Chapter 19 monk asks philosopher

Mathieu - You often say: If the purpose of Buddhism is to expose the "deception" of the self, and this self has no real existence, what is the use of action?So, if actions are taken, who is responsible for the actions?In fact, even if the concept of "person" does not imply any real substance, every action inevitably has a result.But modern physics also reduces us to some elementary particles, such as the famous "quarks" (quarks).So it is my turn to ask you this question: "Since we are made of nothing but particles, and particles obviously contain no trace of our individuality, what use is action, in your opinion? Thought, love , What's the use of worrying about happiness and pain? It's just that the quarks are suffering!"

Jean-François - Yes! ... This is a very old reasoning, even in the West, in certain philosophical theories.If you take for example a doctrine like structuralism, it's pretty much the same thing.Structuralism is also a reaction against existentialism, which focuses everything on the individual's freedom and personal choice, on his ultimate responsibility.Structuralism says: No!Man does not exist in himself, he is criss-crossed by structures that work through him. Mathieu – what do they call structures? Jean-François - ah ... since these are philosophers, they are very ill-defined about it!In general, it may be said that these are various entities that are constituted by laws or that can constitute laws, and laws can cause orderly behavior.We also find this paradox in the theory of Epicurus: he says that we are composed of atoms, and that what we call mind is nothing but composed atoms.Therefore, we don't have to take our feelings like pain, desire, fear seriously.The argument that aims to oppose appearances to a background (arriere-plan), a world behind (arriere monde)—that is, the only real thing—is an old paradox.But to this it is always answered that, nevertheless, a being experiences certain sensations and certain experiences on the level of the experienced, which are for him the only concrete reality.

Mathieu—this is exactly what Buddhism says: although pain is illusory, it is felt as pain, and therefore the elimination of pain is justified and desirable.I don't understand people's criticism of Buddhism, they say: We think this "I" represents a constante of our life, an entity that survives the changes of life, if this self is illusory , why care about happiness... Jean-François - Well, let me explain it to you!Imagine that a rock falls on your house, destroys your house, and kills some of your family members.You call the town services, call the doctor, ask for help, and they send a geologist on the scene and he says to you, "Listen! What's happening is completely normal... You know, the earth is changing , there's been some stratigraphic movement going on, some plates colliding with each other... nothing out of the ordinary." If I put myself on the scale of millions of years—that's what a respected geologist sees For a very small period of time - that's right.But these two protagonists are not talking about the same phenomenon at all!On the one hand, the unimpressed geologist is right.On the other hand, despite all that, the poor man whose house and family had just been smashed was personally feeling the tragedy.Neither of these two approaches can replace the other.People rationally explain the fact that people are swept away by typhoons through meteorology, wind, high-altitude atmosphere and other factors, which does not eliminate the inevitable danger and misfortune of living in areas often hit by cyclones.We have two truths, neither of which disproves the other.These two planes of experience should be maintained adjacent because they are both real.

Mathieu - Do you agree with this statement: When Buddhism affirms that if the self is just a puppet entity that has lost its real existence, there is no reason to see in such an affirmation a kind of love for action, for oneself and others. An expression of indifference to happiness and pain? Jean-François—the thought common to all the wisdom of this school seems to be roughly summed up in this way: The part I can play with regard to the course of things is an illusion, which greatly creates hope and deception in me, and makes me alternately Living with joy and terror that eats me from within; if I can at last be convinced that I am nothing, that I am, after all, nothing but a place through which some stream of reality passes, I can achieve a certain peace.Much wisdom has this tendency!To this end all the inferences of the Stoics and of Spinoza!But, alas, existing experience rebels against this inference.

Mathieu—it is this resistance that is the cause of our suffering.We are so attached to this self that we cannot be sure that by dispelling the illusion of self we will solve all our problems.We are like a wounded person who is afraid to pull the thread of a scar's sutures.It seems to me that the Stoics have achieved a kind of passive submission, while for the Buddhists non-moi is a liberating experience (experience liberatrice). Jean-François - no!To be a Stoic means to actively desire what nature (la Nature) has already decided to implement.It's not passive.One is not suffering what happens due to a fatalism, one identifies oneself with the cause of the world, which is at the same time God.Spinoza redefines this feature.He said "God or nature".He is a pantheist.To attain wisdom means not to be a passive dupe of this cosmic inevitability, but to assent to it in one's own subjective will.

