orthodoxy-第39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！





in　the　universe。　　And　those　who　assist　this　process　are　called　the



〃liberal　theologians。〃







　　　　　This；　as　I　say；　is　the　lightest　and　most　evident　case。　



The　assumption　that　there　is　something　in　the　doubt　of　miracles　akin



to　liberality　or　reform　is　literally　the　opposite　of　the　truth。　



If　a　man　cannot　believe　in　miracles　there　is　an　end　of　the　matter；



he　is　not　particularly　liberal；　but　he　is　perfectly　honourable



and　logical；　which　are　much　better　things。　　But　if　he　can　believe



in　miracles；　he　is　certainly　the　more　liberal　for　doing　so；



because　they　mean　first；　the　freedom　of　the　soul；　and　secondly；



its　control　over　the　tyranny　of　circumstance。　　Sometimes　this　truth



is　ignored　in　a　singularly　naive　way；　even　by　the　ablest　men。　



For　instance；　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw　speaks　with　hearty　old…fashioned



contempt　for　the　idea　of　miracles；　as　if　they　were　a　sort　of　breach



of　faith　on　the　part　of　nature：　　he　seems　strangely　unconscious



that　miracles　are　only　the　final　flowers　of　his　own　favourite　tree；



the　doctrine　of　the　omnipotence　of　will。　　Just　in　the　same　way　he　calls



the　desire　for　immortality　a　paltry　selfishness；　forgetting　that　he



has　just　called　the　desire　for　life　a　healthy　and　heroic　selfishness。　



How　can　it　be　noble　to　wish　to　make　one's　life　infinite　and　yet



mean　to　wish　to　make　it　immortal？　　No；　if　it　is　desirable　that　man



should　triumph　over　the　cruelty　of　nature　or　custom；　then　miracles



are　certainly　desirable；　we　will　discuss　afterwards　whether　they



are　possible。







　　　　　But　I　must　pass　on　to　the　larger　cases　of　this　curious　error；



the　notion　that　the　〃liberalising〃　of　religion　in　some　way　helps



the　liberation　of　the　world。　　The　second　example　of　it　can　be　found



in　the　question　of　pantheismor　rather　of　a　certain　modern　attitude



which　is　often　called　immanentism；　and　which　often　is　Buddhism。　



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