(This is a report of a lecture delivered at Irving Hall, San Francisco,
California, September 28, 1891, and printed in The New Californian, Vol. I, November 1891, pp. 177-83. The latter
was published by Louise A. Off, a T.S. member in Los Angeles, California.)
Reincarnation is change. Whether in the domain of mind, of natural
objects, or of human progress in civilization, the great law governing all is
change. Everything is changing; the old into the new, the past into the
present. This procession of change is evolution, and reincarnation and
evolution are the same thing.
The doctrine of reincarnation is that each man is a living, immortal
soul; that, as Walt Whitman, the poet, in Song
of Myself (§49) says, he has “died ten thousand times before;” that being
immortal he must have been always immortal; that he has lived before; and that
he comes to earth again and again in new bodies, for the purpose of experience
and development.
As an old Hindu poet, Vyasa
quoting Kṛishṇa:
-
“I and thou, oh
Arjuna, have had many births; we have been in many bodies, and we will be in
many more.” (Bhagavad-Gita, 4:5)
Now, although the doctrine of
reincarnation applies to every atom in the universe, we will only consider it
in respect to man himself. If man is the crowning glory, the aim and end of all
evolutionary effort, as a conscious reasoning being his evolution must needs
involve a changing series of lives.
First of all, he should know
himself, because once that he knows that, he knows all. Reincarnation, then, as
applied to man, means that we are not here for the first time; that we have
previously inhabited bodies on this earth. This, according to the Theosophic
theory, is the only way in which spirits return to the earth.
We do not hold, like some, that
after a man dies, after his body is put away in the ground, he returns once
more, without a body, to converse with his friends left behind. We say that he
comes back and occupies another body; that he reincarnates.
This is not a new nor a strange
doctrine. It is as old as any records of civilization. The ancient Egyptians
believed it and taught it. The Jews believed it. The Chaldeans no doubt believed
it, for their philosophy is similar to that of the Egyptians and the Hindus.
The latter have always believed it, and today accept it almost to a man. They
declare that either man is immortal or he is not. If he is immortal he must
have always been so; if he is not, then this world of ours is a chaos of
injustice and unmerited suffering.
Is one life adequate for any of the purposes which it would seem ought
to be in view, in the perfecting of man in his nature, his character, and his
powers?
I think that the answer will be
that it is not enough if we desire to gain knowledge. The departments of
knowledge are innumerable; they cannot be counted. In each the pursuit of
knowledge is divided and again subdivided. Whether in history, the physical
sciences, or the study of nature’s resources, of civilization, or, further yet,
the study of the mind, the departments are so infinite that one faints with the
idea of supposing it possible to acquire all that knowledge in a single
lifetime. Now what is a lifetime?
As it is reckoned according to
the Christian scheme, it is 70 years. The insurance standard is much shorter;
it is not 60 years. Now, a person spends a great deal of time in childhood,
when they learn nothing; before they understand how to use their own senses that
they may acquire knowledge.
They will, it is true, acquire
mere impressions, but these are indefinite and crude, so that the period of
childhood has to be subtracted from this 60 years. One-third of the remainder
is spent in sleep, and the greater part of the waking portion is wasted, so far
as development is concerned, in the struggle for existence, for of our own
civilization you will find that the major part are bound down to the wall in
order to gain a scanty livelihood.
How much time is there left in which to do anything whatever, except to
gain a thimbleful to eat and a place to sleep?
I take it that the object in view
in having man upon earth is that he may develop his character up to the highest
standard, and in order to do so he not only has to acquire knowledge in all its
branches but he has also in addition to that to gain experience, for one can
acquire knowledge in his room and yet have no experience. It is well-known that
we must have experience with each other, personal contact in all the relations
of life, in order to develop our character.
There is a story told in India,
of the great sage Sankaracharya, bearing upon this point. He was a man who was
celebrated all his life long as one possessed of the highest learning. He had
studied and experienced almost everything, but one day the Goddess of Love came
to him and said:
-
“Sankaracharya, what
is the nature of love?”
He was obliged to reply, “I don’t
know,” and in order to acquire experience as to its true nature he again, as
the story goes, reincarnated in order that he might answer the question of the
Goddess. So that even he, with all his wisdom from other experiences, had once
more to reincarnate to gain actual experience in this.
In view then, of the amount of
experience necessary to round out and develop human character, how much can be
accomplished in one short life? Each one of us has a different trade or
business. Take the man with a small store. He has nothing to do with large
affairs; his whole life has been spent in making prices for the goods he sells.
What chance has he to gain anything but that one small experience in
this life?
