[Page 1] IN approaching the subject of re-incarnation, we are confronted at
the outset with a very serious difficulty. Like all other portions of the
Esoteric Doctrine, re-incarnation, when considered alone, is not only
incapable of satisfactory proof, but has no intelligible raison
d’être. it is only
when examined as an integral part of the whole system that
its place and function in the scheme of human evolution become
apparent, and that the arguments in its favour can be advanced,
and those brought against it be repelled, with any degree
of success. On the other hand, it is impossible within the
scope of a short paper to give any adequate idea of the Esoteric
doctrine as a whole. It is therefore necessary to assume
on the part of the readers of this pamphlet a certain acquaintance
with the broad outlines of Theosophic teaching, so much at
least as will render the occasional references to other and
cognate doctrines not wholly unintelligible to them.
The main idea of re-incarnation is the persistence, through a succession of
physical lives, of a unit of consciousness. This idea suggests at once two
questions. What is the relation of this unit of consciousness to man as we
are accustomed to observe and study him on earth ? and what is the cause
of this unit, after having once shaken off the limitations of earth life,
returning to them again ? Briefly what is it that re-incarnates ? and why is
re-incarnation necessary ? To answer the first question it is necessary to
give some attention to the constitution of man. The second entails an
inquiry into the intermediate states, between two earth lives and their
relation to physical existence.
The constitution of man, in its seven-fold aspect, is dealt with at
considerable length in Mr. Sinnett's Esoteric
Buddhism. A very brief survey
will be all that is possible here. Taking first the highest side of man, we
have the sixth principle, the Divine soul, which is the vehicle of the seventh,
the universal spirit. These two form the monad, existing from the beginning
of manifestation, and overshadowing the future man throughout the earlier
periods of evolution, but without consciousness of, or contact with, the
gradually progressing entity. At the other end of the scale, we have the
physical body, consisting of three principles, gross matter, life, and form,
which are so far from being the special appanage of man as to [Page 2]
belong also to the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Then we come to the
fourth principle, the animal soul, representing the instincts, the passions,
the unreasoning emotions which are present not in man only but in the
animals. We have thus as it were two distinct entities, the Divine nature
represented by the two higher, and the animal nature by the four lower
principles, but up to this point they are in a sense disconnected, and at
least have no consciousness one of the other. At this point in the human
evolution appears the fifth principle, the reasoning faculty, the human soul.
Herein is present the reflective self-consciousness of man, which forms the
connecting link between knowledge and passion, between the Divine and
the animal, and renders possible that conscious progress towards higher
things, the capacity for which constitutes the difference between man and
the animals. It follows, then, that the evolution of the human soul marks the
point at which man first becomes responsible, and consequently that the
measure of the human development will be the strength of the attraction of
the human soul towards the higher or lower principles between which it is
placed.
This dual aspect of the human soul, as the advocate on the one hand of
the nobler, on the other of the baser side of man's complex nature, enables
us also to consider it as the principle of free-will in the microcosm, as being
that which offers to the reflective self-consciousness, the choice between
good and evil, and the possibility of identification with one or other of two
courses. Almost everyone is conscious during life of the continual struggle
which goes on between his two natures. Every victory obtained over the
lower self adds to the strength of the higher, and slowly prepares it for the
movement when man, centering therein all his consciousness, is enabled
to dominate completely his lower self, and becomes fitted for that higher
state of which, intellectually at least, it is in vain to attempt to form any
conception.
We
have seen that the human soul provides the point of contact,
and the battle-ground for the struggle between the highest
and lowest aspects of man's nature. It is only natural,
therefore, that we should find therein the point of separation
between the transitory personality and the permanent
individuality — permanent, that is, as far as concerns
the period of human evolution. The words "personality" and "individuality" are
here used somewhat arbitrarily, but it is difficult otherwise
to discriminate satisfactorily between the two aspects of
human self-consciousness, and no confusion need arise if
it be understood that individuality is used to express the "Ego"
which inhabits successively many distinct personalities.
At the end of every earth life, man leaves behind him first the material
body, which, with the life principle and the astral double, or form principle,
is disintegrated, and becomes capable of entering into fresh combinations,[Page 3]
Man is left then with his four higher principles, which for a certain
period may be considered as constituting a partially conscious entity. It
is plain, however, that by the loss of the body, the fourth principle has lost
its power of objective activity, and it cannot therefore have any continued
existence, unless it is enabled in some way to attach itself to matter. On
the other hand the spiritual nature in man is rendered freer by the absence
of the body, and is enabled to shake off the fourth principle, carrying with it
the higher portion of the human soul, while the lower fades slowly out with
the fourth principle. Thus the personality is completely dissolved, and the
Karma which has been generated during the past life attaches itself the
Individuality, which enters into the state of Devachan.
