CHAPTER III

DIFFERING ASPECTS OF SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHY—THE RIGHTEOUS CLAIMS OF EGOISM AND OF ALTRUISM

Quite recently the statement has appeared in public print that in addition to the “Iron” rule of conduct which bids us render evil for evil; the “Silver” rule which counsels us to return good for good; and the “Golden” rule which urges that good be rendered in exchange for evil, there is still another rule which should be the guide of all who accept modern spiritual philosophy, a “Diamond” rule which exhorts us to do “all for others.” Beautiful and ennobling though the sentiment may be which is couched in such uncompromisingly altruistic language, there seems room for dispute as to whether such a precept is truly practical or altogether desirable. The charms of altruism consist in its avowed unselfishness, and we are often told that to be saintly we must be selfless. But is this counsel entirely sound? Will it stand the test of rigorous investigation, or is there somewhere a defect which renders it less than perfectly satisfactory? Egoism is doubtless far more ancient than altruism; it is indeed the most primitive of all philosophies, entrenched as it is in that stronghold of self-preservativeness which is the primal instinct of every living creature. “I must protect myself,” says every form of animate existence, and human entities offer no exception to the universal rule. Egotism is a corrupted and insufferably conceited form of egoism and does not rank among philosophies, therefore we need not now discuss it, but simple egoism or individualism must be reckoned with as a permanent factor directing human conduct. Altruism is extremely difficult to comprehend though mutualism, which is pure philanthropy, is readily comprehended. Even Tolstoi, the most nearly altruistic of all great characters now in the public eye, must pay some heed to his own requirements or even he could not sustain existence on the earthly plane. But the question evidently raised by advocates of the “Diamond” precept is can we not still care for ourselves but only because we know that by so doing we are helping others? The answer is readily given that we can, but this granted is it not well to inspect our motives a little closely and put ourselves on guard against exaggerated statements which may lead us unconsciously into the quagmire of hypocrisy. That there may be a few exceptional individuals who do all with a view to the good of others is quite conceivable, but we need, when formulating a practical philosophy, to adapt it to the rank and file of honest aspiring human beings, not to render it acceptable only to a very small minority of exceptionally spiritualized individuals. A highly respected English bishop, late of the See of Peterborough, said that the “Sermon on the Mount” was never intended for ordinary humanity but exclusively for special disciples who, to use theological language, had been called to transcend the way of the commandments and walk in the narrower path of the counsels of perfection. That there is some justification for that view cannot be gainsaid when we remember the peculiar circumstances amid which the body of doctrine thus designated is said to have been enunciated, and research into earlier and contemporary literature by no means disposes of the idea that exceptional teachers sometimes gave exceptional teaching to exceptional disciples. The doctrine of extreme non-resistance advocated in such familiar sayings as "whoever would deprive you of your coat let him have your cloak also" and "whoever would compel you to go one mile, go with him two miles" is susceptible of more than a single interpretation. It therefore becomes us to endeavor to grasp the widest possible application of such counsels if we profess any regard for their authority.

