Karma: Law of Cause and Effect

Karma: Law of Cause and Effect

Question -- I would like to know more about karma, particularly with regard to the idea that we are responsible for our circumstances in life. Could we discuss this a little?

Comment -- This is a subject that never loses interest. You will remember how the New Testament expresses the thought: "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." That is just what karma means -- it is a Sanskrit term used in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy to signify 'action' followed by reaction. Every religion has stressed the doctrine of moral responsibility. The Moslems speak of Kismet as representing one's individual portion or lot in life. The ancient Greeks had their Nemesis or goddess of retributive justice; they also personified past, present and future as the three Moirai or Spinners of Destiny. So too those born in the Jewish faith are familiar with the Mosaic injunction: "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." All of these are different ways of describing the universal law of harmony and balance, which insures that every cause set in motion will, some time in the future, bring about its corresponding effect.

What first appeals to one in the study of karma is the potency of thought it stirs in us when we think of it in connection with its companion doctrine of rebirth, and the part that each of us has to play in the long drama of existence. The tendency to guard against is that of narrowing our thinking down to 'me and my karma'; we can become so involved in our personal concerns that we fail to view our day to day experiences practically and intelligently in the light of the larger picture.

There are many aspects of karma, such as world, national and racial karma, family as well as individual karma. We can even say there is business karma, community karma, and so forth. In other words, in every avenue of experience, from the individual to the international, men are thinking and acting and hence setting certain causes in motion which are bound to have their effects. So there is no end to the ramifications of actions and reactions.

Question -- Just how did all this begin?

Comment -- To get a truer perspective of karma in relation to the present, we have to go way back, to the time of the Garden of Eden. We have been told that from the day when man tasted of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he became a self-conscious unit of the human kingdom, ethically responsible for his every thought and act. If this is so, then from that point on we have been the shapers of our character and the makers of our destiny, and that divine law of sowing and reaping has allowed us to create the very circumstances in which we find ourselves today -- whatever their quality.

It is regrettable, however, that we in the West have been trained to think of the operation of this law with fear in our hearts: "if you don't live right, God will punish you; if you do wrong, you won't go to heaven." It is difficult to conceive of any God watching each individual, ready to strike him down if he errs; or if he is good, to reward him with specially contrived favors. Man may have been "fearfully and wonderfully made," but it does not follow that he was made in fear. The curse of dogmatic belief that we were born in sin has had effects both far-reaching and devastating. Man is wonderfully made, and with the qualities of the highest potential in his nature -- qualities founded on a divine trust and not a divine fear. The Almighty Intelligence which pervades every minute atom of our universe could not have allowed its essence to manifest without a complete trust that each such atom in time would become as that from which it sprang. To limit our concepts to a Deity who would on the one hand personally supervise this whole evolutionary unfoldment, individual by individual, and on the other hand relegate us to 'sin' at birth, is to degrade the true purpose of life.

There is a vast amount of hidden truth involved in the allegory of the Fallen Angel. This story, so poorly conceived in the orthodox interpretation, is told by many ancient peoples. In the Hindu tradition it is symbolized by the descent of Manasaputras or "Sons of Mind" -- godlike beings who lighted the fires of the human mind, much as in Greek mythology Prometheus brought the "fire" of the gods to men. So in the Bible, the casting out of Adam and Eve from Paradise signified humanity's transition from a childlike phase of growth into a state of conscious individual responsibility.

When we realize that you and I from that moment in our evolutionary cycle have been on our own, we begin to get a fuller picture of what this doctrine of karma implies. It means that we, being novices in the use of our free will, made many, many blunders. And every time we made a mistake we felt a reaction to it, attempting to point our thought in the direction of not falling into the same error again. We all learn soon enough on the physical plane, but it takes us much longer to learn lessons on the moral and spiritual levels. Nevertheless, nature's law of harmony operates always to restore equilibrium, sometimes in quite a potent manner, but it is in this way that gradually we attain discrimination.

It boils down to the simple fact that through the ages we have accumulated a lot of effects of former actions so that we are faced now with a collection of karmic responsibilities dating from the far past, from which the immortal element in us has chosen a certain portion for this lifetime. This portion is neither too heavy nor too light, as perfect justice rules throughout the entire cosmos.

People sometimes speak of good karma and bad karma, pleasant and unpleasant. To me there is no such thing as good or bad karma, for the results, the effects of our actions and thoughts, are nothing more nor less than opportunity. That is the key. Karma as opportunity gives everybody the same possibility of growth. Now I don't consider that a heavy load to bear. All we need do is temper our reactions to our circumstances and meet them with the right attitude. But if we are foolish enough to feel revulsion to the so-called unpleasant events of life, we extend the effects of wrong causes further and further until finally we wake up and realize that we are rebelling against nothing but ourselves.

It makes no difference how much suffering we may have in this lifetime -- our karma will never be more than we can handle. Point out an individual with a heavy karmic load, and you will have pointed out a strong soul. The man who is going through real torment is a soul who has earned, by the strength of his inner aspiration, the right to test the metal of himself to the core.

Question -- If we knew what we had done in the past that had brought on our present problems, wouldn't it be easier to understand them? I know I am responsible for whatever comes to me, both the pleasant and unpleasant things. But how can I handle all of this karma in the right way?

Comment -- If nature in its highest sense is harmonious and kind and just, it seems to me it would not ask us to meet a responsibility without providing a key or a guide, and especially would this be true with one who is consciously aspiring. Nature does provide that key, though we are having a hard time finding it. But if we believe there cannot be a cause without an effect, or an effect without a cause, we must believe that nothing happens by chance. Every situation we are confronted with, then, is the result of something we thought or did or participated in the past that has attracted to us the effects represented by the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. Do we need to know the exact cause? We cannot know it in detail, but we can and should try to discern the quality of experience that brought about our present situation.

At this stage of our growth, those who are actively trying to improve their character, to self-direct their own evolution, are beginning to sense the first faint glimmerings of a genuine intuition. We are not anywhere near the flowering of our present racial cycle, but we are at the same time being called upon to handle the early pushings of the seed of intuition in our consciousness. Therefore, when anyone begins to think about the doctrines of karma and reincarnation he is compelled, sooner or later, to recognize that he has a definite responsibility to meet intelligently the karma that is his. He will have to learn how to meet it, how to listen to the imploring of his immortal self, his intuition, if you please. It is the immortal self that has selected the drama of this incarnation in which he is the actor, and it is this higher element that is endeavoring by and through the circumstances of life to guide him to meet with a proper attitude the challenges of each day.

Thus in our struggles toward a fuller understanding, we begin to realize we can develop the ability to read the unfolding karmic script of our lives. When we work with this, then we find ourselves better able to feel out the situations as they arise, and deal with them more intelligently. We can think of it as a Book -- the Book of records as the Koran calls it -- in which is inscribed in its entirety our individual life. Each of our days, representing a page of so-called karmic merit and demerit, will contain the signposts, the impellings and repellings, the conscience knocks, and even the intuitions that are there to be utilized. Once we are able even slightly to read the daily script of our experiences, we realize something else: that there is a direct relation between the quality of a reaction and the quality of action that brought it into being. This is not going to be spelled out, but if we keep in mind that our major task in the long run is to unfold fully the divine values within us, we will know that the process of transmuting the lower by the higher self must be accompanied by a continued effort to improve the quality of our attitude in every circumstance.

