REINCARNATION
We cannot dream of undertaking an absolutely complete study of reincarnation, for it would require an entire volume to examine the topic in all its aspects; perhaps some day we may return to the subject, for it would be worth the trouble, not in itself of coursebecause the idea is nothing but a pure and simple absurdity-but by reason of the strange diffusion of this idea which is one of those that contributes most to deforming the minds of so many of our contemporaries. But as present circumstances compel us to treat the subject, we will at least say all that is most essential. Our argumentation will be valid not only against the spiritism of Allan Kardec but also against all the other 'neo-spiritualist' schools which, following Kardec, have adopted this idea with modifications of varying degrees of importance. On the other hand, this refutation is not, as was the previous, directed to spiritism generally, for reincarnation is not an absolutely essential element in all spiritism; one can be a spiritist without believing in reincarnation, but one cannot be a spiritist without believing in the manifestation of the dead by sensible phenomena. It is commonly known that American and English spiritists, that is, the representatives of the oldest form of spiritism, were at first unanimously opposed to the theory of reincarnation which Dunglas Home, in particular, violently criticized. [1] It was only after some lapse of time that the theory penetrated Anglo-Saxon circles by ways unconnected with spiritism. Even in France some of the first spiritists, such as Piérart and Anatole Barthe, separated from Allan Kardec on this point. But today it can be
said that French spiritism in its entirety has made reincarnation a veritable 'dogma'. Moreover, Allan Kardec himself has not hesitated to characterize it in this way. [2] And let us again recall that it is from French spiritism that Theosophy first borrowed this theory, which was then taken up by Papusian occultism and various other schools, all of which have made it one of their articles of faith. Although these schools have reproached the spiritists for conceiving of reincarnation in an 'unphilosophical' manner, the various modifications and complications they have brought to it cannot mask this initial borrowing.
We have already noted some of the differences that exist, either among the spiritists or between them and other schools, on the subject of reincarnation. In this as in all the rest, the teaching of the 'spirits' is rather uncertain and contradictory, and the alleged authentications of the 'clairvoyants' are no less so. For one party, as we have seen, a human being reincarnates constantly in the same sex; for others, the being is reincarnated indifferently in one sex or the other, without it being possible to pin down any law in this regard. For still others, there is a more or less regular alternation between male and female incarnations. In the same vein, some say that man is always reincarnated on the earth; others claim that he can just as easily be reincarnated either on another planet in our solar system, or on any heavenly body; others say that there are generally several consecutive incarnations on earth before passing to some other abode, this being the opinion of Allan Kardec himself. For the Theosophists there are only terrestrial incarnations throughout the duration of an extremely long cycle, after which an entire human race begins a new series of incarnations in another sphere, and so on. Another point no less discussed is the duration of the interval between two successive incarnations. Some think that one is immediately reincarnated, or that this occurs after only a brief lapse of time; for others, terrestrial lives must be separated by long intervals. Furthermore, we have seen that the Theosophists, after first supposing these intervals were minimally of twelve or fifteen hundred years, have reduced them considerably and now make
distinctions according to an individual's 'degree of evolution. [3] With French occultists there is also a rather curious variation to note; in his earlier works, Papus, even while attacking the Theosophists with whom he had broken, retained their view that 'according to esoteric science, a soul cannot reincarnate until after fifteen hundred years, except in certain exceptional cases, such as death in infancy, violent death, death of an adept, [4] and he even maintains on the authority of Mme Blavatsky and Sinnet that 'these figures are drawn from astronomical calculations by Hindu esoterism, [5] while in fact no authentic traditional doctrine has ever spoken of reincarnation because this is only a wholly modern and completely Western invention. Later on, Papus completely rejects this so-called law established by the Theosophists, declaring that no law can be formulated, saying (and we carefully respect his style) that
it would be as absurd to set a fixed term of twelve hundred years as of ten years to the time which separates an incarnation from a return to earth, as to set for human life on earth an equally fixed period. [6]
All this will hardly inspire confidence in those who look at these things impartially. If reincarnation has not been 'revealed' by the 'spirits'-for the good reason that they have never really spoken through the intermediary of tables or mediums-the several observations just made already suffice to show that reincarnation cannot be genuine esoteric knowledge taught by initiates who by definition know what is involved. There is no need, therefore, to go very deeply into all this in order to dispel the claims of the occultists and the Theosophists. Reincarnation is, in effect, nothing more than a simple philosophical concept, and is in fact at the level of the worst of such concepts, because it is absurd in the proper sense of this word. Philosophers also entertain many absurdities, but generally they present them only as hypotheses. The 'neo-spiritualists' deceive
them selves more thoroughly, but we acknowledge their good faith, which for most of the rank and file is not in question, though this is not always so with the leaders. But the very confidence with which they make their assertions is one of the reasons why these claims are more dangerous than those of the philosophers.
