Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy
and Oriental Occultism

Lesson IX

More About Dharma.

Our last lesson closed just as we were about to consider and examine into the Theory of Intuition or Conscience - the second pillar supporting the edifice of Dharma. We will now take up the subject at that point.

Every man is more or less conscious of an inner voice - a 'knowing' apparently independent of his Intellect. This voice speaks to him either in an authoritative or a coaxing tone - either commands him to do so and so, or to refrain from doing something. Sometimes it impels him to higher action, and sometimes it seems to tempt him to perform an unworthy act. In its higher phases, we call this voice 'conscience.' In its lower phases, we are apt to regard it as 'temptation.' The old tales held that each man had a good angel on one side of him, and a bad one on the other, one whispering into his ear telling him to do the 'right' thing, and the other urging him to do the 'wrong' one. The old tales symbolize the truth, as we shall see as we proceed with our consideration of the matter.

In addition to the 'voice of conscience,' or the 'urging of the tempter,' we find that there is a 'leading' in matters of ordinary action and conduct in which the question of 'good' and 'bad' does not arise - the decision upon some of the affairs of ordinary life, work, business, etc. This third manifestation we are apt to call 'intuition.' Many people use the three terms and have a clear understanding of the difference between each form of manifestation, but are unable to explain just what these promptings are, or from whence they come. The Yogi Philosophy offers an explanation, and Dharma depends to some extent upon that explanation, as it rests partially upon the pillar of Conscience or Intuition - the second pillar - the first pillar beiing Revelation; the third being Utility. These three pillars represent, respectively, the voice of The Lord; the voice of man's intuitive faculties; and the voice of man's reason. Let us now see what the Yogi Philosophy has to say regarding this question of Intuition, and the nature of the message coming from that part of the soul.

In order to understand the nature of Conscience, Intuition, Temptation and other feelings coming into the field of consciousness from the sub-conscious regions of the mind, we must turn back a few pages in our lessons. In the first series of The Yogi Lessons (generally known as 'The Fourteen Lessons'), in The Second and Third Lessons, we told you something about the different 'minds' in man - the different planes along which the mind of man functions. You will remember what we said about the Instinctive Mind, the Intellect, and the Spiritual Mind. We have spoken of them repeatedly in the several lessons comprising the first course, and the present course of lessons, and we trust that you have a fair understanding of the nature of each.

'Temptations,' or the impulse to do 'evil' or 'wrong' things, come from the lower regions of the mind - that part of the Instinctive Mind that has to do with the animal passions, tendencies, emotions, etc. These passions, emotions, tendencies, etc., are our inheritance from the past. They are not 'bad' in themselves, except that they belong to a part of our soul history which we have left behind us, or out of which we are now emerging. These things may have been the highest 'good' possible to our mental conception at some time in the history of our evolution - may have been necessary for our well-being at that time - may have been much better than other states of feeling and acting which we passed, and accordingly may have seemed to our minds at that time as the voice of the higher self beating down upon the lower consciousness. These things are comparative, you must remember. But, now that we have passed beyond the stage in which these things were the highest good, and have unfolded sufficiently to take advantage of higher conceptions of truth, these old things seem quite 'bad' and 'wrong' to us, and when they come into the field of consciousness from these lower regions of the mind, we shudder at the thought that we have so much of the brute still in us. But there is no need to feel that we are 'wicked' because these thoughts and impulses arise within us. They are our inheritance from the past, and are reminiscences of the 'brute' stage of our unfoldment. They are voices from the past. If you feel the struggles of the brute within you to be unleashed, do not be disturbed. The fact that you can see him now as something different from your normal self, is encouraging. Formerly you were the brute - now you see him as only a part of you - a little later on, you will cast him off altogether. Read what we have said of the subject in Lesson I of the present series of lessons. In other parts of the present lesson we will take up the subject of the comparative nature of 'right' and 'wrong,' so that you may see how it is that a thing that was once 'right' may now be 'wrong' - how what seems to be very 'good' and 'right' just now will appear 'bad' and 'wrong' later on in our unfoldment (that is speaking relatively, for when we unfold we begin to see that 'right' and 'wrong' and 'good' and 'bad' are relative terms, and that there is no such thing as 'bad' viewed from the Absolute. And yet, as we progress, the things we outgrow are 'bad,' and those into which we are growing seem 'good' until they too are discarded). All that we wish to do now is to point out to you that 'temptation' is merely the urge of some past experience for repetition, because the tendency is not entirely dead. It raises its head because of the flickering of expiring life, or because the dying thing has been aroused by some outside suggestion or circumstance. Let the beasts die, and do not become alarmed at their struggles.

