Universal Brotherhood, Volume XIII, No. 11, February 1899: A Magazine Devoted to the Brotherhood of Humanity, the Theosophical Movement, Philosophy, Science and ArtVarious
Philosophy
Universal Brotherhood, Volume XIII, No. 11, February 1899: A Magazine Devoted to the Brotherhood of Humanity, the Theosophical Movement, Philosophy, Science and Art
Various
Theosophy -- Periodicals
In the December number of UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD the question is asked:
“Whence arises the sense of duty? In what does it originate?” The
answers given are good; and V. F. touches the key-note in the words “he
owes it to _himself_,” etc.
The question and the discussions recalled to my mind the answer given to
the same question by Dr. Hickok of Union College in his treatise on
Moral Science, which was published in 1853, and used as a text-book in
the University of Vermont a few years later.
It is too often taken for granted that a Christian must find a new basis
of ethics and a new rule of right in order to justify his acceptance of
the Theosophical teachings. This is far from the case, even assuming for
the sake of the argument what is not true in fact, that theosophy
rejects the Bible; for the great majority of Christian writers on this
subject have not founded their systems on the Bible, or upon any
religious system whatever, but have, so far as they discuss religious
duties, treated them as a part of some greater ethical whole. Such is
the case in the manual of Dr. Hickok. He only needs to bring out more
clearly the unity of finite spirits in Absolute Spirit, and to note the
proper distinction between personality and individuality and between
individuality and the One Life—a distinction that is logical rather than
metaphysical—and to enlarge his view so as to include the tenet of
reincarnation with its correlative doctrines, to make his system very
good Theosophy. His foundation is impregnable; but by overlooking the
unity of the finite in the infinite, and by clinging to the notion of a
personal God distinct from the Higher Self, he brings that God into
judgment before the finite spirit of man. This makes the Second Part of
his treatise, on Divine Government, weak and halting in comparison with
the First Part, on Pure Morality. His work would have been simplified
and strengthened beyond measure could he have seen that the self before
whom man stands in the inner sanctuary of his being is the Higher Self
of our teachings, and is one with the highest Deity. I quote Dr.
Hickok’s statement of the basis of ethics and of the source of our sense
of duty.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account