We have used the expression 'philosophical concepts'; in these circumstances 'social concepts' might be more apt in the circumstances, considering the real origins of the idea of reincarnation. In fact, for the French socialists of the first half of the nineteenth century who inculcated this notion into Allan Kardec, this idea was essentially intended to furnish an explanation for the inequality of social conditions, which in their view were particularly shocking. This motive is one of those the spiritists still most readily invoke to justify their belief in reincarnation, and they have even sought to extend this explanation to all inequities, whether intellectual or physical. Here, for example, is what Allan Kardec has to say:
At their birth, souls are undoubtedly equal or unequal. If they are equal, why these very different abilities? . . . If they are unequal, it is because God has created them so; but then why this innate superiority granted to some? Is this partiality in conformity with his justice and his equal love for all his creatures? Let us admit, on the contrary, a succession of progressive prior existences, and everything is explained. At birth men bring with them an intuition of what they have acquired; they are more or less advanced according to the number of existences through which they have passed and depending on how far they have come from their starting-point, just as in a gathering of individuals of all ages, each will display a development proportioned to the number of years he has lived. Successive existences will be, for the life of the soul, what years are for the life of the body. . . . God in his justice could not create more or less perfect souls; but with the plurality of existences the inequality we see no longer involves anything contrary to the most rigorous equity. [7]
Similarly, Léon Denis says:
The plurality of existences alone can explain the diversity of character, the variety of abilities, the disproportion of moral qualities, in a word all those inequalities which are so striking. Apart from this law one would ask in vain why certain men possess talent, noble sentiments, lofty aspirations, while so many others share only stupidity, vile passions, and gross instincts. What are we to think of a God who, allotting us a single physical life, made us of such unequal parts, and, from the savage to the civilized, would have given such unequal benefits and such different moral levels? Without the law of reincarnation, inequity governs the world. . . All these obscurities are dispelled before the doctrine of multiple lives. Beings distinguished by their intellectual prowess or their virtues have lived more, worked more, and accumulated greater experience and more extended abilities. [8]
Similar reasons are alleged even by schools whose theories are less rudimentary than those of spiritism, for the reincarnationist idea has never been able to shed entirely the mark of its origin. Theosophists, for example, also stress social inequities, at least as a side issue. Papus, for his part, does exactly the same:
Men begin a new journey in the material world, rich or poor, socially happy or unhappy, according to the results acquired in their previous journeys, their preceding incarnations. [9]
Elsewhere he expresses himself even more precisely on this subject:
Without the notion of reincarnation, social life is an inequity. Why are the unintelligent glutted with money and loaded with honors while beings of value struggle in poverty and in the daily fight for physical, moral, or spiritual nourishment. . . . In general one can say that present social life is determined by the former state of the spirit, and that it determines the future social state. [10]
Such an explanation is perfectly illusory, and this is why: first, if the starting-point is not the same for all, if there are men who are at a greater or lesser distance from it and who have not passed through the same number of lives (this is what Allan Kardec says), this is an inequity for which they cannot be responsible and which, consequently, the reincarnationists must regard as an 'injustice' for which their theory cannot account. Then, even allowing that there are these differences between men, there must have been a moment in their evolution (we speak from the spiritists' point of view) when their inequities began, and these too must have had a cause. If it is said that this cause consists in the acts these men committed previously, then it must be explained how these men were able to behave differently before these inequalities were introduced among them. This is inexplicable simply because there is a contradiction involved: if the men had been perfectly equal, they would have been alike in all respects, and, allowing this to be possible, they would never cease to be so-unless one contests the validity of the principle of sufficient reason, in which case there would be no place for any law or explanation at all. If these men could become unequal, it is obviously because inequality was one of their component possibilities, and this prior possibility would suffice to make them unequal from the beginning, at least potentially. Believing the difficulty resolved, one has in fact only made it recede, and in the final analysis it subsists in its entirety. But actually there is no difficulty at all, the problem itself being no less illusory than the would-be solution. One can say the same of this question as of many philosophical problems: that it exists only because it is badly formulated. And if it is badly formulated, it is especially because moral and sentimental considerations intervene where they have no proper role. The attitude in question here is as unintelligible as that of a man who would ask why such and such an animal species is not the equal of some other, which is obviously meaningless. It is a purely human point of view that there are in nature differences which we perceive as inequalities while there are others that do not have this aspect; and if this eminently relative point of view is put aside, there is no occasion to speak of justice or injustice in this order of things. In brief, to ask why a being is not the equal of another is to ask why it is different