Mathieu - this is in general much closer to the Hindu understanding of karma: the ideal way to live one's life and look at the world is to fully accept our destiny without any resistance.A Buddhist's position is different: he accepts the present because everything that happens to him is the result of his past actions.But the future depends on him.He is at a crossroads.Recognizing the non-existence of the ego does not result in stoic, i.e. stoic, acceptance of what happens to us, but in getting rid of this "I" that cherishes itself as eternal, solid and create a never-ending chain of attachments and repulsions—imposed constraints, acting with a greater freedom.To liberate us from egocentrism is to give us a greater freedom of action.The past has been fooled, the future has not.

Jean-François - I fully understand the value of the intelligence of an agent who compares himself with his egoism and his own emotions, that is, with his ego. Rather, it becomes possible to withdraw, to consider something much larger than the self, and to relativize the reality of the self as much as possible.This ensures that his actions will be more controlled, more general, will have more meaning for others, and enable him to understand and act on the world better.However, all those who want to abolish the ego, and thus permanently numb the senses in the face of unfavorable, frustrating circumstances—the sense that there are some moral choices to be made, some sins not to be committed, the sense that human action does not Always wise, courageous, sober, and effective—the attempt, in short, all these efforts of the human mind to reassure us by removing the appearance of hesitation and responsibility, always fails, I believe. .

Mathieu—It seems difficult for the West to understand that the knowledge and determination of the non-existence of the self is not opposed to the power of the mind and action, and it also allows us to see the causes of happiness and pain.This knowledge enables an action to be just.Attachment to the "I" does not constitute the living force of judgment, but the force that hinders it.If our actions, as you say, are not always wise, courageous, sober, and effective, it is because we are fooled by this attachment to ourselves.People say: "A philosopher's vision is higher than the sky, so his judgment of the law of cause and effect is finer than flour." Man cannot rebel against what he sows, but he can know what causes misfortune and what will save us from misfortune. Liberate and build the future.Therefore, it is by no means to accept an inevitable future with fatalism.

Jean-François - I completely agree with this, in the sense that the Stoics, like Spinoza, wanted to prove, for our reassurance, that nothing other than what happened Nothing can happen. Mathieu – We’ve talked a lot about Buddhism as a means of giving meaning to life.But, according to you and the current of thought you represent, what gives life meaning? Jean-François - First of all, I do not represent any trend of thought.I struggle to understand currents of thought that exist or have existed, which is no easy feat.In order to answer your question, I would like to provide a background of the various paths followed by Western thought.After the birth of Greek civilization as the starting point of Western civilization, there are three types of answers to the question of the meaning of life.The first category is religious answers, especially after some major monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam dominate.This answer places the finalite of life in an afterlife, or a truth of the transcendent category, and thus in a collection of certain steps and certain laws, for The completion of these steps and the respect of these laws are necessary to ensure the personal salvation of the ame immortalle.The immortal soul will enjoy eternal life in the next world according to its merits in this life on earth.In general, it is on this pedestal that the West, with the help of a number of religions, all of them from the Near East, has built its search for the meaning of life for thousands of years.But this does not prevent each individual from pursuing happiness and balance in this earthly world with various acts of earthly reality, from the farmer trying to get a good harvest all the way to the man trying to kill someone who threatens or competes with him. This is true of kings, or of merchants trying to make themselves rich.It can thus be said that, apart from religious persons in the proper sense, such as monks and mystics whose daily life corresponds to the ideal of happiness, all others are engaged in a so to speak empirical quest for happiness, This pursuit does not exclude what religion calls evil, while continuing the pursuit of eternal happiness in the afterlife.The two goals can be compromised because the quest for eternal happiness involves the concepts of forgiveness, repentance, forgiveness, and penance for all the sins people have committed on earth.

Mathieu – Is there some civilization based on this metaphysics that considers the various states of existence after death and before this birth, and whose spiritual values ​​permeate all the actions of everyday life so that there is no real "universal" behavior? Jean-François - In principle, this is exactly what Christianity wants to do!But the ability of human beings to go against the ideals they believe in is limitless... Mathieu—However, a truly practical religion is not only to guide people to live in the hope of the afterlife, but also to give a meaning to every action in this life.

