Plurality of corporeal existences.

— Of the various doctrines professed by Spiritism, the most controverted is, without doubt, that of the plurality of corporeal existences, also called reincarnation. Although this opinion is now shared by a great number of persons, and has already been treated by us on several occasions, we believe it our duty, on account of its extreme gravity, to examine it here in a more thorough manner, in order to answer the innumerable objections it has raised. Before entering deeply into the question, some preliminary observations seem to us indispensable.

The dogma of reincarnation is not new, some say; they resurrected it from the doctrine of Pythagoras. We have never said that the Spiritist Doctrine was a modern invention. Constituting a law of Nature, Spiritism must have existed since the origin of time, and we have always striven to demonstrate that signs of it are to be discovered in the most remote antiquity. Pythagoras, as is known, was not the author of the system of metempsychosis; he gathered it from the Indian and Egyptian philosophers, who had possessed it since time immemorial. The idea of the transmigration of souls thus formed a common belief, accepted by the most eminent men. In what manner did they acquire it? Through a revelation, or through intuition? We are ignorant of it. Be that as it may, what admits of no doubt is that an idea does not traverse century upon century, nor does it manage to impose itself upon choice intelligences, if it does not contain something serious. Thus the antiquity of this doctrine, instead of being an objection, would be proof in its favor. Nevertheless, between the metempsychosis of the Ancients and the modern doctrine of reincarnation there is, as is also known, a profound difference, marked by the fact that the Spirits reject, in an absolute manner, the transmigration of the soul of man into animals and reciprocally. No doubt, say some contradictors, you were imbued with these ideas, which is why the Spirits adhered to your way of seeing things. Here is an error that proves, once more, the danger of hasty judgments made without examination. If, before judging, such persons had taken the trouble to read what we have written about Spiritism, they would have spared themselves from raising objections with such levity. We shall therefore repeat what we have already said on this subject.

When the doctrine of reincarnation was taught to us by the Spirits, it was so far from our thought that, concerning the antecedents of the soul, we had constructed a completely different system, shared, moreover, by many persons. Under this aspect, therefore, the Doctrine of the Spirits profoundly surprised us; we shall say more: it contradicted us, for it overturned our own ideas. As can be seen, it was far from reflecting them. But that is not all: we did not yield at the first shock; we fought, we defended our opinion, we raised objections, and we surrendered to the evidence only when we perceived the insufficiency of our system to resolve all the difficulties raised by this question.

In the eyes of some persons the word evidence will, no doubt, seem singular in such a matter; it will not, however, be improper for those who are accustomed to scrutinize spiritist phenomena. For the attentive observer there are facts which, although not of an absolutely material nature, nonetheless constitute true evidence, at least from the moral point of view. This is not the place to explain those facts; only a sustained and persevering study can give them to be understood; our aim was only to refute the idea that this doctrine is the translation of our thought. We have, still, another refutation to oppose: namely, that it was not only to us that it was taught; it was also taught in many other places, in France and abroad: in Germany, in Holland, in Russia, etc., and this even before the publication of The Spirits' Book. We add, further, that ever since we devoted ourselves to the study of Spiritism, we have obtained communications through more than fifty mediums—writing, speaking, seeing, etc.—more or less enlightened, of normal intelligence more or less limited, some even completely illiterate and, consequently, absolutely foreign to philosophical matters; nonetheless, in no case did the Spirits contradict themselves on this question. The same occurs in all the circles we know, where such a principle is confessed. We well know that this argument is not irrefutable, which is why we shall not insist further except by reasoning.

— Let us examine the matter from another point of view and, setting aside any intervention of the Spirits, let us leave them aside for the moment. Let us suppose that this theory has nothing to do with them; let us even suppose that Spirits had never been thought of. Let us place ourselves, momentarily, on neutral ground, admitting the same degree of probability for both hypotheses, that is, that of the plurality and that of the singleness of corporeal existences, and let us see toward which side reason and our own interest will incline us.