Devachan
is a purely subjective state, and quite as much a state
of illusion as the earth life — that is to say it is
just as little a state of true knowledge, and it is even
more self-centred. It is of the nature of a vivid dream,
the actors in which have no existence outside the consciousness
of the dreamer. It is purely a state of bliss, in which man
receives compensation for the undeserved misery of the past
life, and the satisfaction of his nobler aspirations. But
it is a state in which spiritual progress, or the acquirement
of true knowledge, is impossible. It is rather a state
of rest, after the exhausting struggle of the previous earth
life — a period
of quiescence, during which the victories of the past life
are consolidated and synthesised into a measure of the progress
made, and from which the individuality again re-enters physical
existence with all the added power due to such progress.
It
may be said that all this is baseless assumption, and quite
incapable of proof. Perhaps so; but does it or does it
not agree with the view we have put forward as to the human
soul ? If it does so agree, we have something to start
from which is not an assumption, but a personal experience
to the majority of mankind; namely, the existence in them
of the two opposing natures, the Divine and the animal,
and the constant struggle maintained between the two, in
which the two aspects of the human soul are the actual
combatants, and man's self-consciousness the arbiter.
First as to the division of the human soul after death. Its higher portion
during life has been attracted by the Divine, and permanent in men, and
has been its expression on the intellectual plane. Hence it survives, with
the Divine principles. The lower side has represented intellectually the
desires, the passions, the animal instincts, which derive their vitality from
the physical body. Hence it must perish with the body, for its persistence
for a short period after death can hardly be considered as constituting an
independent existence. It is merely a question of the more or less
lengthened period required for disintegration.
Then,
as to Devachan. It is purely a blissful state, because
the evil [Page
4]
done in the
past life has been done in spite of and in opposition
to the efforts of the higher portion of the human soul.
It would, therefore, be impossible to inflict punishment
upon it without a violation of the supreme law of the
universe — justice.
And if it is to be blissful it must be subjective and
dreamlike, because, with an imperfectly developed human
soul, the presence or absence of other entities would
entail a mixture of pain and pleasure, if those entities
were objectively conscious of each other.
Then, as to the question of spiritual progress and the acquirements of
knowledge, the idea of the responsibility of the human soul, and of its dual
nature again gives us the clue. If we are correct in asserting that man's
progress is accomplished by the victories gained over self in the conflict
between his two natures, it follows that progress must be stopped
whenever such victories are no longer possible.
But
we have seen that death removes from man the incentive
to evil, and that the higher nature of man is therefore
temporarily released from its contact with the lower; hence
the possibility of a continuance of the struggle, and of
any progress in the direction of emancipation must necessarily
cease, until the time arrives for the next incarnation.
So also with knowledge. True knowledge is acquired by self-conquest,
not by mere study and intellectual effort. Its attainment,
therefore, is just as much dependent on the presence of
the lower self. Indeed, spiritual progress and the attainment
of true knowledge are so nearly identical, that the argument
in the one case holds good absolutely in the other. The
question as to undeserved evil, for which the Devachanic
existence offers compensation, is one which may be more
fittingly referred to later, when we come to deal with
the conditions under which the Ego re-incarnates; but
one other point arises, which may be discussed in this
place: Why does the Karma, generated in any one earth life,
pursue the Ego, after its period of Devachanic repose,
into its succeeding life ? If the higher portion of the
human soul has not deserved punishment, and has been free
from it in the Devachanic condition, how is the continuity
between crime and punishment preserved, if a totally new
personality is produced for the next life ? This may be
answered in two ways. First, by considering that the human
soul as a whole is responsible for the evil done, and that
where the higher self has failed in the struggle, bad Karma
has been generated by the individuality, which it must
work out in its next, or some succeeding, incarnation;
secondly, by looking on earth lives as affording those
lessons which have to be mastered, and Karma as the schoolmaster
who insists on the accomplishment of the task. From this
point of view the results of bad Karma are not so much
punishments for sin as the necessary consequences of ignorance,
the ignorance being due to a failure to learn the lessons
of the previous life.
The length of the Devachanic period is of course no more fixed than is [Page
5] the length of the earth life, but may be considered as bearing a more or
less constant ratio to it. The other factors which have to be considered are
the amount of undeserved evil to be compensated, and the strength and
vitality of the higher aspirations, as opposed to the lower selfish desires,
which have been generated during the course of the life. These two factors
will necessarily vary in amount, if not in character, with the duration of life,
and together will govern the length of the period which must intervene
before the balance is redressed, and the Ego is again ready to take-upon it
the burdens of the flesh.
