The Three Kingdoms

585. What do you think of the division of the natural world into three reigns, the mineral, vegetable, and animal, to which some naturalists add a fourth class—viz., the human species; or that other division of the world into two classes—viz., the organic and the inorganic? Which of these divisions is to be preferred?

585. What do you think of dividing the natural world into three kingdoms: mineral, plant, and animal? Some naturalists add a fourth kingdom, the human species. Others divide the world into two classes: organic and inorganic. Which division is preferable?

"They are all good; as to which is best, that depends on your point of view. From the point of view of matter, there are only inorganic and organic beings; from the moral point of view, there are evidently four degrees."

"They are all good. Which is best depends on your point of view. From a material point of view, there are only inorganic and organic beings. From a moral point of view, there are clearly four degrees."

These four degrees are, in fact, distinguished by well-marked characteristics, although their extremes seem to blend into each other. Inert matter, which constitutes the mineral reign, possesses only mechanical force; plants, composed of inert matter, are endowed with vitality; animals, composed of inert matter, and endowed with vitality, have also a sort of instinctive intelligence, limited in its scope, but giving them the consciousness of their existence and of their individuality; man, possessing all that is found in plants and animals, is raised above all the other classes by a special intelligence, without fixed limits, which gives him the consciousness of his future, the perception of extramaterial things, and the knowledge of God.

These four degrees have distinct characteristics, although their extremes seem to blend into one another. Inert matter, which makes up the mineral kingdom, has only mechanical force. Plants are made of inert matter and have life. Animals are also made of inert matter and have life. They also have a kind of instinctive intelligence. This intelligence is limited in scope, but it gives animals awareness of their existence and individuality. Humans possess everything found in plants and animals. But they are raised above all other classes by a special intelligence with no fixed limits. This intelligence gives them awareness of their future, perception of things beyond the material world, and knowledge of God.

586. Are plants conscious of their existence?

586. Are plants aware that they exist?

"No; they do not think; they have only organic life."

"No, they do not think. They have only organic life."

587. Do plants feel sensations? Do they suffer when they are mutilated?

587. Do plants feel sensations? Do they suffer when they are damaged?

"Plants receive the physical impressions which act upon matter, but they have no perceptions; consequently they do not feel pain."

"Plants receive physical impressions that act on matter, but they have no perception. So they do not feel pain."

588. Is the force which attracts plants towards each other independent of their will?

588. Is the force that attracts plants to each other independent of their will?

"Yes; for they do not think. It is a mechanical force of matter that acts upon matter; they could not resist it."

"Yes, because they do not think. It is a mechanical force of matter acting on matter, and they could not resist it."

589. Some plants, as, for instance, the mimosa and the dionaea, have movements which give evidence of their possessing great sensitiveness, and, in some cases, a sort of will, as in the case of the latter, whose lobes seize the fly that lights on it, in order to suck its juices, and even seem to set a snare for it, in order to kill it. Are these plants endowed with the faculty of thought? Have they a will, and do they form an intermediate class between the vegetable and animal natures? Are they points of transition from the one to the other?

589. Some plants, such as the mimosa and the dionaea, move in ways that show great sensitivity. In some cases, they seem to have a kind of will. The dionaea, for example, closes its lobes around a fly that lands on it to suck its juices. It even seems to set a trap to kill the fly. Can these plants think? Do they have a will, and do they form a class between plants and animals? Are they points of transition from one to the other?

"Everything in nature is transition, from the very fact that everything is different, and that everything, nevertheless, is linked together. Plants do not think, and have consequently no will. The oyster that opens its shell, and all the zoophytes, do not think; they have only a blind natural instinct."

"Everything in nature is in transition because everything is different, yet everything is connected. Plants do not think, so they have no will. The oyster that opens its shell and all zoophytes do not think. They have only a blind natural instinct."

The human organism furnishes us with examples of similar movements that take place without any participation of the will, as in the organs of digestion and circulation; the pylorus closes itself at the contact of certain substances, as though to refuse them passage. It must be the same with the sensitive plant, the movements of which do not necessarily imply perception, and, still less, will.

The human body gives us examples of similar movements that happen without any act of will. These occur in the organs of digestion and circulation. The pylorus closes when certain substances touch it, as though refusing to let them pass. The same must be true of the sensitive plant. Its movements do not necessarily imply perception, much less will.

590. Is there not, in plants, an instinct of self-preservation which leads them to seek what may be useful to them, and to avoid what would do them harm?

