Theosophy and Life's Deeper Problems: Being the Four Convention Lectures Delivered in Bombay at the Fortieth Anniversary of the Theosophical Society, December, 1915Besant, Annie
Religion
Theosophy and Life's Deeper Problems: Being the Four Convention Lectures Delivered in Bombay at the Fortieth Anniversary of the Theosophical Society, December, 1915
Besant, Annie
Theosophy
his activity, for there is no other motive sufficiently strong to move
him to action. To work without desire for fruit means that your own
will is so consciously in accord with the Will of God, that you work as
earnestly for the benefit of the world as the ordinary man works for
fame, for power, or for money. That is the highest rule of conduct; but
if you teach the highest to the half-developed, you give them no ideal
at all which is practical, by which they can guide their lives; and the
result of that in India has been a paralysis of action, and a yielding
unduly to oppression and injustice, as the Sannyāsī would yield. Now
Hinḍūism, as taught by the Sages, was not of that type. Hinḍūism has
always had a relative morality. The whole of that part of its teaching
which divided society into castes according to evolution, the unfolding
of the spiritual life, is a recognition that ḍharma, duty, depends on
the stage of evolution reached by the man. The ḍharma of the Shūḍra
is not the ḍharma of the Kṣhaṭṭriya or of the Brāhmaṇa. The
Kṣhaṭṭriya is to keep order, he is to repress evil, he is to
encourage good, he is to punish the wrong-doer; but the Brāhmaṇa, the
ideal Brāhmaṇa, he ought to suffer any wrong done to him, for it is not
his ḍharma to resist. And so, it is written, that a man by following
his own ḍharma, he attaineth to perfection. That it is better to
follow your own ḍharma though imperfect, than to follow the ḍharma of
another, for the ḍharma of another is full of danger. That has been
forgotten in India, though, nominally, the caste system has persisted.
And so, with the teaching of the Āshramas; the duty of the student,
the Brahmachārī, is not the duty of the Gṛhasṭha, the householder,
and when that is forgotten and when the duties of the householder are
put on the shoulders of the student, you have then a debilitated race
of youth that is not allowed to grow to the stature of manhood which
follows youthful celibacy. The duty of the householder is not the duty
of the Vānaprasṭha; the duty of the Vānaprasṭha is not the duty of
the Sannyāsī; for the Sages, the Ṛṣhis that built the foundation of
Hinḍūism, they knew that morality was relative, and gave an evolving
ethical teaching suited to the evolving children of Man. Let us then,
with that preface, try to find some common principle to which we can
refer Right and Wrong.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account