How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being

第二 十三期

2012 年

春 夏

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

A Critical Study of Tolstoy’s On Life 1

邱亞琦 Human beings are hungry for the meaning of life; we want there to be a sense of direction; we would like our life to achieve well-being, and we all hope the well-being we expect can last forever. However, the sense of possible failure haunts our quest for the meaning of life and the possibility of attaining well-being, for all is “vanity” and “a chasing after wind” (Ecclesiastes 2.11) as long as we remain aware of death’s existence. With such a consideration, “who knows what is good for mortals while they live the few days of their vain life, which they pass like a shadow?” and “who can tell them what will be after them under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 6.11-12). Then, how do we think about life? And how is it possible to attain well-being?

And yet, everyone craves after welfare, but how many

1. 1887.

107

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

people can have a clear explanation of what exactly well-being is? People think that they know what well-being is, and pursuing it. But, what exactly do they pursue?

Leo Tolstoy analyzed life and well-being in his work entitled On Life. As the title indicates, it deals exclusively with the author’s reflections on the meaning of life, as it relates to the issues of well-being, love, suffering, and eventual death. This book provides Tolstoy’s thought for those who are in their own quest for the meaning of life.

What is the meaning of life? What is true life? What is the direction we are heading in? What is to be found at the end of our life? If the end of our life is to achieve well-being, then is it possible for us—who are fragile and limited—to attain well-being? How is it possible to attain well-being?

In this article, I will cast my gaze upon Tolstoy’s interpretation of life and well-being as found in his On Life; adding

that,

I

hope

to

provide

some

criticism

and

sober-reflections on Tolstoy’s contentions by adopting Biblical scripture as well as Dr. Immanuel Chih-Ming Ke’s2 criticism, to

2. Dr. Immanuel Chih-Ming Ke (柯志明) is the moderator of “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group” ( 「 方 濟 與 狼 讀 書 會 」 ) of the St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. In 2012, Dr. Ke guided participants to read Tolstoy’s On Life. Most of the conceptions found in this article are to be attributed to Dr. Ke. Here, I must offer my heartfelt thanks to him for his personal guidance. Without such guidance, I would not begin this article.

108

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

help clarify and facilitate a subtler insight into the strengths and weakness points of Tolstoy’s original work.

To begin with, this paper intends to examine Tolstoy’s position through an investigation of how false directions in knowledge reinforces a false understanding of one’s life; secondly, by an illustration of the contradiction—the pursuit of well-being and the impossibility of attaining well-being; thirdly, this section will investigate Tolstoy’s understanding of true life which is beyond time and space; the next section will posit a way

to

attain

well-being—the

renunciation

of

personal

well-being, which overcomes death; and then, the section aims to discuss the absence of God in Tolstoy’s On Life; finally, the article will conclude with a suggested way to attain well-being.

I. The False Direction of Knowledge A Tolstoy provided a subtle insight into the knowledge of science; he considered that, false science “assumes that we know what we cannot know, and that we cannot know the one thing we really do know” (53); added to that, a man with false knowledge assumes that he knows all that is presented to him in space and time, and that he does not know his reasonable consciousness and what it tells him (53). To explain further:

109

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

What is indubitably known to him, his reasonable consciousness, appears to him unknowable because it is not simple, while what is certainly incomprehensible to him—illimitable and eternal matter—seems to him to be the most knowable of all things because its very remoteness from him makes it appear simple.

(54)

In other words, inanimate and infinite matters seem to be the most knowable to humans; the next is plants; and then it is animals; and, the reasonable consciousness seems to him almost unknowable of all.

Tolstoy insisted that it is just the reverse: he considered that “every man can and does know the good to which he aspires,” and, secondly, the reason which indicates the good to him—that is, the way to attain the good. After that, it is the “animal self,” and only then does he see plants and matters—all the other phenomena. Tolstoy did not say only then does he “know,” instead, he said, does he “see” all the other phenomena (54).

Tolstoy implied that humans don’t really know all the other phenomena around them; instead, they know most about themselves.

Tolstoy indicated that, “The sureness of our knowledge does not depend on the possibility of observing objects in space

110

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

and time” (58). Furthermore, he advanced that our “knowledge of the world results from the consciousness we have of our own aspiration towards good and of the necessity of subjecting our animal self to reason for the attainment of that good” (58). Here, Tolstoy pointed out a very profound thought process; that is, in Dr. Ke’s elucidation, Tolstoy posited that we are more familiar with and more certain about our own mind, instead of our body.

If we just give a thought about ourselves, we will know about whether it is true or not.3

B What is the well-being of humans? What is rational consciousness? Dr. Ke points out that, for modern people, there is no definite answer to these questions. They may answer subjectively: it depends on how you define these conditions. Dr. Ke continues to state that, if you were to ask him: Does absolute truth exist? Does absolute right or wrong exist? Do ethics exist?

Does morality exist? “The answer would be the same in each case: This is hard to say.” However, it is ironic that “when you were to ask them about the origin of human life, they will hold

3. Dr. Immanuel Chih-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” （ 「方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》 ）St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態 神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. April 13th, 2012.

111

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

in all certainty that humans are evolved from apes” (Ke).4 Tolstoy’s criticism and incredulity toward the sciences are suitable to be used even today. Humans still don’t know whether we should be good to others, and they don’t know whether there exists an absolute definition of things. For example, whether adultery is right or wrong, there would be no definite answer.5 They are not so sure about one’s gender, or identity; they are not so sure about whether there is a so-called essential woman; they are not so sure about whether female-to-female/ male-to-male marriage is right or wrong. Nevertheless, they know about the big bang theory, and they know about how the universe works with infinite certainty. Modern people are the followers of relativism; they are not sure about things that are definite, but the illimitable and eternal matter seem knowable and definite to them nevertheless.

Do I really know about my body? Do I really know about my hair, my fingernails, my teeth, and my eyebrows? Tolstoy doubted that we knew about our body; “our body is like a

4. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” 「 ( 方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. April 13th, 2012.

5. There was a time I presented my paper in a colloquium, when I brought up the idea of morality, it agitated a professor and the students. They tried to persuade me with sincerity, and explained with eagerness that there is no standard morality, things are always relative, and you cannot say that adultery is wrong, etc. 2012.

112

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

stranger to us: we can neither understand it nor control it, and probably it is because we don’t share the same spirit, the same mind” (Ke). 6 Thus, in this sense, we can say we are more familiar with ourselves—humans—than with animals.

According to the discussion,7 some people may say that animals provide the best company, since they are simple and easy to understand. On the contrary, humans are complicated, and hard to understand. Animal life seems to us specifically clear and definite only because “it appears to follow the same laws” (Ke); and, those laws seem clear to us because they are far removed from our immediate understanding. For example, we don’t know the mind of dogs: we don’t know what it means when dogs show their happiness through wagging their tails; we don’t understand their grief—if they really have the same kind of grief as humans do. Mountains and seas seem to be unfamiliar to us; wild flowers, trees, though they are beautiful, remain unfamiliar to us; after all, we don’t really understand them. In Dr. Ke’s words, “we can only understand those who possess minds, but those without minds are not comprehensible to us.”8 The

6. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” 「 ( 方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. April 13th, 2012.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

113

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

“animal kingdom is for us only a reflection of what we know in ourselves. The material world is, as it were, the reflection of a reflection” (Tolstoy 60).

According to the elucidation offered by Dr. Ke, no matter how much progress medical science makes, it cannot help humans to attain well-being; likewise, no matter how much we know about ecology, we will never attain well-being. Well-being has nothing to do with our bodies, and not even with our environments,

but the

essence

of life

itself is

rational

consciousness (Ke). 9 Humans are inclined to find out the “simple laws” of matter and to apply them to all human life: human life is reduced to some simpler manifestations and rules; that is, to explain complicated things we use simplified laws.

