LAW OF EQUALITY.

Natural equality.

— 2. Inequality of aptitudes. — 3. Social inequalities. — 4. Inequality of riches. — 5. The trials of riches and of poverty. — 6. Equality of the rights of man and woman. — 7. Equality before the grave.

Natural equality.

Before God, are all men equal?

“Yes, all tend toward the same end, and God made his laws for all.

You often say: The Sun shines for all, and in saying so you enunciate a truth greater and more general than you think.”

All men are subject to the same laws of Nature. All are born equally weak, all are subject to the same sufferings, and the body of the rich man perishes as does that of the poor man.

God granted no man natural superiority, neither by birth nor by death: all, in his eyes, are equal. Inequality of aptitudes.

Why did God not bestow the same aptitudes on all men?

“God created all Spirits equal, but each of them has lived for a longer or shorter time, and consequently has made a greater or lesser sum of acquisitions.

The difference between them lies in the diversity of the degrees of the experience attained and of the will with which they act, a will that is free will.

Hence some perfect themselves more rapidly than others, which gives them diverse aptitudes.

The variety of aptitudes is necessary, so that each may contribute to the execution of the designs of Providence, within the limit of the development of his physical and intellectual forces. What one does not do, another does.

Thus it is that each one has his useful role to play.

Moreover, all worlds being mutually dependent, it becomes necessary that the inhabitants of the higher worlds, who, for the most part, were created before yours, should come to inhabit it, in order to give you the example.”

In passing from a higher world to a lower one, does the Spirit retain, in their entirety, the faculties it has acquired?

“Yes, we have already said that the Spirit that has progressed does not retrogress. It may choose, in the state of free Spirit, a coarser envelope, or a more precarious position than those it has already had, but all this is in order to serve as instruction to it and to help it progress.”

Thus, the diversity of aptitudes among men does not derive from the intimate nature of their creation, but from the degree of perfecting that the Spirits incarnated in them have reached.

God, therefore, did not create unequal faculties; he permitted, however, that Spirits in diverse degrees of development should be in contact, so that the more advanced might aid the progress of the more backward, and also so that men, needing one another, might understand the law of charity that should unite them. Social inequalities.

Is the inequality of social conditions a law of nature?

“No; it is the work of man and not of God.”

a — Will this inequality one day disappear?

“Only the laws of God are eternal.

Do you not see that day by day it is gradually being effaced? It will disappear when egoism and pride cease to predominate.

There will remain only the inequality of merit.

The day will come when the members of the great family of the children of God will cease to regard themselves as of more or less pure blood.

Only the Spirit is more or less pure, and this does not depend on social position.”

What should one think of those who abuse the superiority of their social positions in order to oppress the weak for their own profit?

“They deserve anathema! Woe to them! They will in their turn be oppressed: they will be reborn into an existence in which they will have to suffer all that they will have made others suffer.”

Inequality of riches.

Will not the inequality of riches originate from that of the faculties, by virtue of which some have more means of acquiring goods than others?

“Yes and no. What do you say of cunning and theft?”

a — But inherited wealth, that is not the fruit of evil passions.

“What do you know about that? Seek the source of such wealth and you will see that it is not always pure. Do you know, perchance, whether it did not originate from a spoliation or from an injustice? But even without speaking of the origin, which may be bad, do you believe that the covetousness of riches, even when well acquired, the secret desires to possess them as quickly as possible, are praiseworthy sentiments? This is what God judges, and I assure you that his judgment is more severe than that of men.”

To those who later inherit a wealth that was initially ill acquired, does any responsibility fall upon them for that fact?

“It is beyond doubt that they are not responsible for the evil that others may have done, especially if they are ignorant of it, as may well happen.

But know that often wealth comes into a man’s hands only to give him the opportunity to repair an injustice. Happy is he if he understands this!

If he does it in the name of the one who committed the injustice, the reparation will be counted to both, since not infrequently it is this latter who prompts it.”

Without breach of legality, anyone whomsoever may dispose of his goods in a more or less equitable manner. Will he who proceeds thus be responsible, after death, for the dispositions he may have made? “Every action produces its fruits; sweet are those of good actions, ever bitter those of the others. Ever, understand this well.”

Will an absolute equality of riches be possible, and has it ever existed?

“No; nor is it possible.

The diversity of faculties and of characters opposes it.”

a — There are, nevertheless, men who judge this to be the remedy for the ills of society. What do you think about it?

“Such men are systematists, or ambitious men full of envy.

They do not understand that the equality of which they dream would, in short order, be undone by the force of things.

Combat egoism, which is your social plague, and do not run after chimeras.”

Since the equality of riches is not possible, will the same hold for well-being?