590. Don't plants have an instinct for self-preservation that leads them to seek what may benefit them and avoid what would harm them?

"You may call it, if you will, a sort of instinct: that depends on the extension you give to the word; but it is purely mechanical. When, in chemical operations, you see two bodies unite together, it is because they suit one another, that is to say, there is an affinity between them; but you do not call that instinct."

"You may call it a kind of instinct if you wish. That depends on how broadly you define instinct, but it is purely mechanical. When two substances combine in a chemical reaction, they do so because they are suited to each other. In other words, there is an affinity between them. But you do not call that instinct."

591. In worlds of higher degree, are the plants, like the other beings, of a more perfect nature?

591. In more advanced worlds, are plants more perfect, like other beings?

"Everything in those worlds is more perfect; but the plants are always plants, as the animals are always animals, and as the men are always men.

"Everything in those worlds is more perfect. But plants are still plants, animals are still animals, and people are still people.

592. If we compare man with the animals in reference to intelligence, it seems difficult to draw a line of demarcation between them; for some animals are, in this respect, notoriously superior to some men. Is it possible to establish such a line of demarcation with any precision?

592. If we compare human and animal intelligence, it seems difficult to draw a line between them. Some animals are clearly more intelligent than some people. Is it possible to draw a precise line between them?

"Your philosophers are far from being agreed upon this point. Some of them will have it that man is an animal; others are equally sure that the animal is a man. They are all wrong. Man is a being apart, who sometimes sinks himself very low, or who may raise himself very high. As regards his physical nature, man is like the animals, and less well provided for than many of them; for nature has given to them all that man is obliged to invent with the aid of his intelligence for his needs and his preservation. His body is subject to destruction, like that of the animals; but his spirit has a destiny that he alone can understand, because he alone is completely free. Poor human beings who debase yourselves below the brutes! do you not know how to distinguish yourselves from them? Recognise the superiority of man by his possessing the notion of the existence of God."

"Your philosophers are far from agreeing on this point. Some insist that humans are animals. Others are equally sure that animals are humans. They are all wrong. Humans are distinct beings who sometimes sink very low or may rise very high. Physically, humans are like animals, and less well equipped than many of them. Nature has given animals everything that humans must invent with the help of their intelligence to meet their needs and survive. The human body, like an animal's, is subject to destruction. But the human spirit has a destiny that only humans can understand, because only humans are completely free. Poor human beings who lower yourselves below the beasts! Do you not know how to distinguish yourselves from them? Recognize the superiority of humans in their awareness of God's existence."

593. Can the animals be said to act only from instinct?

593. Can we say that animals act only on instinct?

"That, again, is a mere theory. It is very true that instinct predominates in the greater number of animals; but do you not see some of them act with a determinate will? This is intelligence; but of narrow range."

"That, again, is only a theory. It is true that instinct dominates in most animals. But don't you see some of them act with deliberate will? That is intelligence, but of a limited kind."

It is impossible to deny that some animals give evidence of possessing, besides instinct, the power of performing compound acts which denote the will to act in a determinate direction, and according to circumstances. Consequently, there is in them a sort of intelligence, but the exercise of which is mainly concentrated on the means of satisfying their physical needs, and providing for their own preservation. There is, among them, no progress, no amelioration; no matter what the art that we admire in their labours, what they formerly did, that they do to-day, neither better nor worse, according to constant forms and unvarying proportions. The young bird isolated from the rest of its species none the less builds its nest on the same model, without having been taught. If some of the animals are susceptible of a certain amount of education, their intellectual development, always restricted within narrow limits, is due to the action of man upon a flexible nature, for they themselves have no power of progressing; but that artificial development is ephemeral and purely individual, for the animal, when left again to himself, speedily returns within the limits traced out for it by nature.

It is impossible to deny that some animals show more than instinct. They can perform complex actions that show a will to act in a particular way, according to circumstances. Animals therefore have a kind of intelligence. But they use it mainly to satisfy their physical needs and ensure their own survival. There is no progress or improvement among them. However much we admire the skill in their work, they do today what they did in the past, neither better nor worse. They follow fixed patterns and unchanging proportions. A young bird raised apart from others of its species still builds its nest according to the same model, without being taught. Some animals can be trained to a certain extent. But their intellectual development always remains within narrow limits. It results from human influence on a flexible nature, because animals have no power to progress on their own. This artificial development is temporary and belongs only to the individual animal. When left to itself again, the animal soon returns to the limits set for it by nature.

