John Lindsey
24th May 2000, 06:07
The following was taken from the book: Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot by Soyen Shaku. Written in 1906, it documents the lectures given by Rev. Shaku around the Western United States. I thought this might be of interest to our members. Comments are welcome, and I will post more later....
SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT
THERE are many characteristic points of divergence between religion and philosophy, though they have so much in common that some scholars, broadly speaking, take religion for practical philosophy and philosophy for
speculative religion. The difference between the two, however, is not merely that of practicability and theorization. It is, in my judgment, more
deeply rooted and fundamental. What is it, then? I believe that that which makes religion what it is in contradistinction to philosophy or ethics consists in the truth that it is essentially founded on facts of one's own spiritual experience, which is beyond intellectual demonstrability and which opens a finite mind to the light of universal effulgence. In short, spiritual enlightenment is indispensable in religion, while philosophy is mere intellection. By spiritual enlightenment I mean a man's becoming conscious through personal experience of the ultimate nature of his inner being. This insight breaks as it were the wall of intellectual limitation and brings us to a region which has been hitherto concealed from our view. The horizon is now so widened as to enable our spiritual vision to survey the totality of existence.
As long as we groped in the darkness of ignorance, we could not go beyond the threshold of individuation; we could not recognize the presence of a light whose most penetrating rays reveal all the mysteries of nature and mind.
The spirit has found that the light is shining within itself even in its fullest glory, that it even partakes something of this universal light, that it blundered miserably in seeking its own ground outside of itself, that "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, which is, and which was, and which is to come," is no more nor less than itself. And it is through this kind of enlightenment only that we fully satisfy our inmost spiritual yearnings and groanings. Without this, religion loses its significance, becoming merely
an applied philosophy or system of metaphysics. The enlightenment which thus constitutes the basis of the religious life is altogether spiritual and
not intellectual. The intellect in its very nature is relative and cannot transcend its own limitations. It is dualistic no matter how high it may
take a flight. It always needs an object with which to deal, and it never identifies itself with it, for it cannot do so without destroying itself.
There must be the "I" and the "not I" whenever intellection takes place. Self-alienation or keeping itself aloof from the object on which it
exercises itself is the raison d'etre of intellect, being its strongest as well as its weakest point. Its strongest point is seen in science and philosophy, while its weakest point is revealed in religion. For religion needs a synthetic faculty by which it can comprehend the realm of particulars, the realm of constant strivings and eternal contradictions. Religion wants to under-
stand and preserve life as it is found, and not to "dissect and murder" it as is done by the intellect. Religion wants to see and not to demonstrate; to grasp directly with her own hands and not to rely upon a medium; to see intuitively and not discursively. What is therefore asked for by a religious spirit is fact and not representation, enlightenment and not reflection;
and this will be supplied by no amount of speculation and imagination. We must advance one step further beyond the limits and boldly plunge into the abysmal depths of the Unknowable.
Can a mortal being with his limited consciousness have an insight into a field without its ken? No; as long as he relies solely upon his intellectual faculty, he is forever barred from so doing. For the intellect is really superficial and cannot penetrate through spatial and temporal relations,
nor can she free herself from the bondage of logical sequence; and therefore the inner life of our being is altogether unknown to the intellect.
We cannot be said to know an object thoroughly by merely becoming familiar with all its attributes, qualities, potentialities, and what not.
SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT
THERE are many characteristic points of divergence between religion and philosophy, though they have so much in common that some scholars, broadly speaking, take religion for practical philosophy and philosophy for
speculative religion. The difference between the two, however, is not merely that of practicability and theorization. It is, in my judgment, more
deeply rooted and fundamental. What is it, then? I believe that that which makes religion what it is in contradistinction to philosophy or ethics consists in the truth that it is essentially founded on facts of one's own spiritual experience, which is beyond intellectual demonstrability and which opens a finite mind to the light of universal effulgence. In short, spiritual enlightenment is indispensable in religion, while philosophy is mere intellection. By spiritual enlightenment I mean a man's becoming conscious through personal experience of the ultimate nature of his inner being. This insight breaks as it were the wall of intellectual limitation and brings us to a region which has been hitherto concealed from our view. The horizon is now so widened as to enable our spiritual vision to survey the totality of existence.
As long as we groped in the darkness of ignorance, we could not go beyond the threshold of individuation; we could not recognize the presence of a light whose most penetrating rays reveal all the mysteries of nature and mind.
The spirit has found that the light is shining within itself even in its fullest glory, that it even partakes something of this universal light, that it blundered miserably in seeking its own ground outside of itself, that "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, which is, and which was, and which is to come," is no more nor less than itself. And it is through this kind of enlightenment only that we fully satisfy our inmost spiritual yearnings and groanings. Without this, religion loses its significance, becoming merely
an applied philosophy or system of metaphysics. The enlightenment which thus constitutes the basis of the religious life is altogether spiritual and
not intellectual. The intellect in its very nature is relative and cannot transcend its own limitations. It is dualistic no matter how high it may
take a flight. It always needs an object with which to deal, and it never identifies itself with it, for it cannot do so without destroying itself.
There must be the "I" and the "not I" whenever intellection takes place. Self-alienation or keeping itself aloof from the object on which it
exercises itself is the raison d'etre of intellect, being its strongest as well as its weakest point. Its strongest point is seen in science and philosophy, while its weakest point is revealed in religion. For religion needs a synthetic faculty by which it can comprehend the realm of particulars, the realm of constant strivings and eternal contradictions. Religion wants to under-
stand and preserve life as it is found, and not to "dissect and murder" it as is done by the intellect. Religion wants to see and not to demonstrate; to grasp directly with her own hands and not to rely upon a medium; to see intuitively and not discursively. What is therefore asked for by a religious spirit is fact and not representation, enlightenment and not reflection;
and this will be supplied by no amount of speculation and imagination. We must advance one step further beyond the limits and boldly plunge into the abysmal depths of the Unknowable.
Can a mortal being with his limited consciousness have an insight into a field without its ken? No; as long as he relies solely upon his intellectual faculty, he is forever barred from so doing. For the intellect is really superficial and cannot penetrate through spatial and temporal relations,
nor can she free herself from the bondage of logical sequence; and therefore the inner life of our being is altogether unknown to the intellect.
We cannot be said to know an object thoroughly by merely becoming familiar with all its attributes, qualities, potentialities, and what not.