Jean-François - in theory.Christianity was first of all many precepts that let people know how to behave in this life.Man obtains his eternal happiness precisely according to the way he behaves in this life. Mathieu – Is there a metaphysical conception of existence added to these precepts which inspired him and which is not limited to the field of behavioral manifestation? Jean-François - Attention!I'm talking to you about what's happening in the West.I am not telling you that, according to religious answers, a man can do whatever he does in this life and still deserve his eternal happiness, though most of the time!For for two thousand years Europeans have been living in astonishing antithesis to Christian morality, killing each other, enslaving each other, stealing from each other, committing adultery, and indulging themselves in all mortal sins, with The hope of going to heaven, because people offer them atonement and salvation, as long as they die repentant and have all the last sacraments.All right!Of course, I'm not saying that's what people recommend to them.Priests, teachers of conscience, and confessors spend their time reminding believers what sin is and what it means to live according to the law of the Lord.I would like to emphasize that devotion to an essentially religious search for the meaning of existence does not prevent people from pursuing ordinary happiness in the usual sphere, and that the vast majority of such everyday happiness is related to Christianity. The morals are perfectly compatible: building a home, owning a family, enjoying a good harvest, being able to become rich by legal means, all of which are not prohibited.But there are many other actions that are flagrant violations of Christian law.However, since Christianity is a religion of sin, of guilt and redemption, everything works according to this dialectic. Mathieu – In this way, one may be able to notice the various capacities of those great religious and spiritual traditions to inspire harmony between theory and practice.No one denies that there are many difficulties for human beings to transform themselves and make their own perfection "come into reality". Therefore, a spiritual tradition can be based on the correctness of its metaphysical viewpoint on the one hand, and on the other hand , is judged on the effectiveness of the means it provides for bringing about such inner transformation at every moment of life. Jean-François - Actually, it would be nice to have a little harmony between words and deeds!The second way to give meaning to life is what I would call the philosophical way, in the ancient sense.This is the quest for wisdom, for inner peace, which is the fruit of an observation that we so often refer to in these conversations, precisely to get rid of superficial emotions and ambitions, and to place ourselves in energies reserved for some higher ambition of the intellectual, spiritual, aesthetic, philosophical or moral sphere, to make relations with others and the running of the state as humane as possible.This is the assumption we find in most of the greatest thinkers of antiquity; sometimes, as in Plato, with a more religious and metaphysical emphasis; Lu School scholars and Stoic scholars, on the other hand, more prominently emphasize the tendency towards eternal tranquility and the internal balance of various human functions, and tend to stay away from passion for country, politics, love, and various desires.This wisdom we find, for example, in Seneca's Epistle to Lucilius, and its more recent versions, for example, in Montaigne, who gives us rules for inner freedom, get relief.This does not prevent people from enjoying the joy of existence, especially the joy of spirit.This philosophical second way has been abandoned, generally speaking from the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries.Philosophy, through the dialogue in which it entered with modern science, which was just born in the seventeenth century, moved more and more towards pure knowledge, the interpretation of history, while abandoning the management of human existence and the pursuit of a