Question -- In trying to improve our attitude toward our own karma, shouldn't we also take into account the karma of those around us? I am thinking especially of family and national karma.

Comment -- If we believe in the natural working of this law, then those we meet each day we meet by karma, and either we receive something from them or they receive something from us, as the result of that contact. Neither party may be aware of any conscious exchange. It happens as simply as breathing, and may have only an infinitesimal effect, but all of it together helps make up the karmic balance, the karmic total of the day. When we maintain the best inner attitude we can, keeping our personal will as the servant, allowing the spiritual will or the intuition to have as free rein as possible, we begin to recognize what the other person has contributed toward the expansive elements available to us at any time.

Question -- But isn't it presumptuous to assume that we could deliberately have any effect on the karma of nations? We are doing very well, aren't we, if we can deal intelligently with our personal lives?

Comment -- Most of us cannot directly do anything about national or world karma. Nevertheless, we are part of humanity, and as we strengthen our character, so will our nation and the world at large benefit. The basic key is duty: we fulfill our destiny best by doing the duties that lie immediately before us. Should it happen that you or I by natural karma find ourselves a member of Congress or Parliament, then we would have the opportunity to contribute more potently and directly to our respective countries. What matters most is where we are today and what we are doing about it, for it is the quality of our thoughts and actions that will condition our influence in the future.

Don't you see what a marvelous opportunity we have? Reacting creatively and with a will to correct past errors, we will inevitably impress upon the consciousness of our fellowmen the quality of our endeavor and by so much give them added courage. Without fear but with full trust we can move forward from where we are, knowing that our right thoughts and right actions will in time have their due effects. It makes each moment an opportunity -- a challenging opportunity to fulfill our destined responsibilities, not alone to ourselves but to all mankind.

Beyond Death -- New Life

Question -- In our discussions the idea of rebirth has come up. At first I thought it fantastic that after I died I would come back again. But the more I toss it around and the more my brain works out all sorts of arguments against it, the more I feel there is something to it. When and how did this idea of reincarnation get started?

Comment -- I could no more tell you when reincarnation got started than I could tell you when the sun and the moon and the stars began their orderly and harmonious courses. All I can say is that the principle of ebb and flux appears to be one of nature's "eternal ways," for the law of cyclic progression is as old as the world. It was in process when the solar system came into being; and again, still farther removed in space and time, it was a habit when our home-universe, with its numberless galaxies and solar systems, first burst forth from the darkness of Space. On our earth its expressions are manifold: day and night, light and darkness, activity and rest -- all different and individual modes of the ebb and flux of life in movement. Everything in nature is thus subject to this one law of renewal of form, birth and death, death and birth, in order to provide fresh vehicles for the indwelling spirit. Reincarnation refers to the rebirth of the soul here on earth -- a specific application of the general law of renewal or reimbodiment.

Question -- But the idea of reincarnation is new to so many of us. Of course I remember from my college days that Shelley, Wordsworth and Tennyson, and Goethe too, spoke of other worlds from which they had come, and that they "had been here before." I thought it mere poetic fancy. I loved the beauty of their creations, but it never occurred to me they might really mean it literally. As I get older, I'm not so certain. Was this belief known in other ages?

Comment -- It was indeed; in fact, if we peruse the writings of the Orient, of Asia Minor and of Greece and Persia, we find clear indications of a belief, in one form or another, in the idea of rebirth. For sacred tradition maintains that you and I are truly gods in essence, potential divinities, in ceaseless activity, striving to find our way; and in that striving, whether we are conscious of it or not, we, as human beings, have been moving in and out of this earth for countless ages, because the basic habit of nature is to evolve in spiral fashion -- action followed by reaction, cause by effect. Therefore the idea of rebirth was always linked up with the concept of justice: that what a man sows now, he will have to reap later as the round of the cycle of cause and effect turns on itself, whether in this life or some future existence. However, let me warn you that there are many wrong ideas in regard to reincarnation.

For example, some of the Eastern beliefs lead one to suppose that if you live an evil life you may return as an animal. But that is because their presentations have become in certain respects as dogmatic as ours. I do not believe the original Hindu and Buddhist doctrine implied the transmigration of the soul into animal bodies after death, though in their texts you will find passages that seem to uphold this view. But these have reference merely to the temporary transmigration of certain of the lower elements of 'the man that was' into the bodies of the lower kingdoms. As said, this has nothing whatever to do with the reincarnating soul.

Question -- You mean there's no chance of our returning as an animal, even by mistake?

Comment -- No chance whatever, for it would be absolutely contrary to nature's forward moving processes for the human soul to retrograde into a vehicle less than human. That is not reincarnation or reimbodiment as the sages of every land and of all ages have taught it, but is a degenerated belief which is false, utterly out of harmony with the facts.

The true and original doctrine of rebirth or reincarnation emphasizes this one point: "Once a man, always a man" -- until you become something greater. Think for a moment of the enormous injustice to the soul of man if, by some feat of dark magic, it were forced to incarnate in the body of an animal, with no outlet of expression for the divine-human qualities. Just try to imagine yourself, with your degree of self-consciousness and intelligence, looking at a glorious sunset out of the eyes of your pet dog, and feel the torture and the agony of imprisonment that experience would be.

No! Once we with the help of our divine spark have earned human expression, we will not retrogress; unless -- and this is the one exception -- by willful evil-doing over a long series of lives the soul deliberately breaks the link with its Father within. Then, in its self-determined retrogression, it becomes truly a "lost" soul -- having lost its right to participate in the forward evolutionary current. Fortunately, such a "break" from divine contact is rare indeed; if it does occur, then the individual atomic elements formerly governed by the "lost" soul, because of being so impregnated with subhuman tendencies, may find outlet in forms of life lower than the human, in animal and even in plant vehicles. But this is not the destiny of the aspiring human soul which, linked with its divinity, is seeking expansion of understanding and consciousness with each new rebirth on earth.

Question -- I'd like to ask a question that has always troubled me. When we die, do we lose our personality? For example, will I recognize myself when I come back again?

Comment -- You had no difficulty in recognizing your individuality this time, did you? No, you take yourself as you are, with all your strengths and all your weaknesses -- they are as familiar to you as the very air you breathe, for the reason that you have grown through the ages with yourself. Still, the personality is not the real you, but only a mask you wear, and that mask has changed thousands and thousands of times as you have played your different roles in the long drama of experience. Thus when we die, we lose everything connected with the particular mask we have just worn; in other words, we lose our physical brain and body that we have used as Mary Brown or Joe Smith. However, the reincarnating element that uses Mary Brown or Joe Smith in any one lifetime will return again and again, each time taking on a new personality, a new brain and physical body, fresh and revitalized and exactly fitted by karma, through which to grow and learn the lessons of the new life. Why do you suppose it was said: "Ye are the temple of the living God" -- a living God, working in and through our personalities?

Question -- Just what is it that reincarnates then? Is it the divine spark or the living God?