This doesn’t construe that Tolstoy repudiated the study of laws, our knowledge of nature, matter, and life; but, he argued that it was not only useful, and even indispensable at times, for the elucidation of the law of man’s life to take place, but only when the study must submit itself to the law of reason.

On Life was written by Leo Tolstoy in the late 19th century, Dr. Ke claims, but “the entire 20th century has already proven the truth of it: Scientific efforts improve weapon systems, and the improvement of medical science brings about the problem of

9. Ibid.

114

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

eugenics”; in addition, modern people are inclined to claim that they are assured of the reliability of their study on life.10 Dr. Ke provides a very interesting statement to this effect: “doctors pledge in all sincerity and seriousness that human life is constituted by a physical body; chemists tell us that human life is a composition of chemistries; physicists tell us that our life is some balance of physical changes taking place; biologists say that we are merely organisms, animals.”11 It is hard for a biologist to accept that humans and animals are different in their very essence (Ke);12 even though we are not biologists, we are still educated and therefore convinced that humans and animals are the same in their essence. Darwin’s theory of evolution convinces us that we are descended from primates. Today, the modern evolutionary synthesis is not only accepted by a vast majority of scientists, but also by most of the lay people in our world.

If our life is limited to this bodily existence, if we are the same in essence with the animals, and we are the descendants of apes, does it mean that our well-being is limited to our bodily existence? Does it mean that our well-being is the same as with animals’ physical welfare?

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

115

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

II. The Contradiction A Based on the logic of false teachings, it is impossible to attain well-being that is beyond bodily well-being.

“Man lives only for his own happiness—for his own good” (Tolstoy 16); that is, to live is to seek for well-being and to aim at possessing his own well-being. The life of other beings which surrounds him turns out to be only one of the conditions of his existence; in other words, if he wishes good upon others, it is only because the good of others may increase his own welfare.

Consequently, only his life seems real, and what is important to him is only for his own good. Unfortunately, the life of other beings turns out to be an instrument for use in achieving his own happiness. In order to secure his own happiness, and with the aim of attaining his own good, he must be ready to deprive, to devour all the other beings for the very sake of it.

However, Tolstoy pointed out that the needs of existence for animal man are as numerous as “the phases of this existence,” and also the phases are as many as “the radii of the globe”; that is to say, the needs of man’s personal existence are innumerable (83). In addition, the need of animal man will be exaggerated, and these needs must be satiated or else they will feel pain. It is because that they exaggerate their needs that the

116

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

needs/desire come from their mind. 13 In Tolstoy’s words, humans’ need can be compared to “innumerable inflatable globules of which a body is composed” (84). In other words, those who pursue their innumerable and bottomless needs can never be satisfied, and will be forever induced by their own exaggerated desires to forever chase after their animal needs.

In the view of Tolstoy, humans must live with and submit to the guidance of life, and that guidance has no reasonable explanation; but, it is the habit and “the custom of social life”; and, oftenest of all, it is called “duty or even sacred duty.” He believes it has a sensible meaning, though it is not known to him, it seems clear to other people (33). False science contributes its energy to the observation and study of humans’ existence as animals in order to find the real well-being in human life. It is true, perhaps in view of Tolstoy, no matter how well humans “may know the law governing his animal personality and the laws governing matter,” they will never gather from those laws the least indication of what they ought to do with the bit of bread they have in their hands; for instance, “whether he ought to give it to his wife, to a stranger, to a dog, or eat it himself; whether he

13. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” 「 ( 方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. April 13th, 2012.

117

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

ought to store his bit of bread, or give it to him who asks for it” (Tolstoy 52), and they will not know the meaning of life, and what well-being is.

However, the well-being of “his personality” is always pursued—through the destruction of other beings which seems to perish because “his personality, that which alone means life to him, is in continual strife with something it is impossible to resist,” and his own existence “draws every hour and every moment nearer to feebleness, old age, and death” (18). No argument can deny the indisputable truth that bodily existence “is something that is continually perishing and hastening on to death, and that consequently his animal personality cannot be life” (69).

Humans have grown up and were educated in false teachings, and thus have confirmed that life is but individual existence which began at birth and ends at bodily death—that is, the “visible life” is the real life, which is actually the “mirage” of life (38 & 42). According to Tolstoy, “the sole aim of life that at first presents itself to man is the welfare of his own personality, but welfare cannot exist for the personality . . . is irresistibly drawn . . . towards suffering, evil, death, and destruction” (19); this is the essential contradiction of human life: the animal existence has the unquenchable demand for

118

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

well-being which is known by reasonable consciousness to be impossible to attain.

How do humans cope with such contradiction—the pursuit of happiness and the impossibility to attain it?

In the last passage of Chapter XIII, Tolstoy claimed that in order to eliminate the inherent contradiction, humans “must recognize his life not in the lower law of individuality but in the higher law he finds in his reasonable consciousness and which include the first law,” and the individuality of humans to “freely submit to the reasonable consciousness and will serve it” (44).

As long as one’s animal existence submits to reasonable consciousness, that is—to negate the old life of animal existence, and to deny that there is real well-being in the life of animal existence—in that case, the new life will be born. “All that we know of the world is only subordination to the law of reason” and in ourselves we recognize this law and that which we ought to fulfill (Tolstoy 47). The knowledge of reasonable law can be found nowhere but there where humans have discovered it in their rational consciousness.

B Echoing Tolstoy’s viewpoint, Dr. Ke refers to Ecclesiastes,

[T]he fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one 119

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity.

20

All go to

one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. (3.

19-20)

In terms of death, humans and animals are the same: No matter who you are, you will die like the animals do. Those who claim that the life of humans is limited to animal existence may say that, “Life is what takes place in a living being from birth till death” (Tolstoy 26). Tolstoy criticized false science for “taking man’s visible animal existence and substituting it for the conception of his whole life as known to him in his consciousness”; that is, to take part of the subject for the whole of it (27 & 28). Owing to false science, the life of humans, “as of animal, consist in the struggle for the existence of his person, his race, and his species” (Tolstoy 29).

How do humans attain well-being if humans and animals share the same fate? And how do humans attain eternal well-being in bodily life? This is repeated by Tolstoy, again and again, which seems to place an emphasis on the impossibility of attaining eternal life and welfare in our animal life/existence due to the limitations of our bodily existence.

Unfortunately, we have been educated since we were very

120

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

innocent that our life is but our body and we judge a person through shallow conditions, such as with one’s appearance, social position and reputation, as well as with an amount of material possessions. It is not because we are uneducated or unscientific; on the contrary, education teaches us to attach importance to those shallow conditions, and science utilizes so-called objective research findings. But, these are actually presumptions, which are used to boast of human capacity to understand the origin of the world and human life. Nowadays, people

exalt

money,

good-looks,

power,

fame,

and

the

instigation of the principle of carpe diem—to make merry while one can, and glorify transitory love and sexual relationships in the immediate.

Through the abandonment of life beyond bodily existence, through the abandonment of the possibility of eternal life, and through an abandonment of eternity, and the possibility of presence beyond this world, people live in pain and fear, and count on money and material possessions to assuage their well-being. Strange to say, though all the experience of human generations indubitably shows that it is impossible to attain well-being in animal life, people still insist on the pursuit of bodily and materialistic happiness. However, in Ecclesiastes, it

121

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

is stated that enjoyment and pleasure are also vanity (2.1):14 “Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them; I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil (2.10)”; the speaker sighs with emotion, “Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent in doing it, and again, all was vanity and a chasing after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” (2.11). In addition, Solomon says, “I turned and gave my heart up to despair concerning all the toil of my labours under the sun, because sometimes one who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave all to be enjoyed by another who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil” (2.20-21).