meaning due to it . Mathieu - that is to say towards the knowledge of "facts". Jean-François - Yes.With the advent of science, people were finally convinced that there was something called objectivity, a knowledge that was open to all, not just philosophers. Mathieu - Spiritual knowledge is open to all who are really willing to take the trouble to discover it.That is how people become philosophers.Otherwise, an "objective" cognition that can be accepted by everyone at the beginning can only be the lowest common denominator of cognition without the slightest effort on oneself.In that case, what people are talking about is more a quantitative approach than a qualitative approach. Jean-François—It may be said that in the West, people have passed from a civilization of belief to a civilization of proof. Mathieu—The fruit of spiritual practice, tranquility, alertness, mental clarity, and its outward manifestations, kindness, non-attachment, and patience, all belong to the category of proof rather than the category of belief.It is said that altruism and self-control are the marks of knowing, and that freedom from emotion is the mark of contemplation.These qualities are ultimately rooted in us and manifested spontaneously through our actions. Jean-François – Historically, since the eighteenth century, faith in science has replaced faith in wisdom.This is the first stage, the "philosophy of light" that is, the philosophy of enlightenment.What kind of light is this?The light of reason, it helps people understand the function of real things, dispelling illusions, passions, absurd beliefs, superstitions.Then, personal inner wisdom is gained through the path of objective knowledge.It was, to use the catchphrase of the era, the "torch of reason" that would illuminate the question of human happiness. Mathieu—Buddhism talks about the "torch of knowledge"; without wisdom, reason will push far away on the issue of human happiness, but it will never reach human happiness. Jean-François - if you agree, the new idea that was born in the eighteenth century and continued throughout the nineteenth century is progress - a vague term that includes both moral and scientific progress - - from reason, this new thought will explain to us the dynamics underlying the functioning of the universe and of the individual.It is the duality of reason-progress that brings us happiness.In a sense, this is not bad.Science has contributed to vast improvements in human existence.In any case it should not be forgotten that even in 1830 the average life expectancy in France was only twenty-five years!There was virtually no cure for any disease at that time.Few people still have their own teeth by the age of thirty.And what if he lived to be thirty!The invention of vaccinia in England in the eighteenth century against smallpox, a disease that claimed so many victims, had a huge impact.Voltaire talked about it for a long time.Things are finally in a state of real change.You will tell me: this is quantitative change.But these practical and material improvements, which are of great significance to the masses, make people say: we have entered a new era; the world is no longer a perpetual repetition of itself as the ancients believed. The advances brought about by science and the clarification of the understanding of the laws of nature have helped to transform the conditions in which human beings live and especially will live. Mathieu - The goal of this approach is to transform the conditions of existence, not to give existence a meaning.But why must one aspect develop itself at the expense of the other? Jean-François - By virtue of the transformation of living conditions, every human being has more possibilities to enter into a personal intelligence.Certainly it is elegant to preach philosophical wisdom to a bunch of illiterate peasants who are freezing to death in winter and dying like flies with the slightest infectious disease.However, if they are to be able to benefit from Seneca's teachings, they must first live to an age when it can be taught to them!The idea of ​​pitting the material benefits of scientific progress