Comment -- The divine spark itself does not reincarnate, any more than the sun leaves its orbit of duty. Nevertheless, just as its warmth and light penetrate all layers of the atmospheres between the sun and the earth, so is it with man. The spark of godhood remains transcendent in its own divine orbit, yet its light or vital essence permeates our whole nature, focusing its force through the spiritual soul that it may illumine the highest mental or truly human part, our higher self. It is that permanent, immortal element in us, therefore, which endures from life to life, reincarnating in a new personality with each birth on earth. But the divinity per se must have intermediaries or 'transformers' to step down its higher potency, and hence does not reincarnate directly. Still, the reincarnating element could no more exist or function apart from its divine parent than a sunbeam could exist or function apart from its solar parent, from which it streams to give life and substance, not alone to earth and all its creatures, but to the entire dominion of the solar system.

Question -- For most of us the thought of developing a nearness to the Father within seems extremely remote. If we do reap what we sow, and I for one feel this to be true, then by inference we must have been reaping and sowing over a very long time. This in itself seems like a load that is almost too hard to bear -- that for thousands of ages we have had to struggle on alone, making countless errors, sowing field upon field of "wild oats," without the strength and the knowledge to guide us.

Comment -- But we haven't been alone, and we aren't alone now. When the divine spark within each one of us led us from the Garden of Eden, and said in essence: You have gone a long way up to this point, now you can earn the right to work out your destiny yourselves -- that divinity did not leave us. It retired deep within our souls, and remains there today. Every day of our lives it is saying to us, if only we will listen: You are my prodigal son. Go your way, through what pain and suffering and joy you make for yourself. But remember from now on you must by your own free will travel the cycles of experience. Then when you win your way back to me, you will be strong and enriched -- in fact, you will be a god like unto me.

That divine spark has never forsaken us, and never will; for its very nature is to radiate its influence until not only do we recognize its presence, but determine henceforth to work with and become like unto it.

No, we have never been alone, nor do we carry the whole load of past error in one lifetime; moreover, in our thousands of lifetimes, have we not also sown beautiful flowers and not merely tares in the garden of our soul? We need never feel that we cannot meet the pressures of ourselves: "God fits the burden to the shoulders" -- which does not mean that the Divine Intelligence measures each one of us with a yardstick and gives us just so much and no more of a burden for today and tomorrow and the next day. It does not have to, because within each one of us is its individual representative, a spark of that all-encompassing Divinity which is our own immortal self, with whom ultimately we shall become fully acquainted. Thus it is in very truth our Father who acts as our protector, and allows us to handle only that portion of karma that we in our strength and immaturity are able to carry.

We can take courage in the knowledge that when our troubles seem more than we can bear, there is within us that guardianship that assures us the power and the wisdom to meet the challenge. The very fact that we are living today on earth is a proof, a magnificent proof, that we have not lost touch with our inner god -- else we would not be here as learning, aspiring human souls.

 

Heredity and Environment

Question -- As I understand it, heredity and environment are the two principal factors involved in the theory of evolution. But then, if reincarnation is true, how does heredity fit in? We know that certain laws have been arrived at which prove physical heredity, and that environment also plays a major part in one's development. On the other hand, geniuses are sometimes born to illiterate families, so it seems that after you leave the physical plane the rules don't apply. When you delve into the matter of a man's soul, can you say he inherits from his parents his mental and emotional or spiritual characteristics?

Comment -- Don't forget too the other factor in evolution that cannot be side-stepped: the matter of the fruitage of thoughts and acts that we have sown in previous lives. We come into life with a lot of unexpended karma which is bound to find an outlet some time, somewhere, on this earth -- in an environment where those former seeds of character may find expression.

Question -- It has been shown that the law of cause and effect governs physical heredity; for instance, if a black rabbit and a white rabbit are mated, the scientists can tell you exactly what the genes and chromosomes will do for the next ten generations. And now they are seeking to prove through the genes and the chromosomes that you also inherit from your parents your psychological and mental qualities; in fact, all the capabilities you possess. But surely this last point is open to serious question? 

Comment -- Nature usually follows one general rule: "As below, so above; as above, so below," as the Hermetic axiom puts it. Just because we don't know how the rules apply on the higher planes of our constitution doesn't necessarily mean that those rules change in principle. Their application on the physical plane may signify one thing, and on the mental another.

Now let us go back a little and look at heredity from the standpoint of more than one life. "A" is born to a certain couple. Physically, he will have certain characteristics that the father and mother have, or that are in the family stream. But why is "A" born to that family and to no other? Is it just by chance? No, "A" is born to that father and mother at that particular time and place, and under the specific circumstances that exist, which exactly fit the karma of the reincarnating element seeking birth. In my judgment, no child could possibly be born unless there was a strong magnetic pull or attraction -- whether of love or hate -- impelling that soul to come to its parents.

You could say then that "A" inherits from his own past the very qualities that his parents seem to provide through the medium of the physical elements, the genes and chromosomes, etc. But this doesn't tell you why, unless you recognize the part that the reincarnating element plays in coming into birth through the father and mother.

The rules do not change anywhere along the line, from the physical on up, or vice versa -- they only seem to change because science can catalog its observations on the material plane and work out certain deductions there from, but isn't able to catalog the subtler aspects of the mind and soul.

Question -- You mean, then, that although you pick out the father and mother who can give you what is similar to your own characteristics, you actually do inherit yourself?

Comment -- Yes, that is exactly what I believe: each one inherits himself from his own past. Therefore, whether consciously or not, we 'select' our parents because of similarity of characteristics, or because they are diametrically opposite to what we are. Both love and hate are magnetic in their power to attract, and that is why sometimes children are born to parents where there is strong dislike or animosity between a child and one or both parents.

Question -- As I understand it, our soul is what we have made of ourselves in the past?

Comment -- A portion of what we have made of ourselves in the past.

Question -- Yes. Then when we die, can we say that our soul goes into a kind of rest, withdraws into itself somewhat as a plant goes into a seed? I am trying to connect the soul or mental part of us with the physical body which starts out in life as a seed, and has its genes and chromosomes.

Comment -- I see, and you have an excellent point there. It reminds me of the story from the Upanishads, where an old sage is telling his pupil about the indwelling spirit. He asks him to bring him a fruit from a large fig tree. "Break it open and tell me what you see." "Only these extremely fine seeds," replied the youth. "Now break open one of the seeds and tell me what you see." "Nothing at all," was the answer. The sage then pointed out that this "nothingness" is "the True, the Self," the imperceptible essence which causes the fruit or the tree and all manifested things to come into being; and that all else, the body of the fruit, the skin, pulp, etc., are merely the forms that the Self takes.

This, I believe, is the key to a fuller understanding of the mysterious and hidden support of the continuity of life. Each of us, like the fig tree, is the direct result of the activity of that indwelling spirit. Call it what you will -- the Father within, the guardian angel, the monadic essence of being or that unknown something that gives pattern even to the DNA molecule -- the fact remains that without this subtle core of ourselves we would be drifting without identification, without continuity, without life.

Question -- Then would you say that the soul of the fig or of a man really goes into "nothingness" when it dies -- if we understand by "nothingness" a non-manifesting or sleeping stage? If the genes and chromosomes are the expression of the seed of the physical body, could there be a spiritual seed which is expressing itself as our personality or human ego? It seems to me it should be consistent right on through.

