question as to the meaning of my life." In the abstractsphere I
understood that notwithstanding the fact, or just because of thefact, that the direct aim of science is to reply to my question,
there is no reply but that which I have myself already given: "What is the meaning of my life?" "There is none." Or: "What
will come of my life?" "Nothing." Or: "Why does everything existthat exists, and why do I exist?" "Because it exists."
Inquiring for one region of human knowledge, I received aninnumerable quantity of exact replies concerning matters about
which I had not asked: about the chemical constituents of thestars, about the movement of the sun towards the constellation
Hercules, about the origin of species and of man, about the formsof infinitely" target="_blank" title="ad.无限地；无穷地">infinitely minute imponderable particles of ether; but in this
sphere of knowledge the only answer to my question, "What is themeaning of my life?" was: "You are what you call your 'life'; you
are a transitory, casual cohesion of particles. The mutualinteractions and changes of these particles produce in you what you
call your "life". That cohesion will last some time; afterwardsthe interaction of these particles will cease and what you call
"life" will cease, and so will all your questions. You are anaccidentally united little lump of something. that little lump
ferments. The little lump calls that fermenting its 'life'. Thelump will disintegrate and there will be an end of the fermenting
and of all the questions." So answers the clear side of scienceand cannot answer otherwise if it strictly follows its principles.
From such a reply one sees that the reply does not answer thequestion. I want to know the meaning of my life, but that it is a
fragment of the infinite, far from giving it a meaning destroys itsevery possible meaning. The obscure compromises which that side of
experimental exact science makes with abstract science when it saysthat the meaning of life consists in development and in cooperation
with development, owing to their inexactness and obscurity cannotbe considered as replies.
The other side of science -- the abstract side -- when itholds strictly to its principles, replying directly to the
question, always replies, and in all ages has replied, in one andthe same way: "The world is something infinite and
incomprehensible part of that incomprehensible 'all'." Again Iexclude all those compromises between abstract and experimental
sciences which supply the whole ballast of the semi-sciences calledjuridical, political, and historical. In those semi-sciences the
conception of development and progress is again wrongly introduced,only with this difference, that there it was the development of
everything while here it is the development of the life of mankind. The error is there as before: development and progress in infinity
can have no aim or direction, and, as far as my question isconcerned, no answer is given.
In truly abstract science, namely in genuinephilosophy -- notin that which Schopenhauer calls "professorial philosophy" which
serves only to classify all existing phenomena in new philosophiccategories and to call them by new names -- where the philosopher
does not lose sight of the essential question, the reply is alwaysone and the same -- the reply given by Socrates, Schopenhauer,
Solomon, and buddha. "We approach truth only inasmuch as we depart from life", said
Socrates when preparing for death. "For what do we, who lovetruth, strive after in life? To free ourselves from the body, and
from all the evil that is caused by the life of the body! If so,then how can we fail to be glad when death comes to us?
"The wise man seeks death all his life and therefore death isnot terrible to him."
And Schopenhauer says: "Having recognized the inmost essence of the world as *will*,
and all its phenomena -- from the conscious" target="_blank" title="a.无意识的；不觉察的">unconsciousworking of theobscure forces of Nature up to the completely conscious action of
man -- as only the objectivity of that will, we shall in no wayavoid the conclusion that together with the voluntary renunciation
and self-destruction of the will all those phenomena alsodisappear, that constant striving and effort without aim or rest on
all the stages of objectivity in which and through which the worldexists; the diversity of successive forms will disappear, and
together with the form all the manifestations of will, with itsmost universal forms, space and time, and finally its most
fundamental form -- subject and object. Without will there is noconcept and no world. Before us, certainly, nothing remains. But
what resists this transition into annihilation, our nature, is onlythat same wish to live -- *Wille zum Leben* -- which forms
ourselves as well as our world. That we are so afraid ofannihilation or, what is the same thing, that we so wish to live,
merely means that we are ourselves nothing else but this desire tolive, and know nothing but it. And so what remains after the
complete annihilation of the will, for us who are so full of thewill, is, of course, nothing; but on the other hand, for those in
whom the will has turned and renounced itself, this so real worldof ours with all its suns and milky way is nothing."
