135.
_The origin of religion._--Just as the illiterate man of to-day
believes that his wrath is the cause of his being angry, that his
mind is the cause of his thinking, that his soul is the cause of
his feeling, in short, just as a mass of psychological entities
are still unthinkingly postulated as causes; so, in a still more
primitive age, the same phenomena were interpreted by man by means of
personal entities. Those conditions of his soul which seemed strange,
overwhelming, and rapturous, he regarded as obsessions and bewitching
influences emanating from the power of some personality. (Thus the
Christian, the most puerile and backward man of this age, traces hope,
peace, and the feeling of deliverance to a psychological inspiration
on the part of God: being by nature a sufferer and a creature in need
of repose, states of happiness, peace, and resignation, perforce seem
strange to him, and seem to need some explanation.) Among intelligent,
strong, and vigorous races, the epileptic is mostly the cause of a
belief in the existence of some _foreign power_; but all such examples
of apparent subjection--as, for instance, the bearing of the exalted
man, of the poet, of the great criminal, or the passions, love and
revenge--lead to the invention of supernatural powers. A condition is
made concrete by being identified with a personality, and when this
condition overtakes anybody, it is ascribed to that personality. In
other words: in the psychological concept of God, a certain state of
the soul is personified as a cause in order to appear as an effect.
The psychological logic is as follows: when the _feeling of power_
suddenly seizes and overwhelms a man,--and this takes place in the
case of all the great passions,--a doubt arises in him concerning his
own person: he dare not think himself the cause of this astonishing
sensation--and thus he posits a _stronger_ person, a Godhead as its
cause. In short, the origin of religion lies in the extreme feelings
of power, which, being _strange,_ take men by surprise: and just
as the sick man, who feels one of his limbs unaccountably heavy,
concludes that another man must be sitting on it, so the ingenuous
_homo religiosus,_ divides himself up into _several people._ Religion
is an example of the "_altération de la personalité._" A sort of _fear_
and _sensation of terror_ in one's own presence.... But also a feeling
of inordinate _rapture_ and _exaltation._ Among sick people, the
_sensation of health_ suffices to awaken a belief in the proximity of
God.
136.
_Rudimentary psychology of the religious man:--_All changes are
effects; all effects are effects of will (the notion of "Nature"
and of "natural law," is lacking); all effects presuppose an agent.
Rudimentary psychology: one is only a cause oneself, when one knows
that one has willed something.
Result: States of power impute to man the feeling that he is _not_ the
cause of them, that he is not _responsible_ for them: they come without
being willed to do so--consequently we cannot be their originators:
will that is not free (that is to say, the knowledge of a change in our
condition which we have not helped to bring about) requires a _strong_
will.
_Consequence of this rudimentary psychology_: Man has never dared to
credit _himself_ with his strong and startling moods, he has always
conceived them as "passive," as "imposed upon him from outside":
Religion is the offshoot of a _doubt_ concerning the entity of the
person, an _altération_ of the personality: in so far as everything
great and strong in man was considered _superhuman_ and _foreign,_ man
belittled himself,--he laid the two sides, the very pitiable and weak
side, and the very strong and startling side apart, in two spheres, and
called the one "Man" and the other "God."
And he has continued to act on these lines; during the period of the
_moral idiosyncrasy_ he did not interpret his lofty and sublime moral
states as "proceeding from his own will" or as the "work" of the
person. Even the Christian himself divides his personality into two
parts, the one a mean and weak fiction which he calls man, and the
other which he calls God (Deliverer and Saviour).
Religion has lowered the concept "man"; its ultimate conclusion is
that all goodness, greatness, and truth are superhuman, and are only
obtainable by the grace of God.
137.
One way of raising man out of his self-abasement, which brought about
the decline of the point of view that classed all lofty and strong
states of the soul, as strange, was the theory of relationship. These
lofty and strong states of the soul could at least be interpreted as
the influence of our _forebears_; we belonged to each other, we were
irrevocably joined; we grew in our own esteem, by acting according to
the example of a model known to us all.
There is an attempt on the part of noble families to associate religion
with their own feelings of self-respect. Poets and seers do the same
thing; they feel proud that they have been worthy,--that they have been
_selected_ for such association,--they esteem it an honour, not to be
considered at all as individuals, but as mere mouthpieces (Homer).
Man gradually takes possession of the highest and proudest states of
his soul, as also of his acts and his works. Formerly it was believed
that one paid oneself the greatest honour by denying one's own
responsibility for the highest deeds one accomplished, and by ascribing
them to--God. The will which was not free, appeared to be that which
imparted a higher value to a deed: in those days a god was postulated
as the author of the deed.