Comment -- It is consistent in principle, though we cannot always see it working out. After you take away the pulp and the skin and even the kernel -- what do you have? Nothing, nothingness. Yet we know that there is something, a "subtle essence," as the Upanishad calls it; there must be, or we wouldn't have the fruit, the tree, or the man. What is it? It is the consciousness, the seed-essence if you like. So when we die, you could say that the soul of a man becomes again a seed-consciousness. Certainly it is not of any material nature; you cannot associate physical matter with it at all.

Question -- You say no "material nature" whatever. Do you mean that literally? I always thought that if you go far enough matter gets into spirit, and spirit into matter, or is it only a relative thing?

Comment -- Speaking once again in principle, matter and spirit are one -- two sides of a coin -- because matter reduced to its elements is spirit, and spirit in manifestation is matter. But that does not mean that we should not differentiate between what is spiritual and what is material. To return to the seed-consciousness, whether of a plant or of a man -- when that seed wants to manifest, it takes on materials of various levels or gradations so that it can express itself. But in its "nothingness" or in its seed-essence it is consciousness, spirit, in various degrees of tenuousness. Of course, you cannot say that consciousness is nothingness -- for consciousness is the most vitally alive part, actually the seed-essence of divinity which is only a seeming nothingness judged from the material point of view. But let's not get too far afield.

Question -- Where does parental heredity begin, and where does it leave off and other factors enter in?

Question -- Could we link this up with the mental and emotional aspects? It was stated a while ago that the mother and father provide the physical vehicle. Well, let us suppose the mother and father also have emotional or mental characteristics that would tend to bring about a certain type of result, say either a genius or an idiot, or a stable or unstable character. Could we say that the incoming child chooses his parents not only for a physical body, but also for the emotional and mental and psychological capacities that fit in with his karma?

Comment -- Generally speaking, you are right, but we must always take into consideration that in the human kingdom the factors of free will and the higher level of consciousness operate over and above the physical transmission of genes and chromosomes. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that in any one lifetime we could not possibly meet the whole of our karmic responsibilities. We can handle only a small share of them in the normal span of life.

It matters little into what race or family or nation a child may be born. When the thirst for life begins in the consciousness of the child-to-be, then the inner impulses begin to stir, to awaken from their resting-place, and push the soul out of its heaven-world into another experience on earth. The seed-essence, the spiritual and the higher mental consciousness, attract by karma the psychological and physical elements that are needed to fulfill the specific type of responsibility for the new life.

Question -- In other words, the soul is attracted to those parents from whom it can inherit the necessary physical and emotional and mental traits?

Comment -- I don't like to use the word inherit as it is at present scientifically used. It is too limiting. Rather let us say that the soul is attracted to those parents who can or will act as the medium for providing the vehicle and environment. They do not provide the vehicle, but they are definitely the means whereby the physical right on up to the higher mental and spiritual aspects can manifest. But you 'inherit' yourself, because you are yourself from out of the long past ages of experience.

Let us take the mystery of the union of the two infinitesimal cells at conception. Thousands of cells are thrown off from the father, but one, just one out of countless others, unites with a cell from the mother, and that marvelous process of embryonic growth starts. The parents don't form the embryo; nor do they make it grow. The mystery of growth takes place because the soul-essence of the child-to-be -- the "nothingness" which made the fig become a fig -- guides the growth of the fetus from conception on until sufficient of the life-atoms that formerly were his from past ages have been attracted to it. Now those life-atoms are his; the parents are not providing them. They are only being the medium through which those life-atoms are attracted to that combination of elements that is going to manifest as a human being when born on this earth. 

Question -- What do you mean by life-atoms?

Comment -- Exactly what the term implies -- the life-principle or vitalizing essence within the atomic particles that exist on every plane.

Question -- What about the transmission of characteristics that obviously are passed on from generation to generation?

Comment -- All that we observe as heredity is nothing more nor less than the process of a reimbodying human ego bringing itself into being in any lifetime through the channel of parents sympathetic to itself in certain of its characteristics. The several children in a large family, for instance, are each different and yet all show qualities common to the family stream. In other words, the incoming soul utilizes the family karma for its means of expression; but the parents don't create that child, physically, mentally or spiritually. What they provide is the environmental stage-setting. Each one of us has a large reserve of karmic energy which in one life will take this avenue, and in another that. It may be that you or I will need something completely different in experience next life from what we are meeting now, in order to balance the pattern of growth that we require to bring us nearer the goal -- the goal for all of us being conscious cooperation with our higher selves.

We could summarize and say that heredity as propounded is nothing more than observations of a portion of life's greater pattern which, when classified by science, appear to be laws in themselves but actually, when viewed from the standpoint of the individual, are but one small part of the whole.

To talk about heredity as though it were the complete picture is like looking at a gorgeous landscape through a tiny slit. While the divine facet of our nature takes very little noticeable part, nevertheless it is the originating cause; the human ego being the responsible agent in our present stage of growth. Naturally scientists concentrate on the physical characteristics which they have cataloged to a nicety; but they forget that those physical and even mental and emotional characteristics would have no existence were it not for the indwelling spirit. It is that, the seed-essence, which is responsible for starting the whole chain of action which brings a soul into earth life.

Life does not continue to exist upon nothing. It exists upon itself, just as the fig tree exists upon the unseen essence within its seed. And who can say that we humans do not follow a similar sequence: birth of the soul, growth to maturity, death, assimilation of our experiences, rest and rejuvenation, a renewed thirst for life and, in due course, gestation and rebirth -- to pick up again the task of continuity in which all of nature participates.

 Good and Evil

From a discussion with a Young People's Church Group -- II

Question -- I'm still unsatisfied about the matter of God's will and predetermination. How much leeway am I allowed, or am I absolutely bound by the will of God? 

Comment -- In the ultimate sense, every entity in space is within the realm of the divine will, under the impulsion of the divine energies that flow through and permeate the universe. We are not the marionettes of some all-powerful personal God, but free-willing agents, however unconscious we still are of our innate potential. Yet while each has a unique destiny, no man is an island apart and distinct from every other, but part of a great continent of experience and growth that encompasses the whole of humanity.

But how far you will be allowed to go off course, just how wide is your stretch of deviation -- that I cannot answer for you. No one could. The only one who can answer that is yourself. We all make mistakes again and again, but that is not the deciding factor. What counts is the motive of our lives -- the quality of aspiration that governs the whole of our thoughts and acts. However, we play with fire the moment we try to figure out just how far we can go wrong and "still get away with it."

Question -- I didn't mean it that way. This is what I had in mind. Yesterday several of us were in Los Angeles for the ball game, and we had to wait quite a while before catching our bus home. Skid Row, as you know, is not far from the bus terminal; you see all sorts of people there, and you can't help wondering how they ever got so low down. Then you think to yourself, "But for the grace of God, there go I." I had always felt that no one would be permitted to get so far out of line, even with our free will, because I figured there would be something that would predetermine our going just so far and no farther. But there apparently wasn't anything to stop those people. That is where it is difficult to discern the line of cleavage between fatalism and free will. So my question is: how far can one go without having some kind of brakes take hold?