from another; but if there were no differences the being would be that other being instead of itself. Once there is a multiplicity of beings, it is necessary that there should be differences between them. Two identical things are inconceivable because, if they are really identical, it is not a matter of two things but of a single thing, a point on which Leibnitz was quite correct. Each being is distinguished from others from the beginning in that it carries in itself certain possibilities that are essentially inherent to its nature and not the possibilities of any other being. The question to which reincarnationists claim to offer a response, therefore, quite simply comes down to asking why a being is itself and not another. If one wishes to see an injustice in this, no matter, but it is in any case a necessary truth; fundamentally, moreover, it would be the contrary of an injustice. The notion of justice stripped of its sentimental and specifically human character is in fact that of equilibrium or harmony. Now, in order that there be total harmony in the Universe it is necessary and sufficient that each being occupy its proper place as an element of the Universe in conformity with its own nature. And this means precisely that the differences and inequalities which one is pleased to denounce as real or apparent injustices necessarily and effectively contribute to this total harmony. And this total harmony cannot but be; to wish to have it otherwise would be to suppose that things are not what they are, for it would be an absurdity to think that something can happen with a creature that is not a consequence of its own nature. Thus the partisans of justice can be doubly satisfied without being obliged to go counter to the truth.
Allan Kardec says that 'the dogma of reincarnation is based on the justice of God and on revelation'; [11] we have shown that of these two reasons for believing in reincarnation, the first cannot be validly cited. As for the second, he is obviously referring to revelations of the 'spirits', and having previously shown that this 'revelation' does not exist, we have no need to return to the matter. These however are only preliminary observations, for just because one sees no reason to admit something, it does not follow that it is false; one can simply remain in an attitude of doubt in its regard. We should say,
moreover, that the objections commonly brought against the theory of reincarnation are hardly any stronger than the reasons adduced in its support. This is because the adversaries and partisans of reincarnation commonly approach the question from a moral and sentimental background, and because considerations of this order cannot prove anything. We repeat here the same observation made regarding communication with the dead: instead of asking whether it is true or false, which alone is significant, one discusses whether or not it is 'consoling'; such discussions can go on indefinitely without coming any nearer a resolution because such a criterion is purely 'subjective', as a philosopher might say. Fortunately, there is much more to be said against reincarnation, since its absolute impossibility can be established. But before arriving at that point we must treat another question and make certain distinctions, not only because they are very important in themselves but also because without them some who people might be astonished at our saying that reincarnation is an exclusively modern notion. For a century now so much confusion and so many false ideas have been in circulation that many people, even outside 'neo-spiritualist' circles, have been gravely influenced. This distortion has reached such a point that official orientalists, for example, currently interpret in a reincarnationist sense texts in which there is nothing of the kind to be found; they have become completely incapable of understanding these texts in any other way, which amounts to saying that they do not understand them at all.
The term 'reincarnation' must be distinguished from at least two other terms with totally different meanings, namely 'metempsychosis' and 'transmigration'. These things were well known to the ancients, just as they are still among Easterners, but modern Westerners-the inventors of reincarnation-are absolutely ignorant of these. [12] It must be understood that when one speaks of
reincarnation what is meant is that a being that has been already embodied takes a new body, that is, returns to the state through which it has already passed. Further, it is acknowledged that this concerns the real and complete being and not only some more or less important elements that have been incorporated adventitiously. Outside these two conditions, reincarnation can in no way be in question. Now the first condition marks an essential distinction of reincarnation from transmigration as this is understood in Eastern doctrines; and the second distinguishes it no less profoundly from metempsychosis in the sense in which the Orphics and the Pythagoreans understood it. The spiritists, even while falsely proclaiming the antiquity of the reincarnationist theory, are right in saying that it is not identical with metempsychosis; but according to them it is distinguished from the latter only in that the successive existences are always 'progressive' and that human beings exclusively are involved. Allan Kardec says:
Between the metempsychosis of the ancients and the modern doctrine of reincarnation there is this great difference: that the spiritists reject in the most absolute manner the transmigration of man into animal, and reciprocally. [13]
In reality, however, the ancients never envisaged such a transmigration, nor that of men into other men, such as reincarnation might be defined. Undoubtedly, certain more or less symbolic expressions may give some scope to these misunderstandings, but only when one does not know what they really intend to say, which is precisely this: that there are in man psychic elements which, after death, are dissipated or scattered, and which may then enter other living beings, whether men or animals (and it is not so very important which) from the fact that after the dissolution of the body of this same man the elements which composed him may then serve to form other bodies. In the two cases it is the mortal elements of the man that are in question and not his imperishable part, which is his real being and which is in no way affected by posthumous mutations. In this connection Papus is mistaken in yet another way when
he speaks [14] of the confusions between reincarnation, or the return of the spirit into a material body after an astral stage, and metempsychosis, or the body's passage through animal bodies and plants before returning to a new material body, not to mention several oddities of expression-which may be simple lapses (animal and plant bodies are no less material than the human body, and they are not 'traversed' by the human body but by elements which derive from it); but that can in no way be called 'metempsychosis', as the formation of this word implies that it is a question of psychic and not material elements. Papus is correct in thinking that metempsychosis does not concern the real being of man, but he is completely deceived as to its nature. And as for reincarnation, when he says that 'it was taught as an esoteric mystery in all the initiations of antiquity, [15] he simply confuses it with genuine transmigration.
