orthodoxy-第29章
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！
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 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 Sun