Comment -- Anyone can go completely off course, if that is what he wants to do more than anything else. Fortunately, there is generally plenty of interference somewhere along the line, usually from within. Not only do we have our conscience, and a lively one once we start to heed it, but we likewise have the continuous presence of our guardian angel, which protects us more often than we know. How far can we go without having the brakes take hold? Just as far as our conscience will allow. We are perfectly aware when we go against that warning voice, which will never tell us what to do but will always stand ready to give us a "prick" when we even so much as think about doing something that for us, individually, would be a deviation from our true course.

Question -- Would you call conscience then an instrumentality of God's will?

Comment -- You could say that conscience is an instrumentality or working tool of the god within, for if the voice of conscience is born of long ages of trial and error, it must be closely linked with the tireless effort of the god part of ourselves to bring us into line with its divine will. Moreover, we are as near to our guardian angel as we are near to our own skin; but this relationship is two-way. Unless we earn that protection, we shall not receive it. "God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." It is the very reaping of sorrow and pain, of frustration and loneliness, that is the surest brake against our going too far downhill. But when a person deliberately chooses to stifle the prickings of conscience, he will have to learn the hard and often brutal way.

So let us not condemn others too quickly. Except for help along the way, or other factors not easily seen, any one might find himself heading toward Skid Row, for there are no brakes against a man's willful corruption of his divine quality of free will excepting those which he himself applies. Most individuals, whatever the tragedy of their present life, have deeply rooted within, seeded there by past experiences, untapped resources of strength and nobility; and once the will is quickened to turn in the upward direction, there are no heights so great that the basest man cannot, if he will, achieve.

Question -- It surely looked as if the scales had been weighted against some of those people, as though God really had predetermined for them a course of evil. You don't believe that, do you?

Comment -- I certainly do not. It may look that way, viewed from the closed circle of a one-life experience; but don't forget the continuity of consciousness that spans both birth and death. I realize how difficult it is for us who have been schooled to think of one short term on earth to welcome this idea of the rebirth of the soul again and again. I am not asking you to accept this idea, but only to consider it well before you cast it out.

The pattern of growth is not a hit-and-miss affair, but is the inevitable effect of the initial drive in the seed of godhood that is at the heart of every creature within the universe. Therefore the scales could not possibly be weighted against man. On the contrary, if they were weighted at all, it would be in his favor, for the pressure of the evolutionary current is ever forward, with the entire life-wave of humanity being slowly but surely carried along in its stream. There is nothing static in nature -- either we go forward, or we go backward, and that is where the challenge comes in. In the kingdoms below man, the urge is ever upward toward the human kingdom, and growth there is automatic and without self-conscious direction. But in the human kingdom we must decide which way we want to grow -- for it is possible to go downward, and way down; it is equally possible to make great strides forward insofar as the quality of our consciousness is concerned.

After all, it is consciousness and what we do with it that is the core of our problem. We have today a certain horizon of consciousness that represents the sum total of what we are, which horizon is for us at this moment a Ring-pass-not, beyond which we cannot go. But the Father within is pushing and prodding us all the time, however unaware we may be of his attentions, to expand that horizon and go beyond our Ring-pass-not toward a more distant goal of understanding and wisdom. In the process of growth we make errors, naturally, but we learn in time what is right and what is wrong; and if the current of our aspiration is flowing toward the light, that is all that is required. Either we go forward with the life-wave of humanity toward our goal; or, if we prefer, we can deliberately go downwards and break our link with divinity -- but this happens so very rarely that we can discount it for the general run of mankind.

It is impossible for us to stay exactly on the same level of consciousness, because every moment of the day we are moving, hopefully, toward a greater field of vision and experience, and with each forward step we find a new Ring-pass-not. When the moment of death comes, the quality of a man's innermost thoughts through his lifetime will reveal him to be either a weaker or a stronger character.

Question -- Would you explain where the Devil fits into your scheme? This isn't merely a hypothetical question, it's a very real one for me right now. You see, my father was for many years a minister, and quite broadminded I used to think; and he's a grand person too. But with the development of nuclear weapons, he has become quite rabid. He is convinced that it's all the work of the Devil. Nothing I say will change his mind. What do you think?

Comment -- I can appreciate your problem, because it goes to the very heart of a man's inmost beliefs. Let me say first that I sympathize deeply with the horror your father feels at the use of nature's secrets for destructive purposes. Yet I for one cannot consider the birth and growth and present rapid development of nuclear physics as the work of the Devil -- if there is one -- or of any of his hosts of darkness. The usage of power for evil is always a devilish and fiendish thing -- but it is not the work of Satan.

There is a big difference here. It may appear trivial, but it goes right to the core of the theological problem of good and evil: good as the manifestation of God, and evil as that of the Devil. To me there is no devil who willfully leads human beings into ways of evil; nor is there any personal God who as willfully leads human beings into paths of rectitude. However, good and evil, just as heat and cold, day and night, and all other bipolar manifestations, are always with us. But they are relative conditions of living beings, and not inherent entities in themselves. Therefore good and evil in human relationships are seen as relative states of consciousness. Good, we can say, represents that which is in harmony with the upward trend of progress; evil, that which tends to retrogress, to distort and upset the natural equilibrium. What seems good to some aborigines in Australia and Africa may seem frightfully evil to us -- and, perhaps, vice versa!

Question -- If, as you say, there is no Devil, do you think God allowed man to discover the secret of the atom?

Comment -- I don't believe God had anything to do with our discovery of the atom, nor that God would stop us from exploiting its use. It will be man himself who will put the brakes on its destructive use. Also I believe so firmly in the law of cause and effect, that to me the discoveries of nuclear physics are all part of the greater opportunities that we as a race have earned. I think we need have no fear that headlong destruction will eventuate.

Question -- Then you believe that man will go only so far, that he won't deliberately commit race suicide? You said earlier that if someone really wanted to go wrong and followed that way long enough, he would eventually go down and perhaps even break contact. Why wouldn't the same thing happen to humanity which, after all, is just a couple of billion human beings all together?

Comment -- It could very easily, if there were sufficient desire in enough human beings to follow the path of destruction and evil. But I am as sure today, as I am sure of anything in this world, that the balance is strongly on the side of right. Why do I say this? Take a cross section of any city, community, nation or group of nations. You will find outstanding examples of the best and finest in human qualities, as well as the very worst; but alongside these will be the vast number of men and women whom no one ever knows by name but who, literally, are the "salt of the earth." In their simple way they are exemplifying qualities of courage, dedication to their particular duties, however humble and seemingly unimportant, and a natural understanding of their neighbor. All of which is weighed in the balance of destiny, as accurately as are the more brilliant virtues and qualities of character displayed by prominent men. That the scales are likewise heavy with inertia, selfishness and greed there can be little doubt.

Viewed in perspective, I am convinced that history will look back on this age as one of the most perilous, yes, but also the most remarkable for spiritual as well as material advancement. For the discovery of nuclear fission has focalized an intensive and direct inquiry into essential values. This in itself, plus the prevalence of a common danger, is bringing about a subtle yet tangible consciousness of our oneness as humanity.

Question -- I'm with you all the way there, and I guess most young people are. But there's another angle my father takes up. He says not only is this atomic age the work of the Devil, but it proves that we're all "born in sin." But I think this is a pernicious idea. Would you talk a little about this concept?