If human life is considered to be the interval of time between birth and death, then the human life is miserable because of the impossibility to attain the well-being in such life; and indeed, it is impossible to pursue well-being in bodily existence by virtue of the limitations of physical body—humans

14. See also: “I searched with my mind how to cheer my body with wine—my mind still guiding me with wisdom—and how to lay hold on folly, until I might see what was good for mortals to do under heaven during the few days of their life. I made great works; I built houses and planted vineyards for myself; I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees.

I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house; I also had great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and of the provinces; I got singers, both men and women, and delights of the flesh, and many concubines” (Ecclesiastes, 2.3-8).

122

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

will get sick, will confront difficulties, and will die eventually; however, modern people adopt the false teaching with the result that they can only live in pain, contradiction, and fear (Ke).15 What Tolstoy tried to indicate was very simple, that is, many people feel pain because of an interval between two things—one is with regard life as the interval of time between birth and death, the other is the impossibility to attain well-being known through reasonable consciousness.

In order to eliminate this contradiction, Tolstoy claimed that humans must submit their animal personality to the sway of reasonable consciousness. However, humans being finite and fragile, how do they submit to reasonable consciousness and then to serve it? And, how do people get beyond the life of animal existence or the limitation of the human body/what humans can perceive? Before answering these questions, it is necessary

to

continue

our

investigation

into

Tolstoy’s

understanding of reason and true life.

III. The Life beyond Time and Space A What is human life? Tolstoy suggested that, “we cannot

15. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” 「 ( 方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. April 13th, 2012.

123

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

understand human life otherwise than as the submission of an animal personality to the law of reason” (62); that was, for Tolstoy, life was submission to the law of reason. Tolstoy put it clearly as “a complete negation of human life for a man to direct his activity only to the attainment of his personal welfare” (68).

In other words, if what we do is for the sake of satisfying our own needs and requirements for attaining our own personal well-being, it is not human life.

Human life, as Tolstoy referred to it, was something which was manifested in an animal existence, but didn’t mean that it was our life to be. The “conditions in time and space of a man’s animal personality cannot influence his true life” (Tolstoy 63); additionally, the “forces of space and time—forces that are definite and finite—are incompatible with the idea of life, but the force striving toward the good through submission to reason is, as it were, an ascending force, it is the essential force of life which has no limitations of time and space”; in other words, true life has “neither arrest, nor perturbation” (64). Here, I must quote an important passage at length to clarify Tolstoy’s concept of life: A man begins to live true life, that is, he rises to a certain height above the animal life and from this height sees the unreality of his

124

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

animal existence which is inevitably terminated by death. . . he must understand that his movement on the horizontal plane—that is, his life in time and space—is not his life, but that his life consists only of the upward movement, and that only in the submission of his personality to the law of reason is there a possibility of welfare and of life. . . (64-65).

That is to say, life is beyond the time and space commonly understood by most.

Tolstoy quoted the words of Jesus, “Ye must be born again” (John 3.7).16 To his understanding, what Jesus indicated “born again” meant to submit one’s animal life to reasonable consciousness—that meant “reborn to the life of reasonable consciousness” (72). If humans do not raise their life above the animal, physical life they will live in pain and fear because they would know for certain that their animal life is finite and fragile and they would also know the impossibility to attain well-being.

Dr. Ke puts it correctly, if you suppose life is but animal life, you will become more and more frustrated because your body will decline and you will get closer and closer to death; if a woman’s welfare is reliant on her physical life—for instance, her beauty—she will lose her well-being as soon as age

16. King James Version.

125

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

overcomes her.17 Tolstoy believed that humans have “wings,” and they can “fly” and transcend the animal/physical limitations (65).

How does life germinate? When does it germinate? where does it germinate? And why does it germinate? Tolstoy argued that no one has been able to find out the answers—as he mentioned in Chapter XV: “True human life is fulfilled outside of space and time” (104). Proven by the words of Jesus Christ, Tolstoy explained, “Of its birth in man . . . that no man knows it or can know it” (73). Moreover, Tolstoy indicated, for humans “what germinates and perishes is that which does not really live but appears in space and time. But the true life is, and so for man it can neither germinate nor perish” (73). As long as humans recognize that they were never born, Tolstoy declared, they will soon recognize that they will not die, and believe in their immortality—their “life is not a wave but an eternal movement” (137). Dr. Ke uses more theological language to express this truism: true life is eternal life; meaning, true life is beyond time and space; what Tolstoy tried to say is, true life, as a matter of fact, is eternal life and thus true well-being is eternal

17. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” 「 ( 方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. April 13th, 2012.

126

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

well-being18—the well-being seems possible for those who have true life because true life is beyond death.

B Tolstoy quoted the words of Jesus Christ, “Ye must be born again” (John 3.7). In Tolstoy’s understanding, Jesus indicated “born again” to mean “reborn to the life of reasonable consciousness” (72). However, we still do not have the faintest idea of how, when, where, and why, life germinates. Tolstoy referred again to the words of Jesus Christ: “Of its birth in man . . . that no man knows it or can know it” (73). Here, Tolstoy garbled a statement from the Bible. When Jesus was quoted as saying, “Ye must be born again,” he does not refer to anything related to what could reasonably be called reasonable consciousness.

Before examining these words, we must know the context in which they are located. For books in the Bible should be regarded as a complete whole; that is, one must read them in context instead of reading them merely as simple verse. To a certain extent, to understand the context, one must first read the Bible in its entirety to determine the units of thought that make up the books therein. Besides, cross-references are required

18. Ibid.

127

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

whenever interpreting the Bible takes place.

Perhaps, by adopting the New Standard Version of the Bible, we will get to know more about the meaning of it. “You must be born from above,” said Jesus. In the scripture, there is a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who came to seek Jesus and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God” (John 3.2). Jesus replied, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above . . . no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3.5&6). To be “born again” does not mean literally born again to “the life of reasonable consciousness”; what Jesus indicated is patently that to be “born of water and spirit” from the Divine above. We might better quote other passages from Titus to further the understanding of this notion of rebirth: “[H]e saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (3.5). What Tolstoy expressed “Of its birth in man . . . that no man knows it or can know it” was actually the regenerated life which is “born of the Spirit” (John 3.8).19

19. The complete passage is that, “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it,

128

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

Here, we must not neglect, and actually it is impossible to neglect, the fatal perplexity brought up by Tolstoy’s peculiar interpretation of “true life.” “True life,” for Tolstoy, was a notion beyond time and space; neither has it a birth place nor has it an ending.

But, how does Tolstoy assure us that life has no beginning?

Tolstoy’s interpretation does not have proof, and it is also unfounded in any physicality; it is entirely groundless and we can’t find any inference to be drawn from the statement. On the other hand, if “true life” is beyond time and space, what is our life before our bodily birth? If it is also part of our “true life,” why do we know nothing about it?

It must be acknowledged that Tolstoy’s contention has no basis in fact, and it is not sufficiently clear of what life is, if life which does not submit to reasonable consciousness is not life as we define it to be. Does it mean to say that we are all not alive?

Here, Tolstoy tries to solve the contradiction by telling us that “true life” had no birth and no end. Let us just leave aside the debate on the accuracy of this contention, and think about this: If life indeed has no birth place and no ending as Tolstoy described, does it still assure us the attainment of well-being?

but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3.8).

129

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

IV. Death is Overcome? The Renunciation of the Personal Well-Being A Why indeed is the happiness of personal existence impossible to achieve? Tolstoy enumerated three points to address this aim: 1) the strife of beings in search for personal well-being, 2) the deception/illusion of pleasure, and 3) death itself.

