The Complete Works of Yogy Ramacharaka. William Walker Atkinson
Читать онлайн книгу.
is capable and deserving of today. Remember there is nothing Infinite, Absolute and Perfect but the Whole—The One—The Absolute. Remember also that the race is slowly unfolding in an understanding of; a consciousness of; an identity with That One. And you, who are growing into that understanding, consciousness and perception—you who are beginning to feel the meaning of the I Am—be you as the rock against which dashes and beats the waves of the sea. Let the relative things dash themselves upon you, but be undisturbed, for they cannot harm you. They can but refresh and cleanse you, and as they roll back into the sea you will stand there strong and undisturbed. Or, as one gazing from his window upon the groups of little children playing, quarreling, disputing, 'making-up,' playing their games, making rules, imposing forfeits, awarding prizes—so view the world of men and women around you who are taking it all so much in earnest. And in both cases, send them forth your Love and Understanding, though they know not what you mean—though they cannot understand your viewpoint.
We trust that we have made plain to you that the three generally recognized theories of ethics—revelation, conscience or intuition, and utility, are not antagonistic, but are complementary. Each presents its own phase of the truth—each teaches its own lesson. And the three pillars support Dharma. Let us now consider Dharma as a whole.
As we stated in our last lesson, Dharma may be defined as 'Right Action' or, 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 its next highest step of development.' And as we said in the same lesson: "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."
The student will have gathered by this time, the idea that the philosophy of Dharma holds that 'right' and 'wrong' are relative terms, and that the only absolute 'right' there is must rest in the Absolute itself. And that there is no such thing as absolute 'wrong,' the relative wrong that we see when we use the term, being merely an action resulting from either a low conception of 'right,' or else an action falling short of complying with the highest conception of 'right' on the part of the actor. In short no action is absolutely 'wrong' or 'bad' in itself, and is only 'wrong' or 'bad' inasmuch as it fails to come up to the highest conception of 'right' on the part of the actor or observer. This may seem like a dangerous doctrine, but let us consider it a moment.
You will notice by studying history and the story of the evolution of Man, that man's highest ideals in his savage state were but little removed above those of the lower animals. It was not thought wrong to kill, steal or lie; in fact, some races esteemed a man if he did these things, providing he confined his operations to those outside of his immediate family or tribe, in fact the principal objection to his killing his fellow tribesman seems to have arisen from a recognition of the fact that this course weakened the fighting and resisting power of the tribe, and the idea gradually obtained force that killing was 'wrong' if the murdered man was a member of the tribe, but right and even commendable if he be of an outside tribe. (This seems very barbarous to us now, but the traces of it are seen even to this day when so-called 'civilised people' still consider it right to kill men of another nation or people, and to 'capture' their goods, providing 'war' has been declared. The savage carried the matter to its logical conclusion, and did not wait for a declaration of war, that is the principal difference.) We find primitive man committing all the things we now call crimes, without being blamed for them, and providing the crime were commited upon a person sufficiently removed from the tribesman, according to the customs and ethics of the time, the greater the crime the greater the 'good' or 'right' was it considered.
As the race evolved many of these 'right' things began to be considered 'wrong' and 'bad,' according to the 'revelations' made by the priests and prophets; according to the awakening 'conscience' in the people arising from an unconscious recognition of their relationship to one another; and according to the working of the idea of 'utility' and 'public policy' in the developing intellect of the race. And as the race evolved and unfolded, the ideals enlarged and grew higher. Things that were considered perfectly 'right' and justifiable a few hundred years ago, even to the 'best people' of the times, are now regarded as very 'wrong' and base. And many of the things that seem perfectly right to us today, will be regarded by our descendents as barbarous, 'wrong' and almost incredible. Read a chapter of life in the Middle Ages, for instance, and see how ideals and ethics have changed. Then come near home, and see how differently slavery is regarded now than fifty years ago, not to speak of one hundred years. Then read Bellamy's 'Looking Backward' for instance, and see how it may be possible for public opinion to radically change. (We mention this book merely as an illustration—we do not claim that just those changes are to come to pass, although we know that changes just as marked and radical are before the race.)
And even in our own time we can see that different ideals are held by men and women in different stages of unfoldment, and that there is no fixed and arbitrary standard of 'right' and 'wrong' accepted by all. We may agree on the main points of ethics, but we, as people, differ materially upon the minor points. The average intelligence and 'coscience' of the people are represented by their laws and 'public opinion,' although, as we have said, the laws are just a little behind even the average ideal, just as the average 'conscience' is just a little ahead of the average rule of conduct. The average man is fairly well satisfied with the laws as they are at any particular time, although some of those upon whom the laws bear heavily consider them too strict and based upon a visionary idea of 'good,' while to men above the average the prevailing laws often seemed based upon too low and underdeveloped an ideal, and are often considered absurd, inadequate, more or less unjust, and not based upon an advanced ideal of ethics.
Not only do 'good' things grow 'bad' as time rolls on, but many 'bad' things gradually lose their 'badness' and are seen as perfectly good and proper when viewed from the point of advanced knowledge. Many things have been pronounced 'taboo' or 'bad' because they did not fit in with the fashionable religion, or social views of the times, and when custom changes, and religious ideas grow, the 'taboo' is lifted. Many of these 'tabooed' things were made 'bad' by the priests of different times, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, their power often being increased in this way.
You will notice that as time passes, the average intelligence, and the average conscience, taking form in 'public opinion' and law, demands of man a greater consideration for his fellows—insists that he 'be kind' to a greater degree. This because of the dawning consciousness of the relationship of one man to another—the growing knowledge of the Oneness of All (often unconscious knowledge). And you also will notice this fact, that while a higher standard of 'right' and 'good' is required in the above stated matter, the 'taboo' is gradually being lifted from man's action as regards his thoughts, life and actions affecting only himself. While man is expected to 'be kind' to a greater degree each year, he is being accorded more freedom and is being given a better opportunity to 'obtain a place, a free field, a harmonious expansion for his activities, his tastes, his feelings his personality, his self,' as Edward Carpenter has expressed it. The blockade is being raised—the 'taboo' is being taken off and man is to be given an opportunity to 'fearlessly and gladly live his own life,' provided only that he observe the highest degree of 'being kind' to his brothers and sisters.
Now this idea of Dharma—this knowledge that 'right' and 'wrong' are relative and changeable, instead of absolute and fixed, does not give anyone an excuse for doing anything 'bad' or 'wrong' that he would not have done under the old idea. On the contrary, Dharma holds one up to his highest conception of 'right,' and expects him to do what seems 'right' for right's sake, and not because the law compels him to do so—it expects right-action from him, even though the law has not as yet reached so high a stage. It teaches him that, if he sees a thing to be 'wrong,' it is wrong for him even though the law and public opinion have not yet reached so high a standard of ethics. The advanced man will always be a little ahead of the average conception—never behind it.
And Dharma does not teach that because an undeveloped and ignorant man may think it 'right' to commit crimes against his neighbors, that he should be allowed to do so without hindrance or restraint. While no-one would call a cat 'bad' who would steal, or a fox 'bad' who would kill chickens, still one is perfectly justified in restraining these animals from persuing their natural instincts to the injury of man. And likewise with the 'criminals' of society,