Lesson VIII Dharma

“Dharma” is a Sanskrit word which is translated into English as “Virtue”; “Duty”; “Law”; “Righteousness”; etc. None of these English words convey just the exact meaning of Dharma, We cannot improve on these definitions, but we may adopt one which fits closer into our particular conception of the truth of Dharma, so we will consider that, for the purposes of this lesson, “Dharma” means “Right-Action.” To be more definite, we might say that Dharma is the rule of action and life best adapted to the requirements of the individual soul, and best calculated to aid that particular soul in the next highest step in its development. When we speak of a man’s Dharma we mean the highest course of action for him, considering his development and the immediate needs of his soul.

We think that this lesson will be timely and will answer the demands of many of our students. We hear, on all sides, the old question, “What is right?" People are not satisfied with the old answers, which seem to belong to the past, and which make certain forms, ceremonies and observances equally as important, if not more so, that right-action and right-thinking. The advanced student sees the absurdity of the old divisions of “right and wrong,” and knows that many things which have been condemned as “wrong” are “wrong” only because certain men arbitrarily have called them so – and that many things that have been called “right” “right” only from the same reason. He looks around him and sees that right and wrong seem to differ with latitude and longitude, and that the conceptions of right and wrong vary with the ages and constantly are changing; being modified, improved upon, or rejected. This being the case, the student is apt to be puzzled regarding a code of ethics – he has lost his old landmarks and standards, and finds himself puzzled to determine with what to measure right and wrong. On one side he hears the old doctrines of this or that mere matter of form of observance, dogmatic and unreasonable, which his soul rejects as outgrown and inadequate for its present needs. On the other hand, he hears the new doctrine of "All is Good” being preached vigorously, often by those who have not the slightest conception of the real meaning of the words – and this new doctrine is not satisfactory to the average student, for his conscience tells him that certain courses of conduct are “right” and others “wrong” (although often he is not able to tell just why he so considers them). And so the student is apt to become quite puzzled.

To add to his confusion, he recognizes the fact that what may seem “right” to him, is utterly incomprehensible to some men of his acquaintance who are not so far advanced spiritually – they are not able to grasp his high standard and ideals. He also notices that some of the things that even to him, seem the natural and right things for these undeveloped men to do (that is, seem better than other things they have been doing) would be “wrong” for him, the advanced man, to do, because they would mean going backward. Among other things, he sees these undeveloped men being influenced to "right” doing, and deterred from “wrong” doing, by promises of reward and threats of punishment, which appear most unworthy and selfish to those who believe m doing right for right’s sake. And yet, he is forced to see that these people apparently need some such artificial stimulus and deterrent, for they are incapable of grasping the higher ideals or ethics.

These, and countless other questions, arise to perplex the student, and to make him feel that the old foundations have slipped from under his feet, and no other safe foothold has presented itself to view. We think that this little lesson on that phase of the Yogi Philosophy which is called ‘Dharma," will help him to find his ) – will aid in pointing out the path that he has lost sight of, momentarily, by reason of the thick growth of underbrush which covers the particular spot now being traveled by him. The subject is too large to cover in the space before us, but we hope to be able to point out a few general principles, which may be taken up by the student, and followed out to their logical conclusion.

Let us take a brief view of the general question of Ethics, and some of the theories regarding the same. Ethics is defined as "The Science of Conduct,” and it treats of the desire to render harmonious the relationship of a man and his fellows. There are three theories of Ethics among Western people, known as follows: (1) The theory of Revelation; (2) The Theory of Intuition; and, (3) The theory of Utility. As a rule, the advocate of any one of these three systems claims his particular system to be the only true one, and the other two to he errors. The Yogi Philosophy recognizes truth in each and all of the three systems, and gives each its place in what it calls “Dharma.” In order to get a clearer idea of Dharma, we must take a brief look at each of these three systems, taken separately.