Comment -- This is no criticism of the individual who may believe sincerely that man is born in sin, but I cannot agree with it any more than you do.

Let's take the first three chapters of Genesis, and see how unsatisfying they are if taken literally, but if understood as an allegory of the birth of man how truly meaningful they become. After creating the heavens and the earth in the first chapter, it came time for God, or the Elohim -- literally 'gods' in Hebrew -- to fashion man. So in the second chapter Adam was created out of the dust of the earth, and then the Elohim breathed into him "the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Then a garden was planted in Eden, in the center of which was placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After all the animals were formed, the Lord God realized that Adam had no companion, so he caused him to fall into a deep sleep and he took out a 'rib' and formed woman. Thus we have Adam and Eve now, in the garden of Eden, naked and unashamed, and warned not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

Now the third chapter: here a serpent appears and entices them to eat of the forbidden tree, for they "shall not surely die," but "shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Eve listens, and sees that not only is it good to eat, and a lovely thing to look at, but a tree "to make one wise"; so she decides to try a piece of the fruit and shares it then with Adam. We read further of the terrible curse the Lord God put upon Eve for beguiling Adam, and that there would be sorrow and labor and strife through all the days. Now listen to the final part of chapter three concerning the tree of life: "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" . . . Therefore, Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden and the Lord God put cherubims and a flaming sword at the entrance to guard the tree of life from man.

That in essence was the Hebrew way of stating the genesis of our evolutionary growth from a state similar to the innocence and irresponsibility of the animals, to a self-conscious recognition of our humanhood. Originally androgynous, that is, containing the potency of both male and female, Adam entered a "deep sleep" during which the Elohim removed one of his ribs -- note in Hebrew the word also means "side" -- which brought about the natural division of the sexes into two, and infant humanity wakened then as fully sexed men and women. With the tasting of the forbidden fruit came awareness of their "nakedness" or responsibility, and a desire then to "sew fig leaves" -- to do something about their new-won knowledge.

Moreover, the serpent in almost every land was not originally a symbol of cunning or deception, but rather of wisdom and a bringer of light and understanding. If we consider the serpent of Genesis in the role of a "Light-bringer," which is what Lucifer means, we can see how amazingly different will be our whole concept of man's origin.

Question -- Then how did we ever get this idea of being "born in sin"? 

Comment -- That is one of the destructive effects of literalizing the supposed Word of God -- of taking a truth and making a dogma out of your understanding of it, which understanding might be completely wrong. You see, when Adam and Eve, representing infant humanity, were cast out of Paradise, they literally did "fall" from their former state of peace and blissful unconsciousness into one of struggle and turmoil, and the confusion of choosing between good and evil. However, Adam's so-called Fall from Grace was not a fall backward but truly a fall forward into expanded experience. Man was "born in matter," but not in "sin"; while he is "cursed" to toil and suffer, yet with the pain and struggle of every birth there comes always the beauty and triumph of creation. That is the heritage left by the Fallen Angel, who taking the form of a serpent brought about that glorious bit of white magic, quickening latent mind into dynamic activity, and thus giving us our conscious connection with the breath of Divinity when the Elohim breathed into this lump of clay and made of man "a living soul."

Question -- I have a question about God's will again. What is the best method to get into line with the will of God?

Comment -- That is a beautiful question. Perhaps the most sublime rule of conduct is to be found in the Master's cry at Gethsemane: Not my will, but Thine, be done. Let not the will of the personal man take over, but, O my Father, work through me and bring thy divine will into function. If we can aspire toward the will of our Father, no matter how many times we fall or how seriously we may deviate from our inner ideals, we shall find that ultimately we will be doing not the will of the erring human self, but truly God's will, because it will be the will of our own inner divinity. God's will is not the same for you, or for me, or for anyone else; it is the divinity within each one of us, our own portion of God's essence, our own individual Father, which alone can make clear to us the will that we individually must follow.

You ask how best to get into line with our divine will? Not my will, but the will of the Father, be done -- insofar as we are able to attune our prayers and our aspirations unto the Father and abide by his injunctions, we shall receive guidance in abundance. But, I repeat, no one can predefine for another what the will of the Father is. Each individual has the responsibility to determine that for himself. Nor are his commands spelled out in so many words that we can hear. But they are there.

Thus you can see that man is his own monitor and guide, and he need have no fear because, though fashioned of the dust of the earth, he has the breath of the Elohim flowing through him, and as a "living soul" he can indeed "judge the angels."

Investment in Strength

The struggle of mankind to move from the darkness into the light has engaged the attention of generations of serious-minded citizens in every quarter of the globe. Century after century there have been individuals who have dared to storm the "gates of heaven," and infuse courage and a larger vision into the thinking of mankind. Side by side with these few, however, has been the dead weight of those who refuse to meet even halfway the responsibility of humanhood. Today the critical nature of decision is a universal challenge -- no longer the privilege of the few, but the charge of all. But how to meet that challenge intelligently and wisely?

It is one thing to glimpse a vision of a more enlightened approach, quite another to implement it. The age-old virtues of charity, discrimination, courage and understanding take years, maybe millennia, to become a solid investment in character. Everywhere men are asking themselves: if the battle of light against darkness continues endlessly, what of the use of force in our human relationships? If we see nature using force in her kingdoms, how can we expect man not to use force to bring about his will?

In the process of growth, naturally there is struggle and a conflict of wills. But we can question whether nature ever forces her growth. There is a world of difference between the compulsion of force and the beneficent use of strength. In physical matters force undoubtedly works, for it takes only a few bulldozers and earth-movers to "remove a mountain." But in the higher levels of thinking and action, what do we invariably run into when force is applied? Opposition and more opposition, with force pitted against force, and no solution in view. Yes, in every human relationship we do indeed find force, plenty of it: the force of the human will trying to compel change, trying to bulldoze its way through mountains of opposition. But if there are mountains other than those of rock and earth, do they not require implements of the spirit rather than of matter?

The workings of nature are quiet, yet strong; and while man can take a flower in a hothouse and by the application of forced heat hasten its maturity, in doing so he speeds its death. We all remember the passage in Matthew where Jesus reminds his listeners that "from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." Should we infer that Jesus meant that we must literally take the kingdom of spiritual things by force? Looking into the original we find that this injunction can with equal accuracy be translated in this way: "The kingdom of the heavens is overpowered, and the strong (of mind) seize it." The verb "overpower," coming from the root bia, in ancient Greek usage signified not only "bodily strength or power," but also "strength of mind." So why not interpret the Master's admonition as "the kingdom of spiritual things must be taken by strength, and those of strong mind seize it."

The crisis of today is not new -- it has been met countless times in ages past, but not in recorded history has there been so overwhelming a concern that our actions be enlightened. With every resource at our command, spiritual, mental and physical, it would seem that victory would be simple. Yet there remains ever the natural timidity of human nature to cast off the old and seize with strength the kingdom of the new. There still are Nicodemuses who stand aloof, by their own choice, outside the circle of active responsibility; and the rich young rulers who, feeling the pull of truth, yet prefer their bonds, the "riches" of their vested thought-vehicles, and thus deny themselves the privilege of joining the vanguard.

