THE term “Universal
Brotherhood " is obviously
an extension to the whole human family of the idea in the
word “brother", a child of the same parents as
is oneself. It suggests at once the thought of equal rights,
common interests, mutual affection, and responsive care.
Moreover, it incites an exhilarating conception of what might
be the state of things throughout the earth if family tenderness
were the law of all life, if race and tribal animosities
were ended, and if everyone felt a wrong perpetrated on a
foreigner as keenly as if perpetrated on a relation. This
is the true view of human solidarity, and a vivid apprehension
of it would abolish national wars, social outrages, and personal
injustice. Its unlimited influence in securing peace and
good-will was seen by the founders of the Theosophical Society,
and they proclaimed it as the very first of their and its
aims, not as a gracious sentiment, not as a pleasing phrase,
but as a principle of action, a means of social regeneration.
If we did not believe in it, there would be no Aryan society,
there would be no meeting tonight.
And yet the very fact that it is a principle and not a sentiment
warrants some examination into its nature. If a principle,
it must have a root, must sustain analogy to other principles,
must be capable of practical uses, and also must be subject
to limitations and just restrictions. As the term “Universal
Brotherhood " is derivative, we may properly look for
these in the primary, and thus infer facts as to the universal
human family from facts in the domestic families which epitomize
it.
Now, when we come to search for that which constitutes
the cohesive influence in a family, we shall find it, I think,
to be none other than that which constitutes cohesive influence
anywhere else — affinity. It cannot be the mere fact
of relationship. That is altogether casual. We do not select
our relations, any more than we select our temperament. Nor
can it be the closeness of association. That is quite as
likely to arouse hostility as friendship; and, indeed, the
peculiar bitterness of family quarrels is proverbial. Nor
can it be the consciousness of common parentage, for the
parents may be distasteful and anything but a source of harmony.
Nor can it be the likeness of disposition, for the dissimilarity
of traits in children is notorious. Nor is it any necessary
oneness of interest, for [Page 4] interests
in a household are very apt to be conflicting and to excite
animosity. Nor need it be an instinct of union against aggressors,
for that would only operate in barbarous communities or those
under feudal laws.
But if it is no one of these things, what is it ? Here, again,
we must peer into actual families and so learn. Our own observation
will show us that, where the family tie is very strong, it
is where the members have the same tastes, ideas, pursuits,
aims. Where the family tie is loose, it is where the members
have variant convictions, differ in likes and habits, hold
to separate standards of faith or duty. Where certain members
are in one group and certain others in a second, it is seen
that in each case some common sympathy — in opinion,
taste, what not — cements the units. And where, as
is not infrequently the case, some one member is unlike the
rest, and finds his associates wholly without the domestic
circle, it is because the family character is not his, and
his social wants must be met elsewhere. There is no mystery
in any of this; it is all an illustration of the workings
of affinity. And affinity, as every Occult student insists,
is like every other force, far stronger in the immaterial
regions of mind and soul than on the material plane of flesh
and blood. In other words, the attraction between two sympathetic
souls is incomparably more powerful than that between two
bodies which happen to have had the same parents.
But what,
still further, is the ground-work for this affinity ? Analyzing
affinities, we find that all such as are purely selfish or
distinctly bad in quality can be but transient. That rogues
will sooner or later fall out is a maxim, but it is no less
true that associations for self-interest are fragile just
in the degree that each party feels his own interest to be
supreme.
Conversely, the enduring ties are those between men of finer
mould, where principle has recognition and force, where high
sentiments of justice and generosity rule, where, in short,
egoism is subordinated to altruism. The unity subsisting
between the sympathetic members of a household must have
its root in such qualities, or it will not last long. The
only security for the continuance of affinities is, therefore,
in the goodness of each party.
If these are the facts in
a domestic circle, they must be the facts in the universal
human family, the "Brotherhood“ of which Theosophy
speaks. Affinity determines the coherence of its particles.
We do not expect the sage to consort with the fool, the intelligent
to delight in the stupid, the broad minded to sympathize
with the petty, the refined with the rough, the generous
with the mean, the tactful with the blundering, the cheery
with the gruntling Mrs. Gummidges, the high principled with
the low principled. Like naturally, and very properly,
seeks like.
The mere fact that two men each possess a human nature is
not of itself a very strong bond, for they may not agree
as to what constitutes human nature, or as to its really
valuable qualities, or as to the aim of existence or how
it is to be pursued. The affinity, and therefore the attraction,
begins where a similar opinion, taste, desire, faculty manifests
itself, when, as we say, they have [Page
5] “something
in common". There must be somewhat of interest in a
person, or he will not be interesting.