So on, in every direction. There
is no chance to gain the needed experience, in order that a soul or character
may be developed up to the highest possible standard. Further than this,
character has to be formed, and the short time we have, even if the period of
sleep be added, is not enough to form character. Besides, men and women from
birth to death have almost the same essential character.
The boy who was a trader in
school, who swapped a knife for some marbles and the marbles for something else
until he finally acquired money, is today a trader. Another boy who gave
everything away is still the same; his essential character has not altered. It
is rarely that man’s essential characteristics change from birth to death.
Nothing changes in one short life
except in response to the quantity of experience gained and the amount of this
is too small to even materially modify much less to form character.
When, then, will we have the opportunity to improve or evolve, if there
is only one life and one death?
Never
God designed that man
should have a character, and that it should be developed on all sides, so that
he may acquire a knowledge of all truth. This cannot be done in one short life.
It is desired, I suppose, by nature and by God that mankind, as a whole, should
be elevated up to the highest, in purity, wisdom, compassion and a host of
other Godlike characteristics. This is impossible in one short life, with half
of this slept away. Our life,
in addition, raises within us
ideas with respect to the fact that there is more to be known; a consciousness
that greater and grander truths exist than any we have yet encountered as the
natural deduction from all that we have known.
This consciousness of but a
partial development of our faculties fills us with unrest. The knowledge that
life leaves unused certain faculties which might fill us with gratification or
sorrow, or at any rate with increased experience and wisdom, haunts us.
Failure and disappointment are
everywhere; rich and poor alike feel them grinding in their hearts. Those who
move in high social circles are not happy because their schemes do not succeed;
others are miserable merely for the reason that they know not what else to do,
and they are unsatisfied with their idleness.
On the other hand are those who
are discontented with their lot and the injustice surrounding them. Now this
short life has raised these feelings and we must ask the question:
What is the way out?
Is there any solution to these and similar problems?
The answer is, there is in
Reincarnation, and in this only.
Now, there are three hypotheses by which men
have sought to surmount these difficulties.
1) The first is that all of them are
removed by mere death, by the simple fact of dying, or passing away from the
world. Mere death is to be accepted as the end of all only upon the
materialistic basis. If man is immortal, simple death is no solution.
2) From religion
basis, we have to imagine a wonderful change after death. But there is nothing in our whole
experience to warrant such a conclusion, from the Christian or Spiritualistic
standpoint. Furthermore, if it were true that mere dying and being translated
to some other place or state will answer all these questions, then all souls
would have to be alike.
It really has sometimes seemed to me that the idea of
going to heaven where I should sing songs that I did not like, and see a number
of people who did not like me when I was alive, and who could not sing a note
properly under any circumstances, would not be at all desirable. This change
after death is too sudden, too contrary to all nature’s methods.
3) The second hypothesis aims at
removing the difficulties by a spiritual discipline after death. Now, this will
not answer because numerous faculties are not at all developed during life. It
premises just as sudden a change of character as the first plan. In order to
develop faculties that we find ourselves in partial possession of here, we must
undergo the experience which evolves those faculties.
The last hypothesis, however, is
reincarnation, and that, as I have said, will overcome all difficulties.
Reincarnation shows the meaning of Universal Brotherhood; that all of us being
spiritual beings, according to the grand plan of nature in all worlds and in
all kingdoms up to the highest possible limit, are unable to escape from each
other until we are essentially changed.
To postulate as a truth that a whole
family must die and go to heaven together because the mother or father wishes to
see them is unphilosophical. Members of that family may become
entirely alienated, and then be compelled to be in a company not like
themselves, with whom they do not wish to associate. They can escape only by
reincarnation. They only come back again and again in families together who are
like in character. None escape from any family until they have altered their
entire nature. In a similar manner to this method in families, reincarnation
also insures advance in races. No advance can be possible without it.
The existence of savages, even at
the present day, in America, in Borneo and in other places of the world, where
there are hordes of them, can only be explained by reincarnation, as well as
the further fact that they are melting away like the clouds of mist before the
noonday sun. In the Sandwich Islands, the Indians there, now so closely
connected with us by commerce, are disappearing; pushed out, it is declared, by
civilization.
We say not. It is very true that
the missionaries going there, and the trader following, does often bring about
this result in part, but it is not wholly due to that. The egos in those bodies
are reaching the limit of experience under this kind of mental environment and
when this limit is reached, no more bodies are produced in sufficient number to
keep up the race.
The reason why some savage
nations are growing is that egos are there still gaining needed experience.
Their essential character remains the same. When it shall have changed their
life desires, no more such bodies will be produced.
