lecture20- 第7部分

very　little　who　he　is；　or　even　whether　he　is　at　all。　　〃The　truth



of　the　matter　can　be　put；〃　says　Leuba；　〃in　this　way：　　GOD　IS　NOT



KNOWN；　HE　IS　NOT　UNDERSTOOD；　HE　IS　USEDsometimes　as



meat…purveyor；　sometimes　as　moral　support；　sometimes　as　friend；



sometimes　as　an　object　of　love。　　If　he　proves　himself　useful；　the



religious　consciousness　asks　for　no　more　than　that。　　Does　God



really　exist？　　How　does　he　exist？　　What　is　he？　　are　so　many



irrelevant　questions。　　Not　God；　but　life；　more　life；　a　larger；



richer；　more　satisfying　life；　is；　in　the　last　analysis；　the　end



of　religion。　　The　love　of　life；　at　any　and　every　level　of



development；　is　the　religious　impulse。〃＇348＇







＇346＇　Compare　Leuba：　　Loc。　cit。；　pp。　346…349。







＇347＇　The　Contents　of　Religious　Consciousness；　in　The　Monist；　xi。



536；　July　1901。







＇348＇　Loc。　cit。；　pp。　571；　572；　abridged。　　See；　also；　this



writer's　extraordinarily　true　criticism　of　the　notion　that



religion　primarily　seeks　to　solve　the　intellectual　mystery　of　the



world。　　Compare　what　W。　Bender　says　（in　his　Wesen　der　Religion；



Bonn；　1888；　pp。　85；　38）：　　〃Not　the　question　about　God；　and　not



the　inquiry　into　the　origin　and　purpose　of　the　world　is　religion；



but　the　question　about　Man。　　All　religious　views　of　life　are



anthropocentric。〃　　〃Religion　is　that　activity　of　the　human



impulse　towards　self…preservation　by　means　of　which　Man　seeks　to



carry　his　essential　vital　purposes　through　against　the　adverse



pressure　of　the　world　by　raising　himself　freely　towards　the



world's　ordering　and　governing　powers　when　the　limits　of　his　own



strength　are　reached。〃　　The　whole　book　is　little　more　than　a



development　of　these　words。















At　this　purely　subjective　rating；　therefore；　Religion　must　be



considered　vindicated　in　a　certain　way　from　the　attacks　of　her



critics。　　It　would　seem　that　she　cannot　be　a　mere　anachronism　and



survival；　but　must　exert　a　permanent　function；　whether　she　be



with　or　without　intellectual　content；　and　whether；　if　she　have



any；　it　be　true　or　false。







We　must　next　pass　beyond　the　point　of　view　of　merely　subjective



utility；　and　make　inquiry　into　the　intellectual　content　itself。







First；　is　there；　under　all　the　discrepancies　of　the　creeds；　a



common　nucleus　to　which　they　bear　their　testimony　unanimously？







And　second；　ought　we　to　consider　the　testimony　true？







I　will　take　up　the　first　question　first；　and　answer　it



immediately　in　the　affirmative。　　The　warring　gods　and　formulas　of



the　various　religions　do　indeed　cancel　each　other；　but　there　is　a



certain　uniform　deliverance　in　which　religions　all　appear　to



meet。　　It　consists　of　two　parts：







1。　　An　uneasiness；　and







2。　　Its　solution。







1。　　The　uneasiness；　reduced　to　its　simplest　terms；　is　a　sense



that　there　is　SOMETHING　WRONG　ABOUT　US　as　we　naturally　stand。







2。　　The　solution　is　a　sense　that　WE　ARE　SAVED　FROM　THE　WRONGNESS



by　making　proper　connection　with　the　higher　powers。







In　those　more　developed　minds　which　alone　we　are　studying；　the



wrongness　takes　a　moral　character；　and　the　salvation　takes　a



mystical　tinge。　　I　think　we　shall　keep　well　within　the　limits　of



what　is　common　to　all　such　minds　if　we　formulate　the　essence　of



their　religious　experience　in　terms　like　these：







The　individual；　so　far　as　he　suffers　from　his　wrongness　and



criticises　it；　is　to　that　extent　consciously　beyond　it；　and　in　at



least　possible　touch　with　something　higher；　if　anything　higher



exist。　　Along　with　the　wrong　part　there　is　thus　a　better　part　of



him；　even　though　it　may　be　but　a　most　helpless　germ。　　With　which



part　he　should　identify　his　real　being　is　by　no　means　obvious　at



this　stage；　but　when　stage　2　（the　stage　of　solution　or　salvation）



arrives；＇349＇　the　man　identifies　his　real　being　with　the　germinal



higher　part　of　himself；　and　does　so　in　the　following　way。　　He



becomes　conscious　that　this　higher　part　is　conterminous　and



continuous　with　a　MORE　of　the　same　quality；　which　is　operative　in



the　universe　outside　of　him；　and　which　he　can　keep　in　working



touch　with；　and　in　a　fashion　get　on　board　of　and　save　himself



when　all　his　lower　being　has　gone　to　pieces　in　the　wreck。







