222- Some persons have stated that the doctrine of reincarnation is not new, that it was taken from Pythagoras. We have never said that the Spiritist Doctrine is a modern invention. Since it stems from the very laws of nature, Spiritism per se must obviously have existed since the beginning of time, and we have always sought to show that traces of it may be found in remotest antiquity. It is well known that Pythagoras was not the creator of the theory of metempsychosis39; he took it from the Hindu philosophers and Egyptians, who had believed in it from time immemorial. The idea of the transmigration of souls was therefore a common belief, accepted by the most eminent individuals. By what road did this idea come to them? Was it by revelation or intuition? We do not know. Whatever the case may be, an idea could not have traversed the ages and have been accepted by the most advanced minds if there were not something to it. The ancientness of this doctrine should therefore be, if anything, a proof in its favor rather than an objection against it. However, it is equally known that between the metempsychosis of the ancients and the modern doctrine of reincarnation there is this one main difference: the Spirits absolutely reject the transmigration of human souls into animals, and vice versa.
39 “[Theory] through which the spirits who did not behave properly and nobly on earth must reincarnate as lower order animals” (Franco, Divaldo P. Estudos Espíritas, through the Spirit, Joanna de Ângelis, 5th ed. FEB. 1991 – translation ours) – Tr.
In teaching the doctrine of the plurality of corporeal existences, the Spirits have thus renewed a doctrine that was born during the earliest ages of the world, and which has been preserved up to our time in the inmost thought of many persons. However, the Spirits have presented it from a more rational point of view, more according to the progressive laws of nature, and more in harmony with the wisdom of the Creator by divesting it of all the accouterments of superstition. A point worth noting is that it is not only in this book that they have taught it recently: even before it was published, numerous communications of the same nature had been received in many regions, and they have multiplied considerably since then. Moreover, it might be pertinent to examine why it is that not all the Spirits seem to be in agreement regarding this doctrine; we shall revisit that issue later.
But for now let us examine the issue at hand from another angle, apart from any revelations by the Spirits. We shall put them aside for the moment and assume that this theory did not come from them at all. Let us even assume that we have never even pondered it together with the Spirits. Let us instead place ourselves in a neutral position for the time being and accept the same degree of likelihood of truth for both the hypothesis of the plurality of corporeal existences and that of a single existence, and let us see towards which side reason and our own interests will take us.
Some individuals reject the idea of reincarnation for the simple reason that it is inconvenient to them. They declare that one existence is quite enough, and that they have no desire to recommence a similar one. We even know persons who become infuriated at the simple thought of returning to the earth. We would ask them whether God ought to ask for their advice and consult their wishes in setting the universe in order! One of two possibilities applies: either reincarnation is a fact, or it is not. If it is, it is useless for these individuals to oppose it; they will have to undergo it without God asking for their permission. Opposing it would be the same as a sick man saying, “I’ve already suffered too much today; I don’t want to suffer anymore tomorrow.” No matter how unwilling he may be, he will not suffer any less tomorrow or in the days that follow until he is cured. Likewise, if those individuals must live again corporeally, they will do so; they will reincarnate. They will protest in vain like a child who does not want to go to school, or a criminal condemned to prison, because they will have to reincarnate nevertheless. Objections of this type are too childish to deserve a more serious examination. However, in order to reassure such persons, we will state that the Spiritist doctrine of reincarnation is not as terrible as they might think, and that if they were to study it in depth, they would realize they have nothing to fear. They would understand that each new existence depends on themselves; that it will be happy or unhappy according to what they are doing in their present one; that from this life onwards, if they improve themselves to a certain degree, they will never have to fear falling back into the swamp.
