The supremacy of the spirit over the flesh is necessary in order to preserve the moral dignity of man. The principle of true asceticism is the principle of spiritual self-preservation. But the inner self-preservation of a _separate_ man, of a being who, though spiritual (_i.e._ possessing reason and will), is nevertheless _limited_ or relative in his separateness, cannot be the _absolute good_ or the supreme and final end of life. The slavery of man to fleshly desires in the wide sense of the term, _i.e._ to all that is senseless and contrary to reason, transforms him into the worst species of animal, and is, no doubt, evil. In this sense no one can honestly argue against asceticism, that is, against self-restraint as a principle. Every one agrees that incapacity to resist animal instincts is a weakness of the spirit, _shameful_ for a human being, and therefore bad. The capacity for such resistance or self-restraint is then a good, and must be accepted as a norm from which definite rules of conduct may be deduced. On this point, as on others, moral philosophy merely explains and elaborates the testimony of ordinary human consciousness. Apart from any principles, gluttony, drunkenness, lewdness immediately call forth disgust and contempt, and abstinence from these vices meets with instinctive respect, _i.e._ is acknowledged as a good. This good, however, taken by itself, is _not_ absolute. The power of the spirit over the flesh, or the strength of will acquired by rightful abstinence, may be used for immoral purposes. _A strong will may be evil._ A man may suppress his lower nature in order to boast or to pride himself on his superior power; such a victory of the spirit is not a good. It is still worse if the self-control of the spirit and the concentration of the will are used to the detriment of other people, even apart from the purposes of low gain. Asceticism has been, and is, successfully practised by men given to spiritual pride, hypocrisy, and vanity, and even by vindictive, cruel, and selfish men. According to the general verdict, such an ascetic is in the moral sense far inferior to a simple-hearted drunkard or glutton or to a kind profligate. Asceticism in itself is not necessarily a good, and cannot therefore be the supreme or the absolute principle of morality. The true (the moral) ascetic acquires control over the flesh, not simply for the sake of increasing the powers of the spirit, but for furthering the realisation of the Good. Asceticism which liberates the spirit from shameful (carnal) passions only to attach it more closely to evil (spiritual) passions is obviously a false or immoral asceticism.[39] Its true prototype, according to the Christian idea, is the devil, who does not eat or drink and remains in celibacy. If, then, from the moral point of view we cannot approve of a wicked or a pitiless ascetic, it follows that the principle of asceticism has only a relative moral significance, namely, that it is _conditioned_ by its connection with the principle of altruism, the root of which is pity. I now pass to consider this second moral principle.

FOOTNOTES:

[25] It assumed its present form only about the time when Buddhism disappeared from India (VIII. and XIII. c.a.d.), but the fundamental conceptions involved in it are to be found as early as the ancient Upanishads.

[26] Some Hindu books determine the ‘part’ of ignorance arithmetically as forming one-fourth (or, according to others, one-third) of the Absolute. Probably in order that the relation may remain unaltered the birth of the ignorant is equalised by the enlightenment of the wise.

[27] This is a fact of our inner experience, and neither its psychological reality nor its ethical significance depend upon the metaphysical or any other view which may be taken of the essence of spirit and matter.

[28] Sometimes in the Scriptures the word ‘flesh’ is used in the wide sense of material being in general: _e.g._ ‘The word became flesh,’ _i.e._ became a physical event, which did not prevent the incarnate Word from being a purely spiritual and sinless God-man. But usually the terms flesh and fleshly are used in the Scriptures in the bad sense of material nature which violates its due relation to the spirit, is opposed to and exclusive of it. Such terminology is found both in the New and in the Old Testament; _e.g._ “My spirit shall not dwell in these men for they are flesh.”

[29] I mean normal sleep; abnormal will be dealt with further on.

[30] The so-called ‘nostril breathing,’ and also complete stoppage of breathing, used to be, and in places still is zealously practised by Orthodox ascetics, as one of the conditions of the so-called ‘meditation.’

[31] See _Krasota v prirodie_ (_Beauty in Nature_) by the present author.

[32] Another moral motive for abstaining from meat food is not ascetic but altruistic, namely, the extension to animals of the law of love or pity. This motive is predominant in the ethics of Buddhism and the ascetic one in the Christian Church.

[33] According to the Biblical teaching the food of the normal human being before the Fall consisted solely of raw fruits and herbs. This is still the rule for the strictest monastic fast, both in the East and in the West (the trappists). Between this extreme and the light Roman Catholic fast for the laity there are many degrees which have a natural foundation (_e.g._ the distinction between the warm- and the cold-blooded animals, owing to which fish is regarded as a food to be taken during fasts) but involve no question of principle and have no universal significance.

[34] At the present moral level of humanity the mastery of the carnal desires is the rule, and the predominance of spiritual motives the exception, and one not to be depended upon; so that total abstinence from strong drinks and all other stimulants may well be preached without any practical disadvantage. But this is a pedagogical and prophylactic question involving no moral principle.

[35] See _Smysl liubvi_ (_The Meaning of Love_) and also _Zhiznennaya drama Platona_ (_The Drama of Plato’s Life_).

[36] I am not speaking here of the marriage union in its highest spiritual sense, which has nothing to do either with the sin of the flesh or with child-bearing, but is the pattern of the most perfect union between beings: “This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” Concerning this mystical meaning of marriage see _The Meaning of Love_.

[37] Ecclesiastical writers describe this rule as “dashing the babes of Babylon against the stones,” following the allegorical line in the Psalms: “O daughter of Babylon who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that taketh and dashes thy little ones against the stones” (Babylon = the kingdom of sin; a babe of Babylon = a sin conceived in thought and as yet undeveloped; stone = the firmness of faith).

[38] When one is young and has a lively imagination and little spiritual experience, the evil thought develops very rapidly, and, reaching absurd proportions, calls forth a strong moral reaction. Thus you think of a person you dislike, and experience a slight emotion of injury, indignation, and anger. If you do not immediately dash this ‘babe of Babylon’ against the stones, your imagination, obedient to the evil passion, will immediately draw a vivid picture before you. You meet your enemy and put him into an awkward position. All his worthlessness is exposed. You experience the _velleitas_ of magnanimity, but the passion is roused and overwhelms you. At first you keep within the limits of good breeding. You make subtly stinging remarks which, however, soon become more stinging than subtle; then you ‘insult him verbally,’ and then you ‘assault him.’ Your devilishly strong fist deals victorious blows. The scoundrel is felled to the ground, the scoundrel is killed, and you dance on his corpse like a cannibal. One can go no further--nothing is left but to cross oneself and renounce it all in disgust.

[39] If the suppression of the flesh is taken not as a means for good or evil but as an end in itself, we get a peculiar kind of false asceticism which identifies flesh with the physical body, and considers every bodily torment a virtue. Although this false asceticism of self-laceration has no evil purpose to begin with, in its further development it easily becomes an evil: it either proves to be a slow suicide or becomes a peculiar kind of sensuality. It would be unwise, however, thus to condemn all cases of self-laceration. Natures that have a particularly strong material life may require heroic means for its suppression. One must not therefore indiscriminately condemn Stylitism, fetters, and other similar means of mortifying the flesh that were in use in the heroic times of asceticism.