!!! This text was extracted from an image and needs proofreading !!!
(March 1890)
Publications:
- The Path, vol. IV, no. 12, March 1890, pp. 367-373
Read:
DATA
Title for references: Fullerton A - Theosophy in its Practical Application to Daily Life
Short description: A paper read before the Aryan T. S. of New York (January 7, 1890), arguing that Theosophy, in its co...
367 This topic is so vast that not a paper, but a volume, would be needed for full treatment. If Theosophy is anything more than a curious exposition of world-formation and racial advance, its value will appear right here,—in the elucidation of a principle or principles which will guide conduct, illuminate ethics, abate the evils of society, make possible true life in a man and in a community. Upon its practicality turns the question of its worth. If it asserts doctrines which are obviously destructive of justice, if it propounds rules of action repugnant to experience and the enlightened moral sense, it will not simply discredit itself with the thoughtful, it will ensure its own downfall. For practicality does not mean merely the power to put a theory into action; it means that the results shall justify the effort.
But there is still another test of the value of any code of ethics. The truth of theories of right living is to be judged by the possibility of their universal application. "What would be the consequence if this system was everywhere applied?" is the question with which such theory is immediately met. And very justly so. Men are substantially of the same make and subjected to the same conditions. There cannot be different codes for different classes. The moral law and the physical law surround all alike, as does the atmosphere, and if a principle is just, all must be entitled to its use. If, then, the inevitable outcome of any theory is to make social life intolerable, to put the well-disposed at the mercy of the ill-disposed, to bring about universal chaos, evidently the theory must be erroneous. And this must be just as true of a Theosophic theory as of any other, for it deals with the same problems, uses the same faculties, and works in the same sphere.
The single question which I wish to take up this evening is, "How does Theosophy regard the protection of individual rights?" So far is this from being an abstraction or a remote interest, that it is present every moment of every day, affects every act or word where fellow men are present, pervades the whole working of social and community life. It is not merely a question for business or family relations, but touches us at every point of contact with another person, stranger or friend, the casual occupant of an adjoining seat, the passer-by in a city street. There is never a moment when we are released from the claims of duty, for there is never a moment when we are released from membership in humanity.
Now before it is possible to handle this question with profit, there are to be laid down three basic and never-to-be-forgotten facts. The first is that rights are not conventional privileges, but inherent possessions. The notion, projected by a school of jurists, that rights are the creation of law and not the subject of law, has been demolished by Herbert Spencer. He 368demonstrates with his matchless logic the proposition that every human being has, as such, certain indefeasible franchises, that every other has the same, and that the function of law is to insure that each shall enjoy them without trespass upon or from another. And certainly no contrary doctrine can long be maintained. We concede it instantly as to opinions, perceiving at once that we have a right to our own thought, and that no Pope in the domain of intellect can be tolerated for a moment. Yet this is equally true in the matter of action, provided always that the action never impinges on the equal privilege belonging to another. I have the right, not merely the toleration, to entire freedom of thought and speech and act up to the point where my neighbor's would be invaded.
The second fact is that the protection of individual right is to be indissolubly joined with the equal protection of others' right. Without this it becomes selfishness,—that trait destructive of solidarity and detested by Theosophy. The moment a man begins to emphasize the preservation of his own claims, without as fully, continuously, and vigorously insisting on the preservation of those belonging to his fellows, he is guilty of one-sidedness and self-seeking, and justly becomes obnoxious to the sternest judgments of the Wisdom-Religion. Never are we to lose sight of the verity 369that, only as the vindication of rights is carried on with a view to the common benefit, can it be commendable, salutary, or successful.
The third fact is that a large part of the enforcement of individual rights is, by the very exigencies of social life, necessarily committed to the individual. Courts and policemen have to deal with grave assaults on property or health, but no courts and no police can be present at every contact of one citizen with another, or see that each action of each man shows respect to the immunities of his casual neighbor. These are functions which inevitably belong to the community and to every member of it, each having a part in the universal welfare, and consequently in the preservation of it. But if this duty, like many other duties, unavoidably attaches to a citizen because he is a citizen, because he is one of a corporate family and not a recluse in a desert, it would seem that he has no more right to vacate it than he would have to refuse to pay taxes or to insist on walking naked in the streets. For duties, once proven to be such, cannot be dismissed at will, or cancelled by reference to a system of dogma.