Tolstoy provided a way to terminate the impossibility of well-being: Love others more than yourselves; he remarked, “[y]ou wish everyone to live for you, and that they all should love you more than they do themselves?” (76) Tolstoy held for certain that, there was only one condition under which such a wish could be satisfied; that is, [A]ll beings should live for the good of others and love others more than themselves. Only then will you and all beings be loved by all, and you among them will obtain just the good that you desire. If welfare is possible for you only when all beings love others more than themselves, then you, a living being, must love others more than yourself. (76)

What Tolstoy tried to emphasize was a renunciation of well-being connected to his animal personality. Not only that, 130

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

Tolstoy pointed out the inevitability of one’s renunciation of the well-being of his animal personality; that is, when humans are confronted with the bodily death of their animal personality, they will be forced to accede to the law of renunciation of the welfare of animal personality. Whenever confronting death, humans wish there was something beyond death—something like a future life, or a future world, and something beyond this bodily existence.

Our bodily existence, for Tolstoy, was “the tool” used to accomplish one’s own well-being—through a renunciation of bodily desire. Tolstoy quoted a passage from the Bible: “Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it” (Matthew 16.25). In those words he tried to express that it is only through the renunciation of our animal personality, through personal sacrifice, that we can attain the true life.

Tolstoy was very optimistic in his tone. He believed that “by

crediting

other

people

and

beings

with

the

same

understanding, the life of the whole world becomes the highest rational good that man can desire, instead of being senseless and cruel as he formerly saw it. . . . He sees that life proceeds towards this end, in which at first men, and then all beings, are submitting more and more to the law of reason” (80). In this

131

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

way, [P]eople who used to eat one another no longer do so; that those who used to kill captives and their own children no longer put them to death; that the military who used to pride themselves on murder no longer boast of it; that those who used to slay animals begin to tame them and to kill less of them, and instead of feeding on the bodies of animals now begin to feed on their eggs and milk; and that in the world of plants, too, men are beginning to be less destructive. (81)

Love is capable of solving all the contradictions of existence, in Tolstoy’s view, and especially, as it is capable to overcome death. Many people misconceive the meaning of love, and for those who do not understand the meaning of life, the manifestation of love is impossible (Tolstoy 92). For those who conceive their life to be solely in the animal personality, love is often a feeling which will cause one mother, for the welfare of her infant, to deprive another hungry infant of its mother’s milk (Tolstoy 95), and the feeling in consequence of a man who loves a woman to suffer from that love and also to make her suffer, perhaps by even violating her sexually.

Real love, for Tolstoy, meant to do good (95), which was not only an expression, but an activity directed towards the 132

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

well-being of others (97). Tolstoy advanced, “Future love does not exist. Love is a present activity only” (98); that meant those who did not manifest love in the present—those who decided to resist the demand of a present feeble love—had deceived themselves and other people, and had no love at all. Almost all the evil that men do, as Tolstoy indicated, arose from a false feeling which was praised by them, which they called love, but which was actually a preference for some conditions of animal welfare. When a man who does not understand life, he expresses that he loves his wife, or child, or friend, because it adds to his personal welfare in some way.

“True love,” then, is a consequence, and becomes possible only when one renounces the welfare of animal personality (Tolstoy 100). Borrowing from passages taken from the Bible, Tolstoy affirmed that, “whatsoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10.39), and “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10.37). Contrary to all our understanding, Tolstoy claims that, Love is only really love when it is a sacrifice of self. Only when a man not only gives to another his time and strength, but wears out

133

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

his body for the loved subject and gives his life for it, do we all find bliss—the recompense of love—and only because there is such love in men does this world exist. (104)

In other words, the world exists only when a man who gives his life for others does exist.

B Tolstoy tried to solve the problem of death. “There is no death,” he said.20 1). Tolstoy claimed through Bible verse in which Jesus was quoted as saying, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11.25-26).

2). If one lives by “renouncing his personality for the good of others, he enters already here in this life into the new relationship to the world for which there is no death” (Tolstoy134). Tolstoy made it clear that, if he loves other people more than himself, death for him would not be the end of his well-being; that is, if what he cares becomes other people’s welfare but not his own welfare, he will not care about his death, and then he will not be afraid of his death. Tolstoy elaborated

20. Tolstoy. On Life and Essays on Religion, 111.

134

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

with some confidence, if each man should live for the good of others and love others more than they do himself, “the burden of death will disappear for ever from his view” (77).

In light of Tolstoy’s viewpoint, the fear of death is due only as a reflection of the fear we have of losing the happiness by our bodily death; meanwhile, he firmly believed that, “[i]f man could place his good in that of other beings—that is, if he loved them more than himself—death would not seem to him . . . the cessation of the good and of life” (77). For those who live for others, death cannot annihilate or destroy their well-being and life because the well-being and life of others is, “far from being destroyed by the death of a man who serves them, are often increased and strengthened by the sacrifice of his life” (77). In that case, death seems to be a good thing because the well-being of

other

people

is

increased

and

strengthened

by

the

contributions of those who have gone before and are now gone from the here and now.

3). One should not fear of death, for man does not know his own death and can never know. . . Thus, of what, then is he afraid? (Tolstoy 111).

4). Also, it is because of the many changes that have occurred and are occurring in our bodily existence, that Tolstoy stated, “I shall die. What is there that is terrible in that?” He

135

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

didn’t fear the change which had yet to occur (Tolstoy 112).

5). Death resembles our daily sleep,21 why shall we fear of it?

Death, for Tolstoy, was so comprehensible, so familiar, and so natural tome as a necessity and often a pleasant condition of life (112). Everything that is limited by time and space is a phantasm, and thus the cessation in time and space of a bodily existence could not disturb “true life,” which was beyond time and space,—which meant, death did not exist in the common sense. In other words, death terminates our bodily existence, but not our real life; besides, neither body, nor consciousness is a constant state; it is neither body, nor consciousness which is what we consider as our self.

6). What, then, is self? To state it in Tolstoy’s own words, “I exist with this relation of mine to the world in which I now find myself” (117). And the attitudes of “I like this . . . I don’t like that”22 binds together to all the consciousness into one; and it is called self. To put it briefly: “True life lies in man’s relationship to the world” (126), and the “life of those who die continues even in this world” (129).

In sum, we are our attitude toward this world—an

21. Tolstoy states, “the destruction by bodily death of the consciousness that came last in chronological order can as little destroy the true human self as daily sleep can” (124).

22. Tolstoy. On Life and Essays on Religion, 119.

136

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

expression of “I like this, but I don’t like this” (according to Dr. Ke that is the attitude of love). Only through an expression of this kind of attitude—the attitude of love—will we not disappear.

The well-being Tolstoy constantly mentioned is love; and love is described as to sacrifice for other beings. Tolstoy considered that love is true life and true life is love, and love, as mentioned above, is well-being.23 This was Tolstoy’s understanding of the meaning of life as he expressed it in his work On Life.

To this end, Tolstoy adopted the example of his brother’s death and explained that though he did not see him in the form to which he used to see him, his disappearance from his sight had not destroyed his relation to him; he kept his memory—the memory of his “spiritual image” (130). In addition, the vital force of his brother, “far from disappearing and diminishing,” had only “undergone a transformation,” it had increased and acted on him “more powerful than before” and “with far greater force” (131 & 132).

C Admittedly, society follows the principle that all should love me alone and I love only myself—the principle of

23. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” 「 ( 方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. May 10th, 2012.

137

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

self-centeredness, and that which we call love is actually the feeling of our preference for certain beings especially ourselves.

As long as humans hold fast to such a principle, it would be impossible to attain well-being. In concrete terms, humans exceed all bounds in an effort to attain their personal well-being; they won’t care if they devour and thus destroy other beings. As is mentioned in Tolstoy’s work, the renunciation of personal well-being seems to be the only way to attain well-being.