against the sublime spiritual perfection available to every individual seems to me reactionary.This is a completely false counter-evidence.When people of the eighteenth century talked about progress brought about by knowledge, they simply did not think that science by itself had to solve all the problems of their personal happiness!They think that science provides them with a range within which they have a greater chance of having, if only some deferment, and especially conditions, which enable them to achieve a certain tranquillity.Because only the Emperor Marc Aurel and some courtiers or parasitic philosophers living in the court can achieve the wisdom of Stoicism, which is very elegant, but unfortunately a little elitist. Mathieu – let’s go back to your example of the frozen peasant!It made me think of those Tibetan nomads who endured extreme cold and lived in great material simplicity.However, even these nomads share a view of existence that brings them a kind of joy in life that elite characters simply cannot have.Even in our time, these frozen peasants have reached a kind of wisdom that permeates their everyday lives.I have spent months in some deep valleys in Bhutan and Tibet, where there are no roads or electricity, nothing to indicate that we are in modern times.But the quality of human relations here contrasts in stark ways with that of the Western metropolis.Conversely, when excessive material development leads to the manufacture of things that are not at all necessary, man finds himself in the midst of extravagant intricacies.Without spiritual value, material progress can only lead to disaster.This is not to preach a utopian return to nature, or to what remains of nature, but to understand that if "standards of living" in the material sense as they are now understood are greatly improved, then the quality of life will be greatly improved. greatly reduced.Tibetan nomads and Bhutanese farmers are not as good at "earning" their lives as an American businessman, but they know how not to lose them! Jean-François - this critique of consumer society - as it was said in 1968 - is very strong even within Western civilization today.But this argument involves a prerequisite success.Again, the philosophers of the eighteenth century did not say that science would solve those problems of human destiny or the meaning of existence, because they, especially Rousseau, also advocated a return to primitive nature; but accompanying their views, It is trust in the efficacy of education, trust in the ability to understand the totality of choices that exist between different ways of life, different doctrines, and different religions, so as to freely choose one of them.From this came the idea of ​​tolerance, and it was born in this age, or at least it was fully developed in this age.When you talk about those Tibetan peasants who learned happiness through Buddhism, people hardly recommend them anything else!They don't own Western books in order to say to themselves, "Oh, yes! I'd rather go to the Presbyterian religion, or to Heidegger's philosophy..." It's almost a juggler as Christianity was to the European peasants of the Middle Ages The card that makes people have to draw is the only choice.Tibetan nomads who practice Buddhism may be happy, and I am happy for them, but we cannot say that we are dealing with a group of people who have freely chosen a certain kind of wisdom.They chose the kind of wisdom their society recommended to them.It would be nice if that wisdom made them happy, but that's not the same thing as appearances. Mathieu - I don't think you have to try everything to understand the value of something.Let us take the example of pure thirst-quenching water.Those who drink this water do not have to taste all the waters in their vicinity, sweet or salty, to appreciate its excellence.Likewise, those who have tasted the joys of spiritual practice and spiritual value need no proof other than that of their own personal experience.There is a strength and an inner firmness to the resulting happiness that will not lie.I would like to quote a few words from a song of spiritual