Intuition may come either from the impulses of the Spiritual Mind projecting itself into the field of consciousness, or from the sub-conscious region of the Intellect. In the latter case, the Intellect has been working out some problems without bothering the consciousness, and having worked the matter into shape, presents it to the consciousness at the needed time, carrying with it an air of authority that causes it to be accepted. But many intuitions come to us from the Spiritual Mind, which does not 'think' but 'knows.' The Spiritual Mind gives us, always, the best that we are able to accept from it, according to our stage of unfoldment. It is anxious for our real welfare, and is ready and willing to aid and guide us, if we will allow it. We cannot go into the subject now, and merely mention it to show the shades of difference between Intuition and Conscience. Conscience deals with questions of 'right' and 'wrong' in our minds, but Intuition deals with questions of proper action in our lives, without regard to ethics or morals, although not contrary to the best we know of those things. Conscience informs us as to whether or not a thing conforms to the highets ethical standards possible to us in our present unfoldment - Inuition tells us whether a certain step or course is wise for our best good. Do you see the difference?

Conscience is the light of the Spiritual Mind, passing through the screen of enfolding sheaths of our soul. This is a clumsy defintion, which we must endeavor to make clearer. The light of the Spiritual Mind is constantly endeavoring to work its way to the lower mental planes, and some of its light reaches even the lowest regions, but the light is seen but dimly at such times, owing to the confining sheaths of the lower nature which prevent the light from shining through. As sheath after sheath is cast off, the light is seen more clearly, not that it moves toward the soul, but because the centre of consciousness is moving toward the Spirit. It is like a flower that is casting off its outer petals, and dropping them to the ground as they unfold. In the center of the flower let us suppose there is something possessing light, which light is endeavoring to force its way through to the extreme rim or row of petals, and beyond. As the successive layers, or petals, fall off, the light is enabled to reach the remaining ones - and at the end all is light. This is a forced figure of speech but we are compelled to use such. Let us take another, equally clumsy, but which may be plainer to you. Imagine a tiny, but strong, electric light bulb confined in many wrappings of cloth. The light is the Spirit - the glass bulb the Spiritual Mind, through which the Spirit shines with a minimum of resistance and obstruction. The outer layers of cloth are very thick, but each layer is thinner than the one next further away from the light - the layers nearest the light are quite thin, until they grow almost transparent. Try to fix this figure in your mind. Now, very little light reaches the outside layer of the cloth, but still that which does reach it is the best light it is capable of receiving or conceiving. We remove the first layer of cloth. The second layer is found to receive and show forth more light than the one just cast aside. We remove the second one, and we find the third one still brighter, and able to radiate considerably more light. And so on, and on, each layer when removed bringing to view more light and brighter light, until at the last all the layers are removed and the light of the Spirit is seen shining brightly through the glass bulb of the Spiritual Mind. If the layers of cloth had been able to think, they would have thought of the whole bundle of cloth (with the lamp in the center) as 'I.' And each layer would have seen that 'closer in' was something a little lighter than is ordinary self, which light would stand for the highest conception of light possible to the outer cloth - its 'conscience,' in fact. Each layer of cloth would be conscious of the next inner layer being brighter than itself. The second layer would appear very 'good' to the first one, but to the fourth or fifth the second would be darkness itself (by comparison), quite 'bad' in fact. And yet each would have been 'good' because it carried light to the layer still more in the dark. Conscience is the light of the Spirit, but we see it more or less dimly because of the layers surrounding it - we see only as much as filters through the cloth. And so we call the next inner layer 'conscience' - and so it is, relatively. Do you understand the matter any clearer now? Can you see why the 'consciences' of different people differ? Does the fact that the different layers of cloth manifest varying degrees of light, make you doubt the brightness and reliability of the light itself? Think over this clumsy illustration for a while, and see whether your mind does not open to a clearer idea of the value of Conscience.

