611- Isn’t the common origin of living beings in the intelligent principle an affirmation of the doctrine of metempsychosis?
“Two things may have the same origin, and yet not resemble each other at all later on. Who would recognize the tree, its leaves, its flowers and its fruit in the shapeless germ contained in the seed from which they came? From the moment when the intelligent principle reaches the necessary degree for becoming a spirit and for entering the period of humanness, it has no more relationship with its primitive state. It is no longer the soul of the animal like the tree is no longer a seed. In humans, there is only the animal-like body, the passions that arise from that body’s influence, and the instincts of self-preservation inherent in matter. Therefore, one cannot state that such and such a person is the incarnation of such and such an animal. Consequently, metempsychosis, as commonly understood, is incorrect.”
612- Could a spirit that has animated a human body incarnate in an animal?
“That would be a regression, and a spirit does not regress. The river does not flow back to is source.” (See no. 118)
613- However erroneous may be the idea linked to metempsychosis, couldn’t it be a result of the intuitive sentiment of the different existences of an individual?
“We recognize such an intuitive sentiment in this belief as in many others, but like most intuitive ideas, humans have perverted it.”
Metempsychosis would be correct if one understood it to mean the progression of the soul from a lower to a higher state, accomplishing the developments that will transform its nature.
However, it is erroneous in the meaning of direct transmigration from the animal to the human and vice versa, which would imply the idea of regression or fusion. And since such fusion is not possible between corporeal beings of two different species, we have an indication of their being of degrees that cannot assimilate each other, and the same must apply to the spirits that animate them. If the same spirit could animate them alternately, it would result in an identity of nature, and this would translate into the possibility of material reproduction. On the contrary, the reincarnation taught by the Spirits is founded upon the evolutionary march of nature and the progression of humans within their own species, which in no way diminishes their dignity. What degrades them is the bad use they make of the faculties God has given them for their advancement. Be what it may, the antiquity and universality of the doctrine of metempsychosis, and the number of eminent individuals who have professed it, proves that the principle of reincarnation has its roots in nature itself. These are arguments in its favor rather than against it, however.
The point of departure of a spirit is one of those issues that are connected to the origin of things and that are among the secrets of God. It has not been given to humans to know them completely, and regarding them, they can only form mere suppositions, constructing more or less probable theoretic systems. The spirits themselves are far from knowing everything, and regarding what they do not know, they may also have their own opinions that are more sensible or less so.
It is thus that all do not think in the same way regarding the connections between humans and animals. According to some, a spirit only arrives at the human period after having been prepared and individualized in the different degrees of the lower order beings of creation. According to others, the human spirit would have always belonged to the human race without having passed through the animal experience. The first of these theories has the advantage of giving an aim to the future of animals, which would thus comprise the first links in the chain of thinking beings. The second is more in conformance with the dignity of the human being and may be summed up as follows:
The different species of animals do not proceed intellectually from one another by way of evolution. Thus, the spirit of the oyster does not subsequently become that of the fish, the bird, the quadruped and, finally, the biped. Each species is an absolute type in itself, physically and mentally, and each of its individuals draws from the universal source the quantity of the intelligent principle that it needs, according to the perfection of its organs and the work it must perform in the phenomena of nature. It then returns to the general mass at death. Those worlds more advanced than ours (see no. 188) are also comprised of distinct species of animals that are appropriate to the needs of those worlds and to the degree of advancement of the humans they serve, but they do not proceed from those of the earth, spiritually speaking. It is not the same with human beings, however. From the physical point of view, human beings are obviously a link in the chain of living beings, but from the moral point of view there is a break in continuity between humans and animals. Only human beings possess a soul or spirit 55, a divine spark that endows them with a moral sense and an intellectual reach that the animals do not possess; it is the principal being, pre-existent to and surviving the body, preserving their individuality. What is the origin of the spirit? Where is its starting point? Is it formed from the individualized intelligent principle? This is a mystery that would be useless to search out, and regarding which, as we have said, we can only construct theories. What is constant and what stands out to reason and experience at the same time, is the survival of the spirit, the preservation of its individuality after death, its ability to evolve, its happy or unhappy state in proportion to its advancement on the path of the good, and all the moral truths that are the consequence of that principle. As for the mysterious connections between humans and animals, that, we repeat, is God’s secret, like many other matters whose current understanding holds no importance for our advancement, and on which it would be useless for us to dwell.
55 See no. 597
Site Espírita 