So also, in the human
brother as in the family brother, the duration of the attraction
depends upon the goodness of it. There is every variety of
cohesion, from the slight and ephemeral relations on the
lowest planes of life to the lofty intimacies of noble souls,
such as are immortalized by history in the case of Damon
and Pythias, and by sacred writings in the case of Jesus
and St. John — may I not add the case of those two
exalted beings whom Theosophists revere
as the unseen prompters of their own Society, but whose names
they do not lightly voice?
Let it be understood most unflinchingly that Theosophy demands
from each man to all men equal rights, constant courtesy,
respect for feelings, kindly consideration, unstinting justice,
ready help, unselfish effort. One unerring test of the Theosophic
spirit is its persistency in according all these things.
It is always the case, however, that the sentiment has to
be bridled by reason, and the history of all philanthropic
efforts shows that they are futile, if not injurious, where
they defy considerations of equal reality, or ignore laws
which are just as demonstrable as sympathies. Theosophy would
be unique in human experience if it ran no such risks, or
if it were always presented with the cool and balanced judgment
of well-trained thinkers. Those of you who are au courant with Theosophical writings know how constantly the faculty
of discrimination must be kept in use, and with what care
one has to guard against faulty argument, or extreme positions,
or one-sided statements. The doctrine of Universal Brotherhood
is particularly an illustration, for it is a noble thought
in itself, it inspires rich pictures of future possibilities,
and it holds just the sentiment which to a half-thinker appears
unlimited in its scope. Hence, we encounter representations
of it sometimes effusive, sometimes dogmatic, sometimes extravagant,
very rarely such as are judicious and impartial.
Now, in
a general way, it may be said that no theory can be correct
which of necessity contravenes any laws or facts clearly
demonstrated. While the doctrine of Universal Brotherhood
may be true, any particular exposition of its use is but
a theory, and, as such, is subject to this criterion. We
know for instance that justice, truth, the welfare of society,
the operation of certain habits in social life, the superiority
of principle to impulse, are facts, and that it is a law
that they cannot be disregarded without harm. Any plan purporting
to disregard them and yet avoid the harm traverses this law,
and so, whatever plausibility it may wear is really fallacious.
A true theory of Universal Brotherhood, one which takes in
these and cognates facts and laws, has nothing to fear when
confronted with them. But it is in that confronting, that
the error of a mistaken theory is brought to view, and, as “there
is no religion higher than truth," we Theosophists should
rejoice in any process which discloses illusion or confirms
reality. [Page 6]
Let us take an illustration. We not infrequently meet the
assertion that, because all men are brothers, tenderness
is the only fitting treatment for them. This assumes seven
things; ( 1) that all kinds of conduct are entitled to one
kind of return; (2) that the same result is produced on unlike
characters by a like treatment; (3) that the cultivation
of a sense of justice is to be reserved for public officials,
and has no place in private development; (4) that no collateral
evils result from unmerited sympathy; (5) that we are wiser
than Nature as she shows herself in her constant operations;
( 6) that a one-sided culture is better than such as is symmetrical;
( 7) that a common nature in the lower human principles is
more important than a common interest in the higher.
Not
one of these things is true. It is not the fact that the
moral sense views all acts as of equal moral quality, and
hence it cannot be the fact that it accords to them a like
reward. It is not the fact that diverse natures respond in
the same way to the same treatment, as every schoolhouse
and every family can testify. It is not the fact that only
judges are to cultivate and exhibit a sense of justice, for
that sense — which is, indeed, the most abstract of
all, the most difficult to attain, and the one indicative
of the finest training — is precisely the one most
effective in restraining aggression, and especially to be
evolved in the interior development of every intelligent
disciple.
It is not the fact that indiscriminate tenderness draws no
evils in its train, as may be shown by the statistics of
either pauperism or criminality. It is not the fact that
the sentimentalist
effects more good than natural law, the whole doctrine of
Karma being indirectly to the contrary. It is not the fact
that we become more god-like if we educate our sympathies
at the expense of our reason, and grow more rounded as we
grow more flabby. It is not a fact that we are more truly
at one with others because of having a fleshly body than
because of a united spirit of life and truth.
Nor, indeed,
is this theory borne out by the state of things in family
brotherhoods. There are good brothers and bad brothers. No
one claims that they
are to be regarded and treated alike. Much forbearance may
naturally be exercised from good-will, but there of ten comes
an occasion when the claims of justice, the rights of others,
and the well-being of a whole household require that a member
shall be exiled and tabooed. Could anything be more monstrous
than the claim that a brother, because a brother, was at
liberty to ill-treat with impunity the rest of the family
? If your brother steals your property, can he ask you to
save him from jail because your brother? You would probably
reply that, that was a reason why he should refrain from
robbing you, not a reason why he should be allowed to rob
you and escape punishment. One can not claim the privileges
of a relationship while repudiating its obligations, and
it would be strange indeed if, the closer the connection,
the more one was at liberty to poison and outrage it.