Many reject the idea of reincarnation for the sole reason that it does not suit them. They say that one existence is already more than enough for them and that, therefore, they would not wish to begin another like it. We know of some who leap into a fury at the mere thought of having to return to Earth. We shall ask them only whether they imagine that God asked their opinion, or consulted their tastes, in order to regulate the Universe. One of two things: either reincarnation exists, or it does not exist; if it exists, it matters not at all that it displeases them; they will have to undergo it, without God asking their permission for it. Those who speak thus resemble a sick man who says: I have suffered enough today, I do not want to suffer any more tomorrow. Whatever his ill humor, he will nonetheless suffer no less on the following day, nor on the days that succeed it, until he finds himself cured. Consequently, if those who express themselves in such a manner must live again, corporeally, they will live anew, they will reincarnate. It will avail them nothing to rebel, like children who do not want to go to school, or condemned men, to prison. They will go through what they must go through. Such objections are too puerile to deserve being examined more seriously. We shall say, nevertheless, to those who formulate them, that they should set their minds at rest, that the Spiritist Doctrine, with regard to reincarnation, is not so terrible as they judge it to be; that, if they had studied it thoroughly, they would not show themselves so horrified; they would know that the conditions of the new existence depend upon them, that it will be happy or unhappy according to what they have done in this world; that from now on they can raise themselves so high that a new fall into the mire need no longer be feared by them. We suppose ourselves to be addressing persons who believe in a future after death and not those who create for themselves the prospect of nothingness, or who claim that their souls will go to drown in a universal whole, where they lose their individuality, like raindrops in the ocean, which comes to nearly the same thing. Well then: if you believe in a future of any kind, you certainly do not admit that it should be identical for all, for, on the other hand, what would be the use of good? Why should man constrain himself? Why should he refrain from satisfying all his passions, all his desires, even at the expense of another, since by this he would be neither better nor worse? You believe, on the contrary, that this future will be more or less fortunate or unfortunate, according to what you shall have done during life, and then you desire that it be as fortunate as possible, seeing that it is to last for eternity, is it not? But would you, perchance, have the pretension of being among the most perfect men who have existed on Earth and, therefore, entitled to attain, at a single leap, the supreme happiness of the elect? No. You admit, then, that there are men of greater worth than yours and with a right to a better place, without it resulting therefrom that you count yourselves among the reprobates. Well then! Place yourselves mentally, for an instant, in that intermediate situation, which will be yours, as you have just acknowledged, and imagine that someone comes to say to you: “You suffer; you are not as happy as you could be, whereas before you there exist beings who enjoy complete bliss. Do you wish to change your position into theirs?” — “Certainly,” you will answer, “what must we do?” — “Almost nothing: begin anew the work poorly executed and execute it better.” — Would you hesitate to accept, even at the cost of many existences of trials? Let us make another, more prosaic comparison. Let us imagine a man who, although without having reached extreme misery, suffers privations from scarcity of resources; if someone came to say to him: “Here is an immense wealth that you may enjoy; for this it is only necessary that you work hard for one minute,” what would he have answered? Were he the laziest man on Earth, he would not hesitate to say: “Let us work for a minute, two minutes, an hour, a day, if need be. What does that matter, provided it leads me to end my days in abundance?” Now, what is the duration of corporeal life, compared with eternity? Less than a minute, less than a second.