"Vanity of vanities", says Solomon -- "vanity of vanities --all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he
taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and anothergeneration commeth: but the earth abideth for ever....The thing
that hath been, is that which shall be; and that which is done isthat which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hathbeen already of old time, which was before us. there is no
remembrance of former things; neither shall there be anyremembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come
after. I the Preacher was King over Israel in Jerusalem. And Igave my heart to seek and search out by wisdomconcerning all that
is done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sonsof man to be exercised therewith. I have seen all the works that
are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and vexation ofspirit....I communed with my own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to
great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that havebeen before me over Jerusalem: yea, my heart hath great experience
of wisdom and knowledge. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, andto know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation
of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he thatincreaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
"I said in my heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth,therefore enjoy pleasure: and behold this also is vanity. I said of
laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it? I sought in myheart how to cheer my flesh with wine, and while my heart was
guided by wisdom, to lay hold on folly, till I might see what itwas good for the sons of men that they should do under heaven the
number of the days of their life. I made me great works; I buildedme houses; I planted me vineyards; I made me gardens and orchards,
and I planted trees in them of all kinds of fruits: I made me poolsof water, to water therefrom the forest where trees were reared: I
got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house;also I had great possessions of herds and flocks above all that
were before me in Jerusalem: I gathered me also silver and gold andthe peculiar treasure from kings and from the provinces: I got me
men singers and women singers; and the delights of the sons of men,as musical instruments and all that of all sorts. So I was great,
and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: alsomy wisdom remained with me. And whatever mine eyes desired I kept
not from them. I withheld not my heart from any joy....Then Ilooked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the
labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity andvexation of spirit, and there was no profit from them under the
sun. And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, andfolly.... But I perceived that one even happeneth to them all.
Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so ithappeneth even to me, and why was I then more wise? then I said in
my heart, that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance ofthe wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is
in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wiseman? as the fool. Therefore I hated life; because the work that is
wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity andvexation of spirit. Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken
under the sun: seeing that I must leave it unto the man that shallbe after me.... For what hath man of all his labour, and of the
vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun? Forall his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, even in the
night his heart taketh no rest. this is also vanity. Man is notblessed with security that he should eat and drink and cheer his
soul from his own labour.... All things come alike to all: there isone event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to
the evil; to the clean and to the unclean; to him that sacrificethand to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner;
and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evilin all that is done under the sun, that there is one event unto
all; yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, andmadness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go
to the dead. For him that is among the living there is hope: fora living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that
they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have theyany more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. also their
love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neitherhave they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done
under the sun." So said Solomon, or whoever wrote those words. [Footnote:
tolstoy's version differs slightly in a few places from our ownAuthorized or Revised version. I have followed his text, for in a
letter to Fet, quoted on p. 18, vol. ii, of my "Life of Tolstoy,"he says that "The Authorized English version [of Ecclesiastes] is
bad." -- A.M.] And this is what the Indian wisdom tells:
Sakya Muni, a young, happy prince, from whom the existence ofsickness, old age, and death had been hidden, went out to drive and
saw a terrible old man, toothless and slobbering. the prince, fromwhom till then old age had been concealed, was amazed, and asked
his driver what it was, and how that man had come to such awretched and disgusting condition, and when he learnt that this was
the common fate of all men, that the same thing inevitably awaitedhim -- the young prince -- he could not continue his drive, but
gave orders to go home, that he might consider this fact. So heshut himself up alone and considered it. and he probably devised
some consolation for himself, for he subsequently again went out todrive, feeling merry and happy. But this time he saw a sick man.
He saw an emaciated, livid, trembling man with dim eyes. Theprince, from whom sickness had been concealed, stopped and asked
what this was. And when he learnt that this was sickness, to whichall men are liable, and that he himself -- a healthy and happy
prince -- might himself fall ill tomorrow, he again was in no moodto enjoy himself but gave orders to drive home, and again sought
some solace, and probably found it, for he drove out a third timefor pleasure. But this third time he saw another new sight: he saw