Do not despise Conscience or its voice, just because you see that the Conscience of the lowly and undeveloped man allows him to do certain things that you consider 'bad.' That 'bad' is 'good' when compared to the next lowest stage of unfoldment. And do not feel self-righteous because your Conscience holds you to a very high code of ethics - there are beings today, in the flesh, that view your code of ethics as you do those of the Bushman. You doubt this! Let us give you an illustration. You call yourself 'honest' and 'truthful.' Can you truthfully say that you have ever lived a month without telling an untruth? Come now, honor bright - 'white lies' and an evasion of 'the whole truth' count as well as the big lies - have you ever been absolutely truthful and honest for a whole month? Trade lies - professional 'necessities' - 'business talk' - 'politeness' - and all the rest count against you in this test. Oh no, we do not condemn you - in fact, we cannot see how you could be much better in the present stage of the unfoldment of the race - you are doing the best you know how - to be able to see that you are not strictly honest and truthful is a mighty advance. And this test is only a trifling one - the race is committing much greater crimes, when viewed from a few steps up the mountain side. Are any people suffering from want in the world? Are any of your brothers not receiving their share of the benefits that have come to the race? Are things fully as 'good' as they should be? Can you not suggest a single improvement in the state of affairs? Oh yes, we know that you alone are not able to remedy things - but you are part of the race and are enjoying the privileges that come to the race - you are one of the crowd in the car that is rolling over the victims of the present state of affairs. But as you say, you cannot help it - the race must grow into better things - must work itself out of the slough. And the pain of it all will cause it to work out - it is beginning to feel that pain now, and is getting very uneasy about it. All that you can do is to see the thing, and be willing for the change to come when it does. God has the loose end of the ball, and is unwinding and unwinding. You must have faith, and be willing for the unwinding, bring it to you what it will, for the seeing and the willingness will save you from much of the pain that must come to those who will not see and who are not willing - but even this pain will be good, for it is part of the unfoldment. Well, to get back to our subject, do you feel so very superior and 'good' now? Well, the lesson is: 'Condemn not' - 'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.' None of us is so very 'good.' And yet, all are on the upward path.

Let us live friends, one day at a time; doing the best we know how; sowing a word here and a deed there; let us not be self-righteous; let us not condemn; let us do our best, but give to every other man the same privilege; let us 'mind our own business;' let us cease to persecute; let us be filled with love, tolerance and compassion; let us see all as part of the All; let us see that each is doing the best he knows how, considering the stage of his unfoldment; let us see the Divine in the humblest, vilest and most ignorant person - it is there, it is there, hidden but pressing forward toward unfoldment; and, finally, 'let us be kind - let us be kind.'

This is the lesson of the electric light within the bulb, covered with layer after layer of the cloth. Take it with you - make it a part of yourself. And Peace will be yours!