The system of Ethics based upon the Theory of Revelation, holds that the only basis for morality and right-conduct is Divine Revelation, coming through prophets, priests and teachers, called by many names. The laws given out by these having been received by them from God, have been accepted, more or less submissively, by all races in certain stages of their development, although the conception of the God, who had given out these laws, differed very materially. These laws so far as their great underlying principles were concerned, resembled each other very much, although they differed widely in detail, and minor laws and precepts. The great religious books of all races contain a more or less complete code of ethics, which the people are enjoined to obey implicitly without regard to reason or their own opinions, these codes, however, being subject to the interpretation of the highest religious authorities of the race. Each race regards the precepts of its religious hooks, as interpreted by its priests, as supreme authority, and, of course, view the similar claims of other races as spurious. The majority of these religions have split up into sects and denominations, each having its favored interpretation of the sacred teachings, but all rely on the original revelation as the only truth concerning ethics. And then, again, each race has modified its original conception of the revealed teachings, fitting their ideas to the constantly changing requirements of the age. As a race evolves its wants and needs change, and its sacred teachings are twisted and bent to fit the changed conditions. The priests, in such cases, say that God undoubtedly meant “this and that,” instead of “thus and so” as their fathers had supposed. So that after a time the authority of the code of ethics rests largely upon the interpretation of priests and teachers, rather than upon the words of the supposed Divine revelation itself. Followers of the other two schools of ethics object that if Deity had intended to promulgate a code of ethics – a rule of conduct – applicable to all men in all time, He would have worded it so clearly that it could not be misunderstood even by the most ignorant. Wisdom would have enabled Him to have foreseen the growing needs of the people, and consequently would have provided for such needs, either in the original revelation itself, or in “supplements" thereto. We will consider the advantages and disadvantages of this theory later on in this lesson.

The second system of ethics advances the theory that Man knows right and wrong intuitively – that Deity imparts to each man, through his conscience, an instinctive knowledge of good and evil, that he may govern himself accordingly. This school urges that men must refer the details of his conduct to his own conscience. It overlooks the fact that the consciences of no two people are exactly alike, and that such a theory implies that there may be as many different standards of morality and conduct as there are people, and that the statement "My conscience approves of it” would preclude any argument as to ethics. As to what conscience is, the writers differ. Some say that it is the higher portion of the mind speaking to man. Some say that it is merely the subconscious mind repeating what has been suggested into it, and that consciences grow with experience and change with environment. Some claim that it is the voice of God speaking to the soul. Others have still other explanations and theories. We shall consider this theory at greater length a little further on in this lesson.

The third system of ethics rests upon the theory of utility, or what is known as utilitarianism which latter word is defined "the doctrine that virtue founded on utility," or “the doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the aim of all social and political institutions.” – (Webster.) This is the theory upon which human law is supposed to be based. Blackstone, the great expounder of the English Law, states that human laws are upon “the law of nature,' which law of nature he tells us are based upon the laws of God – eternal immutable laws of good and evil – which the Creator causes to become evident to Man by means of human reason. Blackstone goes on to say that "This law of nature, is dictated by God Himself, and is of course superior in obligation to any other; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and each of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.” All this sounds beautifully simple, and one is led to wonder how it is that civilized life is not heaven on earth, until he remembers the state of modern law-making and law-administering, which, however, is an improvement on that of former days. It seems so easy to speak of the “law of nature,” but so difficult to apply that law to details of life, and to administer it. Blackstone, himself, recognizes this fact, and says: "If our reason were always clear and perfect, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this: But every man finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.” The man who has had much experience in courts and the processes of “justice” will be apt to agree with the great English lawyer, in his last quoted remarks. While it is true that the laws of a nation represent the average of its best conceptions of ethics, still the conceptions change more rapidly than the law, and the latter is always a little "behind the times' as compared with public opinion and conception of right and wrong. And many are the loop-holes of man-made laws, and the shrewd law-breaker may safely commit almost any of the great offenses against the current conceptions of morality, providing he does it cleverly enough. Some men have a code of ethics of their own, which holds that no “wrong” is committed providing no law is technically broken, and so they scheme and plan, aided by “able counsel,” to attain their ends without violating the letter of the law. This danger being avoided, their consciences are easy. This is a very easy and simple theory of conduct, for those who can live under it. Justinian, the great Roman law-giver, reduced the whole doctrine of human law to three general precepts, as follows: "Live honestly; Hurt nobody; and Render to every one his due.” This is a simple and beautiful code, and its honest adaption by mankind would make the world over in a day, but nearly every man is inclined to place his own interpretation upon each of the three precepts, and, consciously or unconsciously, stretches them in his own favor and against his fellows. It is very difficult for one, in the present state of the world to tell just what it is to “be honest”; to live so that he will “hurt nobody”; or to “render unto everyone his due” – or even to tell just what everyone’s due really is. However, as an example of the reason’s conception of proper conduct, Justinian’s precept is well worth remembering, with the purpose of following it as closely as may be. It will appeal to those who instinctively wish to give all “a square deal,” so far as may be, but who are unable to grasp the still higher teachings. But even those who can manage to live up to Justinian’s precepts, will fall far short of satisfying their neighbors, who will insist upon the observance of certain other things –many of them most ridiculous things – that have grown to be the custom, or which are insisted upon by certain so-called religious “authorities,” not to speak of the civil ones.