The dissociation following death involves not only corporeal elements, but certain elements which may be termed psychic; we have already explained that such elements may sometimes intervene in the phenomena of spiritism and contribute to the illusion of a real activity on the part of the dead. Analogously, they may in certain cases give the illusion of reincarnation. What is important to understand as regards this latter is that these elements (which in life may
have been either conscious or only 'subconscious') include all the mental images which, resulting from sensory experience, have become part of memory and imagination. These faculties, or rather these ensembles, are perishable, that is, subject to dissolution, because, being of the sensory order, they are literally dependencies of the corporeal state. Moreover, outside the temporal condition, which is one of those defining the corporeal state, memory would have no reason to subsist. This is assuredly quite remote from the theories of classical psychology as regards the 'self' [moi] and its unity, theories almost as completely without foundation in their genre as are the ideas of the 'neo-spiritualists'. One other remark of no less importance is that there may be transmission of psychic elements from one being to another without this supposing the death of the first; in fact, that there is a psychic heredity as well as a physiological heredity is hardly in doubt and is even a fact of common observation. But what few take into account is that at the least it supposes that the parents furnish a psychic seed as well as a biological seed. And, potentially, this seed may involve a very complex ensemble of elements pertaining to the domain of the 'subconscious', besides tendencies and predispositions properly so called, which, as they expand, manifest themselves outwardly. These 'subconscious' elements may, on the contrary, not become apparent except in rather exceptional circumstances. This is the double heredity, both psychic and corporeal, expressed in the Chinese formula: 'You will live again in your thousands of descendents'; this would certainly be difficult to interpret in a reincarnationist sense, although occultists and even orientalists have succeeded in other no less remarkable tours de force. The Far-Eastern doctrines even prefer the consideration of the psychic side of heredity, seeing in this a prolongation of the human individuality. This is why, under the name 'posterity' (which moreover also admits a superior and purely spiritual sense), they associate it with 'longevity' - which is what Westerners call immortality.
As we shall see below, certain facts which the reincarnationists think they can adduce in support of their hypothesis are explained perfectly well by one or the other of the two cases we have just considered, on the one hand, by the hereditary transmission of certain
psychic elements, and on the other by the assimilation to one human individuality of other psychic elements coming from the disintegration of earlier human individualities, elements which do not have the least spiritual rapport with the former. In all this there is a correspondence and analogy between the psychic and corporeal orders, and this is easily understood because both the one and the other refer exclusively to what may be called the mortal elements of the human being. It is necessary to add that in the psychic order it can happen more or less exceptionally that a rather considerable collection of elements is transferred intact to a new individuality. Naturally, occurrences of this kind are what appear most striking to those who support reincarnation, but such cases are no less illusory than all the others. [16] None of this concerns or in any way affects the real being, but we may wonder why, if this is so, the ancients seem to have attached such great importance to the posthumous fate of the elements in question. We could respond by saying simply that there are men who are concerned with the treatment their bodies might receive after death, without their thinking that their spirits necessarily experience any repercussions therefrom. But we will add that as a general rule these things are not entirely matters of indifference; if they were there would be no reasons for funeral rites, whereas there
are on the contrary very profound reasons for them. Without belaboring the point we will say that the action of these rites is exercised precisely on the psychic elements of the deceased. We have mentioned what the ancients thought of the relation between the nonaccomplishment of these rites and certain phenomena of haunting, an opinion that was perfectly well founded. Assuredly, if the being were considered only insofar as it had passed to another state of existence, there would be no point in taking into account the post mortem fate of these elements (except perhaps for the tranquillity of the living). But the situation is quite otherwise if what we have called the prolongations of the human individuality are considered. This subject, however, could occasion considerations the very strangeness and complexity of which inhibit us from speaking of them here. In our opinion, moreover, it is a subject which it would be neither useful nor advantageous to treat publicly and in a detailed manner.