A consideration of the above illustration will show you that Conscience is the voice of the Spirit as heard through the confining walls of the lower priciples of Man's nature. Or, to state in another way: Conscience is the result of man's past experience, growth and unfoldment, plus such light of the Spirit as is possible for him to perceive. Man in his unfoldment has profited by past experiences - has formed new ideals - has recognized certain needs of the growing soul - has felt new impulses arising within him, leading him to higher things - has recognized his relationship with other men and to the Whole. These things have accompanied the growth of the soul. And each stage of the soul's growth has given Man a higher conception of what is 'right' - has exacted a higher ideal on his part. And this highest ideal is what he feels to be 'right,' even though he does not always live up to it. The light of the Spirit illuminates this highest peak of ideality possible to him, and makes it stand out clearly to the soul as a point to be aimed at - to be climbed toward. This highest peak, thus illumined, is a goal for him to march toward. It is the highest thing that he is able to perceive. It is true that as he advances, the light mounts higher and shows him still higher peaks, the existence of which has not been suspected by him. When he attains to what now seems to be the highest possible point, he will see that he has merely gained the top of a foot-hill, while far above him, towering higher and higher, rise the peaks of real mountains, the topmost point being brightly illumined by the light of the sun of the Spirit. There are other intellingences whose task it is to surmount heights unseen by us - the goal of those far behind us (that is the highest peak seen by them) seems far beneath us, for we have left it behind long since. So we must understand these things - this state of affairs, if we would form a clear idea of the acts, ideals and 'conscience' of others. We must cease to condemn - our duty toward others is not to blame them for not having reached the heights that we have attained, but to send them a cheering message of hope and joy, and to help point out the way. This is what the Elder Brothers are doing for us - let us do the same for those behind us on the path.

In conclusion, we call to your attention the fact that Conscience is but one of the pillars supporting the edifice of Dharma. It is an important pillar, but not the only one. It is to be taken into most serious consideration, but it is not an infallible guide. It points out the highest we have grown to see, but the point seen by us is not necessarily the highest, nor must we rest content with what we see. That which is behind Conscience is Infallible and Absolute, but Conscience itself is Relative and Fallible, because of our lack of growth - because of the confining sheaths which prevent the light of the Spirit from shining upon our souls. But nevertheless, let us look toward that light, and follow it. Let us say in the words of the old familiar hymn of our childhood: "Lead kindly Light, amid the circling gloom Lead thou me on The night is dark, and I am far from home; Lead thou me on Keep thou my feet; I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me. Lead thou me on."

The third pillar of Dharma is the theory of Utility, of which we have told you in our last lesson. Dharma acknowledges the value of Utility as a pillar, while seeing its weakness as a sole support for ethics. Human law, as set forth in statutes, laws, etc., rests almost entirely upon the basis of Utility, although some of the writers try to make it appear that it rests upon Divine command. The law is the result of man's endeavors to frame a code of conduct to fit the requirements of the race. Human law is a matter of evolution - it has grown, changed and unfolded from the beginning, and always will do so, for it is fallible and not 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 of which the race (the average) 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 view-point.

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, while recognizing that their actions are the result of undeveloped minds and souls; ignorance, failure to live up to even the elementary ideals of ethics possible for them; we are justified in restraining them from preying on us. But the idea should not be 'punishment,' but restraint and reform. Criminals are practically savages and barbarians, and their acts while entirely 'wrong' when seen from our present viewpoint, were seen as 'right' from the viewpoint of the savage. And these criminals should be treated as younger bretheren of the race - undeveloped - ignorant - but still brothers.

The rule of Dharma is for each man to live up to the best in him - no matter whether that 'best' has been impressed upon his soul by revelation, intuition or conscience, or by his intelligence in accordance with 'utility.' In fact all three of these influences have impressed him somewhat, and his 'best' is a composite of the three influences. When in doubt, open yourself to the light of the Spirit, and your 'best' will stand out clearly under the illuminating influence. That best will be your Dharma.