realization written by a Tibetan hermit: Today I ascend a mountain higher than my perfect monastery, At the top of the mountain, I raised my eyes, I saw a cloudless sky. It makes me think of the absolute and boundless universe, Then I recognized a situation without context and without purpose, Freedom from all one-sided views. look straight ahead, I see the sun of this world, its unshaded light, made me think of meditation, So I meditate on being free from all concepts The vacuum of light has an incomparable experience. I turned my head to the south, I saw the beautiful ribbons of the rainbow, Its vision reminds me that all phenomena are empty and transparent, So I got a unique experience: completely free from all notions of nothingness and eternity Natural clarity. Just as there is no darkness at the center of the sun, For the hermit, the universe and all beings are perfect, So he was satisfied. As on an island of gold there are no pebbles at all, For the hermit all voices are prayers, So he was satisfied. Like a bird flying in the blue sky leaving no trace, For the hermit, thought is absolute nature, So he was satisfied. It was not necessary for the man who wrote these lines to travel the world and experience the joys of downtown New York or the piety of a Presbyterian hall to have a clear sense of the truth as he experienced it.Besides, the freedom of choice you mentioned is not necessarily so great in contemporary society.Observing the life of the city carefully, one feels that all the small aspects of an individual's life must be very clearly defined, just like a screw must fit a hole exactly.In a sense, people don't have the slightest certainty about their lives.In order to survive, they must follow the patterns and rhythms assigned to them. Jean-François - However, a new desire for spiritual wisdom explains the recent interest in Buddhism in the West, if it is felt in the West, it is precisely because of Buddhism's ability to combine the West's past experience with the present experience for comparison.The Enlightenment philosophy was accompanied by a hope based on the leaps forward in science and on the urgent need for the dissemination of knowledge.It was from here that the ideal of secular, free and compulsory education for all arose, realized a century later.That is, education that does not represent any particular doctrine is not anti-religious (antireligiguse), but non-religious (a-religieuse).All this, combined with the development of a tolerance for free choice, must give existence a meaning.Of course, it is certain that this kind of scientific and industrial material civilization can produce some unnecessary, unreasonable and unnatural needs.Epicurus has said that every need that is satisfied creates new needs and increases disappointment.It is precisely for this reason that today there is a huge demand for various ancient Greek philosophies, just like Buddhism, and ancient Greek philosophy has the right to speak again. Mathieu—but it must also be that education is not merely the accumulation of knowledge—scientific knowledge, technical knowledge, historical knowledge—it must constitute a real growth process of beings. Jean-François - Of course, but let's turn to the third aspect of the Western attempt since the eighteenth century to answer the question of the meaning of existence.This aspect belongs to a wide variety of utopian utopias of social reconstruction, that is, revolutionary concepts that took off with the French Revolution.Until that time, the word revolution used to refer only to the rotation of a planet around the sun.People for the economy, the judiciary.The revolutionary ideal in the sense of completely rebuilding a society in all spheres of politics, religion, and culture, but destroying it, is especially the "ideal of 1789" or at least the ideal of 1793.Also the conviction in the minds of the main actors of this revolution that they have the right to purge through terror all who stand against this great chaos for the sake of their highest ideals!Even without going to this extreme—which unfortunately is too frequent—the idea has taken