The followers of the Utilitarian school of ethics differ one from the other in their explanations of the cause and history of ethics and rules of human conduct, some thinking that it arose from God speaking through man’s reason, and others taking the more material view that ethics, laws, morals, and rules of conduct are the product of the evolution of the race – the result of accumulated experiences, the trying of this and of that until a fair average has been obtained. Of course to the latter class, morals and rules of conduct are purely matters of the reason of Man, having nothing to do with Divine Law, or Spiritual Knowledge. Herbert Spencer, the great English scientist, is perhaps the best exponent of this last named school, his work, “The Data of Ethics," being a masterpiece of reasoning along these lines. Dharma takes cognizance of each and all of these three schools of ethics, seeing that each has a bit of truth in it, and that all, combined, and welded with the cement of the occult teachings, make a mighty whole. We will show how these apparently conflicting systems may be reconciled. But before doing so it may be better to take another look at the three systems above mentioned, making an analysis of the objections to each as a complete theory, so that we may see the weakness of any one theory taken by itself as well as the strength of the three when combined and joined together with the teachings of Dharma, Let us take them up in the order given above.

(1) THE THEORY OF REVELATION. The principal objection urged against this theory, by the advocates of the other theories, is that there is not sufficient proof of the truth of the revelation. Priests always have claimed to be the mouthpieces of the Almighty, and the revelations have come through these priests in all ages. The advocates of the utilitarian theory of ethics claim that these so-called revelations (when the rule of conduct given out was really for the good of the people, rather than for the benefit of the priests) were really the result of the superior reasoning of the prophet, who, being head and shoulders above his people, could see what was best for their needs, and accordingly compiled such rules of conduct into more or less complete codes, stating that they had been given direct by God through the prophet, the priest placing the authorship upon God rather than upon himself, knowing that the people would be more apt to respect and obey a Divine command than one emanating from a mere man. The advocates of the intuitional theory hold that the so-called “revelation” really arose from the conscience and intuition of the prophet, who being a more advanced man than his people would be apt to sense more clearly the voice of the spirit, but who would attribute the voice of conscience to God, and who, accordingly would so give out the message. The intuition of the people would enable them to see the “rightness” of the so-called Divine message, and they would accept same with the approval of their consciences. Another objection raised against the Theory of Revelation is that there are many so-called revelations, differing materially in detail – each religion having its own set of revelations, through its own prophets and teachers. It is held that if God wished to reveal a code of morals to His people, his revelations would agree, and would be given in such a way that there could be no mistaking them. It is also held that it is impossible to regard any one of these numerous revelations as authoritative, owing to the impossibility of selecting any one from the great number, as each prophet made equally strong claims that he received the revelation direct from God, and there is no Supreme Court to pass finally upon the matter. It is also objected to that many of the things claimed to have been directed by God have no real connection with morality, but deal with the details of the life of the people, such as the mode of slaughtering animals; the selection of kinds of food; various religious ceremonial, etc. which are as strictly joined as are the rules of conduct, and dually entitled to be regarded as examples of "right and wrong.” Then, again, there are many things sanctioned in these so-called revelations that are contrary to our modern conceptions of morality. Divine commands were given to kill enemies in a most barbarous fashion, which the law of nations now prohibits, and only savage nations now follow. In such a case it would seem that the intuition or reason of man has raised a higher ideal than did God. The same is true of polygamy and slavery, which are not prohibited by the so-called Divine revelations, but which are sanctioned and allowed. A number of similar objections are urged against the theory of the divine revelation of ethics, but the main objection seems to be that there is not sufficient proof of the truth of the revelation, and that reason teaches that the so-called revelations were simply the result of the human reason of the prophets, and were promulgated either with the idea of keeping the people orderly and prosperous, or else, to keep the priesthood in power and authority, or both reasons. The Yogi Philosophy of Dharma recognizes these objections, but answers them in its system, as we shall see later on.