138.
Priests are the actors of something which is supernatural, either in
the way of ideals, gods, or saviours, and they have to make people
believe in them; in this they find their calling, this is the purpose
of their instincts; in order to make it as credible as possible, they
have to exert themselves to the utmost extent in the art of posing;
their actor's sagacity must, above all, aim at giving them _a clean
conscience,_ by means of which, alone, it is possible to persuade
effectively.
139.
The priest wishes to make it an understood thing, that he is the
_highest type_ of man, that he rules,--even over those who wield the
power,--that he is indispensable and unassailable,--that he is the
_strongest power_ in the community, not by any means to be replaced or
undervalued.
_Means thereto_: he alone is cultured; he alone is the _man of virtue_;
he alone has _sovereign power over himself_: he alone is, in a certain
sense, God, and ultimately goes back to the Godhead; he alone is the
middleman between God and _others_; the Godhead administers punishment
to every one who puts the priest at a disadvantage, or who thinks in
opposition to him.
_Means thereto: Truth_ exists. There is only one way of attaining to
it, and that is to become a priest. Everything good, which relates
either to order, nature, or tradition, is to be traced to the wisdom
of the priests. The Holy Book is their work. The whole of nature is
only a fulfilment of the maxims which it contains. No other _source of
goodness_ exists than the priests. Every other kind of perfection, even
the _warrior's,_ is different in rank from that of the priests.
_Consequence_: If the priest is to be the _highest_ type, then the
_degrees_ which lead to his _virtues_ must be the degrees of value
among men. _Study, emancipation from material things, inactivity,
impassibility, absence of passion, solemnity_;--the opposite of all
this is found in the _lowest_ type of man.
The priest has taught a kind of morality which conduced to his being
considered the _highest type_ of man. He conceives a _type_ which
is the _reverse_ of his own: the Chandala. By making _these_ as
contemptible as possible, some strength is lent to the _order of
castes._ The priest's excessive fear of _sensuality_ also implies that
the latter is the most serious threat to the _order of castes_ (that is
to say, _order_ in general).... Every "free tendency" _in puncto puncti
overthrows_ the laws of marriage.
140.
The _philosopher_ considered as the development of the _priestly_
type:--He has the heritage of the priest in his blood; even as a rival
he is compelled to fight with the same weapons as the priest of his
time;--he aspires to the _highest authority._
What is it that bestows _authority_ upon men who have no physical power
to wield (no army, no arms at all ...)? How do such men gain authority
_over_ those who are in possession of material power, and who represent
authority? (Philosophers enter the lists against princes, victorious
conquerors, and wise statesmen.)
They can do it only by establishing the belief that they are in
possession of a power which is higher and stronger--_God._ Nothing is
strong enough: every one is in _need_ of the mediation and the services
of priests. They establish themselves as indispensable _intercessors._
The conditions of their existence are: (1) That people believe in the
absolute superiority of their god, in fact believe in _their god_';
(2) that there is no other access, no direct access to god, save
through them. The _second_ condition alone gives rise to the concept
"heterodoxy"; the _first_ to the concept "disbelievers" (that is to
say, he who believes in another god).
141.
_A Criticism of the Holy Lie._--That a lie is allowed in pursuit
of holy ends 'is a principle which belongs to the theory of all
priestcraft, and the object of this inquiry is to discover to what
extent it belongs to its practice.
But philosophers, too, whenever they intend taking over the leadership
of mankind, with the ulterior motives of priests in their minds, have
never failed to arrogate to themselves the right to lie: Plato above
all. But the most elaborate of lies is the double lie, developed
by the typically Arian philosophers of the Vedanta: two systems,
contradicting each other in all their main points, but interchangeable,
complementary, and mutually expletory, when educational ends were in
question. The lie of the one has to create a condition in which the
truth of the other can alone become _intelligible...._
How _far_ does the holy lie of priests and philosophers go?--The
question here is, what hypotheses do they advance in regard to
education, and what are the dogmas they are compelled to _invent_ in
order to do justice to these hypotheses?
First: they must have power, authority, and absolute credibility on
their side.
Secondly: they must have the direction of the whole of Nature, so that
everything affecting the individual seems to be determined by their law.
Thirdly: their domain of power must be very extensive, in order that
its control may escape the notice of those they subject: they must know
the penal code of the life beyond--of the life "after death,"--and, of
course, the means whereby the road to blessedness may be discovered.
