XV – WORLD PROBLEMS AND THE UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD:
The First Object as an Example of a Consistent Solution
(Chapter XV of the work “Theosophy and Universal Brotherhood”)
161 – “The truths and mysteries of occultism constitute, indeed, a body of the highest spiritual importance, at once profound and practical for the world at large. (…) they are being given to you, but for their practical bearing on the interests of mankind. (…) They have to prove both destructive and constructive – destructive in the pernicious errors of the past, in the old creeds and superstitions which suffocate in their poisonous embrace like the Mexican weed nigh all mankind; but constructive of new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity where all will become co-workers of nature (…) The Chiefs want a ‘Brotherhood of Humanity,’ a real Universal Fraternity started; an institution which would make itself known throughout the world and arrest the attention of the highest minds.” (K.H., ML, L. 6, pp. 23-24)
Through the analysis in the preceding chapters, in which we attempted to show the failure of the prevailing models, we trust that we have given the reasons why such models will never be able to ensure – especially in regard to the poor countries – an effective and fair social order that might succeed in overcoming the current scenario of social and economic exclusion and poverty of millions of people.
A Model of Organization Coherent with the Perennial Philosophy
Having said this, we have reached a point where it is our duty to give at least some general directions about these “new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity,” since the subject is so closely related to a correct interpretation of the first Object.
We have already seen that the premise, the view of mankind underlying such a model, should be that of humanity as a universal brotherhood – the one and only view consistent with the bases of the Perennial Philosophy. Which, then, would be the main characteristics of the new institutions (or new organizational models) suited to meet the need, previously shown, for an efficient and fair selection of rulers and, further, to endow them with sufficient coercive power?
The guidelines for such new political institutions – ensuring simultaneously (1) freedom, (2) equality of condition in the political process, (3) equality between levels of responsibility or degree of difficulty and the awareness or level of capacity of the population, and (4) a close-knit organization of the whole population to guarantee sufficient power to the rulers thus elected – are clearly laid out by N. Sri Ram in the following passages:
162 – “Undoubtedly each man is competent in his own sphere, to say what he wants for his town or village and who will serve it best among those he knows. But when it comes to a question of deciding intricate issues of national and international import, it is but common sense that only those should exercise a vote who have some knowledge of what the issues are. Therefore it was that Dr. Annie Besant urged consistently, while she was concerned with these matters in Indian politics, that India should not, in shaping her Constitution, adhere to the fetish of mass suffrage without any qualification whatsoever.” (On the Watch Tower, p. 81)
“Mr. Jai Prakash Narain’s is as yet a lonely voice in the wilderness of the present political conditions in India. The description of them as a wilderness may seem an exaggeration but when one looks at the various sectional interests which are so clamant and the variety of councils on different matters to which it utterance is given, one cannot but feel the truth of Dr. Besant’s description of democracy in its present form as government by multi-headed ignorance.” (On the Watch Tower, p. 86)
164 – “If India can evolve a form of democracy in which there is some chance for the needed wisdom to come to the top, she will thereby be serving the best interests of her own people, as well as setting an example that might help and inspire other peoples.” (On the Watch Tower, p. 82)
A Comparison Between the New Model and the Prevailing Ones
Previous analyses make it almost unnecessary to stress the higher efficiency of the proposed models when compared with those that now prevail. This efficiency is evident not only in the process of selection but also in that of organizing the whole population of any society with greater cohesion.
Suffice it to say that such models preserve freedom, because there is freedom for people of different views and different political affiliations to assemble and assert their rights of free speech, free expression, and of participation. They also offer the highest degree of equality of opportunities ever dreamed of by man, for, by abolishing general elections by the masses and only holding elections involving small groups of the population, they make it possible for people to get to know one other personally. In this way, there is no need for expensive political campaigns, use of the media, paid campaign staffers and so forth. Also, the appropriate adjustment of positions and capacities is easily accomplished, especially in the model proposed by J. Prakash Narain since the leaders freely elected through an equality of condition within each level would add more and more quality to the conventions.
Alhough both models are far superior to the prevailing ones, we should like to observe that J.P. Narain’s model shows some advantages over that formulated by Annie Besant. In the first place, it is a much simpler model, in which people are free to make their choices, without the need of selective criteria that might, in unjust societies like ours, lead us to act unfairly. Also, a person’s low educational level may be the result of lack of opportunity rather than of capacity, as, for instance, in administration. Such qualifying factors make the model unnecessarily complex because of the demand for judges, which introduces the possibility of fraud. J.P. Narain’s model achieves equal, if not better, results by following the same principles but without these complications.