— We have seen some persons reason in this manner: It is not possible that God, sovereignly good as He is, should impose upon man the obligation of beginning anew a series of miseries and tribulations. Will those persons find, perchance, that there is more goodness in God condemning man to suffer perpetually, on account of a few moments of error, than in granting him the means of repairing his faults? “Two manufacturers each hired a workman, each of whom could aspire to become a partner of his respective employer. It happened that these two workmen once made very poor use of their day, both deserving to be dismissed. One of the manufacturers, notwithstanding the entreaties of his workman, sent him away, and the poor workman, having found no more work, ended by dying in misery. The other said to his: ‘You have lost a day; you owe me a compensation for it. You have executed your work poorly. You remain in my debt for a reparation. I consent to your beginning it anew. See that you execute it well, and I shall keep you in my service, and you shall be able to continue aspiring to the superior position I promised you.’” Need we ask which of the manufacturers was the more humane? Could it be that God, who is clemency itself, should be more inexorable than a man? There is something poignant in the idea that our lot should be forever decided, by the effect of a few years of trials, even though it did not depend upon us to attain perfection, whereas eminently consoling is the opposite idea, which permits us hope. Thus, without pronouncing ourselves for or against the plurality of existences, without preferring one hypothesis to another, we declare that, if men were given the choice, no one would want the judgment without appeal. A philosopher said that, if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him, for the happiness of the human race. As much could be said of the plurality of existences. But, as we pondered above, God does not ask our permission, nor consult our tastes. Either it is so, or it is not. Let us see on which side the probabilities lie, and let us regard the subject from another point of view, solely as a philosophical study, always abstracting from the teaching of the Spirits.

— If there is no reincarnation, there is, evidently, only one corporeal existence. If our present corporeal existence is the only one, the soul of each man was created at the time of his birth, unless one admits the anteriority of the soul, in which case it would be fitting to ask what it was before birth and whether the state in which it found itself did not constitute an existence under some form. There is no middle ground: either the soul existed, or it did not exist before the body. If it existed, what was its situation? Did it, or did it not, have consciousness of itself? If it did not, it is almost as though it did not exist. In case it had individuality, was it progressive, or stationary? In one case and the other, to what degree had it arrived upon taking the body? Admitting, in accordance with the common belief, that the soul is born with the body, or, what comes to the same thing, that, before incarnating, it has only negative faculties at its disposal, we ask:

Why does the soul display aptitudes so diverse and independent of the ideas which education has made it acquire?

Whence comes the extranormal aptitude that many children reveal at a tender age, for this or that art, for this or that science, while others remain inferior or mediocre throughout their whole life?

Whence, in some, the innate or intuitive ideas which in others do not exist?

Whence, in certain children, the precocious instinct they reveal for vices or for virtues, the innate sentiments of dignity or of baseness, contrasting with the milieu in which they were born?

Why, abstracting from education, are some men more advanced than others?

Why are there savages and civilized men? If you took a newborn Hottentot child and educated him in our best lyceums, would you ever make of him a Laplace or a Newton?

What philosophy or theosophy is capable of resolving these problems? It is beyond doubt that either souls are equal at their birth, or they are unequal. If equal, why, among them, such great diversity of aptitude? It will be said that this depends upon the organism. But then we find ourselves in the presence of the most monstrous and immoral of doctrines. Man would be a mere machine, the plaything of matter; he would cease to have responsibility for his acts, since he could attribute everything to his physical imperfections. If souls are unequal, it is because God created them so. In that case, however, why the innate superiority granted to some? Would this partiality correspond to the justice of God and to the love He consecrates equally to all His creatures?

Let us admit, on the contrary, a series of progressive prior existences for each soul, and everything is explained. At their birth, men bring the intuition of what they learned before; they are more or less advanced, according to the number of existences they count, according as they are already more or less distant from the point of departure. There occurs exactly what is observed in a gathering of individuals of all ages, where each one will have development proportionate to the number of years he has lived. Successive existences will be, for the life of the soul, what the years are for that of the body. Gather, on a certain day, a thousand individuals from one to eighty years of age; suppose that a veil conceals all the days preceding the one on which you gathered them and that, consequently, you believe they were all born on the same occasion. You will naturally ask how it is that some are big and others small, some old and others young, some learned, others still ignorant. If, however, when the cloud that hides their past is dissipated, you come to know that all have lived more or less time, everything will become explained to you. God, in His justice, cannot have created souls unequally perfect. With the plurality of existences, the inequality we note presents nothing further in opposition to the most rigorous equity: it is that we see only the present and not the past. Does some system, some gratuitous supposition, serve as the basis for this reasoning? No. We set out from a patent, incontestable fact: the inequality of aptitudes and of intellectual and moral development, and we verify that none of the current theories explains it, whereas another theory gives it a simple, natural, and logical explanation. Would it be rational to prefer those that do not explain to the one that does explain? In view of the sixth interrogation above, it will naturally be said that the Hottentot is of an inferior race. We shall ask, then, whether the Hottentot is or is not a man. If he is, why did God deprive him and his race of the privileges granted to the Caucasian race? If he is not, why try to make him a Christian? The Spiritist Doctrine has more breadth than all this. According to it, there are not many species of men, there are only men whose spirits are more or less backward, but all susceptible of progressing. Is this principle not more in conformity with the justice of God?