Taking our stand, then, on these three basic facts, we can survey the field and note some of its characteristics before actually taking in hand any cases for specific treatment. We see around us an intensely busy horde, each intent on the aim most dear to him, and more or less indifferent to the aims of those with whom he associates or perhaps competes. Long friction with others of like habit, coupled with a certain awe of civil tribunals and some hereditary compliance with the usages of civilized life, hinders him usually from any very gross violation of conventionalities. He will not club you because your appearance displeases him, or attempt to violently dispossess you of a theatre seat which you have bought but which he would like. You may walk the streets with reasonable security that you will not be beaten or robbed or insulted. The highest type of social amenity has undoubtedly not been reached. But if your vision of the field could be extended both backward and forward in time, you would note two general facts, 1st, that a steady melioration of manners goes on, the community becoming less brusque and more gracious in its deportment, 2nd, that the habits of individuals are modified just in proportion as they participate in the activities of life and are drawn from secluded ways into incessant touch with varied classes. Now these facts mean, not merely that Evolution through experience and growth is elevating the whole body to a higher plane, or even that richer forces are at work as time goes on, but that the more the attrition of the atoms in the body politic, the greater their polish. Friction rubs away the obtruding angles and smooths the jagged points, the whole movement easening as impediments to it lessen. And if you can conceive of any atom isolated from the rest, you perceive that its surface must remain unchanged from day to day.
370 Scanning the field with still another thought in mind, we note that there is a steady melting of distinctions and fusion of classes. The old ideas of prerogative and rank have crumbled; differences are not factitious or inherited, but are created by personal, untransferable marks. Even those are moderated in presence of the conception of a Universal Humanity, men being more and more valued because they are men, and their common rights being more instinctively felt. And so the eye passes over a vision less picturesque, less featured by chasms here and promontories there, but with a placidness of outline, a smoothness of motion, which illustrate the change from a barbaric or a feudal age.
Even this is not all. The thoughtful eye takes in the indications which show an enlarged respect for the principle of contract. What one buys with his own is conceded to be his own. It is not a question of age or strength or influence, but a slowly-grown recognition of property in small things, which is not to be wrested away because the desirer is older or stronger or more impressive. Children are seen to be possessed of rights, rights to places or articles or privileges for which they have paid, rights which in recent times would have been scornfully denied. Women are seen to be better than toys for men; their claim to what they own is not now the derision of law, but the aim of law. The President of the United States would not attempt to dislodge an errand-boy from a car seat for which he had paid fare.
And so in various particulars not possible of enumeration in this paper, the observing eye roams over the field of social life and notes the steady change which has long gone on,—all in the direction of greater respect for individual right and greater freedom from assault upon it. The point to which all these particulars converge, the point which you have doubtless marked throughout, is this,—that the gain spoken of has been secured, not by legislative enactment, not by urging from the press or pulpit, but by the influence of that ceaseless power which works when men rub together in a community, each atom circulating through the whole and ever impinging on its momentary neighbor. It is a gain born of the recognition of mutual needs, waked into vigor by a sense that only through respect to others can one secure respect to self, stimulated by a perception that toleration of outrage is the first step to incurring it. And so, as, in the incessant contact of individuals, each promptly maintained the rights of all and refused to allow 371himself to be "put upon" or despoiled, aggressors learned the ways of peace and formed the habit of self-control. It was by no means a ready tribute to a welcome principle, but an enforced concession to a necessary rule.
"But," you will say, "the perfect sway of this most salutary rule is not yet secured. Improprieties occur every day; violations of right are patent to every eye; small invasions of others' territory can be witnessed in every street car." Exactly; and it is because of these, and because we should know how to treat them, that the discussion of to-night takes place. Does Theosophy countenance or discountenance Nature's mode of curing ill?
I believe myself that Theosophy favors it. I cannot see that the Wisdom-Religion antagonizes itself to the universal experience of mankind, or that it pooh-poohs evident facts in the necessary working of a theory, or that it considers sentiment the best check on brutality, or that it fails to apprehend the result of the good prostrating themselves under the feet of the bad. I cannot conceive why Theosophy should be ignorant of a fact known to the youngest student of human ways, viz. that self-will grows exactly in proportion as other people tolerate it, a spoiled child and a spoiled man becoming so through precisely the same process; or why, if knowing the fact, it should uphold the opposite as true. I can never believe that the social ideal of Theosophy is where the public-spirited are speechless and muscleless in the presence of outrage, and where the selfish are given full liberty to trample everybody else into the mud. I fail utterly to understand why a system which insists on Universal Brotherhood as its very core should recommend submission to tyranny rather than resistance to it; or why it should suppose a reign of terror by those who despise Brotherhood preferable to the maintenance of peace by those who uphold it. Nor is it any more clear how the virtues of manliness and justice and self respect and respect for all are to flourish, if men who cherish them are forbidden to exemplify them, and are to stand paralyzed before every impertinence and every aggression. Still less is it clear how any community could endure a week if there was issued the equivalent to a proclamation that all the honest men were to be shut up in jail and all the rogues set free.