The hope of the world does not lie in doctrinal religion, in philosophic speculation, nor in scientific experiment. It lies where it has always been: in the courage and the vision of each succeeding generation to move with the tide of progress as it advances from one cycle to the next. We must look ever to the young in heart -- not always the young in years, but the young in resilience of spirit -- to chart new pathways of achievement so that the generations to follow may continue the upward progress of the race. 

The youth of today are proving that there is a deep fund of unselfishness in their natures, coupled with a desire to do something creative with their lives. Some of them, it is true, are encountering serious difficulty in making the adjustment to maturity, but these arc an insignificant percentage compared to the pulsing life-wave of stronghearted, determined and highly intelligent young folk who are zealous in their endeavor to prepare themselves to meet the challenge of this century. Searching questions they ask, not the least of them centering on matters of birth and death, and their interrelationships as human units in the greater evolutionary plan. There is a self-reliance of spirit and of mind that no longer will accept the tired literalisms of religious dogma. The legacy of the "kingdom of heaven" is theirs -- not for liquidation through force, but held in trust for the "strong of mind" -- a legacy of freedom of thought, of action and, most important, a legacy of freedom in spiritual aspiration.

The Royal Road of Service

Question -- Since we discussed the Paramitas, I have been delving further into Buddhist thought. Most of it I like very much, but I don't understand all this talk about Nirvana. It seems that the whole purport of Buddhist teaching is to get away from what they call the "Wheel of Life," the succession of lives on earth, in order to attain the bliss of Nirvana. When I first heard of reincarnation, I thought it was a wonderful idea, and I still do, because it answers so many of my problems. So why should we want to escape the wheel of rebirth? Why this emphasis on bliss?

Comment -- I quite agree with you that too much emphasis is placed on the idea of attaining Nirvana, or whatever term you want to use. Let us not forget when we look into some of these Eastern scriptures that there is as much crystallized thinking in the Orient as there is in the Occident. What the Buddha taught is one thing, but what his followers through the centuries have formalized as his teachings is often quite something else. In many respects the teachings of Buddhism are highly spiritual; nevertheless a number of gross misinterpretations have become commonly accepted as truth, both in the Hinayana and Mahayana Schools.

Question -- Don't they say that if you live a good life on earth, you will reincarnate in a higher animal, and perhaps a human; but if you have lived an evil life, then you will return as a jackal or a snake or leopard?

Comment -- That's a perfect example of what I am trying to bring out. Gautama Buddha -- one of the loftiest spiritual lights the world has ever seen -- did not teach that the human soul would reincarnate in an animal form; for that would be directly contrary to the facts of nature. But because the ancients often used figures of speech or allegorical language to depict certain truths, later generations took the form of the teachings literally, and so misinterpretations became firmly fixed in the minds of the populace.

What the Buddha did teach was that a man must guard with care his every thought and feeling, because these would leave their mark not only upon his character, but upon every life-atom of his constitution. And as "like attracts like," those life-atoms of gross quality after death might easily be attracted, temporarily at least, to the bodies of animals. So too, when the Upanishads, and Plato also on occasion, said that a man may be reborn as an animal, they really meant that if the soul is stamped with certain animal propensities these, if not handled, would tend to hold it down in succeeding lives.

One thing is sure: the human soul is intrinsically so much further evolved than the animal, both in quality and experience, that it could not incarnate in a lower form. The ancient idea, once universally understood, is that as human beings we return to earth periodically after a term of rehabilitation and spiritual refreshment in order to continue our quest for self-conscious union with our divine source.

Question -- Why the hurry to get rid of the Wheel of Existence? What is the point of trying to attain Nirvana now?

Comment -- There is not only no point in such endeavor, but it is absolutely a mistaken concept. This overemphasis on attaining Nirvana has been for centuries one of the greatest drawbacks in Oriental thinking. And now in the West, for those who are coming in contact with Buddhist and Vedantist thought, it is likewise becoming a stumbling block in the path of progress. We hear much these days about "Self-Realization," the Western term for the Vedantist concept of Moksha or "release" from the bondage of earthly care. The very name Self-Realization gives the clue: a path of endeavor motivated by desire for personal salvation. Whether we call it Nirvana, Bliss or Moksha, the inordinate desire to attain bliss points to a self-centered spirituality as contrasted with that sublime path taught by the Buddha and the Christ -- to live wholly in the service of all.

Question -- Are there then two paths in spiritual things? I had always thought just the material way of life was contrasted with the spiritual. But now you seem to have divided this spiritual path into two.

Comment -- There are indeed two paths in spiritual endeavor. The one is called the "path for oneself," and the other, the "deathless path" or the "path of compassion." The "path for oneself" is that followed by all who seek salvation for themselves -- whose most ardent devotees usually yearn to enter some type of life whereby they may leave the turmoil and distraction of earthly existence and attain Nirvana quickly. The other is the ancient path of compassion, steep and thorny, which is trod by those who would follow in the footsteps of the Christ and the Buddha: the path of altruistic endeavor which seeks wisdom solely that truth and light might be shared with all.

The path of matter tends downward; though we are involved in its atmosphere, there are very few indeed who follow the pull downward to the exclusion of all else. The path of spirit is up and forward always, toward the divinity within. The choice between matter and spirit therefore is clear, regardless of how often we fail to realize our aspirations for the permanent values. However, in spiritual things there will likewise come a forking of the way: either to follow the path for ourselves, or for others.

This concept is well known in the Orient, particularly in those countries where Buddhism has been firmly established for centuries; and that is the reason the populace, by tradition, hold the Bodhisattvas in far greater reverence than they do the Buddhas. To them, the Bodhisattva is one who has reached the point where he could step across the chasm of darkness into Nirvana, Omniscience, Peace or Wisdom, however you care to describe it, but he refuses so that he might stay behind until the last of his brothers can cross over with him. A Buddha, however, is one who, having reached the portal, sees the light ahead and enters Nirvana, achieving his well-earned bliss.

Question -- When my husband and I were in Japan recently, we took a little time out to visit some of the temples. We saw Bodhisattvas carved in all sizes, some of them very artistic. Would you care to say anything about this?

Comment -- Not only in Japan, but in China and those parts of India where Buddhism has taken root, you will find numerous carvings of Bodhisattvas. The ideal of compassion is perpetuated in a few of these statues by the right hand of Bodhisattva reaching toward the wisdom and light and beauty of Nirvana; while the left hand leans downward toward mankind, in a compassionate gesture of benevolence.

Question -- I would like to go back to this word bliss. I confess it is a little disturbing to me. When we think of bliss, I guess we all have a different concept. For a child, it would probably be having all the ice cream he could eat forever and ever; for someone else it might be reaching, after much struggle, the top of a mountain. Perhaps I'm too much of this earth, but it has always seemed cowardly to want to escape to some quiet forest and become a hermit. What is so grand in the attainment of bliss after all, even if you decide later on to renounce it for the world?

Comment -- There's nothing grand per se in the achievement of Nirvanic bliss. The terms in the original Sanskrit point to the basic distinction: the one is the Pratyeka path, or the path of spiritual aspiration "for oneself" -- a purely selfish type of spirituality; the other is the Amrita path, or the path that proves "deathless" because it is the path of sacrifice, of compassion, of service.

