vol. xxx, no. 4 april 1926 universal brotherhood - a fact in nature
vol. xxx, no. 4 april 1926 universal brotherhood - a fact in nature
vol. xxx, no. 4 april 1926 universal brotherhood - a fact in nature
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
THE THEOSOPHICAL PATH<br />
to enlighten the unenlightened; let us expla<strong>in</strong> as far as we can, and<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>e what are the foundations for such a statement. Perhaps a<br />
thankless task! but then, if we are true to our highest ideals, it will be<br />
Truth we are seek<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>no</strong>t thanks.<br />
If it were a child ask<strong>in</strong>g for explanation -but <strong>no</strong>! a child has<br />
<strong>in</strong>tuition; but a grown man, who has some k<strong>no</strong>wledge, or at least the<br />
appearance of it <strong>in</strong> regard to the mean<strong>in</strong>g of words, and has had some<br />
experience of life - that is a different matter. Surely there are <strong>no</strong>ne so<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d as those who will <strong>no</strong>t see.<br />
Universal Brotherhood, the Brotherhood of all men, of all mank<strong>in</strong>d;<br />
the whole of Humanity of one kith and k<strong>in</strong>; - as an idea, surely<br />
it is <strong>no</strong>t untenable, and it is ages old. Even from the standpo<strong>in</strong>t of<br />
orthodox Christianity, we are all descendants of one first pair, Adam<br />
and Eve, if we accept the Biblical story literally. But then, of course,<br />
and here the quibble comes <strong>in</strong>, we are <strong>no</strong>t all brothers and sisters, but<br />
cous<strong>in</strong>s and uncles and aunts and nephews and nieces to the ~ ~ remove. t h<br />
So, of course, to speak of Universal Brotherhood as a <strong>fact</strong> is absurd. But<br />
what of that other teach<strong>in</strong>g of orthodox Christianity, so glibly professed,<br />
so lightly ig<strong>no</strong>red, that "we are all children of One, our Father "?<br />
Is there, then, <strong>no</strong> Universal Brotherhood as a <strong>fact</strong>, a supreme <strong>fact</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> Nature? Or is it a mere sentiment, or a theological dogma?<br />
For those who do <strong>no</strong>t believe <strong>in</strong> Div<strong>in</strong>ity as the orig<strong>in</strong> and supreme<br />
goal of all, or do <strong>no</strong>t recognise the deeper implications of science, or fol-<br />
low to their logical conclusion the everyday experiences of life, both<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual and collective, the Brotherhood of all men may be a mere<br />
sentiment. So too for others is it merely a theological dogma, a religious<br />
belief, and consequently as such hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>no</strong> real mean<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>no</strong> power; so<br />
lightly do some men wear their religion as a cloak to help them to pass,<br />
<strong>in</strong> the eyes of the world, for someth<strong>in</strong>g which, <strong>in</strong> their heart and life,<br />
they are <strong>no</strong>t. There is little need to call to m<strong>in</strong>d the fable of the wolf<br />
<strong>in</strong> the sheep's sk<strong>in</strong>.<br />
But to meet the unbelievers -honest <strong>in</strong>deed, many of them,<br />
and as such &orthy of respect, compared with the hypocrites,- let us<br />
see if we can<strong>no</strong>t put the matter before them from a<strong>no</strong>ther standpo<strong>in</strong>t;<br />
for even they will hardly deny Nature, and the <strong>fact</strong>s and operations of<br />
Nature <strong>in</strong> her physical aspect at least. And the declaration is that Uni-<br />
versal Brotherhood is a <strong>fact</strong> <strong>in</strong> Nature.<br />
We must first of all, however, determ<strong>in</strong>e what we mean by Nature,<br />
for evidently on1,y by carefully def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g our terms can<br />
we expect to avoid misunderstand<strong>in</strong>g.