594. Have animals a language?

594. Do animals have a language?

"If you mean a language formed of words and syllables, no; but if you mean a method of communication among themselves, yes. They say much more to one another than you suppose; but their language is limited, like their ideas, to their bodily wants."

"If you mean a language made up of words and syllables, no. But if you mean a way for them to communicate with one another, yes. They say much more to one another than you might think. But their language, like their ideas, is limited to their physical needs."

—There are animals who have no voice; have they no language?

Some animals have no voice. Do they have no language?

"They understand one another by other means. Have men no other method of communicating with one another than by speech? And the dumb, what do you say of them?

"They understand each other in other ways. Do people communicate only through speech? What about people who cannot speak?

The animals, being endowed with the life of relation, have means of giving one another information, and of expressing the sensations they feel. Do you suppose that fishes have no understanding among themselves? Man has not the exclusive privilege of language; but that of the animals is instinctive and limited to the scope of their wants and ideas, while that of man is perfectible, and lends itself to all the conceptions of his intelligence."

Animals interact with one another, and they have ways to share information and express what they feel. Do you suppose fish do not understand one another? Humans are not the only beings with language. But animal language is instinctive and limited to their needs and ideas. Human language, by contrast, can be improved and can express every idea the human mind can conceive."

It is evident that fishes, emigrating in masses, like the swallows that follow the guide that leads them, must have the means of giving one another information, of arriving at a common understanding, and of concerting measures of general interest. It may be that they are gifted with a sense of vision sufficiently acute to allow of their distinguishing signs made by them to one another, or the water may serve them as a vehicle for the transmission of certain vibrations. It is evident that they must have some means, whatever these may be, of comprehending one another, like all other animals that have no voice, and that nevertheless perform actions in common. Should it, then, be deemed strange that spirits are able to communicate among themselves without having recourse to articulate speech? (282.)

Clearly, fish that migrate in large groups must have ways to share information, reach an understanding, and coordinate actions that concern them all. They are like swallows that follow a leader. Fish may have eyesight sharp enough to distinguish signs they make to one another. Or water may carry certain vibrations between them. Clearly, they must have some way of understanding one another, whatever it may be. The same is true of all other animals that have no voice but still act together. Should it seem strange, then, that spirits can communicate with one another without using spoken words? (282.)

595. Have animals free-will in regard to their actions?

595. Do animals have free will in their actions?

"They are not the mere machines you suppose them to be; but their freedom of action is limited to their wants, and cannot be compared to that of man. Being far inferior to him, they have not the same duties. Their freedom is restricted to the acts of their material life."

“They are not simply machines, as you suppose. But their freedom to act is limited to their needs and cannot be compared to that of humans. Because they are far inferior to humans, they do not have the same duties. Their freedom is limited to the activities of their physical lives.”

596. Whence comes the aptitude of certain animals to imitate human speech, and why is this aptitude found among birds, rather, for instance, than among apes, whose conformation has so much more analogy to that of man?

596. Where does the ability of certain animals to imitate human speech come from? Why is this ability found in birds rather than, for example, apes, whose bodies are much more like human bodies?

"That aptitude results from a particular conformation of the vocal organs, seconded by the instinct of imitation. The ape imitates man's gestures; some birds imitate his voice."

"That ability comes from the particular structure of the vocal organs, aided by the instinct to imitate. Apes imitate human gestures. Some birds imitate the human voice."

597. Since the animals have an intelligence which gives them a certain degree of freedom of action, is there, in them, a principle independent of matter?

597. Animals have intelligence that gives them some freedom of action. Does this mean they have a principle independent of matter?

"Yes; and that survives their body."

"Yes, and that survives their body."

—Is this principle a soul, like that of man?

Is this principle a soul, like a human soul?

"It is a soul, if you like to call it so; that depends on the meaning you attach to this word. But it is inferior to that of man. There is, between the soul of the animals and that of man, as great a difference as there is between the soul of man and God."

"It is a soul, if you want to call it that. It depends on what you mean by the word. But it is inferior to a human soul. The difference between an animal's soul and a human soul is as great as that between a human soul and God."

598. Does the soul of the animals preserve, after death, its individuality and its self-consciousness?

598. Does an animal's soul keep its individuality and self-awareness after death?

"It preserves its individuality, but not the consciousness of its me. The life of intelligence remains latent in them."

"It keeps its individuality, but it is not aware of its self. The life of intelligence remains dormant in them."