Furthermore, not to postulate
reincarnation is to sanction the greatest injustice. It is to accuse the God,
in whom you believe, of injustice. Because, if Reincarnation is not a law of
nature, then these savages are unjustly treated in being in existence at all.
What is the use of simply inhabiting such bodies as theirs?
Why are they condemned to such a life?
Reincarnation restores justice to
human existence in this, and in all the circumstances surrounding life and
enables man to believe that the Universe is governed by law in every particular
and in each department. Reincarnation provides also for exact justice to each
individual in every civilization alike.
Each person set in motion the
causes in his last life which have brought about what he is now experiencing,
and is, therefore, undergoing a just punishment or reward because he is the
person who did the thing, and the person who should be punished or rewarded.
Now, you may say:
-
“I am not the person.
It was another person, who was called so and so in a previous life.”
To say that is to misconceive the
doctrine. It does not mean that it was another individual, but the very same
one reincarnated in a new body as one might be clothed with a different
garment. The name is nothing. It is given to you by your parents, just as much
without your consent as is your body. It does not represent you.
_ _ _
Now, the objections which are
raised to this theory of reincarnation are few in number. They may be reduced
to four heads.
1) The first objection is, “I do
not remember my former lives, and therefore it is unjust that I should suffer
or enjoy for what I do not remember having done.” You do not remember half of
this life.
Who among you can bring back before him now the details of his
childhood?
How much do those of you remember, who lived in the country, for
instance?
You can remember the house on the
farm, perhaps, and the most prominent objects, but you cannot remember more
than a few particulars. Only the most important features are retained. The rest
fades from the mind. Now, if the argument is good that you have never lived
before because you do not remember it, then you have never lived these years of
your life that you don’t remember, which illustrates the absurdity of such a
position.
2) The second objection,
contained in the first, is “that it is unjust.” This I have already explained.
The theory that a man must remember a crime which he has committed, or the good
he has done, in order to be justly punished or rewarded is violated, so far as
nature is concerned, every moment in the day.
You go to sleep at night,
forgetting the window is open and catch a violent cold while you are asleep.
You reap the consequences in a day or two after and do not question nature’s
justice. You take into your stomach during the day some deleterious substance.
Will the fact that you did not know it was poisonous enable you to
escape the consequences?
Is it not true that many children are lamed for life and that no one can
tell how the accident occurred?
I have known of a case where a
nurse dropped a child in early youth, which afterwards developed a very
distressing disease, one that often ruins a whole life. The child remembered
nothing of it, yet the consequences fell upon its head.
Is it unjust because it does not remember it?
If there is no reincarnation it
is unjust, because this child had not in its brief life done anything to
warrant this accident.
3) The next objection is that
reincarnation is contrary to heredity, that is, that heredity accounts for
these things, accounts for everything, some say. But the best investigators are
beginning to declare the contrary.
They admit that it does not
account for but a few things of a physical nature. It does not explain the
differences in character. From its earliest youth each child exhibits a
character of its own. One shows entire selfishness, a grasping propensity;
another the opposite or openheartedness; both being children of the same
mother.
4) The last objection is a sentimental one and too often made. It has no force whatever, except that the world is largely governed by sentiment. People say:
-
“I don’t like it. I
don’t want to be born again. I don’t wish to think of the idea that I won’t see
my child, my husband and my friends again.”
The mere sentimental thought “I
don’t like it” is no argument. Take, for instance, the case of the mother who
said to me the other night on the train, “I do not like the idea, because I
wish to see my son again.”
Now, which son does she wish to see?
The one born a babe, whom she
loved as well as her own life, or the same son grown to be a man? Or if he
chanced to become a low character, is this the vision to be remembered?
And the child, whom does he wish
to remember and see, the parent in his beauty, strength and prime, or the old
man, toothless, wrinkled and gray? Which of these?
None. The real man is not subject
to these changes, but is ever living and ever reincarnating.
Christians will find that the
Bible confirms this doctrine on almost every page. It is in Matthew in several
places. Christianity without reincarnation is an unjust scheme, to say nothing
of other defects. The early Christian Fathers, as well as those of the Middle
Ages, and poets and writers of all sorts and conditions have believed in this
doctrine.
Theosophists accept it because it
sets man upon his feet; gives him a chance; allows him an opportunity to live a
better life under better conditions, in new places and times.
With it, man is able to raise
himself up to the standard and power of a God, which is the intention of
nature, for with reincarnation he acquires experience in every kind of life,
and all varieties of bodies. He is able to transmute and purify his lower
nature. He is, in fact, a pilgrim winding his way up to the very highest point
attainable.
(Echoes of the Orient III,
p.178-184)