Having explained what metempsychosis really is, we must now state the real nature of transmigration. In this case, it is definitely the real being that is involved; but it is not a question of a return to the same state of existence, a return which-if it could take placewould rather be a 'migration' than a 'transmigration'. It is, on the contrary, a question of the passage of the being to other states of existence, states that are defined, as we have said, by entirely different conditions than those to which the human individual is subject (though with the one reservation that as long as individual states are in question the being is always clad in a form, but a form that cannot occasion any spatial or other depiction more or less modeled on bodily form). To say transmigration is in essence to say change of state. That is what all the traditional doctrines of the East teach, and we have many reasons to think that this was also the teaching of the 'mysteries' of antiquity. Even in heterodox doctrines such as Buddhism [17] nothing else is in question, despite the reincarnationist interpretation current today among Europeans. It is precisely
the true doctrine of transmigration, understood according to the sense given it by pure metaphysics, that permits the refutation of the idea of reincarnation in an absolute and decisive manner, and it is on this ground alone that a refutation is possible. We are led thus to show that reincarnation is purely and simply an impossibility, by which it must be understood that one and the same being cannot have two existences in the corporeal world, considering this world in its fullest extent, and it matters little whether such hypothetical existence be on earth or on some other heavenly body. [18] Nor is it of the least consequence whether this might be in the form of a human being or, according to falsified conceptions of metempsychosis, in some other form-animal, vegetable, or even mineral. We will add further that it is of no consequence whether it be a question of successive or simultaneous existences, for some have advanced the ridiculous supposition of a plurality of lives unfolding in various locales at the same time for the same being, most likely on different planets. This brings us back once more to the Socialists of 1848 , for it seems Blanqui was the first to imagine a simultaneous and indefinite repetition in space of supposedly identical individuals. [19] Some occultists also claim that the human individual can have several 'physical bodies', as they say, living at the same time on different planets. And they go so far as to say that if it happens that someone dreams he has been killed, it is in many cases because at that very moment he has been killed on another planet! All that would be unbelievable had we not heard it ourselves; but in the following chapter we will see other tales as thick as this. We must also state that our demonstration, which avails against all reincarnationist theories, whatever form they may take, applies equally and for the same reason to certain ideas of a more philosophical allure, such as Nietzsche's notion of an 'eternal return'-in a word, to everything that presumes any kind of repetition in the universe. [20]
We cannot dream of giving an account here of the metaphysical theory of the multiple states of the being, with all the ramifications this would entail. We plan to devote one or two studies specifically to this when the opportunity arises. [21] But we can at least indicate the basis of this theory, which is also the principle behind the proof of what is here in question: universal and total Possibility is necessarily infinite and cannot be conceived otherwise because, including all and leaving nothing outside itself, it cannot be limited by anything whatsoever. Any limitation of universal and total Possibility would necessarily be exterior to it and would properly and literally be an impossibility, that is to say pure nothingness. Now, to suppose a repetition within universal Possibility, as would be the case in positing two specifically identical possibilities, is to suppose a limitation, for infinity excludes all repetition. Only within a finite set can one return twice to the same element, and even then that element would not be rigorously the same except on condition that the set in question is a closed system, a condition that is never effectively realized. So long as the Universe is really a totality, or rather the absolute Totality, there can never be a closed cycle anywhere. Two identical possibilities would be only one and the same possibility; in order for them to be truly two it is necessary that they differ in at least one condition, and then they are not identical. Nothing can ever return to the same point, even in a system that is only indefinite (and not infinite), as for example the corporeal world. While tracing a circle, for example, a displacement is effected and the circle is not closed except in an entirely illusory manner. This is only an analogy, but it can help one understand that a fortiori in universal existence a return to a same state is an impossibility. In total Possibility the particular possibilities which constitute the conditioned states of existence are necessarily indefinitely multiple; to deny this is also to limit Possibility. This must be admitted on pain of contradiction, and suffices to establish that no creature can pass twice through the same state. As can be seen, this demonstration is extremely simple in itself, and if some experience difficulty understanding it, this can
only be because they lack the most elementary metaphysical understanding. A more developed exposition would perhaps be necessary for such people, but we ask that they wait until we have occasion to present the theory of the multiple states completely. In any case, they may be assured that the demonstration we have just formulated is uncompromising in the essentials. As for those who might think that by rejecting reincarnation we risk limiting universal Possibility in another way, we say simply that we reject only an impossibility, which intrinsically is nothing and augments the sum of possibilities only in an absolutely illusory manner, being only a pure zero. Universal Possibility is not limited when an absurdity is denied, as in stating that a square circle cannot exist for example, or that among all possible worlds there cannot be one in which two and two make five. The present case is exactly the same. In this order of ideas there are men who are strangely scrupulous; thus when Descartes attributed to God the 'liberty of indifference' for fear of limiting divine omnipotence (which is a theological expression of universal Possibility), he did not perceive that this 'liberty of indifference', or choice in the absence of any reason, implies contradictory conditions. To use his language, an absurdity is not absurd because God has arbitrarily willed it so, but on the contrary, because it is an absurdity God cannot make it be something, though this affects His omnipotence in no way whatsoever, absurdity and impossibility being synonymous.