599. Has the soul of the beasts the choice of incarnating itself in one kind of animal rather than in another?

599. Can an animal's soul choose to incarnate as one kind of animal rather than another?

"No; it does not possess free-will."

"No, it does not have free will."

600. As the soul of the animal survives its body, is it, after death, in a state of erraticity, like that of man?

600. Since an animal's soul survives its body, does it enter a state of erraticity after death, like a human soul?

"It is in a sort of erraticity, because it is not united to a body; but it is not an errant spirit. The errant spirit is a being who thinks and acts of his own free-will; but the soul of the animal has not the same faculty, for it is his self-consciousness which is the principal attribute of the spirit. The soul of the animal is classed, after its death, by the spirits charged with that work, and almost immediately utilised; it has not the leisure to enter into connection with other creatures."

"It is in a kind of wandering state because it is not united with a body. But it is not a wandering spirit. A wandering spirit is a being that thinks and acts of its own free will. But an animal's soul does not have the same ability, because self-consciousness is the spirit's main attribute. After the animal dies, its soul is classified by the spirits assigned to that work and used almost immediately. It has no time to make contact with other creatures."

601. Do animals follow a law of progress like men?

601. Do animals follow a law of progress like humans?

"Yes; and it is for this reason that, in the higher worlds in which men are further advanced, the animals are more advanced also, and possess more developed means of communication. But they are always inferior to man, and subject to him; they are, for him, intelligent servitors."

"Yes. For this reason, animals are also more advanced in higher worlds where people are further advanced. They also have more developed ways of communicating. But they are always inferior to humans and subject to them. They are intelligent servants to humans."

There is nothing unreasonable in this statement. Suppose that our most intelligent animals, the dog, the elephant, the horse, were furnished with a bodily conformation appropriate to manual labour, what could they not do under the direction of man?

There is nothing unreasonable about this statement. Suppose our most intelligent animals, such as dogs, elephants, and horses, had bodies suited to manual labor. What could they not do under human direction?

602. Do animals progress, like man, through the action of their will, or through the force of things?

602. Do animals progress, like humans, through their own will or through the force of circumstances?

"Through the force of things; this is why there is, for them, no expiation."

"By force of circumstances. That is why they do not have to atone."

603. Have the animals, in the higher worlds, a knowledge of God?

603. Do animals in the higher worlds know about God?

"No; man is a god for them, as spirits were formerly gods for men."

"No, man is a god to them, just as spirits were once gods to men."

604. The animals, even the advanced ones of the higher worlds, being always inferior to man, it would seem as though God had created intellectual beings condemned to a perpetual inferiority; such an arrangement does not appear to be in accordance with the unity of design and of progress discernible in all His works.

604. Even the most advanced animals in higher worlds are always inferior to humans. It would seem, then, that God created thinking beings condemned to remain inferior forever. Such an arrangement does not seem consistent with the unity of purpose and progress visible in all his works.

"Everything in nature is linked together by an enchaining which your intellect cannot yet seize; and things apparently the most discrepant have points of contact at the comprehension of which man will never arrive in his actual state. He may obtain a glimmering of them through an effort of his intelligence; but it is only when that intelligence shall have acquired its full development, and shall have freed itself from the prejudices of pride and of ignorance, that he will be able to see clearly into the work of God; until then, his narrowness of thought causes him to look at everything from a low and petty point of view. Know that God cannot contradict Himself, and that everything in nature is harmonised by the action of general laws that never deviate from the sublime wisdom of the Creator."

"Everything in nature is connected in ways your intellect cannot yet grasp. Even things that seem most unlike one another have connections that people cannot understand in their present state. They may glimpse these connections through an effort of intelligence. But only when their intelligence is fully developed and free from the prejudices of pride and ignorance will they clearly understand God's work. Until then, their narrow thinking causes them to see everything from a low and petty point of view. Know that God cannot contradict himself. Everything in nature is brought into harmony by general laws that never depart from the Creator's sublime wisdom."

—Intelligence, then, is a common property, and a point of contact, between the soul of the beast and that of man?

So intelligence is something that animal and human souls share, and a point of connection between them?

"Yes, but the animals have only the intelligence of material life; in man, intelligence gives moral life."

"Yes, but animals have intelligence only for material life. In humans, intelligence gives rise to moral life."

605. If we consider all the points of contact that exist between man and the animals, does it not seem as though man possessed two souls—viz., an animal soul and a spiritual soul, and that, if he had not the latter, he might still live, but as a brute; in other words, that the animal is a being similar to man, minus the spiritual soul? From which it would follow that the good and bad instincts of man result from the predominance of one or other of these two souls.

