The Complete Works of Yogy Ramacharaka. William Walker Atkinson
Читать онлайн книгу.
absolute. Just as Conscience is always a little ahead of man's growth, so is human law always a little behind. Conscience points out a step higher, while laws are framed to fit some need that has arisen, and are never enacted until the need of them is clearly seen. And laws generally are allowed to remain in force for some time (often a long time) after their need has disappeared. Human laws are the result of the average intelligence of a people, influenced by the average 'conscience' of that people. The intelligence sees that certain wants have arisen and it attempts to frame laws to cure the 'wrong,' or possible 'wrong.' The conscience of the race may cause it to see that certain laws that have been in force are unjust, unreasonable and burdensome, and when this is clearly seen an attempt is made to have such laws repealed, altered, improved upon or superceded by others better adapted to the new wants of the race. Corrupt laws are sometimes introduced by designing and unscrupulous persons, aided by immoral legislators—corrupt and ignorant judges often misinterpret the laws—mistakes are often made in making, interpreting and enforcing the laws. This because men and the human law is fallible, and not absolute. But take the general average, the laws of a people, both in their making, interpretation, and administration, represent the highest average of which that people is capable. When the people, or the average of them, outgrow a law, they do away with it—and when the average of the race demand a new law, they get it, sooner or later. Reforms in law move slowly, but they come at last, and they are not so very much behind the average intelligence of the people. Of course, such part of the people as have risen above the average, see the human law as very faulty, and often very unjust, from their point of view, just as do those below the average, from an entirely different reason—to the first the law at any stage of the race is imperfect because it is behind the requirements of justice and the needs of the race, while to the second class it is imperfect because it is in advance of their ethical conception. But on the whole, the laws of a people fairly represent the needs, ideas and intelligence of the average man composing that race. When that average man grows, the laws are changed to fit him
—that is, he causes the laws to be changed, for he recognises their imperfection. Some thinkers have thought that the ideal condition of affairs would be 'an absolute monarchy, with an angel upon the throne;' while another set of thinkers picture a community so highly advanced in intelligence and spirituality that human laws would be thrown aside as an impertinence, because such a people would need no laws, for every man would be a law unto himself, and being ideal individuals, ideal justice would reign. Both conditions mentioned above presuppose 'perfection,' either upon the part of the ruler or the people. The laws of a country are really desired or permitted by the average opinion of the people of that country—this is true of autocratic Russia as well as the so-called democratic countries, for the real will of the people makes itself heard, sooner or later. No people have a yoke imposed upon them, unless their necks are bent to receive the yoke—when they outgrow the yoke, it is thrown off. We are speaking of the average of the people, remember, not of individuals. So you see, the laws of a country generally represent the needs of the average citizen of that country, and are the best of which he is capable, and consequently, those which he needs at the present moment—tomorrow he may be worthy of and need better forms. The law is fallible and imperfect, but it is necessary as a supporting pillar to the temple of ethics. It is the average conception of ethics, crystallized into a temporary shape, for the guidance of the people making the shape. Every law is a compromise and bears more or less upon someone. The theory is 'the greatest good to the greatest number.'
The advocates of the Utilitarian school of ethics point out that man calls a thing 'wrong' because it gives him pain or discomfort to have that thing done to him. For instance, a man doesn't like to be murdered or robbed, and consequently gains the idea that it is a crime for anyone to kill or rob, and gradually enacts laws to prevent and punish the same, he agreeing to refrain from robbing and killing in return for the immunity from such things granted him by the general acceptance of the conception of the thing as 'wrong,' and the enacting of laws prohibiting the same. In the same way he sees that the community is harmed by the neglect of a man to support his children, and so he grows to call that thing 'wrong,' and moral sentiment causes laws to be passed to punish and prevent this offense. And so on—this is the reasoning of the Utilitarian, and his reasoning is right so far as it goes, for indeed this is the history of laws and law-making, as well as one side of the growing conceptions of right and wrong. But there is something more to it than this selfish idea (which though selfish is right in its time and place, as indeed all selfish things are or have been). The Utilitarian overlooks the fact that the unfoldment of the race soul causes it to feel the pain of others, more and more, and when that pain of others grows intolerable, then new ideas of right and wrong present themselves—new laws are passed to meet the conditions. As the soul unfolds it feels its nearness to other souls—it is growing toward the conception of the Oneness of things—and while the feeling and action may be selfish, it is the act and feeling of an enlarged self. Man's sense of justice grows not alone because his intelligence causes him to form a higher conception of abstract Justice, but also because his unfolding soul causes him to feel the relationship of others and to be made uncomfortable at their distress and wrongs. His conscience is enlarging, and his love and understanding is spreading out. At first man cares only for himself, all others being 'outsiders.' Then he feels a certain 'oneness' with his wife and children and parents. Then to his whole family connections. Then to his tribe. Then to the confederation of tribes. Then to his nation. Then to other nations speaking the same language, or having the same religion. Then to all of his own color. Then to the whole human family. Then to all living things. Then to all things animate and inanimate. As man's sense of 'oneness' enlarges and unfolds, he experiences growing conceptions of 'justice' and right. It is not all a matter of the Intellect—the Spiritual Mind rays are becoming brighter and brighter, and the Intellect becomes more and more illumined. As the illumination increases, man's sense of justice grows and broadens out, and new ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' present themselves.
So you see the Utilitarian idea is correct so far as it goes, but to understand it intelligently one must take into consideration the higher principles of the mind, as well as the Intellect. Man finds that it is not only 'the happiness of the majority,' but the happiness of all that is the ideal. He finds that until all are happy he cannot be perfectly happy. He realizes that until all get justice, none get it. And so he goes on, doing the best he can—blundering, stumbling, committing follies, impelled always by that growing thing in his mind, that he understands not (until his eyes are opened) but which makes him mighty uncomfortable and restless—that makes him press forward in search of he knows not what. Now that you , friends, begin to see what is the matter, you will feel less of the pain—the understanding is healing, and you will be able to stand a little aside and watch the trouble of the race in this matter of 'right' and 'wrong,' and how they are suffering from the itch of ignorance. But beware how you attempt to set them straight before they are ready for it—they will turn upon you and rend you, calling you 'immoral,' 'atheistic,' 'anarchistic' and what not. Let them alone with the 'infallible' codes of laws, morals and ethics (which are changing overnight)—let them go on making and unmaking their laws, for that is a good thing for them, and they need to do it to bring them out of their trouble. Let them tie themselves up with red-tape and chains, if they like it, and let them condemn their brother because he does not see things as they do—that is their nature and a part of their evolution. But do not let these things affect you—you know that all this constantly changing system of laws, ethics and morals is a step upward, and that no one step is absolute or infallible. You know that short of the full realization of the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man—the conception and realization of the Oneness of All—there can be no real peace or rest. Stand aside and let the children play.
The evolving life of the soul—the unfoldment—gives you the key to all this system of change and unrest—this endeavor to square human needs with human laws—this endeavor to establish an absolute standard of right and wrong in the shape of human, relative, yardstick and scales. The race is doing the best it can—each individual is doing the best he can—led ever upward by the light of the Spirit. Hold fast to the best you see, knowing that even that best is but a step toward the real best—and do not condemn him whose best is almost as your worst. Do not sneer at human law, even though you see its imperfection—it is a needed and important step in the evolution of the race. Finite, **ative (word not clear on original) and imperfect as it may be, it is the best