They have to put the notion of a natural course of things out of sight,
but as they are intelligent and thoughtful people, they are able to
_promise_ a host of effects, which they naturally say are conditioned
by prayer or by the strict observance of their law. They can, moreover,
_prescribe_ a large number of things which are exceedingly reasonable
--only they must not point to experience or empiricism as the source
of this wisdom, but to revelation or to the fruits of the "most severe
exercises of penance."
The _holy lie,_ therefore, applies principally to the _purpose_ of
an action (the natural purpose, reason, is made to vanish: a moral
purpose, the observance of some law, a service to God, seems to be the
purpose): to the _consequence_ of an action (the natural consequence
is interpreted as something supernatural, and, in order to be on
surer ground, other incontrollable and supernatural consequences are
foretold).
In this way the concepts _good_ and _evil_ are created, and seem
quite divorced from the natural concepts: "useful," "harmful,"
"life-promoting," "life-retarding,"--indeed, inasmuch as _another_
life is imagined, the former concepts may even be _antagonistic_ to
Nature's concepts of good and evil. In this way, the proverbial concept
"conscience" is created: an inner voice, which, though it makes itself
heard in regard to every action, does not measure the worth of that
action according to its results, but according to its conformity or
non-conformity to the "law."
The holy lie therefore invented: (1) a _god_ who _punishes_ and
_rewards,_ who recognises and carefully observes the law-book of the
priests, and who is particular about sending them into the world as
his mouthpieces and plenipotentiaries; (2) an _After Life,_ in which,
alone, the great penal machine is supposed to be active--to this end
the _immortality of the soul_ was invented; (3) a _conscience in
man,_ understood as the knowledge that good and evil are permanent
values--that God himself speaks through it, whenever its counsels are
in conformity with priestly precepts; (4) _Morality_ as the denial of
all natural processes, as the subjection of all phenomena to a moral
order, as the interpretation of all phenomena as the effects of a moral
order of things (that is to say, the concept of punishment and reward),
as the only power and only creator of all transformations; (5) _Truths_
given, revealed, and identical with the teaching of the priests: as the
condition to all salvation and happiness in this and the next world.
_In short_: what is the price paid for the _improvement_ supposed
to be due to morality?--The unhinging of _reason,_ the reduction of
all motives to fear and hope (punishment and reward); _dependence_
upon the tutelage of priests, and upon a formulary exactitude
which is supposed to express a divine will; the implantation of
a "conscience" which establishes a false science in the place of
experience and experiment: as though all one had to do or had not
to do were predetermined--a kind of contraction of the seeking and
striving spirit;--_in short_: the worst _mutilation_ of man that can be
imagined, and it is pretended that "the good man" is the result.
Practically speaking, all reason, the whole heritage of intelligence,
subtlety, and caution, the first condition of the priestly canon, is
arbitrarily reduced, when it is too late, to a simple _mechanical_
process: conformity with the law becomes a purpose in itself, it is the
highest purpose; _Life no longer contains any problems_;--the whole
conception of the world is polluted by the notion of _punishment_;
--Life itself, owing to the fact that the _priests life_ is upheld as
the _non plus ultra_ of perfection, is transformed into a denial and
pollution of life;--the concept "God" represents an aversion to Life,
and even a criticism and a contemning of it. Truth is transformed in
the mind, into _priestly_ prevarication; the striving after truth, into
the _study of the Scriptures,_ into the way to _become a theologian._
142.
_A criticism of the Law-Book of Manu._--The whole book is founded upon
the holy lie. Was it the well-being of humanity that inspired the whole
of this system? Was this kind of man, who believes in the _interested_
nature of every action, interested or not interested in the success
of this system? The desire to improve mankind--whence comes the
inspiration to this feeling? Whence is the concept improvement taken?
We find a class of men, _the sacerdotal class,_ who consider themselves
the standard pattern, the highest example and most perfect expression
of the type man. The notion of "improving" mankind, to this class of
men, means to make mankind like themselves. They believe in their own
superiority, they _will_ be superior in practice: the cause of the holy
lie is _The Will to Power...._
Establishment of the dominion: to this end, ideas which place a _non
plus ultra_ of power with the priesthood are made to prevail. Power
acquired by lying was the result of the recognition of the fact that it
was not already possessed physically, in a military form.... Lying as a
supplement to power--this is a new concept of "truth."