— We have just appraised the soul in relation to its past and its present. If we consider it with a view to the future, we shall run up against the same difficulties.

If our present existence is what alone will decide our future lot, what, in the future life, are the respective positions of the savage and of the civilized man? Will they be on the same level, or will they find themselves distanced from one another, with regard to the sum of eternal happiness that befalls them?

Will the man who labored all his life to improve himself come to occupy the same category as another who remained at an inferior degree of advancement, not through his own fault, but because he had neither the time nor the possibility of becoming better?

Will he who practiced evil, for not having been able to instruct himself, be guilty of a state of things whose existence in no way depended upon him?

Men are continually laboring to enlighten, to moralize, to civilize men. But, as a counterpart to one who becomes enlightened, millions of others die every day before the light has reached them. What is the lot of these latter? Will they be treated as reprobates? In the contrary case, what did they do to occupy a category identical to that of the others?

What lot awaits those who die in infancy, when they could not yet do either good or evil? If they go among the elect, why this favor, without their having done anything to merit it? By virtue of what privilege do they see themselves exempt from the tribulations of life?

Will there be any doctrine capable of resolving these problems? Admit the consecutive existences and everything will be explained in conformity with the justice of God. What could not be done in one existence is done in another. Thus it is that no one escapes the law of progress, that each will be recompensed according to his real merit, and that no one is excluded from supreme happiness, to which all can aspire, whatever be the obstacles they meet on the way.

These questions would easily multiply to infinity, because the psychological and moral problems that find their solution only in the plurality of existences are innumerable. We limit ourselves to formulating those of a more general order. Be that as it may, it will be alleged that the Church does not admit the doctrine of reincarnation; that it would subvert religion. Our intention is not to treat of this subject now. It suffices us to have demonstrated that this doctrine is eminently moral and rational. We shall show, later, that religion finds itself less removed from it than is thought and that thereby it would suffer no more than it suffered with the discovery of the movement of the Earth and of the geological periods which, at first sight, seemed to belie the sacred texts. The teaching of the Spirits is eminently Christian; it rests upon the immortality of the soul, future penalties and rewards, the free will of man, and the morality of Christ. It is not, therefore, anti-religious. We have reasoned, abstracting ourselves, as we said, from any spiritist teaching which, for certain persons, lacks authority. It is not only because it came from the Spirits that we and so many others made ourselves adherents of the plurality of existences. It is because this doctrine appeared to us the most logical and because it alone resolves questions hitherto insoluble.

Even were it the work of a mere mortal, we would have adopted it equally and would not have hesitated a second more in renouncing the ideas we espoused. Once error is demonstrated, self-love has much more to lose than to gain by obstinately persisting in the upholding of a false idea. Thus, likewise, we would have rejected it, even if coming from the Spirits, had it seemed to us contrary to reason, as we have rejected many others, for we know, by experience, that one must not blindly accept everything that comes from them, just as one must not blindly adopt everything that proceeds from men. It remains for us, then, to examine the question of the plurality of existences from the point of view of the teaching of the Spirits, in what manner we ought to understand it and, finally, to answer the most serious objections that may be opposed to it. This is what we shall do in a coming article.

[This article was not found.]

[1] Translator's Note: See The Spirits' Book, Book II, chapter V.

[2] [Here soul is in its absolute sense of incarnated Spirit according to the answer to question

in The Spirits' Book.]