01-what is man-第17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！
wordsFree Willbut others。
Y。M。 What others？
O。M。 Free Choice。
Y。M。 What is the difference？
O。M。 The one implies untrammeled power to ACT as you please；
the other implies nothing beyond a mere MENTAL PROCESS：
the critical ability to determine which of two things
is nearest right and just。
Y。M。 Make the difference clear； please。
O。M。 The mind can freely SELECT； CHOOSE； POINT OUT the
right and just oneits function stops there。 It can go no
further in the matter。 It has no authority to say that the right
one shall be acted upon and the wrong one discarded。
That authority is in other hands。
Y。M。 The man's？
O。M。 In the machine which stands for him。 In his born
disposition and the character which has been built around it by
training and environment。
Y。M。 It will act upon the right one of the two？
O。M。 It will do as it pleases in the matter。 George Washington's
machine would act upon the right one； Pizarro would act upon the wrong one。
Y。M。 Then as I understand it a bad man's mental machinery calmly
and judicially points out which of two things is right and just
O。M。 Yes； and his MORAL machinery will freely act upon
the other or the other； according to its make； and be quite
indifferent to the MIND'S feeling concerning the matterthat is；
WOULD be； if the mind had any feelings； which it hasn't。
It is merely a thermometer： it registers the heat and the cold；
and cares not a farthing about either。
Y。M。 Then we must not claim that if a man KNOWS which of
two things is right he is absolutely BOUND to do that thing？
O。M。 His temperament and training will decide what he shall
do； and he will do it； he cannot help himself； he has no
authority over the mater。 Wasn't it right for David to go out
and slay Goliath？
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 Then it would have been equally RIGHT for any one else to do it？
Y。M。 Certainly。
O。M。 Then it would have been RIGHT for a born coward to attempt it？
Y。M。 It wouldyes。
O。M。 You know that no born coward ever would have attempted it； don't you？
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 You know that a born coward's make and temperament
would be an absolute and insurmountable bar to his ever essaying
such a thing； don't you？
Y。M。 Yes； I know it。
O。M。 He clearly perceives that it would be RIGHT to try it？
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 His mind has Free Choice in determining that it would
be RIGHT to try it？
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 Then if by reason of his inborn cowardice he simply
can NOT essay it； what becomes of his Free Will？ Where is his
Free Will？ Why claim that he has Free Will when the plain facts
show that he hasn't？ Why content that because he and David SEE
the right alike； both must ACT alike？ Why impose the same laws
upon goat and lion？
Y。M。 There is really no such thing as Free Will？
O。M。 It is what I think。 There is WILL。 But it has
nothing to do with INTELLECTUAL PERCEPTIONS OF RIGHT AND WRONG；
and is not under their command。 David's temperament and training
had Will； and it was a compulsory force； David had to obey its
decrees； he had no choice。 The coward's temperament and training
possess Will； and IT is compulsory； it commands him to avoid
danger； and he obeys； he has no choice。 But neither the Davids
nor the cowards possess Free Willwill that may do the right or
do the wrong； as their MENTAL verdict shall decide。
Not Two Values； But Only One
Y。M。 There is one thing which bothers me： I can't tell
where you draw the line between MATERIAL covetousness and
SPIRITUAL covetousness。
O。M。 I don't draw any。
Y。M。 How do you mean？
O。M。 There is no such thing as MATERIAL covetousness。
All covetousness is spiritual
Y。M。 ALL longings； desires； ambitions SPIRITUAL； never material？
O。M。 Yes。 The Master in you requires that in ALL cases you
shall content his SPIRITthat alone。 He never requires anything
else； he never interests himself in any other matter。
Y。M。 Ah； come！ When he covets somebody's moneyisn't that
rather distinctly material and gross？
O。M。 No。 The money is merely a symbolit represents in
visible and concrete form a SPIRITUAL DESIRE。 Any so…called
material thing that you want is merely a symbol： you want it not
for ITSELF； but because it will content your spirit for the moment。
Y。M。 Please particularize。
O。M。 Very well。 Maybe the thing longed for is a new hat。
You get it and your vanity is pleased； your spirit contented。
Suppose your friends deride the hat； make fun of it： at once it
loses its value； you are ashamed of it； you put it out of your
sight； you never want to see it again。
Y。M。 I think I see。 Go on。
O。M。 It is the same hat； isn't it？ It is in no way
altered。 But it wasn't the HAT you wanted； but only what it
stood fora something to please and content your SPIRIT。 When
it failed of that； the whole of its value was gone。 There are no
MATERIAL values； there are only spiritual ones。 You will hunt in
vain for a material value that is ACTUAL； REALthere is no such
thing。 The only value it possesses； for even a moment； is the
spiritual value back of it： remove that end and it is at once
worthlesslike the hat。
Y。M。 Can you extend that to money？
O。M。 Yes。 It is merely a symbol； it has no MATERIAL value；
you think you desire it for its own sake； but it is not so。 You
desire it for the spiritual content it will bring； if it fail of
that； you discover that its value is gone。 There is that
pathetic tale of the man who labored like a slave； unresting；
unsatisfied； until he had accumulated a fortune； and was happy
over it； jubilant about it； then in a single week a pestilence
swept away all whom he held dear and left him desolate。 His
money's value was gone。 He realized that his joy in it came not
from the money itself； but from the spiritual contentment he got
out of his family's enjoyment of the pleasures and delights it
lavished upon them。 Money has no MATERIAL value； if you remove
its spiritual value nothing is left but dross。 It is so with all
things； little or big； majestic or trivialthere are no
exceptions。 Crowns； scepters； pennies； paste jewels； village
notoriety； world…wide famethey are all the same； they have no
MATERIAL value： while they content the SPIRIT they are precious；
when this fails they are worthless。
A Difficult Question
Y。M。 You keep me confused and perplexed all the time by
your elusive terminology。 Sometimes you divide a man up into two
or three separate personalities； each with authorities；
jurisdictions； and responsibilities of its own； and when he is in
that condition I can't grasp it。 Now when _I_ speak of a man； he
is THE WHOLE THING IN ONE； and easy to hold and contemplate。
O。M。 That is pleasant and convenient； if true。 When you
speak of 〃my body〃 who is the 〃my〃？
Y。M。 It is the 〃me。〃
O。M。 The body is a property then； and the Me owns it。
Who is the Me？
Y。M。 The Me is THE WHOLE THING； it is a common property； an
undivided ownership； vested in the whole entity。
O。M。 If the Me admires a rainbow； is it the whole Me that
admires it； including the hair； hands； heels； and all？
Y。M。 Certainly not。 It is my MIND that admires it。
O。M。 So YOU divide the Me yourself。 Everybody does；
everybody must。 What； then； definitely； is the Me？
Y。M。 I think it must consist of just those two parts
the body and the mind。
O。M。 You think so？ If you say 〃I believe the world is round；〃
who is the 〃I〃 that is speaking？
Y。M。 The mind。
O。M。 If you say 〃I grieve for the loss of my father；〃
who is the 〃I〃？
Y。M。 The mind。
O。M。 Is the mind exercising an intellectual function when
it examines and accepts the evidence that the world is round？
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 Is it exercisin