root that human happiness can only be achieved through a radical transformation of society.A just society must become a reality.From this point of view, it is futile to try to sketch out a method by which each person who is treated individually can become good and sane.Society must be treated as a whole.In this way, the resolution of the meaning of existence ceases to be a personal matter. Mathieu - How can a whole hope to be good if its parts are not good?One cannot make a lump of gold out of a pile of nails. Jean-François - because the whole is thought to act on all its parts.This is a typical utopian fantasy.All social theories of this type are utopian.That is to say, the improvement of human beings, the manufacture of human beings, through the thorough, not gradual and partial, but sudden and total improvement of society.When society as a whole has become just, each of its citizens becomes a just and happy human being in itself.In these utopian visions, two constituent parts of the philosophy of the Enlightenment converge, on the one hand, the ideal of scientific progress, which will guarantee material abundance and free human beings from the troubles that arise from poverty, and on the other hand, It is the ideal of all kinds of just social relations.Each individual who makes up the society will enjoy this justice and adopt a more moral attitude on his own.The moralization of the individual and the transition to happiness are effected through the general transformation of society.The individual no longer has his own existence, he only exists as a part of the social machine.Lenin and Stalin had a lot of words about "screw man".Man is a cog in the machine of communism construction. Mathieu - So, in your opinion, what happened at the end of the twentieth century?What situation are we in, are we not tempted by the screws? Jean-François - Alas, the religions of the West are no longer practiced.The Pope may have a large audience.He wrote some widely circulated books.Cardinal Rustiger, bishop of Paris, was greatly respected, and he was consulted on many matters, except, of course, in matters of religion.Besides, the priests are our last Marxists.The Catholic Church has some brilliant intellectuals.But people no longer go to mass, no longer want to follow the Christian precepts.They want to be Christians without having to play by rules they feel are reactionary.Besides, there are very few vows to become a monk.Today, one can no longer deny that the hope of an afterlife no longer compensates for social miseries such as unemployment and confused youth.No priest will ever gather the youth of the suburbs and say to them: If you are wise, I will spare you two years of purgatory.It's not going to work anymore, it's over. Mathieu – So what is being offered to these young people and to those who are older? Jean-François – People continue to believe in science, they continue to have great hopes for material improvement, health improvement.But on the other hand, people realize that science also has some negative fallout, pollution, chemical and biological weapons, all kinds of pollution that are constantly and more seriously proliferating, in short, the destruction of the environment; and then, on the other hand, People realize that science clearly does not bring about personal happiness.We live on the basis of a world that has been transformed by science, and perhaps made more comfortable by science, but the question of individual life and individual destiny is still exactly the same as it was in Roman times.And, quite astonishingly, in France, an extremely distinguished series of reprints of ancient and modern works, the Bouquins, one of its best-sellers, is Seneca. Ultimately, the history of the twentieth century is the history of the complete breakdown of social utopian fantasies.Quite simply, people see that this doesn't work.To see that it produces only negative results, to see that these societies have lost even in their own attempts to bring about as much equality and happiness as possible for all, since their risk is paid for by open material failure.The standard of living in the totalitarian countries lags ten to fifteen times behind that of capitalist society, and the inequalities, although concealed, are stronger there than in capitalist society.They have lost morally, human happiness and materially. Mathieu - this is what George Orwell said: "All men are equal, and some are more equal than others." Jean-François - that's what it means! 