Tell your friend and inquirer this: No one was ever converted into
Theosophy. Each one who _really_ comes into it does so because it is
only "an extension of previous beliefs." This will show you that Karma
is a true thing. For no idea we get is any more than an extension
of previous ones. That is, they are cause and effect in endless
succession. Each one is the producer of the next and inheres in that
successor. Thus we are all different and some similar. My ideas of
to-day and yours are tinged with those of youth, and we will thus
forever proceed on the inevitable line we have marked out in the
beginning. We of course alter a little always, but never until our old
ideas are extended. Those _false_ ideas now and then discarded are
not to be counted; yet they give a shadow here and there. But through
Brotherhood we receive the knowledge of others, which we consider
until (if it fits us) it is ours. As far as your private conclusions
are concerned, use your discrimination always. Do not adopt any
conclusions merely because they are uttered by one in whom you have
confidence, but adopt them when they coincide with your intuition. To
be even unconsciously deluded by the influence of another is to have a
counterfeit faith.
Spiritual knowledge includes every action. Inquirers ought to read the
_Bhagavad-Gîtâ_. It will give them food for centuries if they read with
spiritual eyes at all. Underneath its shell is the living spirit that
will light us all. I read it ten times before I saw things that I did
not see at first. In the night the ideas contained in it are digested
and returned partly next day to the mind. It is the study of adepts.
Let no man be unaware that while there is a great joy in this belief
there is also a great sorrow. Being true, being _the Law_, all the
great forces are set in motion by the student. He now thinks he has
given up ambition and comfort. The ambition and comfort he has given
up are those of the lower plane, the mere reflections of the great
ambitions and comforts of a larger life. The rays of truth burn up the
covers time has placed upon those seeds, and then the seeds begin to
sprout and cause new struggles. Do not leave any earnest inquirer in
ignorance of this. It has cost others many years and tears of blood to
self-learn it.
How difficult the path of action is! I see the future dimly, and
unconsciously in such case one makes efforts either for or against it.
Then Karma results. I could almost wish I did not hear these whispers.
But he who conquers himself is greater than the conquerors of worlds.
Perhaps you see more clearly now how Karma operates. If one directs
himself to eliminating all old Karma, the struggle very often becomes
tremendous, for the whole load of ancient sin rushes to the front on a
man and the events succeed each other rapidly; the strain is terrific,
and the whole life fabric groans and rocks. As is said in the East, you
may go through the appointed course in 700 births, in seven years, or
in seven minutes.
The sentence in _Light on the Path_ referred to by so many students is
not so difficult as some others. One answer will do for all. The book
is written on the basis of Reïncarnation, and when it says the soiled
garment will fall again on you, it means that this will happen in some
other life, not necessarily in this, though that may be too. To "turn
away in horror" is _not_ detachment. Before we can hope to prevent any
particular state of mind or events reaching us in this or in another
life, _we_ must in fact be detached from these things. Now _we_ are
not our bodies or mere minds, but the _real_ part of us in which
Karma inheres. Karma brings everything about. It attaches to our real
inner selves by attachment and repulsion. That is, if we love vice or
anything, it seizes on us by attachment thereto; if we hate anything,
it seizes on our inner selves by reason of the strong horror we feel
for it. In order to prevent a thing we must understand it; we cannot
understand while we fear or hate it. We are not to love vice, but are
to recognize that it is a part of the whole, and, trying to understand
it, we thus get above it. This is the "doctrine of opposites" spoken
of in _Bhagavad-Gîtâ_. So if we turn in horror now (we may feel sad
and charitable, though) from the bad, the future life will feel that
horror and develop it by reaction into a reïncarnation in a body and
place where we must in material life go through the very thing we hate
now. As we are striving to reach God, we must learn to be as near like
Him as possible. He loves and hates not; so we must strive to regard
the greatest vice as being something we must not hate while we will not
engage in it, and then we may approach that state where we will know
the greater love that takes in good and evil men and things alike.
Good and Evil are only the two poles of the one thing. In the Absolute,
Evil is the same thing in this way. One with absolute knowledge can
_see_ both Good and Evil, but he does not _feel_ Evil to be a thing to
flee from, and thus he has to call it merely the other pole. We say
Good or Evil as certain events seem pleasant or unpleasant to us or
our present civilization. And so we have coined those two words. They
are bad words to use. For in the Absolute one is just as necessary
as the other, and often what seem evil and "pain" are not absolutely
so, but only necessary adjustments in the progress of the soul. Read
_Bhagavad-Gîtâ_ as to how the self seems to suffer pain. What is Evil
now? Loss of friends? No; if you are self-centered. Slander? Not if
you rely on Karma. There is only evil when you rebel against immutable
decrees that must be worked out. You know that there must be these
balancings which we call Good and Evil. Just imagine one man who really
was a high soul, now living as a miser and enjoying it. You call it an
evil; he a good. Who is right? You say "Evil" because you are speaking
out of the True; but the True did know that he could never have passed
some one certain point unless he had that experience, and so we see
him now in an evil state. Experience we must have, and if we accept it
at our own hands we are wise. That is, while striving to do our whole
duty to the world and ourselves, we will not live the past over again
by vain and hurtful regrets, nor condemn any man, whatever his deeds,
since we cannot know their true cause. We are not Karma, we are not the
Law, and it is a species of that hypocrisy so deeply condemned by It
for us to condemn any man. That the Law lets a man live is proof that
he is not yet judged by that higher power. Still we must and will keep
our discriminating power at all times.
As to rising above Good and Evil, that does not mean to do evil, of
course. But, in fact, there can be no _real_ Evil or Good; if our aim
is right our acts cannot be evil. Now all acts are dead when done; it
is in the heart that they are conceived and are already there done; the
mere bodily carrying out of them is a dead thing in itself. So we may
do a supposed good act and that shall outwardly appear good, and yet as
our motive perhaps is wrong the act is naught, but the motive counts.
The great God did all, good and bad alike. Among the rest are what
appear Evil things, yet he must be unaffected. So if we follow
_Bhagavad-Gîtâ_, second chapter, we must do only those acts we believe
right for the sake of God and not for ourselves, and if we are
regardless of the consequences we are not concerned if they _appear_ to
be Good or Evil. As the heart and mind are the real planes of error,
it follows that we must look to it that we do all acts merely because
they are there to be done. It then becomes difficult only to separate
ourselves from the act.
We can never as human beings rise above being the instruments through
which that which is called Good and Evil comes to pass, but as that
Good and Evil are the result of comparison and are not in themselves
absolute, it must follow that we (the real "_we_") must learn to rise
internally to a place where these occurrences appear to us merely as
changes in a life of change. Even in the worldly man this sometimes
happens.
As, say Bismarck, used to moving large bodies of men and perhaps for
a good end, can easily rise above the transient Evil, looking to a
greater result. Or the physician is able to rise above pain to a
patient, and only consider the good, or rather the result, that is to
follow from a painful operation. The patient himself does the same.
So the student comes to see that he is not to do either "Good" or
"Evil," but to do any certain number of acts set before him, and
meanwhile not ever to regard much his line of conduct, but rather his
line of motive, for his conduct follows necessarily from his motive.
Take the soldier. For him there is nothing better than lawful war.
Query. Does he do wrong in warring or not, even if war is unlawful? He
does not unless he mixes his motive. They who go into war for gain or
revenge do wrong, but not he who goes at his superior's order, because
it is his present duty.
Let us, then, extend help to all who come our way. This will be true
progress; the veils that come over our souls fall away when we work for
others. Let that be the real motive, and the _quality_ of work done
makes no difference.