But why does one sacrifice himself for others? Why should he do so? How can one renounce his personal well-being when his need is recognized by most to be reasonable? When should he sacrifice himself for others? And, for whom? For everyone he meets? In any event? Is it possible for him to make a correct judgment every time that sacrifice presents itself for the correct event, for the correct person, and at the correct moment? Does there exist any possibility that a sacrificial death should turn out to be someone else’s catastrophe?

Is it possible for all beings to live for the good of others and love others more than they do themselves? If one of them does not, does it mean the well-being can’t be attained? Does it mean that we live in a self-centered society that has, yet to attain any well-being? And, does this actually mean that we are not alive? Furthermore, what is essential is to know, how it is

138

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

possible to attain well-being and life through the loss of one’s bodily well-being without the help of someone who is beyond time and space, and beyond our understanding? How does the loss of bodily well-being contribute to the attainment of our eternal well-being?

Tolstoy garbled a statement from the Bible: “Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it” (Matthew 16.25); it seems he neglected the preceding verse and the subsequent verses: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me,” and “For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?” (Matthew 16.24 & 26).

This shows that, those who are anxious to save their temporal form of life, or their comfort and security here in this world, shall lose eternal life thereafter. It shows those who are willing to risk or to lose his comfort and life here for Christ—those who “deny themselves and take up their cross” and follow Jesus Christ—shall find life everlasting. It is not, as Tolstoy indicated, through the renunciation of our animal personality, through self-sacrifice, we can and will attain the true life. What is essential is, “follow me,”—follow Jesus Christ, and take up the cross; Christ leads the way and we follow Him.

139

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

Instead of saying that through sacrifice we attain true life; we should be better to say that through taking up the cross and following Jesus Christ we attain eternal life.

What I wish to point out is that, Tolstoy’s viewpoint is profoundly secular in its reliance of self-sacrifice being a gateway for the eventual realization of well-being. Tolstoy neglected the existence of Jesus Christ in his personal philosophy, despite the paraphrased message and obvious sourcing.

D With regards to the issue of death, it is worth noticing here itself Tolstoy tried to tackle the problem of “the fear of death” instead of “death” (76); that is, Tolstoy failed to recognize the fact that the problem most frequently confronted by humans is not the fear of death, but the death itself.24 1). “There is no death,” because Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11.25-26). Tolstoy’s argument is rather problematic. The verse Tolstoy utilized only shows that from the perspective of God that there is no death, but actually there is

24. Ibid. May 3th, 2012.

140

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

death. However, for those who, and only those who, live and believe in Jesus Christ will never die.

2). If one lives renouncing his personality for the good of others, he enters already here in this life into the new relationship to the world. This can’t indicate that there is no death; Tolstoy can only say, those who renounce his personality for the good of others fear not of death.

Dr. Ke agrees that love has the capacity to surmount death, but he doubts the authenticity that the love of humans can overcome death; besides, he calls into question the human capability to love others more than themselves; it seems that Tolstoy neglects the limitation of human capacity (humans are sinners), especially the capacity of love.25 Notwithstanding the unconditional love of humans is revealed ubiquitously; for instance, it can be observed in a mother’s love toward her children that human love can’t surmount death; human capacity for love is limited, and thus we need to seek for a higher plain of existence—the origin and source of love, a complete love.

Although Tolstoy quoted passages about love from the teachings of Jesus, it seems that his account of love is different from that found in the Bible. The teachings of Jesus Christ ask us to love our neighbor as ourselves, (Galatians 5.14), which

25. Ibid.

141

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

includes also our enemies; however, Tolstoy stressed love to be the renunciation of personal well-being.

To love our neighbor, this includes loving our enemies. Dr. Ke explains: “to love the person does not mean to be good to him, or to satisfy and identify with him; to love the person means to care about his potential goodness; to love the person means to make him become better.”26 We must love our enemies, for Jesus says,27 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

45

so

that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. (Matthew 5.44-45)

In

order

to

make

violence—punishment—is

someone

become

permissible.

28

This

better,

even

explanation

subverts the traditional understanding of love as we might know it, and makes the commandment “love your enemies” more understandable as a result. Besides, God claims that “if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your

26. Ibid. April 13th, 2012.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

142

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6.14-15). God is willing to forgive all the sinners and is willing to die for them; then no one has an excuse to say he is not able to forgive those who wrong him or might wrong him in some way.

No matter whether it is love of our neighbor as ourselves, or it is the renunciation of our personal well-being for others, what is indeed essential is not humanity, but God. Why does one sacrifice himself for others? Why does he do so? How can one renounce his own personal well-being when his need is recognized as reasonable? Does he still have the capacity to love since humans are basically sinful and limited? Consequently, it cannot be denied that without God—that also means without the existence of His Divine Judgment, humans don’t have to love one another and they can do whatever they want; and, without God, humans don’t have the capacity to love, for “God is love” (1John 4.8), and there is no love without God. Add to that, is it true that the renunciation of one’s “personal welfare” can possibly bring to the “eternal welfare” of others? Or, is Tolstoy trying to say that the renunciation of “personal welfare” will bring to the “personal welfare” of others?

If this is so, then what one brings to others is not the real well-being, but bodily well-being of a physical existence.

3). Tolstoy considered, one should not fear of death, for

143

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

man does not know his own death, and he can never know it (111). But the fact is, we know that there is death, and we know we shall never see again those who have died. We know the corruption of the dead body; we know those who die will lose contact with the living and love with those alive will become one-sided. How can we not be afraid of death by knowing these things to be true?

4). Many changes have occurred and are occurring in our bodily existence, thus one shall not fear of death. However, the reality is, we never see our own body change into a corpse, and we will never see ourselves stop breathing. People are frightened by the contraction of the possibility of a fever, fracture, cardiopathy, or cancer; how can we not be afraid of the body’s decline and change—into the state of death?

My body is changing, so I am not my body; this statement is problematic. In reality, according to Dr. Ke, “it is difficult to convince other people that my body is not me for besides my body, there is no other concrete way to feel my self.”29 Dr. Ke takes the example, if I slap your face, don’t be mad because your body is not yours to experience; I love your body, doesn’t mean I love you because your body is not really you; I hug your body doesn’t mean I hug you because you are not your body. In that

29. Ibid.

144

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

case, who do I hug? How do we have relationship if not through a contact of our bodies? How do I express my love?30 Dr. Ke concludes that “the concrete love between humans must have something to do with our bodies; if you separate you and your body, you may come to a conclusion that what I do to your body is not done to you because you are not your body.”31 5). Death doesn’t resemble our daily sleep: we know exactly by our experience that we will wake up again when we fall sleep, but for those who die, they will not.

I can’t agree with what Tolstoy said: death is a natural and comprehensible thing, and those who are dead, “far from disappearing

and

diminishing,”

have

“only

undergone

a

transformation,” it has increased and acts on him “more powerful than before” and “with far greater force” (131 & 132).

Death is a bad thing, as Dr. Ke makes clear, and the main reason is that it is not only the negation of life, but also the negation of love.32 “The meaning of life is, in brief, love—that is to love and to be loved; in other words, if there is no love, life is meaningless” (Ke).33 Death is the negation of love, Dr. Ke explains, for I can no longer love the person if the person is dead.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid. March 29th, 2012.

