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！
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