We will presume that we are addressing persons who believe in some kind of future after death, rather than those who believe that only nothingness awaits them, or those who wish to immerse their soul into the universal whole without preserving their individuality, like drops of rain falling into the ocean. If you believe in any kind of future at all, you certainly do not suppose that it will be the same for all, because that would imply that doing good during one’s life would not matter in the end. In other words, why restrain ourselves; why not satisfy all our passions, all our desires – even at the expense of others – if our future will be neither better nor worse for it? If, on the other hand, you believe that the future will be happier or less happy according to what one does in life, would you not desire to make it as happy as possible because it will have implications for all eternity? Do you, by any chance, fancy yourself as being one of the most perfect creatures who has ever walked the earth and thus have an immediate right to the bliss of the elect? I would not think so. Thus, without your having to consider yourself among the reprobate, you must admit that there are those who deserve more than you do, and who have a right to a better situation. Well then, mentally place yourself for a moment in that middle position, which (as you admit) you occupy at the moment, and imagine that someone says to you, “You suffer; you are not as happy as you could be, whereas there are others all around you who seem to enjoy perfect happiness. Would you like to trade your situation for theirs?” “Of course, I would!” you reply, “But what do I have to do?” “Almost nothing. Simply start over what you have done badly and try to do it better.” Would you hesitate to accept this proposition, even if it cost you many lifetimes of trial? Let us make a more prosaic comparison. Suppose you were to say to a man who, although not in extreme poverty, is going through hard times due to his precarious resources, “There is a huge fortune for you to enjoy; however, you must work hard for it for exactly one minute.” If he were the laziest being on earth, he would not hesitate to say, “I’m willing to work for one minute, two minutes, an hour, a whole day if necessary! What difference would that make if my life will end up in abundance?” Well then, what is the duration of one corporeal life when compared to eternity? Less than a minute; less than a second.
We sometimes hear this sort of reasoning: God, who is supremely good, would not impose on us the obligation to recommence another series of misfortunes and tribulations. Do they by any chance believe that God would show more kindness in condemning people to eternal suffering because of a few moments of error than in granting them the means to repair their wrongs? Two manufacturers each had a worker who aspired to partnership, but on one particular workday, both workers were unproductive and deserved to be fired. One of the manufacturers actually fired his worker despite his pleas, and since he was unable to obtain any other employment, he died in poverty. The other, however, said to his worker, “You have wasted a whole day so you owe me compensation. You have performed badly so you owe me reparation; however, I will let you start over tomorrow. If you perform well, I will keep you, and you will be able to continue aspiring to the higher position I promised you.” Is it necessary to ask which of the two manufacturers was more humane? Then would God, who is clemency itself, be more inflexible than a human? There is something poignant in the thought that our fate is sealed forever because of a few years of trial, and considering the fact that all our efforts are insufficient for reaching perfection while on earth, the opposite idea is eminently consoling since it does not deprive us of hope. Therefore, without deciding either for or against the plurality of existences, and without favoring one hypothesis over the other, we will simply state that if the choice could be made, no one would prefer a sentence that could not be appealed. A philosopher once said that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent one for the contentment of humankind. The same could be said of the plurality of existences. As we stated previously, God does not ask for our permission, nor does God consult our preferences – things either are or they are not. Based on such considerations, let us see on which side the odds might
lie. Let us consider the matter from another point of view – still omitting the teaching of the Spirits – and examine the issue solely as a philosophical endeavor.
If there is no reincarnation, then it is obvious that there can be only one corporeal existence; thus, if there is only one corporeal existence, then the soul of each individual must be created at birth (unless we accept the preexistence of the soul). However, if that were the case, then we would have to ask what the soul was before birth and if such a preexistent state would not comprise an existence of some kind or other. There is no middle ground: either the soul existed before the body, or it did not. If it existed, what was its situation? Did it or did it not possess self-awareness? If it did not, that would be about the same as saying that it did not exist at all; however if it did, was its individuality progressive or stationary? In either case, what was its situation when it joined the body? According to the common belief, which assumes that the soul is born at the same time as the body, or likewise, that before incarnation it possessed only negative faculties, we must ask the following questions:
1) Why does the soul display aptitudes that are so different from and independent of the ideas acquired by education?
2)Why do some very young children display an extraordinary aptitude for a particular area of knowledge, while others are left in mediocrity throughout their entire lifetime?
3) Why do some children seem to be endowed with inborn or intuitive ideas that are lacking in others?
4) Why do certain children demonstrate precocious impulses towards vice or virtue, or innate sentiments of dignity or meanness that contrast so strikingly with the environment into which they have been born?
5) Why is it that some individuals, regardless of their education, are more advanced than others?
6) Why are there both uncivilized and civilized peoples? If we took a Hottentot40 baby at birth, raised it, and then sent it to one of our most renowned schools, could we make it into a Laplace41 or a Newton42?