605. If we consider all the similarities between humans and animals, doesn't it seem that humans have two souls? One is an animal soul, and the other is a spiritual soul. Without the spiritual soul, a human might still live, but as a brute. In other words, an animal is a being like a human, minus the spiritual soul. It would follow that human beings' good and bad instincts result from one or the other soul being dominant.

"No; man has not two souls; but the body has its instincts resulting from the sensation of its organs. There is in him only a double nature—the animal nature and the spiritual nature. By his body he participates in the nature of the animals and their instincts; by his soul he participates in the nature of spirits."

"No, a person does not have two souls. But the body has instincts that arise from the sensations of its organs. A person has only two natures: an animal nature and a spiritual nature. Through the body, a person shares the nature and instincts of animals. Through the soul, a person shares the nature of spirits."

—Thus, besides his own imperfections, which he has to get rid of, a spirit has also to struggle against the influence of matter?

So, besides having to overcome his own imperfections, a spirit must also struggle against the influence of matter?

"Yes, the lower a spirit's degree of advancement, the closer are the bonds which unite him with matter. Do you not see that it must necessarily be so? No; man has not two souls: the soul is always one in a single being. The soul of the animal and that of man are distinct from one another, so that the soul of the one cannot animate the body created for the other. But if man have not an animal soul, placing him, by its passions, on a level with the animals, he has his body, which often drags him down to them; for his body is a being that is endowed with vitality, and that has its instincts, but unintelligent, and limited to the care of its own preservation."

"Yes, the less advanced a spirit is, the more closely it is bound to matter. Can you not see that this must be so? No, a person does not have two souls. Each being always has one soul. The souls of animals and humans are distinct. An animal's soul cannot give life to a body created for a human, or a human's soul to an animal's body. But although a person does not have an animal soul whose passions put him on the same level as animals, he has a body that often drags him down to their level. For his body is a living being with instincts, but it is unintelligent and concerned only with its own survival."

A spirit, in incarnating himself in a human body, brings to it the intellectual and moral principle that renders it superior to the animals. The two natures in man constitute for him two distinct sources of passions; one set of passions springing from the instincts of his animal nature, and the other set being due to the impurities of the spirit of which he is the incarnation, and which are in sympathy with the grossness of the animal appetites. A spirit, as he becomes purified, frees himself gradually from the influence of matter. While under that influence, he approaches the nature of the brutes; when delivered from that influence, he raises himself towards his true destination.

When a spirit enters a human body, it brings an intellectual and moral nature that makes the human being superior to animals. These two natures give humans two distinct sources of passions. Some passions arise from the instincts of their animal nature. Others come from impurities in the spirit within them, which respond to the coarseness of animal appetites. As a spirit becomes purer, it gradually frees itself from the influence of matter. While under that influence, it becomes more like an animal. Once freed from it, the spirit rises toward its true destination.

606. Whence do the animals derive the intelligent principle that constitutes the particular kind of soul with which they are endowed?

606. Where do animals get the intelligent principle that makes up their particular kind of soul?

"From the universal intelligent element."

"From the universal intelligent element."

—The intelligence of man and of the animals emanates, then, from one and the same principle?

So, do human and animal intelligence come from the same principle?

"Undoubtedly; but, in man, it has received an elaboration which raises it above that which animates the brute."

"Certainly. But in humans, it has developed in a way that raises it above what gives life to animals."

607. You have stated that the soul of man, at its origin, is in a state analogous to that of human infancy, that its intelligence is only beginning to unfold itself, and that it is essaying to live (190); where does the soul accomplish this earliest phase of its career?

607. You have said that the human soul begins in a state similar to infancy. Its intelligence is only beginning to develop, and it is trying to live (190). Where does the soul go through this earliest stage of its life?

"In a series of existences which precede the period of development that you call humanity."

“In a series of existences before the stage of development you call humanity.”

—The soul would seem, then, to have been the intelligent principle of the inferior orders of the creation?

Does this mean that the soul was the intelligent principle in lower forms of creation?