＇349＇　Remember　that　for　some　men　it　arrives　suddenly；　for　others



gradually；　whilst　others　again　practically　enjoy　it　all　their



life。















It　seems　to　me　that　all　the　phenomena　are　accurately　describable



in　these　very　simple　general　terms。＇350＇　　They　allow　for　the



divided　self　and　the　struggle；　they　involve　the　change　of



personal　centre　and　the　surrender　of　the　lower　self；　they　express



the　appearance　of　exteriority　of　the　helping　power　and　yet



account　for　our　sense　of　union　with　it；＇351＇　and　they　fully



justify　our　feelings　of　security　and　joy。　　There　is　probably　no



autobiographic　document；　among　all　those　which　I　have　quoted；　to



which　the　description　will　not　well　apply。　　One　need　only　add



such　specific　details　as　will　adapt　it　to　various　theologies　and



various　personal　temperaments；　and　one　will　then　have　the　various



experiences　reconstructed　in　their　individual　forms。







＇350＇　The　practical　difficulties　are：　　1；　to　〃realize　the



reality〃　of　one's　higher　part；　2；　to　identify　one's　self　with　it



exclusively；　and　3；　to　identify　it　with　all　the　rest　of　ideal



being。







＇351＇　〃When　mystical　activity　is　at　its　height；　we　find



consciousness　possessed　by　the　sense　of　a　being　at　once　EXCESSIVE



and　IDENTICAL　with　the　self：　　great　enough　to　be　God；　interior



enough　to　be　ME。　　The　〃objectivity〃　of　it　ought　in　that　case　to



be　called　EXCESSIVITY；　rather；　or　exceedingness。〃　ReCeJac：　　Essai



sur　les　fondements　de　la　conscience　mystique；　1897；　p。　46。















So　far；　however；　as　this　analysis　goes；　the　experiences　are　only



psychological　phenomena。　　They　possess；　it　is　true；　enormous



biological　worth。　　Spiritual　strength　really　increases　in　the



subject　when　he　has　them；　a　new　life　opens　for　him；　and　they　seem



to　him　a　place　of　conflux　where　the　forces　of　two　universes　meet；



and　yet　this　may　be　nothing　but　his　subjective　way　of　feeling



things；　a　mood　of　his　own　fancy；　in　spite　of　the　effects



produced。　　I　now　turn　to　my　second　question：　　What　is　the



objective　〃truth〃　of　their　content？＇352＇







＇352＇　The　word　〃truth〃　is　here　taken　to　mean　something　additional



to　bare　value　for　life；　although　the　natural　propensity　of　man　is



to　believe　that　whatever　has　great　value　for　life　is　thereby



certified　as　true。















The　part　of　the　content　concerning　which　the　question　of　truth



most　pertinently　arises　is　that　〃MORE　of　the　same　quality〃　with



which　our　own　higher　self　appears　in　the　experience　to　come　into



harmonious　working　relation。　　Is　such　a　〃more〃　merely　our　own



notion；　or　does　it　really　exist？　　If　so；　in　what　shape　does　it



exist？　　Does　it　act；　as　well　as　exist？　　　And　in　what　form　should



we　conceive　of　that　〃union〃　with　it　of　which　religious　geniuses



are　so　convinced？







It　is　in　answering　these　questions　that　the　various　theologies



perform　their　theoretic　work；　and　that　their　divergencies　most



come　to　light。　　They　all　agree　that　the　〃more〃　really　exists；



though　some　of　them　hold　it　to　exist　in　the　shape　of　a　personal



god　or　gods；　while　others　are　satisfied　to　conceive　it　as　a



stream　of　ideal　tendency　embedded　in　the　eternal　structure　of　the



world。　　They　all　agree；　moreover；　that　it　acts　as　well　as　exists；



and　that　something　really　is　effected　for　the　better　when　you



throw　your　life　into　its　hands。　　It　is　when　they　treat　of　the



experience　of　〃union〃　with　it　that　their　speculative　differences



appear　most　clearly。　　Over　this　point　pantheism　and　theism；



nature　and　second　birth；　works　and　grace　and　karma；　immortality



and　reincarnation；　rationalism　and　mysticism；　carry　on　inveterate



disputes。







At　the　end　of　my　lecture　on　Philosophy＇353＇　I　held　out　the　notion



that　an　impartial　science　of　religions　might　sift　out　from　the



midst　of　their　discrepancies　a　common　body　of　doctrine　which　she



might　also　formulate　in　terms　to　which　　physical　science



need　not　object。　　This；　I　said；　she　might　adopt　as　her　own



reconciling　hypothesis；　and　recommend　it　for　general　belief。　　I



also　said　that　in　my　last　lecture　I　should　have　to　try　my　own



hand　at　framing　such　an　hypothesis。







＇353＇　Above；　p。　445。















The　time　has　now　come　for　this　attempt。　　Who　say