33. Ibid.

145

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

Scientist and scholars may tell us that death is but a natural phenomenon and we are not and shall not be afraid of it. If this is true, how do we explain humans’ continuing search for immortality—a way to transcend death? If this is true, Dr. Ke questions, how do we explain funeral ceremonies?34 As a matter of fact, humans don’t believe that human life will be extinguished in this way—human life is eliminated when body is dead. Furthermore, Dr. Ke makes an astonishing statement: “if death does exist, my life is meaningless”; even though I have a very wonderful life, the life is meaningless when I will be dead; and if my life is confined by space and time, my life is indeed tragic. 35 The statement is astonishing for modern people because death does exist—that is to say, my life is meaningless in this construct. Is it true that death does exist in this way? Is there any way to overcome this loathsome form of death?

Dr. Ke clarifies, “death is a fact, but not natural”; “death is unnatural because I, obviously, yearn for eternal life, but life is full of absurdity for I know that exactly one day I will die.” It is rather absurd that two people love each other, but they must confront the fact that they will die one day.36 In this sense, we can’t understand the meaning of life. Dr. Ke puts it well, “death

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

146

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

deprives one’s meaning of life and devours love”; “death is the greatest enemy of love”; it is “the negation of love.”37 6) “True life lies in man’s relationship to the world” (126), and the “life of those who die continues even in this world” (129).

In fact, everyone is revealed in the body, but Tolstoy had negative thinking about the nature of our bodies. Self, according to Tolstoy’s description, has no face.38 If everyone has the same attitude, does it mean that everyone should be considered to be the same person (Ke)?39 The attitude of the world is in fact gone with the bodily death if there is no one to preserve it or if no one is to remember it;40 besides, even though attitudes may last forever, it doesn’t confirm the authenticity that there is no death. What is the “spiritual image” (Tolstoy 130)? It is merely one’s memory of the dead.

As we have observed, true life has no birth and no end; that is, death should not exist, and besides, the fear of death is superfluous, based on the nature of Tolstoy’s argument, for humans will not die. Humans should not have fear of a bodily

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid. May 10th, 2012.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid. March 29th, 2012.

147

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

death or of the death of one he loves, and we must overcome our sadness by the reasonable consciousness.

In Dr. Ke’s terms, the point Tolstoy emphasized should be that “there is no death”; however, in reality, death truly exists—which is a bodily death. 41 This argument leads to a sense of dualism: according to Dr. Weng Wei Teng’s exposition, “death turns out to be the end of animal life, and also it turns out to surmount the animal existence; what will be left is but the imperishable reason” we may yet possess.42 In this sense, the misfortune of life is with the phase involving bodily existence (Ke).43 It seems that Tolstoy assumed that if there was no body, then there would be no misfortune. What matters at this point is that, Dr. Ke goes on to say, “a life without death does not indicate that life is good because there may be an eternal torment” yet to experience; “but what is that eternal torment without a body?” Inasmuch, since true life is not bodily life, Dr. Ke extends Tolstoy’s argumentation, “one day we will break

41. Ibid.

42. Dr. Weng Wei Teng (鄧元尉) is one of the researchers of St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics. He expresses this idea on May 10th, 2012. “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” (「方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫 理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University.

43. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel Chih-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” 「 ( 方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. May 3th, 2012.

148

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

away with the body in the end, and in that case, I can indulge my body and that will not influence my life which has no birth and no end.”44

E Consequently, Tolstoy has brought up a discussion of how suffering may affect people’s well-being and which “compels life to go forward,” since “it is necessary and indispensable for their life’s good” (148 & 147). Suffering “evokes the activity which constitutes the movement of true life—a consciousness of sin, liberation from error, and submission to the law of reason” (153). That is to say, Tolstoy associated suffering with sins and the commission of sin.

Contrary to a general understanding, Tolstoy declared that, “the less he has of love the more a man feels the torments of suffering, and the more there is of love the less the torments of suffering” (154-155). How does the concept of suffering relate to the human well-being he mentioned previously? Tolstoy came straight to the point: “Physical suffering forms an indispensable condition of the life and welfare of man” (155). Besides, he implied that there was a “limit to the increase of pain, but there is no limit to the diminution of our perception of it” (157).

44. Ibid.

149

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

It is problematic to say that the more someone loves, the less the torments of suffering will be; probably, Tolstoy meant to indicate that the more someone loves, the more one can endure the torments of suffering, and thus the suffering seems to become less. According to Dr. Ke, it is just the opposite: “the more one loves, the more one feels the pain, and the less one loves, the less pain one feels.”45 In other words, “a person who doesn’t care about pain doesn’t indicate that they don’t feel the pain”; because, as might be assumed, the degree of pain is objective. Also, it must be acknowledged that, “the most precious meaning of suffering is not due to the sin of the sufferer, or the false thought of the sufferer, or because he does not submit his animal personality to reason; the most precious suffering is that, the sufferer suffers for the sake of love” (Ke).46 God is the greatest sufferer of all for he loves most; through the Crucifixion, God manifests an extraordinary love. As is written in John: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (4.13) and in 1 John, “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them” (4.16). Contrary to acting from a position of unattainable

45. Ibid, May 31 th, 2012.

46. Ibid.

150

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

glory

and

magnificence,

He

himself

volunteers

and

is

consciously willing to suffer; He empties47 himself for the sake of love.

One of the most profound points may be, as Jesus puts it, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.

I have received this command from my Father” (John 10.18).

It is because “God is unconditional love, because he takes on himself grief at the contradiction in men and does not angrily suppress this contradiction,” and “allows himself to be forced out”; that is, “God suffers, God allows himself to be crucified and is crucified” (Moltmann 248).48 God “can be crucified, but in crucifixion [love] finds its fulfillment and becomes love of the enemy. Thus its suffering proves to be stronger than hate” (Moltmann 248-249).49 In addition, as Moltmann rightly puts it, “In his boundless love God interpenetrates everything living.

This means that God imposes a limitation on himself” (39);50 that is, “love has to suffer,” and it “suffers from whatever

47. “Though Jesus was depicted in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And in assuming human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on the cross” (Philippians 2.6-8).

48. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1974.

49. Ibid.

50. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God. Trans. Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1981.

151

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

contradicts its own nature” (33).51 Is it true that suffering compels life to go forward and it is a necessary and indispensable part for their life’s good? Is it true that physical suffering forms an indispensable condition of the life and well-being of mankind?

No! No matter how much one suffers, he is just a man—a sinful man who is heading towards an inevitable death. No matter how much one suffers, he will not transcend death. If “true life” is beyond bodily existence, according to Tolstoy’s form of logic, then passage through the torment of the body will not help us to achieve eternal well-being. God loves humans so much that he gave his only Son, and promises that those who believe in him will not perish but may instead have eternal life.

This is the grace of God; that is to say, this is not obtained through human labors. Not through the things we do, not even through the suffering we experience, based on the understanding of the crucified Jesus Christ, it is manifest that it is completely by the grace of God. In other words, if eternal life is possible, if well-being is possible, it is only by the grace of God. Tolstoy’s argumentation about physical suffering cannot do anything to help the attainment of eternal life and well-being come to fruition.

51. Ibid.

152

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

V. How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being? The Absence of God and the Impossibility to Attain Well-Being According to Tolstoy, the false teachings and false sciences direct us to examine something remote and beyond our understanding; they claim that they are so sure about the knowledge of evolution, our body, animals, plants, and physical matters; however they are not so sure about what well-being is.

False knowledge directs humans to consider that life is merely the interval between birth and bodily death. Thus, there arises a contradiction:

a

well-being—which

contradiction is

the

end

between of

every

the

pursuit

of

man—and

the

impossibility of ever attaining it.

In order to solve this contradiction, Tolstoy brought up his own contention about “true life”— the submission of our animal existence to reasonable consciousness, and true life’s existence beyond time and space; that is to say, life has no beginning and no end. Tolstoy set up a foundation in order to demonstrate that the contradiction did not exist because our life was not limited to a bodily existence and it was in fact possible to attain well-being in certain ways.