(2)THEORY OF INTUITION. The objection to this theory, most frequently advanced, is that the conscience is merely the result of one’s teachings; environment; race; temperament; age; etc,– that the conscience of one man may make it seem wrong to kill a fly, while that of another may make it seem right to kill an enemy – that the conscience of one may make it seem wrong not to share one's all with a stray comer, or to hold any property as one's own, while the conscience of another (a Whitechapel pickpocket, for instance), may cause him to perfectly justify himself in stealing whatever he may lay his hands upon, and even reprove him for not taking advantage of an opportunity to do so. The conscience of certain of the criminal classes is akin to that of the cat which sees no harm in stealing the cream or bit of meat, and is only deterred by fear of punishment. The student of human nature, people and history, knows that conscience is largely a matter of race, time, environment and temperament, and he would hesitate at accepting the voice of the conscience of any particular man as a fit source or authority for a code of morals for all people, at all times. He sees that the rules of conduct emanating from the conscience of an undeveloped man would be far below the standard of the average man of our own times, while that given forth by the conscience of a highly developed man would be impossible of compliance with on the part of the average of our race today, by reason of its high precepts and fine distinctions of thought and conduct. And then “conscience” has made people do some things which our own “conscience” of today tells us is “wrong.” People have been burned at the stake – have had holes bored in their tongues – have been tortured physically and mentally at the dictates of the consciences of the persecutors, who were just as sincere as those whom they persecuted.

If the principle of “conscience implicitly followed”, the “conscience” of the majority might make things very unpleasant for the minority, it has happened many times in the past. So, you see, the theory that “conscience” as an infallible guide may be attacked severely by its opponents. And yet, the Yogi Philosophy of Dharma, while recognizing these objections, also sees much truth in the theory of intuition or “conscience,” and welds it into place in its system, as we shall see later on in this lesson.

(3) THE THEORY OF UTILITY. This theory often is attacked severely on the ground that it is a purely selfish idea – that the basis of morality offered is “happiness” – the happiness of the individual modified by the happiness of those around him – “the greatest happiness to the greatest number,” in short – and that such a basis fails to recognize the higher destiny of man, being based entirely upon his earthly and material existence. To this the utilitarian very naturally answers that any code of conduct has a more or less selfish basis, inasmuch as a man doing certain things, and refraining from doing certain other things, by reason of hope of Divine approval and reward, or fear of Divine displeasure and punishment, is as selfish as one who is actuated by the idea of material happiness or unhappiness. Another objection urged is that acting under it the average man would be impelled to get as much happiness for himself as possible, and to bestow as little happiness upon others as he could help, as there would be no reason why he should act otherwise – in fact, that he would obey the letter of the human law, and not go one inch further. Theoretically this objection might be correct, but, in spite of cold theory, man is open to higher impulses and motives coming from regions of his soul that the utilitarian philosophy, as well as its opponents, fail to recognize. A form of this same objection is found in the idea that the utilitarian philosophy appeals only to the developed intelligence (that is, according to the view of the Yogi Philosophy, to the highly evolved soul) and that the ordinary man would not be influenced by it to high action but, if he grasped it at all, would use it as an excuse for his own selfishness, caring nothing for the welfare of his fellow men, or for the benefit of the generations to come. The objectors hold that according to this theory a man working for the good of his kind is the greatest kind of a fool, for he is throwing away his happiness and material gain for a sentiment. (This objection loses sight of the fact that the advanced man finds much of his greatest happiness in making others happy.) A further objection is urged against this theory of ethics to the effect that the happiness of the majority is an unworthy limitation, inasmuch that even though the majority be happy the minority may not be so, and, in fact, a certain number of them must be very unhappy and miserable. This objection finds a response from those of spiritual advancement, for such people know that no one can be thoroughly happy unless all are happy, and that there can be no ideal happiness if even one of the race is crowded out of it by any set code or rule. The followers of the theory that all morality is derived from Divine revelation, and there is no morality to be found outside of it, object to the utilitarian view because they say “it leaves out God and His wishes.” Those favoring the Intuitional Theory object to the Utilitarian Theory because it refuses to recognize the existence of the “conscience” or higher reason in man, and instead, places the basis and foundation of all morality and rules of conduct upon the cold human reason, and that, consequently, there can he no “good” or “bad” except as measured by the intellectual standard, which standard could be altered, changed, improved upon, or abolished by Man‘s reason. These objections are recognized, and answered in the Hindu Philosophy of Dharma, which, while recognizing the weakness of the theory when considered as the "whole truth,” still finds much truth in it and places it as one of the pillars of Dharma, the other two theories forming the other two supports of the structure. Dharma claims to set in order this apparent confusion. It recognizes each view as a partially correct one – parts of the whole truth – but too weak and incomplete when standing alone, It reconciles the conflicting schools by taking the materials that are found in each, and using them to build a complete system. Or, rather, it finds a complete structure erected, in the order of the Universe, and sees that each school of thinkers is looking at but one of its pillars, mistaking its favored pillar for the sole support of the structure, the other two being hidden from sight by reason of the particular point of view of the observer. And this teaching of Dharma is much needed at this time by the western people who are in a state of great mental and spiritual confusion on the subject of morality and conduct. They are divided between (1) those who rely on revelation, and who disregard it in practice because it is not “practical” – these people really advocate revelation as modified by experience and custom; (2), Those who claim to rely on intuition and conscience, but who feel that they are resting on an insecure foundation, and who really live on custom and “the law of the land,” modified by their “feelings”; and, (3) those who rely on pure reason, modified by the existing laws, and influenced greatly by the impulses which come to them from the higher regions of the mind, notwithstanding that they deny these same higher states of mentality. Let us hope that a study of Dharma will help to straighten out matters for some of us. Of course, this little lesson is merely a hint of the truths of Dharma, but we trust that it may help some to adjust the matter in their minds, and make it easier for them to get their moral bearings, and to take advantage of the truths that are pouring in on them from the three sides of life. Let us now see what Dharma has to offer.