Anyway, as stated before, both models are incomparably superior to the ones in use today. In summary, both organize the people in a close-knit way that makes political oppression almost impossible. Nowadays, National Congresses are easily closed by state coups, under the eyes of an fragmented population. This would never happen in the proposed models because, even if a National Cogress were closed or suffered coercion, the rest of the population would remain organized. And we have not yet mentioned the power that would be wielded by leaders who, unlike the ones in the previously examined data, really enjoyed the people’s trust.
The combination of the difference in the leaders’qualifications and the people’s organizational cohesion would alter the chaotic and injustice-perpetuating picture we are confronting today. It is hard to exaggerate the importance of such a change, especially to the poor countries that find themselves totally devoid of hope within present-day models, be they liberal or marxist, of overcoming the vicious circle of poverty and underdevelopment.
The TS Should Be an Example of the “New Institutions”
If we bear in mind all the subjects we have examined so far – subjects related to the presently prevailing schools of thought and the resulting political and economic situation – we can clearly perceive the huge theoretical and practical value of the principle or law of the universal brotherhood of man and, thus, properly interpret and evaluate the first Object of the Theosophical Society. This is now possible because, keeping in mind what we have read, it is not difficult for us to grasp the huge importance to humanity of an organization that might become a concrete (or practical) example of new politico-administrative institutions based on the law or principle of the universal brotherhood of man – which institutions humanity sadly lacks.
We can therefore understand, for instance, why in the letter from the Maha-Chohan, in which He expressed His view on the subject, He relates the task of the TS to the practical creation and practical demonstration of a new organizational alternative to “political and social systems” that “have now proved a failure.” Let us look at some of these passages again:
“In view of the ever increasing triumph and at the same time misuse of free-thought and liberty (the universal reign of Satan, Eliphas Levi would have called it), how is the combative natural instinct of man to be restrained from inflicting hitherto unheard-of cruelty and enormities, tyranny, injustice, etc, if not through the soothing influence of a brotherhood, and of the practical application of Buddha’s esoteric doctrines?” (LMW, 1st Series, L. 1, p. 4)
166 – “The world in general, the Christendom especially, left for two thousand years to the regime of a personal God, as well as its political and social systems based on that idea, has now proved a failure. If the Theosophists say: ‘We have nothing to do with all this; the lower classes and the inferior races (those of India for instance, in the conception of the British) cannot concern us and must manage as they can,’ what becomes of our fine professions of benevolence, philanthropy, reform, etc.? Are these professions a mockery? And if a mockery, can ours be the true path? Shall we not devote ourselves to teaching a few Europeans (…) and leave the teeming millions of the ignorant, of the poor and despised, the lowly and the oppressed, to take care of themselves and of their hereafter as best they know how? Never. Rather perish the T.S. with both its hapless founders than that we should permit it to become an academy of magic, a hall of occultism.” (LMW, 1st Series, L. 1, p. 7)
167 – “And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are expected to allow the T.S. to drop its noble title, that of Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a simple school of psychology. No, no, good brother, you have been labouring under the mistake too long already.” (LMW, 1st Series, L. 1, p. 9)
There is a passage by HPB affirming the same view in connection with the first Object of the TS – that it should be a practical demonstration of the law of the universal brotherhood.
168 – “The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one or more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a philanthropic and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood on practical instead of theoretical lines.” (HPB, The Key to Theosophy, p. 19)
What the Mahatmas Expected from the TS
As we have seen, the Mahatmas expressed the hope, “that the T.S. is first of all a universal Brotherhood” (HPB, ML, L. 138, p. 468). They have talked about “the Society as a Universal Brotherhood” (K.H., ML, L. 28, p. 215), and that they wanted “a real Universal Fraternity started; an institution which would make itself known throughout the world, and arrest the attention of the highest minds” (K.H., ML, L. 6, p. 24), and that the existence of the TS as a branch of the universal brotherhood was related “to the general plan and outward administration of the projected Society” (K.H., ML, L. 28, p. 213). They have made clear that they hoped the TS groups to become “the harbingers of a Universal Brotherhood” (K.H., ML, L. 28, p. 209). And, finally, that the principles of the Perennial Philosophy outlined by Them should become “constructive of new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity” (K.H., ML, L. 6, p. 23)
“The General Misconception of the Aims and Objects”
As we have previously said and in spite of these and other similar passages, most members of the TS (the leaders, among others), regard the universal brotherhood as synonymous to a virtue, or a state of regeneration of the individual psyche. By incurring in such misguided interpretations, they fail to see the universal brotherhood as a principle or natural law, instead of as an aspiration, and at the same time misunderstand the true purpose and the immense importance of their first and main goal. We can find unquestionable proof of such misconception in the fact that recently some influential members stated that the goal of universal brotherhood had already been surpassed, and that we would do better in replacing it with another more meaningful to our times.
