lecture02-第2节

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！





Buddha；　Mahomet；　but　all　the　originators　of　Christian　sects　have



been　in　this　case；so　personal　religion　should　still　seem　the



primordial　thing；　even　to　those　who　continue　to　esteem　it



incomplete。







There　are；　it　is　true；　other　things　in　religion　chronologically



more　primordial　than　personal　devoutness　in　the　moral　sense。　



Fetishism　and　magic　seem　to　have　preceded　inward　piety



historicallyat　least　our　records　of　inward　piety　do　not　reach



back　so　far。　　And　if　fetishism　and　magic　be　regarded　as　stages　of



religion；　one　may　say　that　personal　religion　in　the　inward　sense



and　the　genuinely　spiritual　ecclesiasticisms　which　it　founds　are



phenomena　of　secondary　or　even　tertiary　order。　　But；　quite　apart



from　the　fact　that　many　anthropologistsfor　instance；　Jevons　and



Frazer　expressly　oppose　〃religion〃　and　〃magic〃　to　each　other；



it　is　certain　that　the　whole　system　of　thought　which　leads　to



magic；　fetishism；　and　the　lower　superstitions　may　just　as　well　be



called　primitive　science　as　called　primitive　religion。　The



question　thus　becomes　a　verbal　one　again；　and　our　knowledge　of



all　these　early　stages　of　thought　and　feeling　is　in　any　case　so



conjectural　and　imperfect　that　farther　discussion　would　not　be



worth　while。







Religion；　therefore；　as　I　now　ask　you　arbitrarily　to　take　it；



shall　mean　for　us　THE　FEELINGS；　ACTS；　AND　EXPERIENCES　OF



INDIVIDUAL　MEN　IN　THEIR　SOLITUDE；　SO　FAR　AS　THEY　APPREHEND



THEMSELVES　TO　STAND　IN　RELATION　TO　WHATEVER　THEY　MAY　CONSIDER　THE



DIVINE。　　Since　the　relation　may　be　either　moral；　physical；　or



ritual；　it　is　evident　that　out　of　religion　in　the　sense　in　which



we　take　it；　theologies；　philosophies；　and　ecclesiastical



organizations　may　secondarily　grow。　　In　these　lectures；　however；



as　I　have　already　said；　the　immediate　personal　experiences　will



amply　fill　our　time；　and　we　shall　hardly　consider　theology　or



ecclesiasticism　at　all。







We　escape　much　controversial　matter　by　this　arbitrary　definition



of　our　field。　　But；　still；　a　chance　of　controversy　comes　up　over



the　word　〃divine；〃　if　we　take　the　definition　in　too　narrow　a



sense。　　There　are　systems　of　thought　which　the　world　usually



calls　religious；　and　yet　which　do　not　positively　assume　a　God。　



Buddhism　is　in　this　case。　　Popularly；　of　course；　the　Buddha



himself　stands　in　place　of　a　God；　but　in　strictness　the



Buddhistic　system　is　atheistic。　　Modern　transcendental　idealism；



Emersonianism；　for　instance；　also　seems　to　let　God　evaporate　into



abstract　Ideality。　　Not　a　deity　in　concreto；　not　a　superhuman



person；　but　the　immanent　divinity　in　things；　the　essentially



spiritual　structure　of　the　universe；　is　the　object　of　the



transcendentalist　cult。　　In　that　address　to　the　graduating　class



at　Divinity　College　in　1838　which　made　Emerson　famous；　the　frank



expression　of　this　worship　of　mere　abstract　laws　was　what　made



the　scandal　of　the　performance。







〃These　laws；〃　said　the　speaker；　〃execute　themselves。　　They　are



out　of　time；　out　of　space；　and　not　subject　to　circumstance：　



Thus；　in　the　soul　of　man　there　is　a　justice　whose　retributions



are　instant　and　entire。　　He　who　does　a　good　deed　is　instantly



ennobled。　　He　who　does　a　mean　deed　is　by　the　action　itself



contracted。　　He　who　puts　off　impurity　thereby　puts　on　purity。　　If



a　man　is　at　heart　just；　then　in　so　far　is　he　God；　the　safety　of



God；　the　immortality　of　God；　the　majesty　of　God；　do　enter　into



that　man　with　justice。　　If　a　man　dissemble；　deceive；　he　deceives



himself；　and　goes　out　of　acquaintance　with　his　own　being。　



Character　is　always　known。　　Thefts　never　enrich；　alms　never



impoverish；　murder　will　speak　out　of　stone　walls。　　The　least



admixture　of　a　liefor　example；　the　taint　of　vanity；　any　attempt



to　make　a　good　impression；　a　favorable　appearancewill　instantly



vitiate　the　effect。　　But　speak　the　truth；　and　all　things　alive　or



brute　are　vouchers；　and　the　very　roots　of　the　grass　underground



there　do　seem　to　stir　and　move　to　bear　your　witness。　　For　all



things　proceed　out　of　the　same　spirit；　which　is　differently　named



love；　justice；　temperance；　in　its　different　applications；　just　as



the　ocean　receives　different　names　on　the　several　shores　which　it



