01-what is man-第15部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！




O。M。　　I　wasn't　going　to　hoist　man　up　to　that。



Y。M。　　This　is　too　much！　　I　think　it　is　not　right　to　jest

about　such　things。



O。M。　　I　am　not　jesting；　I　am　merely　reflecting　a　plain　and

simple　truthand　without　uncharitableness。　　The　fact　that　man

knows　right　from　wrong　proves　his　INTELLECTUAL　superiority　to　the

other　creatures；　but　the　fact　that　he　can　DO　wrong　proves　his

MORAL　inferiority　to　any　creature　that　CANNOT。　　It　is　my　belief

that　this　position　is　not　assailable。







Free　Will



Y。M。　　What　is　your　opinion　regarding　Free　Will？



O。M。　　That　there　is　no　such　thing。　　Did　the　man　possess　it

who　gave　the　old　woman　his　last　shilling　and　trudged　home　in　the

storm？



Y。M。　　He　had　the　choice　between　succoring　the　old　woman　and

leaving　her　to　suffer。　　Isn't　it　so？



O。M。　　Yes；　there　was　a　choice　to　be　made；　between　bodily

comfort　on　the　one　hand　and　the　comfort　of　the　spirit　on　the

other。　　The　body　made　a　strong　appeal；　of　coursethe　body　would

be　quite　sure　to　do　that；　the　spirit　made　a　counter　appeal。　　A

choice　had　to　be　made　between　the　two　appeals；　and　was　made。　　Who

or　what　determined　that　choice？



Y。M。　　Any　one　but　you　would　say　that　the　man　determined　it；

and　that　in　doing　it　he　exercised　Free　Will。



O。M。　　We　are　constantly　assured　that　every　man　is　endowed

with　Free　Will；　and　that　he　can　and　must　exercise　it　where　he　is

offered　a　choice　between　good　conduct　and　less…good　conduct。　　Yet

we　clearly　saw　that　in　that　man's　case　he　really　had　no　Free

Will：　　his　temperament；　his　training；　and　the　daily　influences

which　had　molded　him　and　made　him　what　he　was；　COMPELLED　him　to

rescue　the　old　woman　and　thus　save　HIMSELFsave　himself　from

spiritual　pain；　from　unendurable　wretchedness。　　He　did　not　make

the　choice；　it　was　made　FOR　him　by　forces　which　he　could　not

control。　　Free　Will　has　always　existed　in　WORDS；　but　it　stops

there；　I　thinkstops　short　of　FACT。　　I　would　not　use　those

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。