 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1879-1880 pages in vol.: 577 |
The Promotion of Tolerance in Religion by Spiritualism
The new Gospel of Tolerance in Religion, the great “modern ideal,” appears now to be in the ascendancy among Spiritualists. Its immense value in behalf of the well-being of mankind cannot be over estimated; and from its very novelty, as well as its abounding excellence, one is prompted to the opinion that it can be actually nothing less than the index of the first positive dawn of the “Greater Things” which have been promised to us. And this same religious tolerance, as I lately remarked, is the outcome of modern Spiritualism and of that alone. And if, at present, it can but effect a mitigation of those two awful scourges of humanity, war and the odium theologicum, alone it will prove itself an unspeakable blessing, such as we could only have deemed utopian, if happily, we did not find it already ostensibly at work among the different orders of Spiritualists.
We rejoice, then, to see the Theosophists in Hindostan, and our fellow Spiritualists in France, both really labouring towards this same goal. For this reason, an extract from a letter of Madame Blavatsky to M. Fauvety, President of the Society for Psychological Studies in Paris, and an extract from M. Fauvety’s letter in reply, both of which are contained in the Revue Spirite for November, may be acceptable to the readers of the Spiritualist.
In Madame Blavatsky’s interesting epistle, she says: “With the exception of the entirely special branch for esoteric studies, our society, as its name indicates, is nothing else but Universal Fraternity; the Brotherhood of Humanity. But new lights force to new conclusions. The teachers of this present phase of theosophy seem to think that the idea of universal fraternity is scarcely logical, is inconsistent, and inconsequent, nay, even impossible if unaccompanied by Religious Tolerance, when they take into consideration the different views that men have of religion in different countries; and, indeed, the different cast of thought with which different men clothe that which is alleged as the self same religion. At least, the above is the conclusion I have come to from reading the letters from which the following very remarkable, cheering and liberal sentiments are extracted.
Madame Blavatsky thus writes:—“Our Society is entirely the opposite of all others in existence. We do not permit the shadow of dogmatism either in religion or in science. Every one in his own branch does and acts as he pleases, but no one thinks of imposing his ideas upon others at our general meetings. A member who should say to his ‘Brother’ of another religion: ‘Think as I think, or you are damned,’ or who should try to persuade another that he alone is in possession of the truth, or should insult the beliefs of another, would be immediately excluded from the Society. The central Society protects every faith and every private opinion as it would protect the purse of one of its members. No one is allowed to touch that which is held sacred, or is the property of any of his Brethren, otherwise than with respect, and with the authority of the latter. This is why our Society works in harmony, and why, only lately, a delegation composed of nine members, two of whom were Buddhists, two Free-thinkers, one Christian, two Sun-worshippers (Parsees), and two Brahmins, were sent on a mission to Ceylon to defend the rights of Buddhists (formerly their bitter enemies, they hating each other mutually) and to found Buddhist Theosophical Societies, and also to hold conferences and to discourse in favour of the religion of the latter.”
Here is an extract from the answer of M. Fauvety:—“The object of our Society is, then, above all others, that of scientific research, and at the same time, and as a logical consequence, a work for common use, propaganda and apostleship of a religious and philosophical character.
In such a position, all co-operation that brings us new light is most welcome, and every work that has the same ends we are in entire sympathy with. The Theosophical Society of Bombay can aid us, then, with its lights. We accept thankfully all co-operation, and we offer in exchange, the results of our own work, which will be constantly remitted to that society by the care of our committee, or by private letters, or by our monthly publications. But we feel ourselves bound to the members of the Theosophical Society by a bond more stringent than that which could result from a reciprocal exchange of scientific research: it is that of the religious ideal common to us both. I would speak of that great project of human fraternity which we follow as you do, but which you propose to realise by means peculiar to yourselves, and which constitute the grandest and noblest tentative that has been essayed on the road to universal conciliation.
“By repudiating the divisions of classes, castes and races, and by taking the ground of common humanity, you only affirm the modern ideal by resting it, as we all do, on the eternal principles of liberty, equality, fraternity and justice; but you are doing something that is as novel as it is admirable, by joining practice to theory, by organising on a grand scale the binding together (solidarity) of all classes of men, and by calling on those men of light and progress who are already associated partially for humanitarian purposes, to meet together on common ground.”}}
<Untitled> (The Theosophist claim that...)
...
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 433, December 10, 1880, pp. 286-7