“No, but well-being is relative, and all could enjoy it if they came to a fitting understanding among themselves, 2 because true well-being consists in each one employing his time as it pleases him and not in the performance of labors for which he feels no liking.

Since each one has different aptitudes, no useful labor would remain undone.

In all things there is equilibrium; it is man who disturbs it.” a — Will it be possible for all to come to an understanding?

“Men will come to an understanding when they practice the law of justice.”

There are persons who, through their own fault, fall into poverty. Will no responsibility for this fall upon society?

“But certainly. We have already said that society is often the chief one to blame for such a thing. Moreover, does it not have to watch over the moral education of its members? Almost always, it is bad education that falsifies their judgment, instead of stifling their pernicious tendencies.” The trials of riches and of poverty.

Why did God grant to some riches and power, and to others poverty?

“To test them in different ways.

Besides, as you know, these trials were chosen by the Spirits themselves, who nevertheless frequently succumb in them.”

Which of the two trials is more terrible for man, that of poverty or that of riches?

“The one is as much so as the other.

Poverty provokes complaints against Providence; riches incite to all excesses.”

The rich man being subject to greater temptations, does he not also, on the other hand, have more means of doing good?

“But that is precisely what he does not always do. He becomes egoistic, proud, and insatiable. With riches, his needs increase, and he never judges that he possesses enough for himself alone.”

The high position of man in this world and the holding of authority over his fellows are trials as great and as slippery as poverty, because the richer and more powerful he is, the more obligations he has to fulfill and the more abundant are the means at his disposal for doing good and evil. God tests the poor man by resignation and the rich man by the use he makes of his goods and of his power.

Riches and power bring to birth all the passions that bind us to matter and turn us away from spiritual perfection.

That is why Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

Equality of the rights of man and woman.

Are man and woman equal before God and do they have the same rights?

“Did God not bestow on both the intelligence of good and evil and the faculty of progressing?”

Whence comes the moral inferiority of woman in certain countries?

“From the unjust and cruel predominance that man has assumed over her.

It is the result of social institutions and of the abuse of strength over weakness.

Among men morally little advanced, strength makes right.”

To what end is woman physically weaker than man?

“To assign her special functions.

To man, being the stronger, the rough labors; to woman, the light labors; 3 to both the duty of mutually helping each other to bear the trials of a life full of bitterness.”

Does the physical weakness of woman not naturally place her under the dependence of man?

“God gave strength to some, that they might protect the weak and not enslave them.”

God adapted the organization of each being to the functions it has to perform.

Having given woman less physical strength, he gave her at the same time greater sensibility, in relation to the delicacy of the maternal functions and to the weakness of the beings entrusted to her care.

Will the functions to which woman is destined by Nature have as great an importance as those assigned to man?

“Yes, even greater. It is she who gives him the first notions of life.”

Being equal before the law of God, should men be equal also before human laws?

“The first principle of justice is this: Do not do to others what you would not wish them to do to you.”

a — That being so, must a legislation, in order to be perfectly just, consecrate the equality of the rights of man and woman?

“Of rights, yes; of functions, no.

It is necessary that each one be in the place that belongs to him. Let man occupy himself with the exterior and woman with the interior, each according to his aptitude.

Human law, in order to be equitable, must consecrate the equality of the rights of man and woman. Every privilege granted to the one or to the other is contrary to justice.

The emancipation of woman accompanies the progress of civilization. Her enslavement marches in step with barbarism.

The sexes, moreover, exist only in the physical organization. Since Spirits can incarnate in the one and in the other, under this aspect there is no difference between them. They should, consequently, enjoy the same rights.” Equality before the grave.

Whence is born the desire that man feels to perpetuate his memory by means of funeral monuments?

“A final act of pride.”

a — But is the sumptuousness of funeral monuments not rather due, more often than not, to the relatives of the deceased, who wish to honor his memory, than to the deceased himself?

“Pride of the relatives, desirous of glorifying themselves. Oh! yes, it is not always for the dead that all these demonstrations are made. They are made out of self-love and for the world, as well as for the ostentation of wealth.

Do you suppose, perchance, that the remembrance of a beloved being lasts less in the heart of the poor man, who can place upon his grave only a simple flower? Do you suppose that marble saves from oblivion him who on Earth was useless?”

Do you then reprove, in an absolute manner, the pomp of funerals?

“No; when the aim is to honor the memory of a man of good, it is just and a good example.”

The grave is the meeting point of all men. There ineluctably end all human distinctions.

In vain does the rich man seek to perpetuate his memory by having sumptuous monuments erected. Time will destroy them, as it will consume his body. Such is the will of Nature.

Less perishable than his grave will be the remembrance of his actions, good and bad. The pomp of funerals will not cleanse him of his vilenesses, nor will it make him rise a single step in the spiritual hierarchy. (320 and following.)