washes。　　In　so　far　as　he　roves　from　these　ends；　a　man　bereaves



himself　of　power；　of　auxiliaries。　　His　being　shrinks　。　　。　。　he



becomes　less　and　less；　a　mote；　a　point；　until　absolute　badness　is



absolute　death。　　The　perception　of　this　law　awakens　in　the　mind　a



sentiment　which　we　call　the　religious　sentiment；　and　which　makes



our　highest　happiness。　　Wonderful　is　its　power　to　charm　and　to



command。　　It　is　a　mountain　air。　　It　is　the　embalmer　of　the　world。







It　makes　the　sky　and　the　hills　sublime；　and　the　silent　song　of



the　stars　is　it。　　It　is　the　beatitude　of　man。　　It　makes　him



illimitable。　　When　he　says　'I　ought'；　when　love　warns　him；　when



he　chooses；　warned　from　on　high；　the　good　and　great　deed；　then；



deep　melodies　wander　through　his　soul　from　supreme　wisdom。　　Then



he　can　worship；　and　be　enlarged　by　his　worship；　for　he　can　never



go　behind　this　sentiment。　　All　the　expressions　of　this　sentiment



are　sacred　and　permanent　in　proportion　to　their　purity。　　＇They＇



affect　us　more　than　all　other　compositions。　The　sentences　of　the



olden　time；　which　ejaculate　this　piety；　are　still　fresh　and



fragrant。　　And　the　unique　impression　of　Jesus　upon　mankind；　whose



name　is　not　so　much　written　as　ploughed　into　the　history　of　this



world；　is　proof　of　the　subtle　virtue　of　this　infusion。〃＇10＇







＇10＇　Miscellanies；　1868；　p。　120　（abridged）。















Such　is　the　Emersonian　religion。　　The　universe　has　a　divine　soul



of　order；　which　soul　is　moral；　being　also　the　soul　within　the



soul　of　man。　　But　whether　this　soul　of　the　universe　be　a　mere



quality　like　the　eye's　brilliancy　or　the　skin's　softness；　or



whether　it　be　a　self…conscious　life　like　the　eye's　seeing　or　the



skin's　feeling；　is　a　decision　that　never　unmistakably　appears　in



Emerson's　pages。　　It　quivers　on　the　boundary　of　these　things；



sometimes　leaning　one　way　sometimes　the　other；　to　suit　the



literary　rather　than　the　philosophic　need。　　Whatever　it　is；



though；　it　is　active。　　As　much　as　if　it　were　a　God；　we　can　trust



it　to　protect　all　ideal　interests　and　keep　the　world's　balance



straight。　　The　sentences　in　which　Emerson；　to　the　very　end；　gave



utterance　to　this　faith　are　as　fine　as　anything　in　literature：　



〃If　you　love　and　serve　men；　you　cannot　by　any　hiding　or　stratagem



escape　the　remuneration。　　Secret　retributions　are　always



restoring　the　level；　when　disturbed；　of　the　divine　justice。　　It



is　impossible　to　tilt　the　beam。　　All　the　tyrants　and　proprietors



and　monopolists　of　the　world　in　vain　set　their　shoulders　to　heave



the　bar。　　Settles　forevermore　the　ponderous　equator　to　its　line；



and　man　and　mote；　and　star　and　sun；　must　range　to　it；　or　be



pulverized　by　the　recoil。〃＇11＇







＇11＇　Lectures　and　Biographical　Sketches；　1868；　p。　186。















Now　it　would　be　too　absurd　to　say　that　the　inner　experiences　that



underlie　such　expressions　of　faith　as　this　and　impel　the　writer



to　their　utterance　are　quite　unworthy　to　be　called　religious



experiences。　　The　sort　of　appeal　that　Emersonian　optimism；　on　the



one　hand；　and　Buddhistic　pessimism；　on　the　other；　make　to　the



individual　and　the　son　of　response　which　he　makes　to　them　in　his



life　are　in　fact　indistinguishable　from；　and　in　many　respects



identical　with；　the　best　Christian　appeal　and　response。　　We　must



therefore；　from　the　experiential　point　of　view；　call　these



godless　or　quasi…godless　creeds　〃religions〃；　and　accordingly　when



in　our　definition　of　religion　we　speak　of　the　individual's



relation　to　〃what　he　considers　the　divine；〃　we　must　interpret　the



term　〃divine〃　very　broadly；　as　denoting　any　object　that　is　god…



LIKE；　whether　it　be　a　concrete　deity　or　not。　　But　the　term



〃godlike；〃　if　thus　treated　as　a　floating　general　quality；　becomes



exceedingly　vague；　for　many　gods　have　flourished　in　religious



history；　and　their　attributes　have　been　discrepant　enough。　　What



then　is　that　essentially　godlike　qualitybe　it　embodied　in　a



concrete　deity　or　notour　relation　to　which　determines　our



character　as　religious　men？　　It　will　repay　us　to　seek　some　answer



to　this　question　before　we　proceed　farther。







For　one　thing；　gods　are　conceived　to　be　first　things　in　the　way



of　being　and　power。　　They　overarch　and　envelop；　and　from　them



there　is　no　escape。　　What　relates　to　them　is　the　first　and　last