With the state of the Roman world and the Jewish people eighteen or nineteen centuries ago we are not now immediately concerned. We cannot, however, afford to entirely neglect historic features if we are to clearly grasp the genuinely practical import of teachings which are said to constitute the original basis of Christian ethics. Judea was a Roman province and Cæsar's eagles were displayed in Jerusalem as a sign of Roman supremacy at the beginning of the Christian era. Then, as in many later as well as earlier times, certain Jews were extremely ready to take up arms and fight to rescue Zion from servitude to Rome. The more spiritually-minded teachers in a community are always averse to warfare, and the wisest among them, owing to deep spiritual penetration, are able to clearly foretell the literal uselessness as well as barbarity of a fierce material contest. They consequently use their utmost endeavors to proclaim a policy of non-resistance by brute force, but they never hesitate to advocate mental and moral resistance to iniquity. The over-valuation of material things leads many a man and woman to think very highly of the surrender of coats and cloaks and all sorts of material goods and chattels, which in the eyes of seers and sages are of very little value. A neighbor may be in destitute circumstances and require certain garments of which you have an over-supply. Let him have them if he wants them, says the spiritual master, but never give up your honor. Your extreme generosity may win for you the good-will of many who would be otherwise your persecutors; your readiness to make even more innocent concessions to your reputed foes than they demand may obtain for you their good opinion and prevent cruel massacres. Seeing that there are many sacrifices you can make without lowering your moral standard, make them in a spirit of true philanthropy and thereby you may convert enemies into friends, oppressors into advocates. Such counsel is sound as well as politic and reflects the highest possible credit upon whoever may have been the first to announce it to the world. The only possible controversy concerning such magnificent and thoroughly practical doctrine centers around the comparatively unimportant question whether the hero of the Christian gospels was or was not the original enunciator of so sublime a set of precepts. Many Jews who highly endorse the sentiment attributed to Jesus, declare that Jewish literature much older than the beginning of the Christian era emphasizes the same vital rule of conduct. Students of Indian philosophy also come forward with a similar declaration concerning Buddhistic teaching which antedated the origin of the gospel manuscripts by several centuries. Historical research alone is competent to deal with controversies of such a nature, but it is clear to the eye of all impartial students that no really important point is raised by such discussion as to the ethical value of the doctrine submitted for consideration. Judging from the recent action of a widely advertised "Interchurch" movement which has excluded Unitarians from fellowship one can see that it may be considered vital in the interests of strictly orthodox Christian theology to separate the teachings attributed to Jesus entirely from all other counsels given to mankind, for by so doing support may be seemingly lent to the doctrine of exclusive divinity claimed for the great Master of Christendom, but aside from the peculiar interests of controversial theology there is nothing gained, and possibly much lost, by insisting that in one collection of valuable scriptures alone can we discover the highest moral guidance. To the universal religionist it is a source of delight to discover that the very highest standard of morality has been upheld in many lands, in many ages, by many illumined teachers, and surely in days when the frightful effects of religious bigotry are so awfully manifest that American citizens and British subjects regardless of creed, when imbued with the spirit of humanity, have sought to induce the President of the United States and representatives of British authority to urge upon the Russian government the necessity of putting an immediate stop to outrages upon unoffending Jews inspired by race prejudice and religious fanaticism of the worst imaginable sort, it will prove a boon to all humanitarians if scholars can give the Christian world to understand that the noble and glorious rules of conduct emphasized in gospel records are not to be found in the New Testament alone but are the common heritage of enlightened humanity conveyed through the illumined and inspiring seers and sages of every race and age. We hear very much in these days about the relation between religion and business and it is well that pulpits ring with protests against commercial dishonesty and that preachers urge upon congregations everywhere the supreme importance of a spiritual life which can be lived every hour of every day, every day in every year. “Tainted money” and “frenzied finance” are phrases which many seek to conjure with and doubtless much that is extravagant is often said when these highly sensational topics are being passionately dealt with, but the great cause for thankfulness in this generation is that there is a palpable renaissance of morals now everywhere in evidence. Mammon worship is going out of date. The still mighty dollar is no longer believed to be almighty and a sense of responsibility towards moral order is surely taking the place of conscienceless search for naught but material gain. Nothing is so pleasing or so hopeful, nothing so cheering to the heart of genuine philanthropists as to note how increasingly sensitive the public conscience is assuredly becoming. Churches are doing much good work in this direction, but the ethical sentiment is quite apart from all ecclesiastical affiliations and is demonstrating its sovereignty in many movements which are founded upon no dogmatic theological basis. The work of Felix Adler of New York, and all associated with him in the interests of simply Ethical Culture, which is entirely distinct from any special kind of theology, is quite sufficient to convince all who use their reasoning faculties to-day that in church and out of church, in college and out of college, men, women, youths and maidens are beginning to feel intensely that the mere holding of great wealth is no passport to the esteem of right-minded people anywhere. We know it can be argued, and it often is, that John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and other multimillionaires are almost worshiped wherever they appear, even if it be at a Bible class, but it ought not to be overlooked that the chief cause for admiring those unquestionably remarkable men is the prevalent belief that they have been more industrious and have evinced more intellectual ability than have the bulk of their contemporaries. It is not necessary to prove whether such a belief in those particular instances is well-founded or ill-founded, the fact remains that that section of the public which almost adores the very wealthy individual of to-day professes to see in the object of its veneration not so much money as enterprising will and intellectual ability.

Now comes the higher standard. We have worshiped intellect too much; we are seeing that intellect alone can be cruel, unjust, tyrannical, and from cold intellectuality we are turning our affection towards a purely spiritual type of morality. By spirituality should never be meant sentimental piety, which is the very reverse of heroic piety, but that true saintliness which is soundness, symmetry, holiness in the true meaning of the term. “Do all for others” sounds well and it contains the germ of a mighty truth, but it is an ill-chosen sentence by reason of its non-applicability in its obvious form to the actual nature of humanity. The American Declaration of Independence signed in 1776 served a needed purpose then, and still contains much that is permanently valuable, but were we to draw up a declaration now we might frame it around the greater word interdependence which truly embodies the idea of righteous fellowship between nations as well as individuals.