It is consequently a mistake to expect simultaneous re-incarnation for
groups of persons who have been associated in their previous life. The
general rule indeed must be the other way, as the three factors upon which
depend the period passed in Devachan are capable of almost indefinite
variation, while there is yet another factor to be considered in this
connection, namely, the character of the Karma generated, which will
govern the conditions of the new life and render even more improbable any
resumption by the reincarnating ego, of its previous relations with other
egos. There are doubtless exceptions to this general law, when very strong
Karmic affinities are generated between two persons. For instance, in the
case of a murderer and his victim, we are given to understand that Karma
will in some future incarnation, not necessarily the next one, bring them
together in some close relation. There are other exceptions which need not
here be considered in detail, but the ordinary course of evolution does not
tend in the direction of the association of the same egos in successive
lives.
When we proceed to the consideration of the reasons which make
reincarnation a necessary portion of the scheme of human evolution, we
are again brought back to the original postulate of the responsibility of the
human soul, and its dual nature. The Esoteric doctrine teaches us that man
is absolutely his own saviour, and that he obtains emancipation by the
conquest of self, thus by conscious efforts scaling the heights of spiritual
development, which culminate in Nirvana. But man can only so save
himself by perpetual conflict with the evil in his nature, and unless the good
and the bad in man are brought into contact, this warfare cannot proceed.
Devachan is a state of rest from the weariness of the struggle, but it can
only be a temporary one, and the fight must be renewed, time after time,
until the final victory is won, and man is freed from the bondage of evil, and
becomes as a god. If it were not so we should be forced to believe either
that any man could and the good man did accomplish this task within the
limits of one short earth life, or else that the struggle was perfectly
unnecessary, and an arbitrary imposition emanating from the supreme will
of a personal and irresponsible deity, who is able when he chooses to raise
man to unthinkable heights of spirituality by the exercise of his
measureless power.
An
examination of some of the teachings of religious systems
on this point will show that they are all more or less
vitiated by one or the other of these misconceptions. Protestantism,
for instance, offers no scheme of punishment for those
who are partly bad; no reward for that which is good in
those who are partly evil. It is forced to divide men into
two categories, the good and the bad, though all experience
shows us that each man is and must be a compound of these
two opposite qualities.
What is necessary, according to the teachings of Protestantism, is
repentance and faith. Repentance, a sincere sorrow for evil done, but
carrying no guarantee that the evil would be resisted if a similar temptation
had again to be passed through. Faith, a firm belief in the power of God to
wash away sin and its consequences, and free the human soul from all the
evil influences of the flesh. With these, a man is released from the
necessity of fighting his lower nature; so much so that the repentant
criminal on the scaffold, if he have faith, thinks himself as sure of eternal
bliss as had he been a saint who had spent his whole life in the service of
humanity.
The
Church of Rome has preserved, in her doctrine of purgatory,
a punishment for the evil done by those who are not wholly
bad, and so far her teaching is somewhat more philosophical
and logical than that of Protestantism; but she teaches,
also, that faith is the first requisite — those
denying the Church being without hope of future salvation.
In neither section of Christianity, indeed, is there
any recognition of the necessity of that self-conquest
which is the basis of the Theosophical system of Ethics.
Both believe in a Divine grace, which, descending into the
heart of man, takes, as it were, the battle out of his
hands and relieves him from responsibility and possibility
of failure.
If
we turn for a moment to the views held by a very large
section of the Spiritualists, that there are successive
grades of spiritual stages through which man progresses
slowly, becoming gradually purified in the process, we
are met again by the same difficulty. Under no one of
these systems is provision made for the case of the man
who dies before he has conquered his lower animal nature;
in other words, for the case of almost every human being
now passing through physical existence. But it is evident
that in no case can this victory be won on any other
plane but that of the passions — of the animal nature
itself — for
only there can the two opposing forces be brought into
contact. Hence those who deny the necessity of re-incarnation
have either to deny the necessity of this final victory,
as do the Christians, or, like the Spiritualists, so
to confuse spirit and matter as to imagine the struggle
and consequent gradual purification as taking place on
the spiritual plane.
Re-incarnation,
then, is a necessary consequence of the responsibility
of the human soul, and of its double nature. The Karma
which has been [Page
7] generated
during one earth life, is the agent which draws back
the Ego into incarnation after the full and due enjoyment
of the Devachanic bliss. The Ego is composed of the two
highest principles, together with the higher part of
the human soul, which has been attracted towards them,
at the time of the dissipation of the last personality.