"Have we not said that everything in nature is linked together and tends to unity? It is in those beings, of which you are very far from knowing all, that the intelligent principle is elaborated, is gradually individualised, and made ready to live, as we have said, through its subjection to a sort of preparatory process, like that of germination, on the conclusion of which that principle undergoes a transformation and becomes spirit. It is then that the period of humanity commences for each spirit with the sense of futurity, the power of distinguishing between good and evil, and the responsibility of his actions; just as, after the period of infancy comes that of childhood, then youth, adolescence, and ripened manhood. Is the greatest genius humiliated by having been a shapeless foetus in his mother's womb? If anything ought to humiliate him, it is his lowness in the scale of being, and his powerlessness to sound the depths of the divine designs and the wisdom of the laws that regulate the harmonies of the universe. Recognise the greatness of God in this admirable harmony that establishes solidarity between everything in nature. To think that God could have made anything without a purpose, and have created intelligent beings without a future, would be to blaspheme His goodness, which extends over all His creatures."

"Have we not said that everything in nature is connected and tends toward unity? You are still far from knowing all the beings in nature. It is in these beings that the intelligent principle develops and gradually becomes individual. As we have said, it is made ready to live through a kind of preparation, like germination. At the end of this process, the principle is transformed and becomes spirit. It is then that the human period begins for each spirit. The spirit gains a sense of the future and the ability to distinguish good from evil. It also becomes responsible for its actions. This is just as infancy is followed by childhood, then youth, adolescence, and mature adulthood. Is even the greatest genius humiliated by having once been a shapeless fetus in his mother's womb? If anything should humble him, it is his low place in the scale of being. It is also his inability to fathom God's designs and the wisdom of the laws that govern the harmony of the universe. Recognize God's greatness in this wonderful harmony, which binds everything in nature together. To think that God could have made anything without a purpose would be to deny his goodness. So would believing that he created intelligent beings without a future. His goodness extends to all his creatures."

—Does this period of humanity commence upon our earth?

Does this period of humanity begin on Earth?

"The earth is not the starting-point of the earliest phase of human incarnation; the human period commences, in general, in worlds still lower than yours. This, however, is not an absolute rule; and it may happen that a spirit, at his entrance upon the human phase, may be fitted to live upon the earth. Such a case, however, though possible, is unfrequent; and would be an exception to the general rule."

"Earth is not where the earliest stage of human incarnation begins. The human stage generally begins in worlds still lower than yours. However, this is not an absolute rule. A spirit entering the human stage may be fit to live on Earth. Although possible, such a case is rare and would be an exception to the general rule."

608. Has a man's spirit, after death, any consciousness of the existences that have preceded his entrance upon the human period?

608. After death, is a man's spirit aware of its existences before it entered the human stage?

"No; for it is only with this period that his life, as a spirit, has begun for him. He can scarcely recall his earliest existences as a man; just as a man no longer remembers the earliest days of his infancy, and still less the time he passed in his mother's womb. This is why spirits tell you that they do not know how they began." (78.)

"No, because his life as a spirit began for him only at this point. He can hardly remember his earliest lives as a man. In the same way, a man no longer remembers his earliest days as an infant, much less his time in his mother's womb. This is why spirits tell you that they do not know how they began." (78.)

609. Does a spirit, when once he has entered upon the human period, retain any traces of what he has previously been, that is to say, of the state in which he was in what may be called the ante-human period?

609. Once a spirit enters the human period, does it retain any traces of what it was before? Does it retain traces of its state in what might be called the pre-human period?

"That depends on the distance which separates the two periods, and the amount of progress accomplished. During a few generations, there may be a reflex, more or less distinct, of the primitive state, for nothing in nature takes place through an abrupt transition, and there are always links which unite the extremities of the chain of beings or of events; but those traces disappear with the development of free-will. The first steps of progress are accomplished slowly, because they are not yet seconded by the will; they are accomplished more rapidly in proportion as the spirit acquires a more perfect consciousness of himself."

"That depends on the time between the two periods and how much progress has been made. For a few generations, the original state may still be reflected more or less clearly. Nothing in nature changes abruptly, and there are always links connecting the ends of the chain of beings or events. But those traces disappear as free will develops. The first steps of progress are slow because the will does not yet support them. Progress becomes faster as the spirit becomes more fully aware of himself."

610. The spirits who have said that man is a being apart from the rest of creation are, then, mistaken?

610. So, are the spirits who said that humans are separate from the rest of creation mistaken?

"No, but the question had not been developed; and besides, there are things that can only be known at their appointed time. Man is, in reality, a being apart, for he has faculties that distinguish him from all others, and he has another destiny. The human species is the one which God has chosen for the incarnation of the beings that are capable of knowing Him"

"No, but the question had not been fully explored. Besides, some things can only be known at their appointed time. Humans are indeed distinct from all other beings. They have abilities that set them apart and a different destiny. God has chosen the human species as the one in which beings capable of knowing him" are incarnated.

