The Necessity of Religion

[Guest guest]

Ethics always says, " Not I, but thou. " Its motto is, " Not self, but

non-self. " The vain ideas of individualism, to which man clings when

he is trying to find that Infinite Power or that Infinite Pleasure

through the senses, have to be given up--say the laws of ethics. You

have to put yourself last, and others before you. The senses

say, " Myself first. " Ethics says, " I must hold myself last. " Thus,

all codes of ethics are based upon this renunciation; destruction,

not construction, of the individual on the material plane. That

Infinite will never find expression upon the material plane, nor is

it possible or thinkable.

 

So, man has to give up the plane of matter and rise to other spheres

to seek a deeper expression of that Infinite. In this way the various

ethical laws are being moulded, but all have that one central idea,

eternal self-abnegation. Perfect self-annihilation is the ideal of

ethics. People are startled if they are asked not to think of their

individualities. They seem so very much afraid of losing what they

call their individuality. At the same time, the same men would

declare the highest ideals of ethics to be right, never for a moment

thinking that the scope, the goal, the idea of all ethics is the

destruction, and not the building up, of the individual.

 

Utilitarian standards cannot explain the ethical relations of men,

for, in the first place, we cannot derive any ethical laws from

considerations of utility. Without the supernatural sanction as it is

called, or the perception of the superconscious as I prefer to term

it, there can be no ethics. Without the struggle towards the Infinite

there can be no ideal. Any system that wants to bind men down to the

limits of their own societies is not able to find an explanation for

the ethical laws of mankind. The Utilitarian wants us to give up the

struggle after the Infinite, the reaching-out for the Super-sensuous,

as impracticable and absurd, and, in the same breath, asks us to take

up ethics and do good to society. Why should we do good? Doing good

is a secondary consideration. We must have an idea. Ethics itself is

not the end, but the means to the end. If the end is not there, why

should we be ethical? Why should I do good to other men, and not

injure them? If happiness is the goal of mankind, why should I not

make myself happy and others unhappy? What prevents me? In the second

place, the basis of utility is too narrow. All the current social

forms and methods are derived from society as it exists, but what

right has the Utilitarian to assume that society is eternal? Society

did not exist ages ago, possibly will not exist ages hence. Most

probably it is one of the passing stages through which we are going

towards a higher evolution, and any law that is derived from society

alone cannot be eternal, cannot cover the whole ground of man's

nature. At best, therefore, Utilitarian theories can only work under

present social conditions. Beyond that they have no value. But a

morality, an ethical code, derived from religion and spirituality,

has the whole of infinite man for its scope. It takes up the

individual, but its relations are to the Infinite, and it takes up

society also--because society is nothing but numbers of these

individuals grouped together; and as it applies to the individual and

his eternal relations, it must necessarily apply to the whole of

society, in whatever condition it may be at any given time. Thus we

see that there is always the necessity of spiritual religion for

mankind. Man cannot always think of matter, however pleasurable it

may be.

 

.... to be continued