《动物的农庄》一书中的这句话旨在讽刺这个事实，即苏联共产党的领袖人们都过着一种非常舒适和富足的生活，而人民大众则不是如此。在那些贫困的文明里，总有一群过着奢侈生活的贵族政治家。 但是除了这些悲惨的细节，毫无疑问的是，那种认为人们能够重新彻底地建设一个社会并使之成为一个完美社会的理想，已经被二十世纪的历史驳倒并被淹没在鲜血中了。那么还剩下什么？那就是根据古老的良好方法而向智慧的回归。正如在我们的谈话过程中我们已经注意到的，这解释了当今某些青年哲学家的书籍的成功的原因，他们非常谦逊地回归到一些教养原则上，引起了公众的巨大兴趣，而同样的这些书在四十年前就会使人发笑。 马蒂厄——总之，我们都或多或少地同意这个事实，即给予存在以一个意义的，不仅仅是物质条件的改善，因为我们不是机器；也不单独地是一些行为规则，因为仅有一个外表是不够的，而是通过智慧对人进行的一种改造。 让-弗朗索瓦——并不完全同意。我相信我们为使生存变得可以承受而依靠的所有智慧，都是有限度的。最大的界限，就是死亡。我认为，在各种关于智慧的学说中，必须将那些相信有一个彼世、相信死亡之后的某种事物、相信一种永恒性的形式的学说，与那些从坚持认为死亡是对存在的彻底取消、根本没有彼世这个原则出发的学说区分开。就个人而言，我具有这第二种确信。在这个确信的范围内，对于智慧的追求总是某种不确定的和暂时的东西，它处在现实生命，也就是惟一被人们认识的、惟一被视为真实的生命之中，这个追求并不包含对于一种更高的解决方案的希望。这总是引导我们在各种具有世俗内涵的智慧学说，或者是对于生存意义的追求与各种具有宗教内涵的智慧学说，或者是对于生存意义的追求之间，作出一种根本的区分。 马蒂厄——这种区分在我看来并不像你说的那样根本。即使是承认在此生之前或之后有着一系列的生存状态，这些生存状态在本质上说是与我们目前的生命性质相同的。所以，如果人们找到一种智慧能给今生赋予一种意义，则这同样的智慧也将给我们的来生赋予一种意义。认识、精神实现就这样每一个时刻都在生存中得到运用，不论这生存是长是短，也不论是有一次还是多次。如果人们给生命找到了一个意义，人们并不需要为了从中获益而等待死亡。 让-弗朗索瓦——我确实认为，智慧的问题，就是今天、此地和当前。我应当试图在每个场合，根据我在经验中、在思考中、在与伟大心灵的接触时学习到的东西中观察到的规律，表现自己，因为这些是在这个方向上的最有效的规律。但是我还是相信，在这种态度与认为人能够在一些将来的生命中延伸自己这一事实之间存在一个巨大的区别。这意味着一种完全不同的宇宙观。 马蒂厄——当然，但如果这样想，那就是错误的：“如果我现在不是幸福的，那不要紧，因为我在将来的一次生命中会是幸福的。”确实，达到一种深刻的精神实现，对于那个想在多次的生存状态中延续智慧对他自己和对他人的益处的人来说，具有一些非常重要的影响，比起那个认为这些影响仅仅对他将要过的那些余年有作用的人来说，这些影响要重要得多。可是，就质的方面而言，这是一回事。且看着许多知道自已被确诊患了某种重病的人：他们往往不是丧失勇气，而是给生存找到一种全新的意义。通过认识、通过内心改造，而给生命赋予一个意义，这是一种超出时间之外的实现（accomplissement），它在当前时刻一如对于未来，都是有效的，不论未来如何。 让-弗朗索瓦——你说的这些也许对于佛教而言是正确的，因为佛教并不是一种专一地建立在对彼世的希望上的宗教。但显然，一个穆斯林就只生活在这样的理想中，即如果他尊重神圣的法律，他就将去往天堂。就像所有的就定义而言的基督徒一样，不论是天主教徒还是清教徒！相信灵魂不死性这一行为解释了苏格拉底智慧中的很大一部分教训。苏格拉底一柏拉图学说只是因为它与一种形而上学相连接才最终获得其全部意义，用这种形而上学的话说就是，我们生活于其中的这个世界只是一个由幻象构成的世界，但是还有另一个世界，我们可以从现在起就通过哲学智慧、哲学静观、理论（theorie）——从词源上说，希腊词山eoria的意思是“观察”、观看——来到达，然后，既然灵魂的不死性已经被证实，我们就能够最终体会到完满。这与那些将自己行动的本质建立在对死亡观念的接受上的智慧形式是非常不同的。 马蒂厄——但你是否认为存在着一种智慧，一种认识，它对于当前时刻和对于将来都是同样有效的？一种真理，它并不因为人们只思考此生，或者极端地说，只思考当前时刻而变小？我认为，对于存在本质、精神的本质、无知和认识的本质、幸福与痛苦的原因的本质的理解，现在而且永远具有一种价值。在你看来，什么样的智慧能够给予在所有的暂时可能性之外的生存一种意义？ 让-弗朗索瓦——有一些智慧，它们既能与关于未来生存的形而上学观念相联系，又能与这样的假设相联系，即认为我们现在的生存就是我们从来拥有的惟一生存。佛教的一部分就属于这种智慧。斯多葛学说是另一个例子。斯多葛学说建立在一种关于永久回归的宇宙理论上，这是一种宇宙观。但是斯多葛派学者们在他们的智慧中，也就是他们的常识中，将他们所称的秘传斯多葛学说与外传斯多葛学说区分开。只有某些心灵，也就是那些能够掌握对宇宙论的认识和对自然的认识的人才能接近前者。而后者则是一种方法手册，我这样说并不带有轻视，不妨说这是一些为了在生活中良好地行为表现的教训。例如，埃比克泰特的《手册》就是一篇关于适合运用的道德的实用性论文，它是针对这样一些人而作的，人们并不能要求这些人全身心地投入到对于宇宙的深入研究之中。所以，在两个层次之间就有一个区别。这种学说，除了灵魂不死的假设之外，应该包含相当重大的一部分可实用的教训，才可具有你所指出的这种双重功能。 马蒂厄——这种在外传学说与内传学说之间的分别存在于包括佛教在内的所有传统之中。它对应于众生中的各种需要、各种希望和各种不同的能力。但是，你曾说，在二十世纪末，智慧的问题在西方重新被提出来。这种能够给每个人都带来某种完满的智慧，你如何定义它？ 让-弗朗索瓦——我不相信灵魂的不死性，我认为任何完满都不是可以达到的。我认为所有知道自己终有一死、不相信彼世的人类存在者都不可能具有一种完满感。他可以就一些暂时的目标而相对地具有完满感，当然这些目标不排除一定的喜悦。但我相信，关于生存的意义，没有任何完整的答案，除非是一些巨大的超验的答案，不论是宗教的、近宗教的（para-religieuse）还是政治的答案。那位建设社会主义的乌托邦空想家对自己说：“我死了，但我是为一项伟大事业而死的。我死后，将有一个美好的世界。”这也是一种不死性。 马蒂厄——你是否相信被定义为对事物本质的最终认识的超验性，可以在当前被感知或被转变为现实？ 让-弗朗索瓦——不。 马蒂厄——为什么？ 让-弗朗索瓦——因为超验性从定义上说，意味着生命不是有限的，意味着你在肉体的死亡之后、在生理的死亡之后继续生活着。 马蒂厄——举例来说，对于精神本质的认识，就是一种最终的认识，因为是精神在包括现在生存状态和将来生存状态在内的所有可能的生存状态中体验着现象世界。 让-弗朗索瓦——人们可以通过科学而最终达到幸福！ 马蒂厄——是可以通过科学，如果这个科学是以对存在（etre）的认识为中心的话。你不认为认识精神的最终本质是一种内在性（immanence）吗？ 让-弗朗索瓦——不……我相信这种答案取决于每个人类存在者的态度，取决于他的个人选择。我不认为人们可以说这是一种能被强加于所有人的答案。总是会有一点侧重，或是侧重于认为人是一个将要在死亡之后还永远延续的连续性中的一个阶段，或是侧重于认为人在死亡之后不再存在。人们认为马尔罗说过一句我总是认为有些荒诞的话：“二十一世纪将会是宗教的世纪，或者不是！”无论如何，二十一世纪将是宗教的世纪。 马蒂厄——他的意思也许是“精神的”世纪而不是“宗教的”世纪。 让-弗朗索瓦——说精神的世纪也许不怎么错，但是又有点更加含糊。毫无超验性的对精神性的追求不是一种结构严密的方法。没有任何事可做！有两类智慧。其中之一，我再说一遍，是以确信人属于一条流、而目前的生命不过是这条流的一个阶段为基础的；而另一类，我要称之为顺从的智慧，但并不肯定就是一种悲哀的智慧，它是建立在相反的基础上：即意识到这个有限的生命是惟一的生命。这是一种接受的智慧，它是要在目前的生命中，以尽可能少地不合理的、不公正的、不道德的手段进行自我构造，但同时又清楚地知道这只是一个临时的插曲。 马蒂厄——现象从本质上说是短暂的，但对它们的本质的认识是不可变的。我认为人能够获得一种智慧、一种完满和一种宁静，它们产生于认识，或是产生于人们所称的精神实现。我相信一旦人们发现了精神的最终本质，这个发现就是非时间性的。在伟大的精神师傅的传记中，常常使我感受深刻的，就是他们都说死亡不造成任何差异。和再生完全一样，死亡对于精神实现不作任何改变。佛教当然赞同那种由众多相继的生存状态构成的连续性的概念，但是真正的精神实现是超越生和死的，这是人们在自身内部实现的不可变的真理，是一种不再受变化（devenir）决定的完满。 让-弗朗索瓦——那好！既然你的假设比我的更为乐观，为了让读者们高兴，我就让你获胜罢了……