In our brief consideration of the subject, we must ask the student to give us the “Open Mind." That is, be willing to lay aside, for the moment, his preconceived ideas and theories, and to listen to our teachings without prejudice, as far as possible, without being unduly influenced by his previously entertained theories. We do not ask him to accept our teachings unless they appeal to his reason and intuition, but we do ask him to give us a fair hearing – that is, the hearing of an unprejudiced judge instead of that of a paid advocate ready to pick flaws and make objections before we state our case. That is all we ask, and it is no more than any fair-minded student should be willing to grant. We are not attempting to tell you how to act, but wish merely to present the general principles of Dharma for your consideration.

Perhaps the better way to begin our consideration of the philosophy of Dharma would be to give you an idea of how that philosophy views the three above mentioned theories of the basis of morality and rule of conduct. We shall take up each theory in turn. But before doing so we must ask you to bear in mind the fundamental theory of the Yogi Philosophy that all souls are growing souls – souls in different stages of growth and advancement along The Path. Spiritual evolution is in full force, and each soul builds upon its yesterdays, and, at the same time, is laying a foundation for its tomorrows. Its yesterdays extend back over its present earthly life away back into its past existences. And its tomorrows reach far ahead of the remaining days of its present earthly life into its future embodiments or incarnations. Life is not a mere matter of a few years in the flesh– the soul has countless yesterday's of existence, and has the whole of eternity before it, in a constantly progressing scale, plane after plane of existence being before it, in an ever ascending spiral. We do not purpose dwelling upon this fact, but mention it that you may be reminded that the embodied souls we see around us in the shape of men and women represent different scales of ascent, development, and unfoldment, and that of necessity there must be widely differing needs and requirements of the soul. The advancing ideals of morals, conduct and ethics are seen by the Yogis as indications that the idea and fusion of separation falling away from the race, and that the consciousness of Oneness is dawning in the minds of men. This dawning consciousness is causing the race to see “wrong” in many things that were formerly considered “right” – it is causing men to feel the pains and sorrows of others, and to enjoy the happiness and pleasure of those around them – it is making us kinder and more considerate of others, because it makes us more and more conscious of our relationship with each other. This is the cause of the increasing feeling of brotherhood that is possessing the race, although those who feel it may not realize the real cause. The evolution and unfoldment of the soul results in higher ideals of thought and conduct for the race, and accounts for the changing conceptions of morality which is apparent to anyone who studies history, and who notices the signs of the times. An understanding of this theory of Dharma, enables us to understand comparative morality, and prevents us from condemning our less developed brethren who have cruder ideals of conduct than ourselves. The higher the degree of unfoldment, the higher the ideal of conduct and morality, although the unfoldment causes the soul to cast off many old forms and ideals which seemed the best for it in the past. Bearing these facts in mind, let us consider the three sources of authority.

