7rcTIX1xP

Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism380
the highest religious authorities of the race. Each race regards the precepts
of its religious books, as interpreted by its priests, as supreme authority, and,
of course, view the similar claims of other races as spurious. The majority of
these religions have split up into sects and denominations, each having its
favored interpretation of the sacred teachings, but all rely on the original
revelation as the only truth concerning ethics. And then, again, each race has
modified its original conception of the revealed teachings, fitting their ideas
to the constantly changing requirements of the age. As a race evolves its
wants and needs change, and its sacred teachings are twisted and bent to fit
the changed conditions. The priests, in such cases, say that God undoubtedly
meant “this and that,” instead of “thus and so” as their fathers had supposed.
So that after a time the authority of the code of ethics rests largely upon the
interpretation of priests and teachers, rather than upon the words of the
supposed Divine revelation itself. The followers of the other two schools of
ethics object that if Deity had intended to promulgate a code of ethics—a
rule of conduct—applicable to all men in all time, He would have worded
it so clearly that it could not be misunderstood even by the most ignorant,
and His wisdom would have enabled Him to have foreseen the growing
needs of the people, and, consequently, He would have provided for such
needs, either in the original revelation itself, or in “supplements” thereto.
We will consider the advantages and disadvantages of this theory later on
in this lesson.
The second system of ethics advances the theory that Man knows right and
wrong intuitively—that Deity imparts to each man, through his conscience,
an instinctive knowledge of good and evil, that he may govern himself
accordingly. This school urges that men must refer the details of his conduct
to his own conscience. It overlooks the fact that the consciences of no two
people are exactly alike, and that such a theory implies that there may be
as many different standards of morality and conduct as there are people,
and that the statement “My conscience approves of it” would preclude any
argument as to ethics. As to what conscience is, the writers differ. Some say