　cosmic　idea。　　The　world…soul　of　the　Theosophists



asks　man　to　love　it　only　in　order　that　man　may　throw　himself　into　it。　



But　the　divine　centre　of　Christianity　actually　threw　man　out　of　it



in　order　that　he　might　love　it。　　The　oriental　deity　is　like　a　giant



who　should　have　lost　his　leg　or　hand　and　be　always　seeking　to　find　it；



but　the　Christian　power　is　like　some　giant　who　in　a　strange



generosity　should　cut　off　his　right　hand；　so　that　it　might　of　its



own　accord　shake　hands　with　him。　　We　come　back　to　the　same　tireless



note　touching　the　nature　of　Christianity；　all　modern　philosophies



are　chains　which　connect　and　fetter；　Christianity　is　a　sword　which



separates　and　sets　free。　　No　other　philosophy　makes　God　actually



rejoice　in　the　separation　of　the　universe　into　living　souls。　



But　according　to　orthodox　Christianity　this　separation　between　God



and　man　is　sacred；　because　this　is　eternal。　　That　a　man　may　love　God



it　is　necessary　that　there　should　be　not　only　a　God　to　be　loved；



but　a　man　to　love　him。　　All　those　vague　theosophical　minds　for　whom



the　universe　is　an　immense　melting…pot　are　exactly　the　minds　which



shrink　instinctively　from　that　earthquake　saying　of　our　Gospels；



which　declare　that　the　Son　of　God　came　not　with　peace　but　with　a



sundering　sword。　　The　saying　rings　entirely　true　even　considered



as　what　it　obviously　is；　the　statement　that　any　man　who　preaches　real



love　is　bound　to　beget　hate。　　It　is　as　true　of　democratic　fraternity



as　a　divine　love；　sham　love　ends　in　compromise　and　common　philosophy；



but　real　love　has　always　ended　in　bloodshed。　　Yet　there　is　another



and　yet　more　awful　truth　behind　the　obvious　meaning　of　this　utterance



of　our　Lord。　　According　to　Himself　the　Son　was　a　sword　separating



brother　and　brother　that　they　should　for　an　aeon　hate　each　other。　



But　the　Father　also　was　a　sword；　which　in　the　black　beginning



separated　brother　and　brother；　so　that　they　should　love　each　other



at　last。







　　　　　This　is　the　meaning　of　that　almost　insane　happiness　in　the



eyes　of　the　mediaeval　saint　in　the　picture。　　This　is　the　meaning



of　the　sealed　eyes　of　the　superb　Buddhist　image。　　The　Christian



saint　is　happy　because　he　has　verily　been　cut　off　from　the　world；



he　is　separate　from　things　and　is　staring　at　them　in　astonishment。　



But　why　should　the　Buddhist　saint　be　astonished　at　things？



since　there　is　really　only　one　thing；　and　that　being　impersonal　can



hardly　be　astonished　at　itself。　　There　have　been　many　pantheist　poems



suggesting　wonder；　but　no　really　successful　ones。　　The　pantheist



cannot　wonder；　for　he　cannot　praise　God　or　praise　anything　as　really



distinct　from　himself。　　Our　immediate　business　here；　however；　is　with



the　effect　of　this　Christian　admiration　（which　strikes　outwards；



towards　a　deity　distinct　from　the　worshipper）　upon　the　general



need　for　ethical　activity　and　social　reform。　　And　surely　its



effect　is　sufficiently　obvious。　　There　is　no　real　possibility



of　getting　out　of　pantheism；　any　special　impulse　to　moral　action。　



For　pantheism　implies　in　its　nature　that　one　thing　is　as　good



as　another；　whereas　action　implies　in　its　nature　that　one　thing



is　greatly　preferable　to　another。　　Swinburne　in　the　high　summer



of　his　scepticism　tried　in　vain　to　wrestle　with　this　difficulty。　



In　〃Songs　before　Sunrise；〃　written　under　the　inspiration　of　Garibaldi



and　the　revolt　of　Italy　he　proclaimed　the　newer　religion　and　the



purer　God　which　should　wither　up　all　the　priests　of　the　world：







〃What　doest　thou　now　　　　　　Looking　Godward　to　cry　　　　　　I　am　I；



thou　art　thou；　　　　　　I　am　low；　thou　art　high；　　　　　　I　am　thou　that　thou



seekest　to　find　him；　find　thou　but　thyself；　thou　art　I。〃







　　　　　Of　which　the　immediate　and　evident　deduction　is　that　tyrants



are　as　much　the　sons　of　God　as　Garibaldis；　and　that　King　Bomba



of　Naples　having；　with　the　utmost　success；　〃found　himself〃



is　identical　with　the　ultimate　good　in　all　things。　　The　truth　is



that　the　western　energy　that　dethrones　tyrants　has　been　directly



due　to　the　western　theology　that　says　〃I　am　I；　thou　art　thou。〃　



The　same　spiritual　separation　which　looked　up　and　saw　a　good　king　in



the　universe　looked　up　and　saw　a　bad　king　in　Naples。　　The　worshippe