Returning to the multiple states of the being, we must make an essential observation, namely that these states can be conceived as simultaneous as well as successive, and even that in their entirety, succession can be admitted only as a symbolic representation since time is a condition proper to only one of these states; even duration, whatever its mode, can only be attributed to some of them. When speaking of succession it is necessary to make clear that this can only be in a logical and not in a chronological sense. By this logical succession we mean that there is a causal chain between the various states; but even the causal relationship, if it is understood in its true sense (and not according to the 'empirical' sense of certain modern logicians) implies precisely simultaneity or the coexistence of its terms. Furthermore, we should specify that even the individual
human state, which is subject to the temporal condition, can nevertheless present a multiplicity of simultaneous secondary states. A human being cannot have several bodies, but outside the corporeal modality, and simultaneously with its bodily existence, the being can possess other modalities in which certain possibilities that are included in it are developed. This leads us to point out an idea that is closely related to reincarnation and that has a number of partisans among 'neo-spiritualists'. According to this idea, in the course of its evolution (for those who support such ideas are always evolutionists in one way or another), every being must pass successively through all forms of life, terrestrial and other. Such a theory expresses nothing but a manifest impossibility, for the simple reason that there exists an indefinitude of living forms through which no being could ever pass, these being all those forms occupied by other beings. Further, supposing a being had successively passed through an indefinitude of particular possibilities in a domain otherwise extended than that of the 'forms of life', it would not be any nearer its final term, which cannot be attained in this way. We will return to this when we speak of spiritist evolution. For the moment we will only note that the entire corporeal world, in the full deployment of all the possibilities it contains, represents only a part of the domain of manifestation of a single state. This same state then comprises a fortiori the potentiality corresponding to all the modalities of terrestrial life, which itself is only a very restricted portion of the material world. This renders perfectly useless-even if its impossibility were not otherwise proven-the supposition of a multiplicity of existences through which the being is progressively raised from the lowest modality, the mineral, all the way to the human, considered as the highest, passing successively through the vegetable and animal kingdoms with all the many degrees included in each of these. There are in fact people who construct such hypotheses, rejecting only the possibility of a retrogression. In reality, the individual in his complete extension simultaneously contains the possibilities corresponding to all the degrees in question (note well that we do not say that he contains them physically). This simultaneity translates into temporal succession only in the corporeal modality, in the course of which, as embryology shows, he in fact passes
through all corresponding stages, starting from the unicellular forms of the most rudimentary organisms; indeed, going back even further, from the crystal all the way to the human being in his earthly form. Let us note in passing that contrary to common opinion this embryological development is in no way proof of 'transformist' theory, which is no less false than all the other forms of evolutionism, being in fact the most gross of them all, a point we shall have occasion to return to below. What must be especially kept in mind is that the perspective of succession is essentially relative, and further that even in the restricted measure in which it is legitimately applicable it loses nearly all its interest by the simple observation that before any development the seed already potentially contains the complete being (we shall shortly see the importance of this). In every case the point of view of succession must be subordinate to that of simultaneity, as is required by the purely metaphysical and therefore extra-temporal (and also extra-spatial, as coexistence does not necessarily presume space) character of the theory of the multiple states of the being. [22]
We will further add, whatever may be the claims of the spiritists and occultists, that nowhere in nature can we find the least analogy favoring reincarnation, whereas there are on the contrary many analogies in the opposite direction. This point has been brought out clearly in the teachings of the formally anti-reincarnationist 'H Bof I.' mentioned above. It will be of interest, we believe, to cite several passages of these teachings, which show that this school had at least some knowledge of real transmigration as well as of certain cyclical laws:
The adept author of Ghostland expresses an absolute truth when he says that, as an impersonal being, man lives in an indefinitude of worlds before reaching this one.... When the great stage of consciousness, summit of the series of manifestations, is attained, the soul will never again enter into the womb of matter, will