It must not be forgotten that the disintegration of the
personality is complete, and has only left behind the
product of the life it has passed through, with its affinities
for good or evil, in the shape of the Karma, attendant
upon the permanent individuality. It is then an entirely
new personality which has to be created, not a mere re-
birth of the old, with a few slight variations produced
by the progress of the past incarnation. The question
then arises: What governs the character of the new personality,
temporarily acquired by the Ego ? The answer may be put
briefly thus: — The
Karma is attracted by its affinities with the characteristics,
personal and hereditary, of the man and woman to whom
the child is born. The new personality cannot be described
as the work of the Karma, but is absolutely the result
of the combination of the two sets of characters, physical
and moral, represented by the father and mother, and
of their inherited though possibly dormant peculiarities.
It is precisely in this curious persistence of characteristics,
in a more or less dormant state through several generations,
and the possibility of transmitting them to their children,
though they may not apparently possess them, that render
the possible variations to be derived from any man and
woman numerous enough to give scope to the action of
Karma. Were it not for this, it would assuredly happen
often that no fitting opportunity of re-birth could be
found at the proper moment, especially when we consider
that not the physical only but the mental and moral characteristics
have to be derived from the parents, but must at the
same time be in consonance with Karmic affinities of
the incarnating ego. There is nothing, therefore, in
the theory of re-incarnation which conflicts with the
conclusions arrived at by students of heredity, as to
the persistence and the power of transmission of dormant
characteristics. Re-incarnation, in fact, offers an explanation
of the causes which may lead to the re-development of
such dormant tendencies, thus filling up the other side
of the picture in a by no means unsatisfactory manner.
It cannot, however, be supposed that even with the wide range of
possibilities thus offered it will be always possible for the Karma to find
precisely the right field for the due working out of its effects. It must often
happen that either its attempt is a failure, in which case premature death,
and immediate re-birth will result, or that when the conditions as a whole
permit of due re-incarnation being effected, they are yet not absolutely
those which are demanded. In such cases (and probably every instance of
re-birth is thus affected in some degree) there must be a [Page 8] certain
amount of injustice done, and it is this injustice which meets with
compensation in Devachan, or at least forms a part of that so
compensated.
How then, to sum up, are we to reply to those who ask for proof of the
doctrine of re-incarnation ? Proved positively it cannot be, any more than
Christians can prove positively their heaven, or Materialists their negation
of a life after death.
But
in regarding re-incarnation as a portion of a complete
scheme of evolution, does it, or does it not, adequately
fill up an otherwise empty space, and offer a rational
interpretation of certain mysteries otherwise insoluble
? Theosophists say emphatically, Yes. Firstly, due regard
is shown by it to the admittedly double nature of man;
secondly, provision is made by it for the possibility of
that conquest of self, the necessity for which, though
denied dogmatically by certain schools of thought, is nevertheless
intuitively realised by most thinking men; thirdly, it
does not conflict with, but supports, the scientific conclusions
as regards heredity; and, lastly, the system is in accord
with the highest possible ideal of Divine justice, as punishment
and reward, or, more properly speaking, their equivalents
in the terms of cause and effect, are duly meted out for
all sinful or meritorious conduct, while undeserved misfortune
has its due compensation in the intermediate periods between
the earth lives.
It
remains only to reply to the argument that we have no
memory of our past lives. In the first place, it may
be returned: "How can it be asserted
positively that we have no memory of our previous experiences
on the higher planes of existence ? What we call intuition,
is it not the memory of knowledge acquired in a past
life, and recorded in the permanent individuality which
is ourselves, when we raise our consciousness to its
level ? Should we expect that the memory of the events
in the life of a vanished personality should remain with
the Ego, when we see that even in the Devachanic state
immediately following the life of that personality the
memory is only a dream-memory, and only has reference to
one side of the life ? "
Yet
it must not be supposed that the memory of past lives is
really destroyed. Each life leaves its impress in detail
on the astral light, and to those who can read therein
it is given to read the past and the history of their own
experiences. But the attainment of knowledge is the necessary
preliminary to this power; and well that it is so, for the
ills of one life are enough to bear, and man would be too
heavily weighted if he were for ever haunted by all the
evil he had done and suffered from the commencement of
his period of responsibility.
The
ethical bearing of the doctrine cannot be lightly passed
over, but must here be suggested rather than discussed.
Re-incarnation is the necessary consequence of man's inability
to learn in one life all the lessons which life [Page
9] has to teach,
and of his failure in the attempt, if indeed the attempt
be really made, to conquer self. Truly none can accomplish
the impossible, and therefore none hope to escape from
the inexorable law which compels them to suffer and to
learn, that in the end they may conquer.
But
the final deliverance must be brought out by man for himself,
and it lies with him to hasten or to retard it. Even the
desire for personal immortality, for personal development
on the spiritual plane, cannot of itself free the man from
the ever-recurring series of earth lives, each followed
by a period of Devachanic repose. It is only by the destruction
of self that this apparently endless chain can be broken;
by fixing the consciousness in the eternal and the changeless
that the cycle of change can come to an end.
May 5th, 1888