The Yogi Philosophy recognizes the theory of Revelation as one of the pillars supporting the edifice of Dharma. It holds that at different times in the history of the race the Absolute has inspired certain advanced souls to give forth the teachings needed by the race at that particular time in its history. These in-spired men were souls that had voluntarily returned from higher stages of development in order to render service to their less developed brethren. They lived the life of the people around them, and took the part of prophets, priests, seers, etc. Accounts of these people come down to us from the ages, distorted, magnified and elaborated by legends, superstition, and myths of the people among whom they lived. They seldom wrote, but their teachings often written down by others, (often after long years had past), and, although colored by the views of the compilers, these writings still give a fair idea of the teachings of the particular prophet or teacher. These prophets were of varying degrees of advancement, some coming from great heights of attainment, and others from comparatively lower planes, but each carried a message to his people, suited to their needs at that particular time. These messages were accepted, more or less, by the people, and the teachings worked a change in them, and helped to lay a foundation for future generations to build upon. It is no discredit to these prophets, or to the source from which they received their information, to say that we have advanced far beyond many of their teachings, and to-day are enabled to discard nearly all of their precepts, with the exception of a few fundamental ones which were intended to last. The religious sects are apt to insist upon the infallibility of these teachings, and to hold that they were intended as rules of conduct and standards of morality for all people, at all times. A moment’s thought will show the folly of this idea. Take Moses for example, and see how the details of his teachings were intended for the people of his time, and how well they fitted into their requirements, and yet you how well they fitted into their requirements, and yet how absurd many of them would be if applied to our life today. Of course, the fundamental principles laid down by Moses still obtain in full force, but the minor rules of conduct laid down for the Jewish people have been outgrown and no one pretends to observe them. Many critics of the theory of revelation find fault with many of the rules laid down by Moses, and point to their savage and barbarous nature, many of which are revolting to the ideals of today. And yet, these teachings each had a definite purpose, and were intended for the aid of the slowly evolving souls in the flesh at that time. The object of all of these teachings was to help man along in his evolution – to give him something just a little higher than his then mode of living to serve as an ideal of conduct. Some of these teachings which seem so barbarous to us today, if examined closely in the light of the condition of the race at that time, will be seen to be just a few steps in advance of the customs of the race at the time the teachings were given. To us on the higher rounds of the ladder, these teachings are seen to be on a lower plane than ourselves, but if we were to stand on the round occupied by the race at that time, we would see that the teachings were a round or two higher still. It is unreasonable to insist that the highest conceivable ideal should have been given the race in its infancy – just imagine the highest ideals of Christ submitted to the semi-barbarous tribes of Israel. But here let us call your attention to a remarkable fact, namely, that in the majority of these crude ancient teachings may be found an esoteric or secret teachings intended for the few advanced souls of that generation, and those to follow – just enough to show that the teachers understood the higher teachings. These esoteric teaching are found embedded in the exoteric teachings intended for the multitude. It has ever been so. The teachings of Christ are not understood by the masses of today, not to speak of yesterday. Look at the history of Christianity and see how the so-called followers of the Christ misunderstood his teachings – see how barbarous and savage have been their conceptions, and are even to this day. And yet, the advanced soul in every generation for the last nineteen hundred years has been able to read the esoteric teachings between the lines of the imperfectly reported, and often distorted accounts of the sayings of Jesus. And yet, Christ’s teachings have done wonderful work, in spite of the lack of understanding. The ethics of the Sermon on the Mount are not in force today – the race has not grown up to them – but future generations will live by their light and guidance.

At this point, let us call your attention to a fact. The teachings of all the prophets were intended to help man in casting off the old sheaths of the lower planes of the mind, and to help him to work his way to a higher stage of growth. The evolution of the soul was the end aimed at, and all observances were intended for that purpose. One step at a time was, and is, the rule. The word spoken was not the final word, but was intended to fit in a certain place. This is the key to much that has perplexed you in the past. Another important point to remember, is that all the teachings were intended to raise man up and all were for his own benefit. They were not intended to make man perform certain duties toward God, as we have been taught to believe. God was not worrying about man’s lack of consideration toward him. He was not vain-glorious, and demanding worship and burnt-offerings to tickle his nostrils. Such ideas belong to the infancy of the race. God gets along very well without man’s worship and praise. Man alone is the gainer by the love of God – the Absolute is not injured or benefited by man’s actions. If the teachers and the prophets commanded that man worship God, it was solely for the purpose of bringing man’s attention to the fact that there was a Power above, the fact of the attention being so directed causing man to obtain the advantage of the upward attraction of the Absolute in his unfoldment. Get out of your mind the idea that God needs your praise and worship in order to satisfy His love of approval and your statements of His exalted position. All the benefit of prayer, worship and love of God is on the side of Man – it is one-sided.