611. Is not the common origin of the intellectual principle of living beings a consecration of the doctrine of the metempsychosis?

611. Doesn't the shared origin of the intellectual principle in living beings support the doctrine of metempsychosis?

"Two things may have the same origin, and yet not resemble one another at a later period. Who could recognise the tree, with its leaves, flowers, and fruit, in the shapeless germ contained in the seed from which it has issued? From the moment when the principle of intelligence has reached the necessary degree of development for becoming spirit, and for entering upon the human phase, it has no longer any connection with its primitive state, and is no more the soul of the beasts than the tree is the seed. In man, there is no longer anything of the animal but his body, and the passions which are the joint product of his body and of the instinct of self-preservation inherent in matter. It cannot, therefore, be said that such and such a man is the incarnation of such and such an animal; and consequently the doctrine of the metempsychosis, as commonly understood, is not true."

"Two things may have the same origin but look different later. Who could recognize a tree, with its leaves, flowers, and fruit, in the shapeless germ inside its seed? Once the principle of intelligence has developed enough to become a spirit, it enters the human phase. It then has no connection with its original state. It is no more the soul of an animal than the tree is the seed. In humans, only the body and the passions remain animal. These passions are the joint product of the body and the instinct of self-preservation inherent in matter. Therefore, we cannot say that a particular person is the incarnation of a particular animal. Consequently, the doctrine of metempsychosis, as commonly understood, is not true."

612. Can a spirit which has animated a human body be incarnated in an animal?

612. Can a spirit that has lived in a human body be incarnated in an animal?

"No; for such an incarnation would be a retrogradation; and a spirit never retrogrades. The river does not flow back to its source." (118.)

"No, because such an incarnation would be a step backward, and a spirit never goes backward. A river does not flow back to its source." (118.)

613. However erroneous may be the idea attached to the doctrine of the metempsychosis, may not that doctrine be a result of an intuitive reminiscence of the different existences of man?

613. However mistaken the idea behind the doctrine of metempsychosis may be, could it come from an intuitive memory of a person's different lives?

"That intuitive reminiscence is seen in this belief as in many others; but, like the greater part of his intuitive ideas, man has perverted it."

"That intuitive memory can be seen in this belief, as in many others. But people have distorted it, as they have distorted most of their intuitive ideas."

The doctrine of the metempsychosis would be true if by that word were understood the progression of the soul from a lower state to a higher state, in which it acquires the new development that will transform its nature; but it is false when understood as meaning that any animal can transmigrate directly into a man, and a man into an animal, which would imply the idea of a retrogradation or of a fusion. The fact that fusion is not possible between corporeal beings of two different species is an indication of their being of degrees that are not assimilable, and that such must be the case, also, with the spirits that animate them. If the same spirit could animate them alternately, it would imply the existence, between them, of an identity that would manifest itself by the possibility of corporeal reproduction. Reincarnation, as now taught by spirits, is founded, on the contrary, upon the ascensional movement of nature and upon the progression of man in his own species, which detracts nothing from his dignity. What really degrades man is the evil use he makes of the faculties which God has given him for his advancement. And, at all events, the antiquity and universality of the doctrine of the metempsychosis, and the number of eminent men who have professed it, proves that the principle of reincarnation has its roots in nature itself; a fact which, so far from diminishing the probability of its truth, must be regarded as constituting a weighty argument in its favour.

The doctrine of metempsychosis would be true if it meant the soul’s progression from a lower state to a higher one. In that higher state, the soul gains new development that transforms its nature. But the doctrine is false if it means that any animal can pass directly into a human, or a human into an animal. That would imply regression or a merging of species. Physical beings of two different species cannot merge. This indicates that they exist at degrees that cannot be made alike. The same must also be true of the spirits that animate them. If the same spirit could animate both in turn, they would share an identity. That identity would reveal itself in their ability to reproduce with each other. Reincarnation, as spirits now teach it, is based instead on nature’s upward movement and on human progress within the human species. This takes nothing away from human dignity. What really degrades people is their misuse of the faculties God has given them for their advancement. In any case, the doctrine of metempsychosis is ancient and widespread, and many eminent people have professed it. These facts prove that the principle of reincarnation has its roots in nature itself. Far from making reincarnation less likely to be true, this fact must be regarded as a weighty argument in its favor.