Let me try to put the matter very simply. Suppose you had an intuition which led you to make some scientific discovery, and which you believed could greatly affect the world for good. You could do one of two things: you could keep it all to yourself so that when you completed it you could put it on the market and make a lot of money. Or you could turn it over to the top scientists that it might be worked on and perfected perhaps even by others, and then made available for the use of mankind. Now you would have every right to keep that invention or discovery to yourself, to patent it and make as much profit on it as you could. You could argue that in the end the world would benefit because you had made the product available. In so doing you would experience a certain personal 'bliss' or satisfaction in having achieved your aims. On the other hand, if you gave freely of your discovery that it might be put into the cauldron of scientific testing, would you not be doing the world a far greater service? What then would you experience in the way of inner returns?

Question -- If you turn your back on bliss, you actually double your bliss, is that it?

Comment -- Only if the motive is as selfless as the deed. That is where the joker in the pack always hides. The by-products of joy in selflessly having contributed the fruits of your intuition for the good of all will far transcend any personal satisfaction you might otherwise have; and in a measure you would touch the fringes of bliss, to use the somewhat hackneyed term. But the moment any one of us does a "deed of mercy" in order to have the proud feeling of being a benefactor, that very moment does the so-called beneficent act turn to ashes.

Question -- I'd like to ask a question here. Some time ago when we discussed the practice of the Paramitas, you said that it is all a matter of relativity; that as we gained a higher set of values we would not be content with our former ones. Would the state of bliss or contentment be relative also? What I mean is, there might be a physical or even a mental bliss. But isn't spiritual bliss something quite apart? Do we as human beings ever attain the state that is comparable to the bliss of Nirvana?

Comment -- There are as many Nirvanas as there are individuals to experience it; just as there are as many states of consciousness right on this earth as there are people living. Those who strive for Nirvana, for wisdom and light and peace, for themselves alone -- remember the term Pratyeka means just that, "for oneself" -- think they will attain perfect bliss. But the Buddhas of Compassion and true Bodhisattvas know that they could not possibly attain the full condition of omniscience. Everything is relative. Spiritual omniscience or Nirvanic bliss is an experience so far beyond our power to conceive that it is impossible to describe. Just because we cannot comprehend what this state of omniscient wisdom is, let us never forget that the power to achieve oneness with the Divine lies in the heart of every one.

There are many grades above our present state of humanhood, and there are advanced men who have attained to union with the Father, whether momentarily or for a longer period. They experience a touch of Nirvanic bliss; yet, moved by the compassionate urge to serve mankind, they allow their consciousness to return to the field of human endeavor that they might work among and with humanity.

Question -- It is a wonderful picture. I must say there are times when all the distractions and turmoil really impinge too heavily, and we have to get away for a while, climb a mountain, rest by the seaside, or travel a bit, anything to recharge the old batteries. But I've found that after a few weeks I long to get back into the thick of things. Once my nerves get relaxed, up comes that urge to get back in harness. I can't say it's because I've wanted to follow a path of compassion; it's simply that somehow the struggle in life seems more interesting than just lolling around. What would I be headed for -- the path that is selfish, or the other one?

Comment -- Far be it from me to decide who is on the Pratyeka or selfish path, and who is striving to follow the compassionate path. No one can judge another. Remember it is the motive, the real inner motive that is often concealed, and not the outer, that colors one's field of action. Day by day we are making innumerable little choices that will in time, one way or the other, tip the scales of that supreme choice.

We are all human, and if we want to get back into the struggle of existence just to outsmart the other fellow, to get ahead as fast as we can in order to obtain power and influence, then we are heading downward; if we don't check ourselves, but continue in this direction life after life, we will be following the path of matter which leads ultimately to spiritual death. But if after our vacations we return to our jobs because of an inherent desire to do our part in the grand over-all scheme of existence, participating in the joys and sorrows of life as part of our share in lifting the world's burden, then our motive is of selfless origin. Gradually it will become more and more refined, and the ideal of the path of compassion will take firm root in our hearts.

Question -- But how do we become spiritual?

Comment -- We shouldn't try to become spiritual or holy or advanced, for that very overemphasis of interest in one's own development is the greatest bar to progress. Spiritual attainment is never the result of trying to become spiritual, strange as that may sound. Yet we are enjoined again and again to "raise the lower by the higher self," to transmute the base metal of selfish desire into the gold of selfless endeavor. All of which means that we should ever and always aspire toward the ideal of altruism, of selflessness, and all the other Virtues we have discussed, but not concentrate on our own evolution. Even if we knew the doctrines of Buddhism, Christianity or Platonic thought from A to Z, this in itself would not make us spiritual.

Question -- Well, these Pratyekas that you speak of -- aren't they spiritual beings? If not, how else could they become Buddhas? I don't understand this combination of selfishness and spirituality. Can there really be selfishness in spiritual achievement, because wouldn't you have to serve as you grew?

Comment -- Let us not get the erroneous impression that a Pratyeka, one who works for spiritual things for himself, is evil. He isn't. He is a highly developed spiritual individual; nor is it correct to say that he would never do anything for his fellowmen. They all do -- there is no question of that, for the simple reason they can't help themselves. Again we return to motive. I can go out tomorrow and be a so-called "angel of mercy" and perform all manner of good works or if I have plenty of money I can give to charity, to this or that benevolent cause. But what effect will such "acts of mercy" have on my character, on my karma, or on my real Self?

It is not what we do that will decide; but how we think and act. In the final judgment one thing only will count: motive. If I get a certain satisfaction out of being a benefactor, I will undoubtedly do a lot of good, make many people's lives better, relieve much distress. Still, if I am doing these "good works" that I may be the doer of good deeds, that I may reach my goal of spirituality more quickly -- is there not more than a touch of selfishness in my motive? On the other hand, if in the smallest acts of daily life I try never to intrude my personal will into the equation of human relationships, but strive always that the channel of service be open solely for the benefit of others, then surely the motive will be selfless. And the results -- infinitely more enduring because they will be felt, not in the personal natures of those helped, but in the higher portions of their souls where the benefits will continue through life after life.

Thus you have the two lines of spiritual endeavor: the one, for the purpose of getting bliss for oneself -- the seemingly quicker pathway because the sorrows and trials of others do not delay one; and the other, for the purpose of making lighter the sorrow of man.

The Pratyeka path in the end becomes the slower path, for once the aspirant reaches the point where he is sufficiently enlightened to have stepped into Nirvana, he says good-bye to further spiritual growth, remaining static until the next great cycle -- which may be a very long period. Ultimately each one of us will have to make the supreme choice, whether to step across the threshold, or to glimpse the glory of utter wisdom and peace yet return to the vale of tears to help mankind. That is the choice of the Great Ones of the race. Theirs is a thankless task. They seek no reward, no credit, nothing but the opportunity to share of their own hard-won wisdom.

That is why the pure tradition is born of and passed on by the line of Compassionate Ones, who take no thought for their own advancement because they have at heart the interest of their fellowmen.

To offer all action on the altar of one's own progress is Pratyeka -- selfish in the final testing; to offer all thought, action and feeling on the altar of humanity's progress -- that is Compassion in its highest expression.

Again Again concluded to  :

“SERVICE TO SUFFERING HUMANITY IS SERVICE TO GOD”

 Compiled by T.S. Prem Kumar, Madurai, India.