In what ways? Tolstoy referred to a verse from the Bible: “Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it” (Matthew 16.25). He held for

153

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

certain that those who renounce their personal well-being, that is—those who love others more than themselves—well-being is possible, and death will be overcome. As previously mentioned, Tolstoy neglected the limitation of human capacity, especially the capacity to love. Humans are sinful. Human love can’t surmount death; the human capacity for love is limited, and thus we need to seek for a higher existence—the origin and the source of love, a complete love. Without God—that also means without the existence of Judgment, humans don’t have to love others and they can and will do whatever they want; and without God humans don’t have the capacity to love, for “God is love” (1John 4.8), and there is no love without God. It is evident that Tolstoy tended to garble statements from the Bible and interprets them as he saw fit, or maybe we should say,

he

utilized

it,

with

his

personal

preferences

and

understanding. To what extent had Tolstoy look into such quotes and discovered what exactly they meant? It would not be too much to say that most of the time Tolstoy chose to quote out of context. Aylmer Maude, who wrote the introduction to On Life and Essays on Religion expressed that, “It is a peculiarity of On Life that, though it corresponds to Tolstoy’s understanding of the teaching of Jesus,” he stated “his case independently of the Gospels, merely citing a sentence here and there by way of

154

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

illustration, as he might have done from any other book” (ix).

Obviously, Tolstoy failed to understand the true meaning and the essence of the verses he chose to quote; and the greatest failure is that, the absence of God is evident in his peculiar way of thinking as a result.

When Tolstoy quoted, “Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it” (Matthew 16.25), he neglected the preceding verse: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Matthew 16.24). When taken out of context, this quote is difficult to justify.

It is not, as Tolstoy indicated, through the renunciation of our animal personality, through sacrifice, that we can attain the “true life,” but what is essential is the direction of, “follow me,”—follow Jesus Christ, and those who chose to do so must deny themselves and take up their own cross. Instead of saying that through sacrifice we attain “true life”; we would be better to say that through taking up the cross and following Jesus Christ we will attain eternal life. One’s sacrifice turns out to be meaningless without the existence of God—the only one who can save our life.

However, it should be noticed that no matter how much one suffers, he is just a man—a sinful man who is heading towards

155

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

an inevitable death; no matter how much one suffers, he will not transcend death. God loves humans so much that he gave his only Son, and promises that those who believe in him will not perish but may instead have eternal life. This is the grace of God; that is to say, this is not obtained through human labors. Not through the things we do, not even through the suffering we experience, based on the understanding of the crucified Jesus Christ, it is manifested that it is completely by the grace of God. In other words, if eternal life is possible, if well-being is possible, it is only by the grace of God. What I am trying to clarify is that it is not that we follow Jesus Christ and take up the cross that contributes to the attainment of eternal life, but it is only something we must do. As a matter of fact, we cannot do anything to contribute to the attainment of eternal life and well-being. They are completely the grace of God. On the other hand, Tolstoy quoted the words of Jesus, “Ye must be born again” (John 3.7). To Tolstoy’s understanding, what Jesus indicated to mean “born again” meant to be “reborn to the life of reasonable consciousness” (72). To be “born again” did

not

mean

born

again

to

“the

life

of

reasonable

consciousness”; what Jesus indicated was patently that to “born of water and spirit” was from above. We might better quote other passages from Titus to further the understanding of rebirth:

156

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

“he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (3.5).

Can we imagine to “born again” without the assistance of a transcendental Being—the creator of life? Can we make ourselves born again? How does one become born again if he is not yet dead? If he is dead, how does he make him come alive again? Again, Tolstoy ignored the existence of God in his thinking.

As a matter of fact, we have found that, based on the previous discussions, life is not as Tolstoy thought that it was beyond time and space, and actually the body was not so negative as he described it to be; besides, the sinful and finite humans do not have the capacity to love others more than themselves; in addition, as we have mentioned, there is no evidence to show that there is no death, on the contrary, there is death, and humans have no capacity to overcome it; that is, death can’t be overcome by the love of humans or the suffering of humans.

Consequently, according to Tolstoy’s contention, it is found that it is impossible to attain well-being; that is to say, his argument only shows that his failure in demonstrating the possibility of achieving well-being.

157

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

Conclusion: A Possible Way to Attain Beatitudes A By adopting the example of Jesus Christ, Tolstoy intended to say that even though Jesus Christ died a very long time ago “his bodily existence was brief and we have no clear conception of his bodily personality, but the strength of his reasonable and loving life, his relationship to

the world—and no one

else’s—acts till now on millions of people who accept this relationship to the world and conform their life to it” (132). That is to say, the life of Jesus Christ continues—through his attitude toward this world, and his love—in this world even though he died. The power of those who are dead, “far from disappearing and diminishing, has only undergone a transformation,” it has increased and acts on him “more powerful than before” and “with far greater force” (131 & 132).

Is it true that the power of those who are dead is greater than before?

“Death itself is absurd, and it makes this world seems extremely absurd”; Dr. Ke provides a very lucid explanation of it: On account of death, love is ineffectual; on account of death, goodness can’t be sustained; on account of death, aspiration is

158

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

shattered; on account of death, justice can’t be upheld; on account of death, evil people can bully around; on account of death, sins attain its weapons. In sum, death destroys everything good, and those who are dominated by death is in fact the most hopeless, nihilistic, and miserable people. (50)52

That is to say, death is a terrible thing, and we won’t believe that the attitude of the dead will bring about a more powerful and greater force than before. Dr. Ke puts it rightly, “only by assuring the existence of eternity can we accept the absurdity found in reality, and thus this absurd world will become endurable”; that is, if there is no eternal life, why do I have to endure this world? Why do I have to be moral?53 “If death means the thorough end of life, and if death is an inevitable end of everyone’s life, in that manner, what is the meaning of human life?” (Ke 29),54 and how is it possible to attain well-being?

Therefore, in this manner, humans must surmount death, or else

52. Ke, Immanuel C.-Ming. (柯志明) “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Death of Humans.” 〈 ( 耶穌 的復活與人的死亡〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者： 臺灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taiwan: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 15 (2008).

53. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” 「 ( 方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University. April 13th, 2012.

54. Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Death of Humans.” (〈耶穌的復活與人的死亡〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：臺灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taiwan: Taiwan Christian Institute.

Issue 15 (2008).

159

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

human life is meaningless (30).55 It should be noted that Jesus was dead, but he then resurrected. His great influence on human history is not based on an attitude of the dead, but founded on his resurrection. And the resurrection of Jesus Christ manifests greater power than death. Death has already been overcome: “the resurrection of Jesus negates the power of death thoroughly” (Ke 30).56 The resurrection of Jesus Christ shows a brand-new possibility so that it also exposes the limitation of human experience (Ke 33).

A new possibility solves the problem of contradiction and opens up a new hope—the possibility of the meaning of life and the possibility of attaining well-being. In other words, if the resurrection of Jesus is possible, then the meaning of life and the attainment of well-being are possible; without the resurrection of Jesus, the message of eternal life is simply not convincing.

As is stated by Moltmann, “Only Christ’s representative suffering and sacrifice ‘for them’ in his death on the cross brings hope to the hopeless, future to those who are passing away and new right to the unrighteous” (186).57 Through the crucifixion of Christ, God’s grace is revealed to sinners, righteousness to the

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid.

57. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1974.