The starting-point of spirit is one of those questions which have reference to the origin of things, and to the secret designs of God. It is not given to man to comprehend them completely, and he can only form, in regard to them, suppositions and theoretic systems, more or less probable. Spirits themselves are far from knowing everything; and may also have, in regard to what they do not know, individual opinions more or less in harmony with fact.

The origin of spirit is one of those questions that concern the origin of things and God’s hidden plans. Humans cannot fully understand these matters. They can only form guesses and theories about them, some more likely than others. Spirits themselves are far from knowing everything. They too may have individual opinions about what they do not know, and these may be more or less accurate.

It is thus, for example, that all spirits do not think alike in reference to the relations which exist between man and the animals. According to some, spirit only arrives at the human period after having been elaborated and individualised in the different degrees of the lower beings of the creation. According to others, the spirit of man has always belonged to the human race, without passing through the ascensional degrees of the animal world. The first of these theories has the advantage of giving an aim to the future of animals, which are thus seen to form the earliest links in the chain of thinking beings; the second theory is more consonant with the dignity of man, and may be summed up as follows:—The different species of animals do not proceed intellectually from one another by the road of progression. Thus the spirit of the oyster does not become successively that of the fish, the bird, the quadruped, and the quadrumane. Each species is a fixed type, physically and morally, each individual of which draws, from the universal source of being, the sum of the intelligent principle which is necessary to it according to the nature of its organs and the work it has to accomplish in the phenomena of nature, and which it restores to the general mass of that principle at its death. Those of worlds more advanced than ours (188) are also distinct races, that are fitted to the needs of those worlds, and to the degree of advancement of the men of whom they are the auxiliaries, but that do not proceed, spiritually, from those of the earth. It is not the same with man. It is evident that, physically, he forms a link in the chain of living beings; but there is, morally, a solution of continuity between the animals and him; for man alone possesses the soul, or spirit, the divine spark, which gives him the moral sense and the extended vision which are wanting in the animals; and this soul, spirit, spark, is, in him, the principal being, pre-existent to, and surviving, his body, and thus preserving his individuality. What is the origin of spirit? What its starting-point? Is it formed by the individualising of the intelligent principle? This is a mystery which it would be useless to attempt to penetrate, and in regard to which, as we have said, we can do no more than build up theories. What is certain, what is indicated alike by reason and by experience, is the survival of each spirit and the persistence of his individuality after death, his faculty of progressing, the happiness or unhappiness of his next state of being, according to his advancement or his backwardness in the path of purification, and all the moral consequences which flow from this certainty. As for the mysterious kinship which exists between man and the animals, that, we repeat, is God's secret, like many other matters the knowledge of which, at this time, is of little importance to our advancement, and upon which it would be useless to insist.

For example, spirits do not all think alike about the relationship between humans and animals. According to some, spirit reaches the human stage only after developing and becoming individual in lower beings at different levels of creation. According to others, the human spirit has always belonged to the human race, without rising through the stages of animal life. The first theory has the advantage of giving animals a purpose in the future. It presents them as the earliest links in the chain of thinking beings. The second theory is more in keeping with human dignity and can be summed up as follows: The different animal species do not develop intellectually from one another through a process of progression. The spirit of an oyster does not become, in turn, that of a fish, a bird, a four-footed animal, and a four-handed animal. Each species is a fixed type, both physically and morally. Each individual draws from the universal source of being the amount of the intelligent principle it needs. That amount depends on the nature of its organs and its work in the processes of nature. At death, the individual returns that amount to the general mass of the intelligent principle. Animals in worlds more advanced than ours (188) are also distinct races. They are suited to the needs of those worlds and to the level of advancement of the humans they assist. But they do not develop spiritually from the animals of Earth. It is different with humans. Clearly, humans form a physical link in the chain of living beings. But morally, there is a break between animals and humans. Humans alone possess the soul, or spirit, the divine spark. This gives them a moral sense and a broader vision that animals lack. In humans, this soul, spirit, or spark is the principal being. It exists before the body and survives it, preserving its individuality. What is the origin of spirit? Where does it begin? Is it formed when the intelligent principle becomes individual? This is a mystery that would be useless to try to penetrate. As we have said, we can do no more than build theories about it. But reason and experience alike point to certain truths. Each spirit survives death and keeps its individuality. Each spirit can progress. Its next state of being is happy or unhappy according to how far it has advanced, or fallen behind, on the path of purification. All the moral consequences follow from this certainty. As for the mysterious kinship between humans and animals, we repeat that it is God's secret. It is like many other matters whose knowledge is of little importance to our advancement at this time. It would be useless to press the question.