We would ask what philosophy or theosophy43 might solve these problems. Either souls are equal at birth or they are not – that we cannot doubt. If they are equal, why are there such differences of aptitude? One could respond that it depends on the physical organism, but in that case, we would have a most monstrous and immoral doctrine. Human beings would be no more than a machine, the whim of matter. They would not be responsible for their actions since everything could be attributed to their physical imperfections. However, if souls are unequal, then it is because God creates them so. Then, we must ask, why is inborn mental superiority granted to some and not to others? Would such favoritism be consistent with the justice and love that God grants to all creatures equally?
40 Another designation for Khoikhoi: “A member of any of a group of pastoral peoples, physically and linguistically akin to the San, who inhabited present-day Cape Province, South Africa, in the 17th century.” (Webster’s, op. cit.) – Tr.
41 “Pierre Simon, Marquis de, 1749-1827, French astronomer and mathematician.” (ibid.) – Tr.
42 “Sir Isaac, 1642-1727, English physicist and mathematician.” (ibid.) – Tr.
43 “Any of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature.” (ibid.) – Tr.
On the other hand, if we admit to a succession of prior and progressive existences, everything can be explained. At birth, individuals bring with them the intuition of what they have already acquired. They are more evolved or less so according to the number of lives they have lived, or according to how near or far they are from their starting point. It is exactly like in a group of individuals of all ages, wherein each one will have developed according to the number of years he or she has lived. Successive lives represent for the life of the soul what years represent for the life of the body. For example, on the same day, bring together a thousand individuals ranging from one to eighty years old. Now suppose that some sort of veil has been mysteriously cast over all their previous days, so that you unwittingly believe that all of them were born on the same day. You would naturally ask why some are big and others are little, some old and others young, some educated and others still ignorant. Nevertheless, if the cloud hiding their past were removed, if you were to suddenly realize that all have lived for a longer or shorter amount of time, then everything would be explained. God, out of divine justice, could not have created some souls more advanced and others less. With the plurality of existences, the inequality that we see displays nothing contrary to the strictest equity. There seems to be inequality merely because we see the present only and not the past. Does this argument rest upon some theory, some gratuitous supposition? No, because we start from a patent, incontestable fact: the inequality of aptitudes, and intellectual and moral development. We have found that this fact cannot be explained by any current theory, whereas a new theory gives it a simple, natural and logical explanation. Would it be rational to prefer the one that explains nothing to the one that explains everything?
Regarding the sixth question, it will doubtless be stated that Hottentots are less advanced. But then we will ask: are they or are they not human? If they are human, why would God have denied them the privileges granted to Caucasians? And if they are not humans, then why try to make them Christians? The Spiritist Doctrine is much more encompassing than all of that because it reveals that there are not several species of human beings but only humans as a whole. Their spirits are at different stages on the scale of advancement, but they all are disposed to continually evolve. Is this not more in harmony with the justice of God?
Heretofore, we have considered the soul according to its past and its present. However, if we consider it with respect to its future, we will encounter the same types of problems:
1) If the present life is decisive for our future destiny, what will be the respective positions in the future life for those of less advanced cultures and those of more highly advanced cultures? Will they be on the same level or divided regarding their eternal bliss?
2) Will those who have worked their entire lives to improve themselves be on the same level as those who have remained undeveloped, not due to their own fault but due to either the lack of time or the ability to improve themselves?
3) Are those who have practiced evil because they were unable to enlighten themselves liable for a state of affairs that did not depend on them?
4) Efforts are made to enlighten, moralize and civilize people, but for every one who becomes enlightened, there are millions who die every day before the light has managed to reach them. What is their fate? Will they be treated as reprobates? If not, what have they done to deserve to be on the same plane as the others?
5) What is the fate of children who die at a very early age before having done either good or evil? If they are among the elect, why are they granted such a favor without having done anything to deserve it? And by what privilege have they been exempt from the tribulations of a full lifetime?
Is there any doctrine that can solve these issues? However, accept the existence of successive lives and everything can be explained in conformity with God’s justice. What we are unable to accomplish in one existence, we will in another. Thus, no one escapes the law of progress. All will be rewarded according to their true individual merit, and none will be excluded from the supreme bliss to which they aspire, no matter what obstacles they may have encountered along the way.
