orthodoxy- 第35部分

But　this　is　so　much　more　difficult　a　matter　that　I　must　approach　it



with　rather　more　preparation。







　　　　　The　things　said　most　confidently　by　advanced　persons　to



crowded　audiences　are　generally　those　quite　opposite　to　the　fact；



it　is　actually　our　truisms　that　are　untrue。　　Here　is　a　case。　



There　is　a　phrase　of　facile　liberality　uttered　again　and　again



at　ethical　societies　and　parliaments　of　religion：　　〃the　religions



of　the　earth　differ　in　rites　and　forms；　but　they　are　the　same　in



what　they　teach。〃　　It　is　false；　it　is　the　opposite　of　the　fact。　



The　religions　of　the　earth　do　not　greatly　differ　in　rites　and　forms；



they　do　greatly　differ　in　what　they　teach。　　It　is　as　if　a　man



were　to　say；　〃Do　not　be　misled　by　the　fact　that　the　CHURCH　TIMES



and　the　FREETHINKER　look　utterly　different；　that　one　is　painted



on　vellum　and　the　other　carved　on　marble；　that　one　is　triangular



and　the　other　hectagonal；　read　them　and　you　will　see　that　they　say



the　same　thing。〃　　The　truth　is；　of　course；　that　they　are　alike　in



everything　except　in　the　fact　that　they　don't　say　the　same　thing。　



An　atheist　stockbroker　in　Surbiton　looks　exactly　like　a　Swedenborgian



stockbroker　in　Wimbledon。　　You　may　walk　round　and　round　them



and　subject　them　to　the　most　personal　and　offensive　study　without



seeing　anything　Swedenborgian　in　the　hat　or　anything　particularly



godless　in　the　umbrella。　　It　is　exactly　in　their　souls　that　they



are　divided。　　So　the　truth　is　that　the　difficulty　of　all　the　creeds



of　the　earth　is　not　as　alleged　in　this　cheap　maxim：　　that　they　agree



in　meaning；　but　differ　in　machinery。　　It　is　exactly　the　opposite。　



They　agree　in　machinery；　almost　every　great　religion　on　earth　works



with　the　same　external　methods；　with　priests；　scriptures；　altars；



sworn　brotherhoods；　special　feasts。　　They　agree　in　the　mode



of　teaching；　what　they　differ　about　is　the　thing　to　be　taught。　



Pagan　optimists　and　Eastern　pessimists　would　both　have　temples；



just　as　Liberals　and　Tories　would　both　have　newspapers。　　Creeds　that



exist　to　destroy　each　other　both　have　scriptures；　just　as　armies



that　exist　to　destroy　each　other　both　have　guns。







　　　　　The　great　example　of　this　alleged　identity　of　all　human　religions



is　the　alleged　spiritual　identity　of　Buddhism　and　Christianity。　



Those　who　adopt　this　theory　generally　avoid　the　ethics　of　most



other　creeds；　except；　indeed；　Confucianism；　which　they　like



because　it　is　not　a　creed。　　But　they　are　cautious　in　their　praises



of　Mahommedanism；　generally　confining　themselves　to　imposing



its　morality　only　upon　the　refreshment　of　the　lower　classes。　



They　seldom　suggest　the　Mahommedan　view　of　marriage　（for　which



there　is　a　great　deal　to　be　said）；　and　towards　Thugs　and　fetish



worshippers　their　attitude　may　even　be　called　cold。　　But　in　the



case　of　the　great　religion　of　Gautama　they　feel　sincerely　a　similarity。







　　　　　Students　of　popular　science；　like　Mr。　Blatchford；　are　always



insisting　that　Christianity　and　Buddhism　are　very　much　alike；



especially　Buddhism。　　This　is　generally　believed；　and　I　believed



it　myself　until　I　read　a　book　giving　the　reasons　for　it。　



The　reasons　were　of　two　kinds：　　resemblances　that　meant　nothing



because　they　were　common　to　all　humanity；　and　resemblances　which



were　not　resemblances　at　all。　　The　author　solemnly　explained　that



the　two　creeds　were　alike　in　things　in　which　all　creeds　are　alike；



or　else　he　described　them　as　alike　in　some　point　in　which　they



are　quite　obviously　different。　　Thus；　as　a　case　of　the　first　class；



he　said　that　both　Christ　and　Buddha　were　called　by　the　divine　voice



coming　out　of　the　sky；　as　if　you　would　expect　the　divine　voice



to　come　out　of　the　coal…cellar。　Or；　again；　it　was　gravely　urged



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　desire