Similarly
as to the Universal Brotherhood.
There are times when severity is [Page
7] a necessity.
The great eternal law of Right is more cogent than any sentimental
sympathy; the stern arm of Justice cannot be paralyzed by
whimperings or regrets; the far-reaching needs of the whole
family are more worthy of regard than the momentary compact
of a scamp. We have no right to sacrifice the well- behaved
to the ill-behaved, to juggle with the moral sense, to reverse
the moral standard and treat evil as if good. If Theosophy
so taught us, it would be anything but a boon. I do not believe
that it does. I do not believe that it teaches any doctrines
enfeebling to the moral nerves or disastrous to the social
life, and if it did, it would be contradicted by its own
grand and fundamental principle — Karma, the vindication
of justice.
And so it is that tenderness is not always a
duty. There are occasions when in speech, in act, in co-operative
function, we are to resist and rebuke our brothers who are
unbrotherly. A man does not lose his claim to proper treatment
by becoming a Theosophist, and if he does not lose the claim,
he does not lose the right to enforce the claim. Nor, in
becoming a Theosophist, does he engage to close his eyes
to truth of any kind or in any quarter, or to stupefy any
department of his moral system, or to encourage one-sidedness
and disproportion. Theosophy, I take it, honours Aristides
quite as truly as St. John.
“But", you will say, “what
scope does this leave for the operation of the fraternal
sentiment ? " I reply, much every way, more than any
of us will be likely to fulfil.
Truth is many-sided. There is room for kindly allowance,
for generous interpretation, for patience, and interest,
and good-will. There is ample range for the philanthropic
sentiment, for the fostering of all rich and noble charities,
for the sunny beneficence which loves to shed happiness around.
It by no means follows that because evil-doers have to be
checked, nobody is to be cheered. If the bad forfeit your
consideration, there are plenty remaining who do not. There
is not the slightest danger that a benevolent spirit, however
coupled with a discriminating mind, will find itself at loss
for objects. If every other outlet failed, there would still
be the work of the Theosophical Society, which certainly
in its animus and its zeal to disseminate the most ennobling
of motives cannot be surpassed in fraternal feeling. Each
of us can participate in that, and so exemplify and expand
the Brother principle.
Yet, as in families, so in the broad
human fraternity, the instinct of affinity
will work. The Theosophist does not pretend that his greatest
interest is in things upon the surrounding plane. It is rather
his doctrine that higher planes are equally open to aspiration
and vastly richer in satisfaction. His fuller sympathies
most naturally go out to those who are like-minded. As a
man of letters does not find much congeniality in the ignorant
or the addle-brained, so neither does an etherialized nature
in such as are dull to the immaterial. In the upper regions
of thought and intuition there must be livelier motions of
concurrent
feeling, larger ranges for common effort, more inspiring
topics for mind and heart. As the developing spirit ascends
to higher plateaux, it meets fewer [Page
8] comrades,
but it finds them more congenial.
If the swarming mass of humanity remains below, it is not
his fault, but theirs. He does not discard the relationship,
but he detects the finer qualities of it on his own level.
And should any man complain that he does not secure from
the Theosophist that unlimited sympathy
which the term “Universal Brotherhood" might
seem to imply, the Theosophist might say to him, as the Adept
says to the Theosophist, “Don't ask us to descend;
come up here yourself".
ΔΔ
Go
to Top of this page
Back to our On Line Documents
Back to our Main Page
A free sample copy of our bilingual magazine can be sent
to you. This offer is only good for a mailing to a Canadian
address. You have to supply a mailing address.
The Canadian
membership of $25.00 includes the receipt of four seasonal
issues of our magazine "The
Light Bearer" . If you are a resident of Canada send
a note to enquirers@theosophical.ca requesting
a packet of information and your free copy of our magazine
For membership outside of Canada send a message to the International Secretary in Adyar, India theossoc@satyam.net.in
For a problem viewing one of our documents
- or to report an error in a document - send a note to the
webmaster at webmaster@theosophical.ca
We will try to answer any other query -if you
would send a note to info@theosophical.ca
This document is a
publication of the
Canadian Theosophical Association (a regional association
of the Theosophical Society in Adyar)
89 Promenade Riverside,
St-Lambert, QC J4R 1A3
Canada
To reach the President - Pierre Laflamme dial 450-672-8577
or Toll Free - from all of Canada 866-277-0074
or you can telephone the national secretary at 905-455-7325
website: http://www.theosophical.ca