Such issues could be multiplied to infinity because the psychological and moral problems that have no solution other than the plurality of existences are innumerable – we have restricted ourselves only to the most general. Nevertheless, it may still be argued that the doctrine of reincarnation has not been accepted by the Church. It would therefore be the subversion of Christianity. It is not our objective at the moment to address this issue, since it is sufficient for us to have shown that the doctrine is eminently moral and rational. Furthermore, what is moral and rational cannot be contrary to a religion that proclaims God as goodness and reason par excellence. What would have become of Christianity if, contrary to universal opinion and the testimony of science, it had denied the evidence and expelled whomever did not believe in the movement of the sun and the six days of creation? What credit would a religion deserve, and what authority would it have among enlightened nations if it were based on such obvious errors that were once articles of faith? Whenever evidence has been established, the Church has wisely sided with it. If it is proven that things exist which would be impossible without reincarnation, if certain points of Church dogma cannot be explained except by such means, then it will be necessary to accept it and realize that the antagonism between this doctrine and Church dogma is only apparent. Later, we will show that perhaps the Church is less removed from this doctrine than it thinks, and that it would suffer no more in accepting it than it suffered from the discovery of the movement of the earth around the sun and the geological periods, which at first also seemed to contradict the sacred texts. Moreover, the principle of reincarnation appears in many scripture passages, and is found especially and explicitly formulated in the Gospels:
“Descending from the mountain (after the transfiguration), Jesus commanded them, saying, ‘Do not tell anyone what you have seen until the Son of Man has been raised from among the dead.’ His disciples then questioned him, ‘Then why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ And Jesus responded, ‘In truth, Elijah is to come first, and will reestablish all things. But I declare to you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but made him suffer everything they wished. It is thus that they will put to death the Son of Man.’ Then his disciples understood that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist.” (Mt. 17)
If John the Baptist was Elijah, he must have therefore been the reincarnation of the spirit or soul of Elijah in the body of John the Baptist.
Whatever may be the opinion that persons have about reincarnation, whether they accept or reject it, no one will escape it by merely believing to the contrary. The essential point is that the teaching of the Spirits is eminently Christian. It rests upon the immortality of the soul, future punishment and reward, God’s justice, human free will and the morals of Christ; it is therefore not anti-Christian. As stated previously, our reasoning up to this point has excluded all Spiritist teachings, which certain individuals regard as being without authority. If we, as so many others, have adopted the doctrine of the plurality of existences, it is not only because it has come from the Spirits, but because it has seemed to us to be the most logical and the only one that resolves issues that until now have been irresolvable. If it had come to us from a mere mortal, we would have adopted it just the same, not hesitating to give up our own former ideas. The moment an error is exposed, our self-esteem has more to lose than to gain in sustaining it. In the same way, we would have rejected reincarnation, even though it had come from the Spirits, if it had seemed to us to be contrary to reason, just as we have rejected so many other doctrines. We know by experience that we must not blindly accept everything that comes from spirits in the same way that we cannot accept everything that comes from human beings. To our minds, its first merit is that it is eminently logical. But it also has another merit in its favor, confirmed by the facts, positive facts, material ones, so to speak, which an attentive and well-reasoned study may reveal to whomever strives to observe them with patience and perseverance, and before which doubt is no longer possible. Once these facts become widely known, then like the formation and movement of the earth it will be necessary to yield to the evidence, and its opponents will have wasted opposing arguments in vain.
In sum, we recognize the fact that the doctrine of the plurality of existences is the only one that can explain what would be unexplainable without it, that it is eminently consoling and conforms to the strictest justice. For humankind it is the life-preserver that God, out of divine mercy, has thrown to them.
The words of Jesus himself can leave no doubt about this. As we read in the 3rd chapter of John’s Gospel:
Verse 3. In replying to Nicodemus, Jesus states: “Truly, truly, I say to you that if a man is not born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Verse 4. Nicodemus says to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter again into his mother’s womb and be born a second time?”
Verse 5. Jesus responds, “Truly, truly, I tell you that unless he is born of water and of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I have told you, you must be born again.” (See below, The Resurrection of the Flesh, no. 1010).
Site Espírita 