Selfishness and unselfishness, or selflessness, are words which are pitted against each other as though one was entirely wrong and the other entirely right. The utterly selfish person (if he exist) is a monster not a normal human being, while the utterly unselfish or selfless person conveys the idea of one who is impracticable. Self-culture is certainly not selfishness, but it springs in measure, though not entirely, from self-regard and it seems almost impossible to draw such very subtle lines as would need to be drawn in economic teaching if a class in social science and political economy had to be taught by a professor of sociology from the standpoint of unqualified altruism. The mutualistic position is sane, safe, sound, sensible, and has the great merit of being easily understood. If any thoroughgoing altruist assumes the middle way of Mutualism to be a “compromise” then it is not for him to theoretically advocate it, but even he will discover, sooner or later, that as no radical or essential change can be expected to take place in human nature his efforts will be productive of far less generous fruit than those of his equally conscientious, though less sentimental, neighbor who unblushingly acknowledges that he takes human nature as he finds it and deals with it accordingly. Self-interest itself is not the shocking vice which altruists infer it to be, nor are we obliged to mourn over innate depravity before commencing to instruct young people in mutual obligations, for many more unkind and unjust deeds are performed thoughtlessly than with malice aforethought; and because we know this to be so we are not so depressed and weighed down with a sense of the world’s exceeding sinfulness as are many of our “altruistic” neighbors. We do not see in simple self-love a sin but only a natural instinct, not the highest or sublimest instinct of humanity, only the earliest and most rudimentary, a good and tangible instinct nevertheless and one which Swedenborg has assured us continues to inhere in even the celestial angels who are human beings entirely regenerated according to Swedenborg’s philosophy and theology. As members one of another let us seek to live up even to the altitude of the Beatitudes. “Blessed are the pure in heart” and “Blessed are the peacemakers” are two of the loveliest, truest, and most inspiring sentences in any literature. For beauty and simplicity of statement they are decidedly unsurpassed and they may fairly be selected as among the choicest gems in the casket of ethical philosophy. It remains then only to consider what may be reasonably intended when those great sayings are set forward as “counsels of perfection.” When a distinguished bishop of the English Church said that business could not be conducted in strict conformity with the Sermon on the Mount he merely resorted to Jesuitical casuistry, and this every Jesuit teacher will admit, for Jesuits have never hesitated to declare that there are lower than saintly standards of morality which can be safely tolerated in the secular state though a much higher rule must prevail among all who give themselves up to a technically “religious” life. The same distinction is made in India among Brahmans, and this is freely admitted by Annie Besant in articles which appeared in the Theosophical Review during the summer of 1905, at a time when the terrible war then raging between Russia and Japan called forth protest of the most vigorous kind against warfare in all directions. Katherine Tingley, from “Lomaland” in Southern California, inveighed against all justification of warfare and in her very interesting and instructive periodical New Century Path she called attention to the self-evident, but often unheeded, fact that war is not simply an outlet for impurities in the planet’s body as many Theosophists and others not unreasonably aver, but it is a means of generating fresh disease, and from that standpoint it is certainly well for us to regard it. Children are brought up to fight, they are taught the brutal art of physical self-defense, to call which “manly” is absurd because every animal practices it and there can be nothing distinctly human in doing what every quadruped does also. Henry George in his masterly work “The Science of Political Economy” has called needed attention to a greatly neglected aspect of this vast theme, for he teaches unequivocally that we know ourselves to be truly human only by discovering and exercising super-animal traits. We all know that warships and guns have long been blessed by prelates, that weapons of warfare are taken to church services and that arms are presented by soldiers at the most solemn moment in a Military Mass even in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. But there are some people among us who are daring to hope that new thought may lead to new action and that these old practices which are supported by ages of established precedent may in the present century become defunct. True it is that a Boy’s Brigade conducted by clergymen of the English church may teach boys who belong to it useful lessons in obedience and self-restraint and they may be much better situated with a view to general moral training than are soldiers generally in barracks, but it is a poor comment on established Christianity with all its vaunted following of the “Prince of Peace” that it can show no higher than a military ideal to the unchurched and unchristianized multitudes. Complaints are constantly made of an alleged decline in religion based upon the supposed extreme self-seeking of this age, but despite all gloomy views, which some facts seem largely to substantiate, the bright side of the present outlook is clearly manifest to all who take adequate account of the earnest protest against iniquity and the outcry for justice and humanity which has never been louder or stronger than it is to-day. The signs of the times at present point unfalteringly to the opening of a dispensation of clearer light and fuller equity than the world has yet enjoyed within any historic period, and to usher in the glad new age the ancient trumpet sound is heard anew: Love thy neighbor as thyself. Than this there is no higher precept, for herein we trace the true meeting place of science with religion, a genuinely synthetic philosophy satisfying alike the conscience and the reason of the human race, blending self-improvement with loving service devoted to the good of all. Such we claim is the unanimous teaching of illumined teachers Oriental and Occidental, ancient and modern alike.