It is a mistake to presuppose _unconscious_ and _innocent_ development
in this quarter--a sort of self-deception. Fanatics are not the
discoverers of such exhaustive systems of oppression.... Cold-blooded
reflection must have been at work here; the same sort of reflection
which Plato showed when he worked out his "State"--"One must desire the
means when one desires the end." Concerning this political maxim, all
legislators have always been quite clear.
We possess the classical model, and it is specifically Arian: we
can therefore hold the most gifted and most reflective type of man
responsible for the most systematic lie that has ever been told....
Everywhere almost the lie was copied, and thus _Avian influence_
corrupted the world....
143.
Much is said to-day about the _Semitic_ spirit of the _New Testament_:
but the thing referred to is merely priestcraft,--and in the purest
example of an Arian law-book, in Manu, this kind of "Semitic
spirit"--that is to say, _Sacerdotalism,_ is worse than anywhere else.
The development of the Jewish hierarchy is _not_ original: they learnt
the scheme in Babylon--it is Arian. When, later on, the same thing
became dominant in Europe, under the preponderance of Germanic blood,
this was in conformity to the spirit of the _ruling race_: a striking
case of atavism. The Germanic middle ages aimed at a revival of the
_Arian order of castes_.
Mohammedanism in its turn learned from Christianity the use of a
"Beyond" as an instrument of punishment.
The scheme of a _permanent community,_ with priests at its
head--this oldest product of Asia's great culture in the domain of
organisation--_naturally_ provoked reflection and imitation in every
way.--Plato is an example of this, but above all, the Egyptians.
144.
_Moralities_ and _religions_ are the principal means by which one can
modify men into whatever one likes; provided one is possessed of an
overflow of creative power, and can cause one's will to prevail over
long periods of time.
145.
If one wish to see an _affirmative_ Arian religion which is the product
of a _ruling_ class, one should read the law-book of Manu. (The
deification of the feeling of power in the Brahmin: it is interesting
to note that it originated in the warrior-caste, and was later
transferred to the priests.)
If one wish to see an _affirmative_ religion of the Semitic order,
which is the product of the _ruling_ class, one should read the Koran
or the earlier portions of the Old Testament. (_Mohammedanism,_ as a
religion for men, has profound contempt for the sentimentality and
prevarication of Christianity, ... which, according to Mohammedans, is
a woman's religion.)
If one wish to see a _negative_ religion of the Semitic order, which is
the product of the _oppressed_ class, one should read the New Testament
(which, according to Indian and Arian points of view, is a religion for
the Chandala).
If one wish to see a _negative_ Arian religion, which is the product of
the _ruling_ classes, one should study Buddhism.
It is quite in the nature of things that we have no Arian religion
which is the product of the _oppressed_ classes; for that would have
been a contradiction: a race of masters is either paramount or else it
goes to the dogs.
146.
Religion, _per se,_ has nothing to do with morality; yet both offshoots
of the Jewish religion are _essentially_ moral religions--which
prescribe the rules of living, and procure obedience to their
principles by means of rewards and punishment.
147.
_Paganism--Christianity.--Paganism_ is that which says yea to all
that is natural, it is innocence in being natural, "naturalness."
_Christianity_ is that which says no to all that is natural, it is a
certain lack of dignity in being natural; hostility to Nature.
"Innocent":--Petronius is innocent, for instance. Beside this happy
man a Christian is absolutely devoid of innocence. But since even
the _Christian_ status is ultimately only a natural condition, the
term "Christian" soon begins to mean the _counterfeiting of the
psychological interpretation._
148.
The Christian priest is from the root a mortal enemy of sensuality: one
cannot imagine a greater contrast to his attitude than the guileless,
slightly awed, and solemn attitude, which the religious rites of the
most honourable women in Athens maintained in the presence of the
symbol of sex. In all non-ascetic religions the procreative act is
_the_ secret _per se_: a sort of symbol of perfection and of the
designs of the future: re-birth, immortality.
149.
Our belief in ourselves is the greatest fetter, the most telling spur,
and the _strongest pinion._ Christianity ought to have elevated the
innocence of man to the position of an article of belief--men would
then have become gods: in those days believing was still possible.
150.
The egregious _lie_ of history: as if it were the _corruption_ of
Paganism that opened the road to Christianity. As a matter of fact, it
was the enfeeblement and _moralisation_ of the man of antiquity. The
new interpretation of natural functions, which made them appear like
_vices,_ had already gone before!
151.