Because of this general misconception of the law of the universal brotherhood of man and of the first Object of the TS, it is not surprising that the TS, in the organizational model that reigns in almost all of its national sections and international organizations, in other words, its “general plan and outward administration,” does little more than reproduce the liberal organizations that rule the world and that are living denials of the law of the universal brotherhood, instead of standing as a concrete example of “new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity.”
The Harmful Example of the Present Organization of the TS
The “one man, one vote” rule and the universal suffrage that have ruined many a nation’s existence have been reproduced within the TS itself! Instead of an example of organization based on the law of the universal brotherhood, of highlighting an election process which not only offers freedom but also equal opportunities and an appropriate adjustment of the responsibility of the offices and the capacities of the members, the TS actually gives the world an example of leveling or equalitarianism in its evaluation of human capacities. Instead of a process of selection such as that described earlier by N. Sri Ram, most of the time we see in the TS leaders elected through universal suffrage! Could there be clearer evidence of the general misconception even among the leaders of the law of the universal brotherhood and of the first Object of the TS.
Another blatant example of unfairness and denial of the law of the universal brotherhood and of the first Object of the TS – which, as we have seen, must imply equal opportunities in the process of selection – is seen in the absurd proceedings used to fill the higher offices of the General Council of the TS. A small section consisting of, let us say, 70 members, has as many representatives as a section of 700 – or even 7,000 members! If this is not an example of injustice, of notorious chauvinism, and of a total absence of equal opportunities in the election of the leaders, then what is?
Another troubling example is the existence in the General Council of the TS of nominated members. If the system does such a good job of electing leaders, why are they not already members? Why must they be nominated? The obvious answer is that the present system does not select the most capable persons, much less offer equal opportunities in the process of filling the offices. The present system is a copy (perhaps even a deteriorated one) of the liberal order which prevails in the world, because seldom in the world would 70 people have the same right to representation as 7,000.
We must give some earnest thought to the question whether this current system does not have a lot to do with the mediocrity and lack of drive found in the TS almost all around the world. We must also ask ourselves whether the time has not come for the TS, with regard to its “general plan and outward administration”, to stop being a pale imitation of the organizations that ruin tha world and start to be a concrete example of, as written by the Adept, “new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity”.
The New Organizational Model of the TS in Brazil
In this regard, we should point to the organizational changes approved by the Brazilian Section of the TS on May 8, 1994. On that date a system was approved analogous to the aforementioned one proposed by N. Sri Ram. It is perhaps only in the light of the quotations, passages and comments presented in this book that we can make a fair evaluation of the importance of these changes. They imply nothing more or less than the setting up of a “general plan” and an “outward administration” that, in accordance with what we have seen so far, stands for “new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity”. We have every reason to believe that such is the case, for the approved model allows at the same time for freedom, equal opportunities, an appropriate adjustment of capacities and responsibilities, and, last but not least, a much greater administrative cohesion.
It would appear that the first and most important Object of the TS is, for once, being carried out, at least in regard to the “general plan and outward administration,” as was envisioned by the Adepts. In spite of its being a limited and feeble experiment – especially on account of the rather shallow understanding of its relevance displayed by most Brazilian members – it is an experiment of an importance that can hardly be overstated.
This importance should not, in any way, impair the perception of the experimental nature of such an organizational change. Only after a long trial period will the examination of the results enable us to arrive at well-grounded conclusions. However, even if it is only an experiment in an area so crucial to the TS (and to the world), its importance cannot be exaggerated.
HPB has closed her book The Key to Theosophy by warning us that “Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure” (p. 305), and that:
169 – “(…) all our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion, that all are more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If, then, they cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise it instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die.” (The Key to Theosophy, p. 305)
The letter from the Maha-Chohan quoted several times, expressing his view on this matter, shows a clear concern about the abuse of the so called “freedom” (Liberalism). He has stated unequivocally that the evil consequences of such abuse (“the universal reign of Satan”) cannot be avoided but by “the soothing influence of a brotherhood, and of the practical application of Buddha’s esoteric doctrines.” (LMW, 1st Series, L. 1, p. 4-5)
The Example that the TS Was Meant to Give
As said before, the TS was meant to put into practice the esoteric doctrines of the Mahatmas, which would mean nothing less than the formation of a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of man. Only thus would the TS embody the answers to the world’s great problems. Such a project, as we can see in the passage that follows, was regarded by the Mahatmas as a crucial, “sine qua non” condition, not the least because preaching without practice leads to hypocrisy:
170 – “(…) for my mentioning the subject related merely to the general plan and outward administration of the projected Society and not in the least to its esoteric studies; to the Branch of the Universal Brotherhood not to the ‘School of Magick’ – the formation of the former being the sine qua non for the latter. (…) I asked for a skeleton plan, and you imagined I clamoured for co-operation in the instructions to be given in spiritual sciences!” (…) “And you, otherwise a good and a wise man, being unconsciously to yourself the type of its spirit, are unable to understand our ideas upon the Society as a Universal Brotherhood, and hence – turn away your face from it.” (K.H., ML, L. 28, pp. 213-215)
Only the formation of such a nucleus of the universal brotherhood would obtain for the TS the moral right to offer solutions to the great problems and, at the same time, generate the energy needed to accomplish such a titanic task while confronted by all kinds of obstacles and opposition.