never again pass through material incarnation; henceforth its rebirths are in the realm of the spirit. Those who support the strangely illogical doctrine of the multitude of human births assuredly have never developed in themselves the lucid state of spiritual consciousness; for otherwise the theory of reincarnation would have been thoroughly discredited, although it is affirmed and supported by a great number of men and women well versed in 'the wisdom of this world'. An exterior education is relatively valueless as a means of obtaining real knowledge.... An acorn becomes an oak, the coconut grows into a palm; but though the oak has certainly produced myriads of other acorns, it can never again become an acorn itself, neither does the palm again become a coconut. And similarly for man: once the soul has been manifested on the human plane and has thus attained consciousness of life outside itself, it never again passes through these rudimentary states.... All these so-called 'awakenings of latent memories' by which some people are convinced that they recall their previous lives, can be explained by, and only by, simple laws of affinity and of form. Each race considered in itself is immortal. It is the same for each cycle; the first cycle never becomes the second, but the beings of the first cycle are the generators [23] of those of the second. Thus each cycle comprises a great family constituted by the reunion of diverse groups of human souls, each condition being determined by the laws of its activity, those of its form, and those of its affinity, a trinity of laws.... It is thus that a man may be compared to the acorn and to the oak: the embryonic, non-individualized soul, becomes a man just as the acorn becomes an oak; and as the oak gives birth to innumerable acorns, likewise man in his turn provides the means for an indefinity of souls to be born into the spiritual world. There is complete correspondence between the two, and it is for precisely this reason that the Druids so greatly honored this tree which was revered beyond all others by the mighty Hierophants.
This is an indication of the purely spiritual sense of 'posterity', though we cannot say more on this point now or on the related cyclical laws. Perhaps some day we will treat these questions if we find the means to do so in terms that are sufficiently intelligible, for there are difficulties inherent in the imperfection of Western languages.
Unfortunately, the 'HB of L' admitted the possibility of reincarnation in certain exceptional cases, such as still-born infants or those dying very young, and born idiots. [24] And we have read somewhere that Mme Blavatsky admitted this possibility at the time she wrote Isis Unveiled. [25] In reality, once it is a question of a metaphysical impossibility, there cannot be the least exception; it suffices that a being has passed through a certain state, even if only in an embryonic form, or even in the form of a single germ, in order for it in no case to be able return to that state, of which it has thus realized the possibilities according to the measure its own nature admits. If the development of these possibilities seems to have been arrested at a certain point, it was because there was no need for the being concerned to go further as far as its corporeal modality is concerned. Here the cause of error is an exclusive regard for the corporeal modality, the not taking into account all the possibilities which, for this same being, may be developed in other modalities of the same state. If one were able to take all these modalities into account, it would be seen that even in cases such as these latter reincarnation is absolutely unnecessary, which one can readily admit once one knows that it is impossible and that all that exists, whatever the appearances, contribute to the total harmony of the Universe. This question is in fact analogous to that of 'spirit' communications: in the one case as in the other it is a question of impossibilities. To say
that there may be exceptions would be as illogical as to say, for example, that there can be a small number of cases in Euclidian geometry where the sum of the three angles of a triangle do not equal two right angles. Whatever is absurd is so absolutely, and not 'in general'. For the rest, if we begin to admit exceptions we cannot see how to assign them any precise limits. For example, how would one determine the age at which an infant, should he die, might not need to be reincarnated, or the degree of mental debility required before a reincarnation might become necessary? Obviously, nothing could be more arbitrary, and we can acknowledge Papus' correctness when he says that 'if one rejects this theory, no exceptions can be admitted, otherwise a breach is opened through which everything can pass. [26]
In the mind of its author this observation was addressed especially to certain writers who believed that in particular cases reincarnation could be reconciled with Catholic doctrine. The Count of Larmandie, notably, has claimed that it might be admitted for infants who die unbaptized. [27] It is quite true that certain texts, those of the Fourth Council of Constantinople for example, which at times were held to counter reincarnation, do not really apply. But the occultists need not congratulate themselves, because if this is so, it is simply because at the time reincarnation had not even been imagined. What was in question was Origen's opinion that corporeal life was a punishment for souls which, 'preexisting as celestial powers, had become sated with divine contemplation.' It is plain to see that what is here involved is not an anterior corporeal life, but an existence in the intelligible world (in the Platonic sense), and this has no relation whatsoever with reincarnation. It is difficult to see how Papus could write that 'the opinion of the Council indicates that reincarnation formed part of the teachings, and that if there were some who were voluntarily reincarnated, not from disgust with Heaven but for love of neighbor, the anathema could not affect them' (he imagined that this anathema was aimed at those who 'proclaimed that they had returned to earth because they