160

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

unrighteous, and gracious election to the damned (27).58 Thus, God’s love is revealed and known through the forsaken Christ, through His suffering, and through contradiction. Consequently, through his suffering, Jesus brings salvation to those who suffer; through his death, he brings eternal life to those who are dying (46).59 Additionally, through the cross of the suffering and in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

God took upon himself not only death, so that man might be able to die comforted with the certainty that even death could not separate him from God, but still more, in order to make the crucified Christ the ground of his new creation, in which death itself is swallowed up in the victory of life and there will be ‘no sorrow, no crying, and no more tears.’ (217)60

for “[d]eath will be no more” (Revelation 21.4). As Moltmann puts it: “Jesus’ resurrection already makes possible the impossible, namely reconciliation in the midst of strife, the law of grace in the midst of judgment, and creative love in the midst of legalism” (171).61 The resurrection of Jesus, in Dr. Ke’s word, is “a decided

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

161

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

event for the sake of redeeming humans from sins and death; resurrection is the power of God; resurrection reveals that He is the highest dominator; He is a living God” (Ke 36).

62

Resurrection is the power of God; he is the God who gave and has taken away. 63 The resurrected Jesus is beyond physical limitations, but he has a body64—which is “a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15.44); this body renovates the dualistic relationship between “physical” and “spiritual”; this body is “imperishable,” glorious, and powerful.65 Without the resurrection of Jesus, no matter how magnificent and how reasonable the theory of the meaning of life one brings about, it is all in vain, because as long as the announcer of the theories cannot get beyond death, we cannot be convinced that the meaning of life is possible.66 That our life is meaningful is founded on a condition—the

62. Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke. (柯志明) “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Death of Humans.” (〈耶穌的復活與人的死亡〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：臺灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taiwan: Taiwan Christian Institute.

Issue 15 (2008).

63. Job said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there; the LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1.21).

64. Dr. Ke quotes the verse, in “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Death of Humans,” page 37: the resurrected Jesus said to their disciples, ‘Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself.

Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have’ (Luke 24.39).

65. “So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15.42-44).

66. This is inspired by Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke’s (柯志明) “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Death of Humans.” (〈耶穌的復活與人的死亡〉）Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：臺灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taiwan: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 15 (2008).

162

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

doctrine of resurrection, which modern people think it is absurd and ridiculous; if we love our life and care about the meaning of life, then is it possible that we don’t thirst for resurrection earnestly? (Ke 45).67 Based on the formation of the resurrected Jesus, we notice that Tolstoy’s understanding of body is problematical. The resurrection of Jesus, Dr. Ke considered, is “just a complete negation of the imperishable soul”: it means “to resurrect from death, and thus resurrection is to re-gain life, rather than the life which continues to exist after death” (Ke 49).68 Jesus negates death: he bears death so as to negate death (Ke 54). That is to say, “on account of his death, he brings resurrection and the eternal life; therefore, the death of Jesus is the death of death” (Ke 54). For Christians, death is not dreadful, but conversely, it is necessary because of the death of Jesus Christ (Ke 54). Humans must be baptized into his death; that is, “death is necessary because our body which dominated by our sin is not worth living,” and thus our old self must be crucified; but “death is not fearful because there is resurrection and eternal

67. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke’s (柯志明) “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Death of Humans.” (〈耶穌的復活與人的死亡〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：臺灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taiwan: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 15 (2008).

68. Ibid.

163

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

life after death” (Ke 54).69 In view of Dr. Ke, “craving for eternal life is human nature, but eternal life doesn’t only indicate a life without death, rather, it means a life which can show the various possibilities of goodness; in brief, a life which shows inexhaustible meanings” (55). 70 This is a very extraordinary understanding of life.

However, “if humans cannot overcome death, they do not have eternal life; and if humans cannot overcome sins, they cannot embody goodness” (Ke 55). Therefore, humans require a force that assists them to get beyond death and they require a force that helps them to attain eternal life; on the other hand, they require a force that makes them holy and pure (Ke 55).71 Dr. Ke points out:

Humans must possess these two forces or humans cannot overcome death and sins. The death of humans and the sins of

69. Ibid. See also Romans: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.”

(6.3-8).

70. This is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C.-Ming Ke’s (柯志明) “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Death of Humans.” (〈耶穌的復活與人的死亡〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：臺灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taiwan: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 15 (2008).

71. Ibid.

164

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

humans reveal to us that we don’t have these two kinds of power, and thus humans cannot overcome sins and death independently.

Humans cannot save themselves, rather, they can only be saved.

(Ke 55)72

In other words, humans must know they do not have capacity to overcome death and their sins. They need a force beyond themselves, which is the force of God, and thus death can be overcome, and consequently, the attainment of well-being is possible.

B There is no doubt that everyone craves for well-being, but how many people can have a clear explanation of what well-being is? People think that they know what well-being is, and are pursuing them: such as, pursuing health, wealth, reputation, power, position, marriage, knowledge, etc.73 These bodily forms of happiness are all rejected by Tolstoy, but what he provides us with is but his fantasy, which is groundless in his illogic.

Jesus Christ, Dr. Ke reminds us, announces the way to

72. Ibid.

73. These ideas are to be attributed to Dr. Ke’s Love Ethics (《愛的倫理》) Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute, 2011.

165

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

attain beatitudes—the most supreme form of well-being, the beatitudes which are opposite to what humans are pursuing.74 The Sermon on the Mount tells us precisely who can attain beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew

74. Ibid, 129.

166

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

5. 1-12)75

Jesus clearly stated that the beatitudes belong to those people of a nine-life status—the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, and also those who are reviled and persecuted for God—because the beatitudes are God’s promise.

“Everyone who loves God, believes in God, and follows His teachings and commandants can attain these promised beatitudes” and these beatitudes are beyond our expectation and imaging (Ke): “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2.9).76 However, one should note that “these nine beatitudes are not the compensation of good deeds,” but are the grace and love of God (Ke 133).77 That is to say, these nine beatitudes are bestowed, for it says in passive form—blessed are . . . (Ke 133). 78 “Beatitudes belong to God’s kingdom, the eternal

75. Please read Dr. Immanuel C-Ming Ke’s Love Ethics (《愛的倫理》) for further understanding of nine beatitudes.

76. Ibid, 130.

77. Ibid, 133.

78. Ibid, 133.

167

獨者

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊

kingdom” for this world is “too narrow and small, fragile and unjust, is not sufficient to bear weight and carry out God’s blessing” (Ke 134).79 Not through the things we do, not even through our own suffering we experience, based on the understanding of the crucified Jesus Christ, it is manifested that it is completely by the grace of God. In other words, if eternal life is possible, if well-being is possible, it is only by the grace of God. Consequently, it is found that Tolstoy’s contention of the renunciation of personal well-being, the negation of the body, his illusive way of interpreting life, which is beyond time and space, and our physical suffering cannot do anything to assist the attainment of eternal life and well-being.

It is only through the grace and love of God. References Bible: New Revised Standard Version. United States: Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ, 1989.

Ke, Immanuel Chih-Ming. (柯志明 ) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” (「方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾 斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology

79. Ibid, 134.

168

How Is It Possible to Attain Well-Being?

and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與環境倫理研究 室), Department of Ecology, Providence University (靜宜大 學) , 2012. . Love Ethics. ( 《 愛 的 倫 理 》 ) Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute, 2011. .“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Death of Humans.” (〈耶 穌的復活與人的死亡〉 ) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：臺灣基督徒思想論 刊》 ) Immanuel Chih-Ming Ke ed. Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 15 (2008), 29-59.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1974. . The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God. Trans. Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1981.

Teng, Weng Wei. (鄧元尉) “St. Francis of Assisi and Wolf Study Group: Tolstoy’s On Life.” (「方濟與狼讀書會」 ：托爾 斯泰之《人生論》) St. Francis Centre for Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics (聖方濟生態神學與 環境倫理研究室), Department of Ecology, Providence University (靜宜大學), 2012.

Tolstoy, Leo. On Life and Essays on Religion. 1887. Trans. Aylmer Maude. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

169

獨者

170

臺灣基督徒 思想論刊