These must be some of the reasons why the formation of a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of man played such an important part in the plan of the Adepts. So great was the importance in which the Adepts held this task that the Maha-Chohan has clearly asserted that “rather perish the T.S. with both its hapless founders” than to shift its attention from the solution of the problems of “the teeming millions of the ignorant, of the poor and despised, the lowly and the oppressed,” and that They would never allow “the T.S. to drop its noble title, that of Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a simple school of psychology.”
A.O. Hume and the Original Plan of the Mahatmas
In the letters from the Adepts we find information about Their projects involving A.O. Hume that seem extraordinarily instructive with regard to the first Object of the TS. These events are not widely known, at least not in detail. Therefore, in order to evaluate and fully understand what happened to Hume, we think that a review of the facts may be useful.
A.O. Hume was A.P. Sinnett’s friend and a high-ranking officer in the British colonial administration in India. Sinnett had training as a journalist and editor, Hume in management. They approached HPB and the TS and, through them, the Adepts. This was the beginning of the famous correspondence that produced the book, The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett (ML), the source of the facts described here.
Let us review some facts that are meaningful to our book. The Adepts asked for Hume’s help in the establishment of the “general plan and outward administration” of the TS, which they clearly regarded as deficient. Hume’s misunderstanding of this call for help resulted in the well-known quid pro quo, that we quote again: “I have asked for a skeleton plan, and you imagined I clamoured for co-operation in the instructions to be given in spiritual sciences! Most unfortunate quid pro quo.” (K.H., ML, L. 28, p. 213).
What is not widely known is the importance with which the Adepts invested Hume’s would-be contribution to the TS, a contribution that, unfortunately, did not come to pass. There are almost no references, in TS literature or in the conversations of TS members, to the nature of this presumed help, and even less to the reasons that made it so important in the eyes of the Adepts. This absence has a meaning “per se” that calls for reflection, once we recall the importance the Adepts gave to the central issues involved in what happened. Actually, perhaps the silence that shrouds these facts might be explained exactly in terms of “the general misconception of the aims and objects” of the TS. Those who regard universal brotherhood as an aspiration, or as tantamount to individual regeneration and universal love, naturally tend to put aside such passages, passages that bring out a totally different view of the universal brotherhood and of the first Object.
However, from the quotations given earlier and those still to come, we can see that (1) this help was related to the creation of a nucleus of the universal brotherhood and, thus, to the first Object of the TS. This is made clear by the statement of the Adept asserting that “my mentioning the subject related merely to the general plan and outward administration of the projected Society and not in the least to its esoteric studies; to the Branch of the Universal Brotherhood not to the ‘School of Magick’ – the formation of the former being the sine qua non for the latter;” (2) that the help Hume might lend had a crucial importance to the sucess of the TS as a whole, as we can read:
171 – “Neither the Chohan, nor K.H., nor myself ever under-valued Mr. Hume’s worth. He has done invaluable service to the Th. Soc. and to H.P.B. and is alone capable of making the Society an efficient agent for good.” (M., ML, L. 29, p. 225)
This is a very important passage, as impressive as the silence that shrouds it. It puts great stress on the help Hume might have provided. Nothing more nor less depended on this help than the effectiveness of the TS as an agent for good. How could one regard this but as a major issue? Additionally, we can see that: (3) such help from Hume related to the “consistent solutions” that the TS was supposed to give to the world’s problems and, therefore, might greatly benefit the lives of millions of people as the quotation goes:
172 – “You know both of us (Note: M. and K.H.) love our country and our race; that we regard the Theos. Society as a great potentiality for their good in proper hands (…) Mr. Hume has been shown what he already knew, how he may benefit immensely some millions of his fellow men. Choose according to your best light.” (M., ML, L. 29, p. 226)
Further: (4) that Hume’s help was related to the need for social, philosophical and religious reforms:
173 – “Mr. Hume – if he only holds on to his resolutions – has a grand and noble work before him – the work of a true Founder of a new social era, of a philosophical and religious Reform.” (K.H., ML, L. 95, p. 430)
And, finally, (5) that Hume failed to understand the cry for help that had gone out to him. We can read the following in the last letter the Adepts wrote to Hume:
174 – “And you, otherwise a good and a wise man, being unconsciously to yourself the type of its spirit, are unable to understand our ideas upon the Society as a Universal Brotherhood, and hence – turn away your face from it.” (K.H., ML, L. 28, p. 215)
Some time later, in a subsequent letter, the Adept refers to not only Hume’s lack of understanding but his bearing and attitude that had led him to a position contrary to Their projects:
175 – “(…) for which fresh policy you are indebted to the incessant underground intrigues of our ex-friend Mr. Hume – (now entirely in the hands of the Brothers of the Shadow).” (K.H., ML, L. 58, p. 337)
In the context of this book, it is very important to mention that, even though he had turned away from the TS, Hume soon came to play a leading role in the affairs of the India of his time. To this day he is renowned for having founded the movement that would later become the Congress Party, the party that enrolled Besant and Gandhi and has been dominant in Indian politics since then.