"What then," you ask, "does Theosophy seem to teach thereon?" I answer, "The same as reason and common sense." You are in a train on an elevated railroad. A man has a bundle on a seat while passengers are standing. Are they to allow that invasion of the right of others, the appropriation to himself of property not his? By no means. If allowed to do so then, he will do it again, and become a nuisance through life. Distinctly, firmly he should be made to understand that the community have rights, and that the nearest victim will enforce them. * * A rabble of men occupy the back platform of a street car, one of the most odious menaces to property and safe exit. There is no law to prohibit it, and the Companies' regulations are enforced by no conductor. But every citizen can, should, assist to put it down. Are you to smile blandly on an offender and sweetly ask his kind permission to pass? Not at all. A stern tramp on toes which have no right there by a foot which has, teaches a lesson 372which will not be forgotten. It may not be pleasant—neither is medicine—but it will be salutary. I myself am never heedful of these obtrusive toes, least of all when leaping to a rapidly-passing car. As a Theosophist, speaking to Theosophists, I commend this to you as Theosophic. If half the population systematically practiced it, the abomination would be ended in a week. * * * There is no more well-established rule than that persons passing through double doors should keep to the right. When you encounter the frequent man and the universal woman who keeps to the left, are you to turn aside for the offender and thereby become an offender yourself? Again, No. A sharp injunction turns the wrong-doer to the true path, and forces home a lesson never otherwise to be learned. * * A couple talk at the opera. Hiss them into silence if a stern glance is ineffective. * * A selfish person tries to head off earlier comers in a line at a box office. Force him to take his turn. Why? Because you are incommoded, your personal rights attacked? No, but because the rights of all are involved, involved not only in the one case present, but in the thousands sure to follow if the one is allowed. You may be the individual to whom the duty of protecting society is at the moment committed. It would be a strange conclusion that you were to shirk it because a Theosophist.
These are examples of constantly-occurring cases in daily experience. Scores analogous will arise in mind. They all bear the same mark,—a selfish determination to over-ride the rights of others; they all exhibit the same fact,—that they continue and will continue so long as others permit them; and they all appeal for the same treatment,—prompt suppression as a duty, not mainly to him who may be the victim, but to every later person who will be. And it is to be remembered that only resistance is a check. Yielding to outrage not merely confirms the habit of outrage, but it is and must be misconstrued. For the very callousness of sentiment which makes possible in a man such misbehavior, prevents his understanding gentleness in others. Because he is vulgar, he will suppose them to be timorous. You have to make visible to him the only influences he can comprehend. And as you do not scourge an unruly horse with lace, or muzzle a snappish dog with threads, you do not restrain the ill-mannered human animal with anything but the vigorous measures he requires.
"Theosophy in its practical application to daily life" means, then, I take it, in the department of protection to individual rights, the most enlarged use of the principle of Brotherhood. It means sympathy, gentleness, courtesy, thoughtfulness for subordinates, a persistent effort to diffuse happiness, a ceaseless exertion to secure to each Brother the claims we share alike. But it does not mean that the selfish are to be permitted to dominate, or that the fraternal are to be put at the mercy of the unfraternal, or that 373anyone who chooses to be aggressive is to be so with impunity. I should say that the ideal Theosophist is the same as the ideal man, piteous, kind, tender, sympathetic, conciliatory, helpful to the worthy, yet stern in opposition to all who seek to tyrannize or oppress, ready with bared arm to protect his human Brethren from spoliation and wrong. He may be seen in the historic characters of the Chevalier Bayard and Sir Philip Sydney. He may be studied in the acts of one of our own Adepts, St. Paul, himself truly a gentleman, gentle to the well-meaning and the sincere, but fully competent to rebuke an insolent Roman Governor on his throne, and to "give way by subjection, no, not for an hour" to those who would impose upon him views which he rejected. And he may be reproduced in anyone of us who will enlighten his spirit with the same rays, suffuse his life with the same qualities, and effect his mission with the same vigor.
Alexander Fullerton.
Footnotes