To understand the teachings of the prophets of all religions, we must put ourselves in the place of the prophet and see the kind of people he had to deal with. Then will we understand that the crude commands were calculated to bring them up just one step in the scale – and they did. But because the teachings were so intended, and accomplished their purpose, we must not allow ourselves to be bound by the letter of them at this time. If we grow to an understanding of the matter, along the lines pointed out, we will be able to discard the chaff of the teachings (which was the wheat in the past) and to seize upon the scattered grains of wheat still to be found in the measure. Let us make use of all the good in the old teachings for there is still much good to be found in them – they have not as yet outlived their usefulness. But let us not bind ourselves with the worn-out teachings of the past – let us not forget the spirit of all teachings and tie ourselves to the dead letter of the old law. Let us not commit the folly of claiming that because a teaching is inspired, that it is an infallible rule of conduct for all time, and all people – let us remember the other two pillars of Dharma, intuition and reason. But, at the same time, let us not sneer at the old teachings, and deny their inspiration, simply because they belong to a long past age and time. Let us recognize the thing for what it is, and govern ourselves accordingly. And let us not suppose that the clay of revelation and inspiration has passed. There is as much inspiration in Emerson as there was in the Hebrew prophets – each was ahead of the times, and the message of each is but imperfectly understood by the multitude. But there is this difference between the prophet of old and the modern seer and teacher. The ancient prophet had a following that was compelled to accept the teaching in blind faith, illuminated with but a faint degree of spiritual insight, while the people of today are able to measure the value of the teachings by the light of their souls, and the aid of their reason – that is, some of the modern people may do this, the others must be content with the old teachings, for they belong to a past age of development, and not having kept pace with their brothers must remain content with the tales of the spiritual childhood. And even this is good.

The Yogi Philosophy recognizes the Theory of Intuition or Conscience as the second pillar supporting the edifice of Dharma. As we have already said in the consideration of this particular theory, many persons who have devoted thought to the question of ethics are repelled by the difficulties surrounding the theory of Revelation (considered by itself) and not being willing to accept as authoritative, infallible, and final, the so-called revelations given to primitive peoples in the past ages, they deny the inspiration of these revelations and look around them for some other theory and rule of conduct. Many of such people accept the Utilitarian Theory, as appealing to their reason, although it does not seem to fill the needs of their souls so fully as might be desired. Others being repelled by the coldness and selfishness of the last mentioned theory, and yet not being unwilling to go back to the old Theory of Revelation, adopt the Theory of Intuition or Conscience, and accept the idea that “conscience” or “intuition” is the direct and sole arbiter of morality and conduct, and believe that the human laws are really based upon the same. Some take the radical position that the voice of “conscience” or “intuition” is really the voice of God - speaking to Man and should be obeyed implicitly – that God makes his revelations to each man. As we have stated before, this position has been severely attacked upon the ground that the conscience of no two people agree, and that it is dependent upon environment, age, race, public opinion, education, etc., and that therefore it cannot he an infallible guide nor one safe to follow, as every man would have his own laws which no other man would be bound to take into consideration, etc., etc. Dharma reconciles these two apparently conflicting opinions. Let us see what it has to say about Intuition or Conscience.

We had hoped to take up the question of the Theory of Conscience or Intuition, and also the Theory of Utility, in this lesson, reserving the next lesson for an elaboration of Dharma, but we find that we have exceeded our space. Therefore, we will be compelled to postpone the consideration of Conscience and Utility until our next lesson, in which these features will be combined with the remarks upon the practical phases of Dharma. We trust that our students will not pass over these two lessons as too “dry” for careful study. They are most important, and are needed by every student who is endeavoring to “get his bearings” – who wishes to lead the life that brings happiness – who desires to proceed along the Path of Attainment. The subject of Conscience or Intuition is particularly interesting, and we expect to bring out some important points on this subject in our next lesson.

We beg that you give us attention and patience – you will be rewarded for so doing, Peace be with you.

Next