So, instead becoming the Founder of a new social era, Hume limited himself to becoming the perpetuator of the prevailing institutions of his day – those of British Liberalism. Later on, Annie Besant attempted to change this scenario and wrote a new Constitution for India, but she was defeated by Gandhi in the Congress Party, and once again liberal notions, such as universal suffrage and others, prevailed. This is the reason that India, instead of being the forerunner of a new social era and philosophy, stands as one of the most tragically unjust societies in the world. And Hume, instead of becoming the Founder of a new social era and philosophy, ended up by being a mere agent who continued to propagate the causes of the failure, in a position clearly contrary to the hopes and the ideas of the Adepts concerning India and himself.
All these tragic facts surrounding A.O. Hume and India’s situation seem very instructive, bearing lessons that, sadly, are still to be learned today, and are of major importance to the TS. Unless all premises, as well as the logic in this book are wrong, these sad facts shed a bright light on the central problems of what we call the “failure” of the TS – a society that, rather than creating “new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity” is prone, as a whole, to follow the path of the failed organizations of our age.
The Importance of a New “General Plan and Outward Administration” of the TS
All these points are bound to emphasize and better illustrate the tremendous importance of the change that is being attempted in Brazil. Unfortunately, there are few – even among the leadership of the TS in Brazil – who have the slightest idea of the opportunity now in their grasp. It is crucial that at least the majority of the Brazilian leadership thoroughly understand the true framework and the enormous potential of the personal implications of this unusual opportunity. In the absence of such understanding, the formal changes in the society’s organizational structure will have little significance, since they will not be sufficient to prevent misguided, contradictory, and inefficient attitudes or actions on the part of the leadership, whose mistakes will tend to sap the success of the experiment.
Needless to say, this book is an effort to contribute to the changes in this scenario, providing a warning and some enlightenment for the leadership of the TS, especially in Brazil. If it fulfills its purpose, which will not be easy, then the performance of the new structure will be subjected to a fair trial. By its fruits, we shall be able to determine whether the tree is beneficial, a predecessor of a new social era and philosophy, or a barren trunk bound to perpetuate the hunger and poverty of the current scene.
The degree in which the current leaders and other members of the TS on the first hand understand these questions, at least intellectually, and, on the other hand, carry out within the organization the founders’ original high concepts, thus achieving the first and basic stated Object of the TS is, undoubtedly, a major issue to which each member should periodically apply his or her best judgment.
However, no matter how great the difficulties, this does not alter in any degree the fact that the TS, in its original purpose and in the generic guidelines of its Objects, is really a theosophical society – in other words, that it is utterly beneficent and reflects true spiritual enlightenment.
Finally, we hope to have shown that the success or failure of the really extraordinary organization called TS – a society whose Objects, though clearly stated, are often hard to understand and even harder to attain – depend on an adequate understanding and explanation of the principle or law of the universal brotherhood of man.
In short, we hope that we have shown that the success or failure depend on this understanding. By success we mean offering to the world a concrete example of a “consistent solution to the problem of the great dual principle of liberty and despotism,” the lack of which is one of the world’s principal problems, as we have seen. Failure, on the other hand, would imply giving the world not a general plan consistent with the principle of the universal brotherhood of man, but the injurious example of copying the failed organizational model that has been the root of so many evils.