were displeased with Heaven'); and basing himself on this, he asserted that 'the idea of reincarnation is part of the secret teachings of the Church. [28] As concerns Catholic doctrine, we must mention a truly extraordinary assertion of the spiritists: Allan Kardec maintains that 'the dogma of the resurrection of the flesh establishes that of reincarnation taught by spiritists', and that 'thus the Church herself, by the dogma of the resurrection of the flesh, teaches the doctrine of reincarnation'; or rather, he presents these propositions as questions, and it is the 'spirit' of St Louis who responds that 'this is obvious', adding that 'before long it will be recognized that at each step spiritism stands out from the very text of the sacred Scriptures'! [29] What is still more astonishing is that a Catholic priest, albeit one more or less suspected of heterodoxy, can be found to accept and support such an opinion, for the Abbe J.-A. Petit of the diocese of Beauvais, formerly a close friend of the Duchess of Pomar, wrote these lines:
Reincarnation, as is known, has been recognized by most ancient peoples.... Christ also admitted it. If it is not expressly taught by the apostles, this is because the faithful had to realize in themselves the moral qualities that rendered it unnecessary.... Later, when the great leaders and their disciples had disappeared and Christian teaching, under pressure from human interests, was fixed in an arid creed, there remained as a vestige of the past only the resurrection of the flesh or resurrection in the flesh, which, taken literally, led to the gigantic error of the resurrection of dead bodies. [30]
We will not comment on this, for no impartial mind can take such interpretations seriously; but the transformation of the 'resurrection of the flesh' into 'resurrection in the flesh' is one of those little tricks which risk placing the author's good faith in doubt.
Before leaving this subject we will say a few words about the Gospel texts cited by spiritists in favor of reincarnation. Allan Kardec
notes two of them, [31] the first of which follows the account of the Transfiguration:
And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, 'Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead.' And the disciples asked him, 'Why then do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?' He replied, 'Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.' Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. [32]
Allan Kardec adds: 'Since John the Baptist was Elijah, the spirit or soul of Elijah was reincarnated in the body of John the Baptist.' For his part, Papus likewise says:
First, the Gospels affirm unequivocally that John the Baptist is Elijah reincarnated. This is a mystery. When John the Baptist was questioned, he held his peace; but the others knew. There is also the parable of the man born blind and punished for his prior sins, which provides much occasion for reflection. [33]
In the first place, the text does not indicate the manner in which 'Elijah is already come'; and it is supposed that Elijah was not dead in the ordinary sense of the word, it seems difficult, at the very least, to assume that his return was by reincarnation. Furthermore, why was Elijah not manifested at the Transfiguration in the likeness of John the Baptist? [34] And further, John the Baptist, when asked, did
not refuse to answer, as Papus claimed, but on the contrary made a formal denial: 'And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he answered, "No". [35] If it is said that this proves only that he had no memory of his previous existence, we will respond by pointing out another text that is still more explicit: the angel Gabriel, announcing to Zechariah the birth of his son, declares: 'and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared. [36] It could not be shown more clearly that John the Baptist was not Elijah in person, but only that he belonged to his 'spiritual family', if this manner of expression may be allowed. It is in this way and not literally that the 'coming of Elijah' must be understood. Allan Kardec does not speak of the story of the man born blind, and Papus seems quite unfamiliar with it, for he takes as a parable what is an account of a miraculous healing. Here is the exact text:
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. [37]
This man was not, then, 'punished for his sins', but this might have been so, if the text had not been twisted by adding a word not found in it -'for his previous sins'. One might be tempted to accuse Papus of bad faith were it not for his manifest ignorance in this matter. It was possible that the infirmity of this man was inflicted as an anticipated sanction in view of sins he would later commit. This interpretation cannot be rejected except by those who push anthropomorphism to the point of submitting God to time. Finally, the second text cited by Allan Kardec is the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus. It is sufficient to reproduce the essential passage in order to refute reincarnationist claims in this regard:
Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God'. . . 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born anew." [38]
It requires an ignorance as prodigious as that of the spiritists to believe that all this is a question of reincarnation, when in fact it is a question of the 'second birth' understood in a purely spiritual sense that is even plainly contrasted with physical birth. This idea of the 'second birth', which we cannot discuss now, is one common to all traditional doctrines, among which, despite the assertions of the 'neo-spiritualists', there is not a single one that has ever taught anything remotely resembling reincarnation.