And another rule of Dharma is to refrain from criticising or condemning the Dharma of another man less developed than yourself. He is not looking through your eyes - he is not standing in your shoes. He may be living nearer to his highest ideal than you are to yours - how dare you judge him? Are you so near perfect that you will set your standard up as the absolute? Will your highest ideal - and your best action - measure up creditably when laid next to the yardstick of the Absolute? Did you ever stop to consider that if you were in exactly the condition of that lowly brother or sister you would do exactly as does he or she? You cannot imagine yourself in exactly their condition, for you can think only of yourself as you are, and when you try to put yourself in their place you are able only to think of yourself (with all your past experiences and present attainments) clothed in the flesh and garments of the other. It is not the same at all - to be exactly like them you would have to cast aside all your past experiences and present attainments, and take the experience and attainment of the other instead. And in that case, would you not be the other instead of yourself, and could you then (being that other) act differently from him?

The student who has followed us in our consideration of the schools of ethics - the three pillars of Dharma - very naturally asks us what crowns the structure - what ideal of Dharma holds out to those who are ready to perceive it. When one has mounted into the temple supported by the three pillars, what does he find there? Let us see what answer Dharma gives to these questions.

The main point to remember in the consideration of 'Right Action' as seen from the point of view of Dharma, is that the soul of man is in a state of evolution or unfoldment. It is moving, stage by stage, from the lowest to the highest - from the idea of separation to the knowledge of Oneness. This unfoldment is the aim of life - the Divine Plan. This being the case, can you not see that anything in the line of that unfoldment that aids it and tends to forward the work is 'Good' or 'Right?' And then, equally true must be the statement that anything that retards that unfoldment or tends to delay or frustrate it must be 'Bad' or 'Wrong,' when measured by the same standard. It is true that you may say 'Not-Good' or 'Not-Right,' instead of 'Bad' and 'Wrong,' or you may say 'Less-Good,' or 'Less-Right' if you prefer the terms - but the meaning is the same, no matter what words are used. The 'Right' and 'Good' falls in with the plan of unfoldment, while the 'Wrong' or 'Bad' tends to retard it or to frustrate its work. It is 'right' for the tiger to be blood-thirsty and revengeful, for that is not contrary to his stage of development, but for a developed man to revert to that stage, or stages corresponding to it is 'Wrong,' because it is a going back or retrogression. For an advanced soul to harbor feelings of hate, revenge, jealousy and the like, would be 'wrong' for it would be a going back to stages long since past, and would be contrary to the knowledge and intuition of that man. In climbing the steps of the temple of Dharma one man may be on the third step, and a second man on the fifth. Now if the man on the fifth step descends to the fourth one it is a going back for him, which is 'wrong;' while if the man on the third step advances to the fourth one it is a going ahead for him, which, consequently is 'right' and desirable for him, for he is advancing. The law of evolution and unfoldment leads upward. Whatever falls in with that law is desirable and right - whatever goes contrary is undesirable and wrong. If a teacher has a dull or wilful scholar, and after working hard with him she finds that he is doing 'just a little better,' she praises him for the improvement and is greatly pleased. But that same teacher would be greatly distressed if one of her brightest and best behaved pupils would do just the same thing for which she had just praised the poor scholar! And yet both acts would be the same, when seen from one point of view, and yet how different from the broader outlook. Do you see what we mean?

Go on dear friends and scholars, living up to your best. Read what we have written in Lesson I of this series and learn to 'seek in the heart the source of evil and expunge it.' Be a tamer of the wild beasts within you. Learn to cast out these relics of the past. Learn to keep in leash the lower animal parts of your nature - drive the beast to the corner of the cage, in spite of his teeth and claws. Learn to grow and develop and unfold until you are able to reach that step of the ladder of Attainment when you may look upon the past and realize that Dharma has become a part of the past with you, for then you will have entered into that consciousness of the Real Self, and will be able to see things as they are. Then you will receive the light of the Spirit without the dimness caused by the sheaths. Remember the words of 'Light on the Path.' "Make the profound obeisance of the soul to the dim star that burns within - steadily as you watch and worship, its light will grow stronger. Then you may know that you have found the beginning of the way - and when you have found the end, its light will suddenly become the infinite light."

Peace be to thee.