Preamble by kdm. . . I’ll be honest, as I started into what follows, I immediately became aware of the writing style in the era under which author Leo Tolstoy wrote what’s below (1893). It was different from what we are used to today. . . . to the point of distraction. “Thinkers’ today primarily go along with the “status quo”. It is refreshing to understand Tolstoy and the fluency of his truths revealed below. The writing gender of that era was strictly male which can be distracting (if not a ‘turn off’) to half the population, (women). Many small changes were made causing a more readable result for today’s audiences. I so much appreciate Tolstoy’s ideas, summarys and TRUTHS, revealing instead, clean unadulterated teachings that replace so much of what has been lost, accepted, through centurys of ‘convenient’ (blatant?) miss-interpretations. For those who would appreciate a more candid, truthful picture of what has been changed / dropped / or shuffled aside, Brother Leo Tolstoy has many answers = good food for thought!
So, from Leo Tolstoy and his book (of the above name) published in 1893:
. . . . Now I will speak on the other view of Christianity which hinders the true understanding of it—the scientific view. (p.64)
Churchmen substitute for Christianity the version they have framed for themselves, and in this view of Christianity they regard as the one infallibly true one.
Men of science regard as Christianity only the tenets held by different churches in the past and present; finding that these tenants have lost all significance of Christianity, they accept it as a religion which has outlived its age. To see clearly how impossible it is to understand the Christian teaching from such a point, one must form an idea of the place actually held by religions in general and by the Christian religion in particular, in the life of mankind, and the significance attributed to them by science.
Just as an individual cannot live without having some theory of life, and is always, though often unconsciously, framing one’s conduct in accordance with their meaning attributed to life, so too associations living in similar conditions—nations—cannot but have theories of the meaning of their associated life and conduct ensuing from those theories. And as the individual attains a fresh stage of growth, they inevitably change their philosophy of life and the grownup sees a different meaning in it from the child, so too associations—nations—are bound to change their philosophy of life and the conduct ensuing from their philosophy, to correspond with their development.
The difference, regarding this, between the individual and humanity as a whole, lies in the fact that the individual, informing that the view of life proper to the new period of life on which they’re entering and the conduct resulting from it, benefits from who have lived before, who have already passed through that stage of growth now entering. But humanity cannot have this aid, because it is always moving along a hitherto untrodden track, and has no one to ask how to understand life and to act in the conditions on which it is entering and through which no one has ever asked before.
(p.65) Nevertheless, just as a man with wife and children cannot look at life as he looked at it as a child, so too in the face of the various changes that are taking place, the greatest density of population, the establishment of communication between different peoples, the improvements of methods of the struggle of nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot look to life as of old, and it must frame a new theory of life, from which conduct may follow adapted to new conditions on which it has entered and is entering.
To meet this need humanity has the special power of producing those who give a new meaning to the whole of human life—a theory of life from which follow new forms of activity quite different from all preceding them. The formation of this life philosophy appropriate to humanity is what is called religion.
And therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science imagines, a manifestation which at one time corresponded with the development of humanity, but is afterward grown out of it. It is a manifestation always inherent in the life of humanity at the present time as at any other. Secondly, religion is always the theory of practice of the future and not the past, and therefore it is clear that investigation of past manifestations cannot in any case grasp the essence of religion.
The essence of every religious teaching lies not in the desire for a symbolic expression of the forces of nature, nor in the dread of these forces, nor in craving for the marvelous, nor in the external forms in which it is manifested, as men of science imagine; the essence of religion lies in foreseeing and pointing out the path of life, as a result of which the whole future conduct of humanity is changed and different from all that has been before.
This faculty of foreseeing the path along which humanity must move, is common to a greater or lesser degree among all men. But in all times there have been those in whom this faculty was especially strong, and those have given clear and definite expression to what all felt vaguely, and formed a new philosophy of life from which new lines of action followed for hundreds and thousands of years.
Of the philosophies of life we know three; two have already been passed through by humanity, and the third that we are passing through (p.66) now is Christianity. The philosophies of life are three in number, and only three, not because we have arbitrarily brought the various theories of life together under these three heads, but because all actions are always based on one of three views of life—because we cannot view life otherwise than in these three ways.
These three views of life are as follows: first, embracing the individual, or the animal view of life; second, embracing the society, or the pagan way of life; third, embracing the whole world, or the divine view of life.
In the first theory life. . . life is limited to this one individuality; the aim of life is the satisfaction of the will of this individuality. In the second theory of life it is not limited to one’s own individuality, but to certain societies and classes of individuals; to the tribe, the family, the clan, the nation; the aim of life is of the will of one’s individuality. The second theory of life is limited not to one’s to own individuality, but to certain societies and classes of individuals: to the tribe, the family, the clan, the nation; the aim of life is limited to the satisfaction of the will of those associations of individuals. In the third theory of life it is limited not to societies and classes of individuals, but extends to the principle and source of life—to God.
These three conceptions of life form the foundation of all religions that exist or have existed. ~~~~Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (Barnes & Noble, Inc. 122 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10011) p.64-66 wc:1107 (continued)