Religions are ultimately wrecked by the belief in morality. The idea of
the Christian moral God becomes untenable,--hence "Atheism,"--as though
there could be no other god.
_Culture_ is likewise wrecked by the belief in morality. For when the
necessary and only possible conditions of its growth are revealed,
nobody _will_ any longer countenance it (Buddhism).
152.
_The physiology of Nihilistic religions._--All in all, the _Nihilistic_
religions are _systematised histories of sickness_ described in
religious and moral terminology.
In pagan cultures it is around the interpretation of the great annual
cycles that the religious cult turns; in Christianity it is around a
cycle of _paralytic phenomena._
153.
This _Nihilistic_ religion gathers together all the _decadent elements_
and things of like order which it can find in antiquity, viz.:--
_(a)_ The _weak_ and the _botched_ (the refuse of the ancient world,
and that of which it rid itself with most violence).
_(b)_ Those who are _morally obsessed_ and _anti-pagan._
_(c)_ Those who are _weary of politics_ and indifferent (the _blasé_
Romans), the _denationalised,_ who know not what they are.
_(d)_ Those who are tired of themselves--who are happy to be party to a
subterranean conspiracy.
154.
_Buddha_ versus _Christ._--Among the Nihilistic religions, Christianity
and _Buddhism_ may always be sharply distinguished. _Buddhism_ is the
expression of a _fine evening,_ perfectly sweet and mild--it is a sort
of gratitude towards all that lies hidden, including that which it
entirely lacks, viz., bitterness, disillusionment, and resentment.
Finally it possesses lofty intellectual love; it has got over all
the subtlety of philosophical contradictions, and is even resting
after it, though it is precisely from that source that it derives its
intellectual glory and its glow as of a sunset (it originated in the
higher classes).
_Christianity_ is a degenerative movement, consisting of all kinds
of decaying and excremental elements: it is _not_ the expression of
the downfall of a race, it is, from the root, an agglomeration of all
the morbid elements which are mutually attractive and which gravitate
to one another.... It is therefore _not_ a national religion, _not_
determined by race: it appeals to the disinherited everywhere; it
consists of a foundation of resentment against all that is successful
and dominant: it is in need of a symbol which represents the damnation
of everything successful and dominant. It is opposed to every form of
_intellectual_ movement, to all philosophy: it takes up the cudgels for
idiots, and utters a curse upon all intellect. Resentment against those
who are gifted, learned, intellectually independent: in all these it
suspects the element of success and domination.
155.
In Buddhism this thought prevails: "All passions, everything which
creates emotions and leads to blood, is a call to action"--to this
extent alone are its believers _warned_ against evil. For action has
no sense, it merely binds one to existence. All existence, however, has
no sense. Evil is interpreted as that which leads to irrationalism:
to the affirmation of means whose end is denied. A road to nonentity
is the desideratum, _hence all_ emotional impulses are regarded with
horror. For instance: "On no account seek after revenge! Be the enemy
of no one!"--The Hedonism of the weary finds its highest expression
here. Nothing is more utterly foreign to Buddhism than the Jewish
fanaticism of St. Paul: nothing could be more contrary to its instinct
than the tension, fire, and unrest of the religious man, and, above
all, that form of sensuality which sanctifies Christianity with the
name "Love." Moreover, it is the cultured and very intellectual classes
who find blessedness in Buddhism: a race wearied and besotted by
centuries of philosophical quarrels, but not _beneath all culture_ as
those classes were from which Christianity sprang.... In the Buddhistic
ideal, there is essentially an emancipation from good and evil: a
very subtle suggestion of a Beyond to all morality is thought out
in its teaching, and this Beyond is supposed to be compatible with
perfection,--the condition being, that even good actions are only
needed _pro tem.,_ merely as a means,--that is to say, in order to be
free from _all_ action.
156.
_How very curious_ it is to see a _Nihilistic_ religion such as
Christianity, sprung from, and in keeping with, a decrepit and worn-out
people, who have outlived all strong instincts, being transferred step
by step to another environment--that is to say, to a land of young
people, _who have not yet lived at all._ The joy of the final chapter,
of the fold and of the evening, preached to barbarians and Germans!
How thoroughly all of it must first have been barbarised, Germanised!
To those who had dreamed of a _Walhalla_: who found happiness only in
war!--A _super_national religion preached in the midst of chaos, where
_no nations yet existed even._
157.
The only way to refute priests and religions is this: to show that
their errors are no longer _beneficent_--that they are rather harmful;
in short, that their own "proof of power" no longer holds good....