PRE-EXISTENCE AND REINCARNATION.

 

We know nothing of the "infinite source of life," and that man derived his being therefrom is entirely hypothetical. The "infinite source" is an "idea," a will-o'-the-wisp of philosophy, which may or may not exist. That it fails to explain the scheme of creation, for which it is hypothecated, shows how chimerical it is.

 

Creation came by the method of evolution; by growth from the simple to the complex. Man began as an animal, a savage, and at length reached his present estate. This is the method pursued by the forces of the universe, whatever they may be, or whatever may direct them. Why they did not pursue different courses, was because with the conditions presented, they could not. The grooves along which the processes of this growth must proceed were as defined as the rails which the cars traverse to reach a given point.

 

The ego, again, is an "idea," not a fact; an assumption that there is an independent, always-existing individuality, which granted gives away the question in debate. If the ego had an eternal past existence, and progressive, there would be an infinite past behind every individual, and in that infinite past would be infinite experiences, that is, all experiences. There would be nothing remaining to be learned, or felt, or gained. Such a past would give an infinitely perfect individuality. That man is not thus endowed brings the conclusion of "pure logic," that he has had no such past—that he has with his spirit and intellectual and moral endowments had a beginning in time. Whatever conclusions this may lead to, we must accept this statement as fact.

 

Taking the ego as equivalent to the spirit, there may be no question as to its birthright to taking on any and all mundane experiences, but why should it need a desire to do so The apparent object of creation is to raise spirit out of and above the domain of physical matter, not to draw it down to its level. It is an entirely unwarranted assertion that spirit gains by repeated contact with the physical world. Once freed therefrom, its return must be always a loss, and not a gain.

 

The past history of every human spirit is the history of the globe from chaos. It is not, however, a history of spirit, but of matter. The modern spiritual philosophy is quite complete without taking for its introductory chapter the exploded theories of reincarnation, re-embodiment, pre­existence and soul-germs. It has blown all these old ideas into the waste­basket of dead things. Its distinctive feature, that which is entirely different from the old ideas, is the supremacy of law in the realm of spirit, and the application of the investigations of physical science. When we place our feet on this firm ground, and inquire for the facts before we theorize, the speculations of philosophers from the famed Greeks to Descartes, are the restless wanderings of the blind, inflated with the belief that they can see.

 

Among the earliest attempts to account for the origin of man, and the good and evil meted to him in this life, were reincarnation and pre­existence. They were the fancies of the childhood of the race, and like all the speculations of early man, are without truth. It may be stated as a law, that the earlier in time a belief, idea or speculation came, the greater the probability that it is false.

 

Whatever the consequences, the science of spirit begins with the birth of the individual. The first chapter of the genesis of spirit is the history of creation to the time man was evolved; its great volume is of the spirit's present attainments and future possibilities.

 

Every theory which attempts the high purpose of solving the mysteries of the universe, must rest on the foundation of evolution. That is to the world of life what gravitation is to the world of inorganic matter. In fact gravitation is the law of evolution applied to world-masses. Whatever we assume, here is firm ground, and when our theories conflict we may know we are on the wrong path. We must accept evolution is the progressive advancement of life from protozoa to man, let it lead where it may.

 

We are obliged to accept the statement that every living being has a spirit, for if the spirit is not created, but of evolution, the process of unfoldment of the physical body and the spirit must go on interblended until death.

 

The broad proposition is: All living beings have a spiritual as well as physical being.

 

The corollaries to this are:

 

1. Until a certain stage of development is reached the spiritual being does not maintain existence after the death of the physical body.

 

2. A spiritual being is not necessarily immortal

 

All this is proven, and a great deal more by turning to the physiology of the beginning in the germ. It is not necessary for the germ to he taken possession of by a soul or spirit, for its growth. Nor is it true that because it grows, whatever impels its growth is a spirit and immortal. Until it has reached a certain perfection of growth it cannot be said to have an individualized spirit. The study of pathology will convince anyone that this statement is true. It is because this growth is not observed that such theories are entertained; drawn from the "internal consciousness," in utter ignorance of facts. A germ may start in its growth and become a monstrosity without scarce a resemblance to a human being. It may develop into a tumor of strangely agglomerated parts; it may become a body without a brain, or only an apology for that organ. No spirit has "taken possession," or more correctly, the attempt to evolve a spirit has been a failure, as well as to create a body.

 

There are those who carry this fancy yet further and suppose the incarnation of a pair of soul-germs, at the same time; the true mates.

 

Again we have to meet an idea which came as an explanation of phenomena, before these were carefully observed, or observed at all; ideas which were dreams of childhood. The study of embryology proves that the germ is single, and as for the soul-germ, we know nothing, and it is only a fancy unsupported by the least evidence, and entirely needless to explain the facts. Up to a certain time the germ developes into the composite organization of both male and female, and then follows in one or the other direction. In rare instances there is an imperfect physical development of both. The full discussion of this subject leads to grounds which have been by the feelings of delicacy left to the treatment of medical science. We can only briefly reply that before we theorize on the incarnation of "dual germs" we must first prove that there are such germs, and they are required to explain the phenomena attending the genesis of life.

 

If not true, why do spirits teach reincarnation?

 

This is indeed a puzzling question to those who think spirits have infallible knowledge. Now the solution with spirits rests exactly as it does with mankind. Without spirit information, men have arrived at these two conclusions. Many believe in reincarnation, and say that they are able to recall incidents in former states of being. Al the same time it is held as fundamentally true that all recollection is lost in slipping from one to another. Hence it can be only a matter of theory. If spirits freed from the body have been reincarnated they have lost all memory of such state, and cannot testify from experience, any more than can man.

 

It would, however, appear reasonable that spirits ought to be able to perceive the reincarnation of others, if such event took place, yet this may or may not be possible. However this may be, we should not set them down as knowingly deceiving. They have theorized themselves into the belief, just as good and well-meaning people have in the earth-life. The entire plan of organic being, is utterly opposed to the theory of reincarnation. There is not a shadow of scientific evidence in its support. It is an ancient doctrine, produced to account for phenomena now fully explained by other means. The presumption is that a doctrine or belief is untrue in direct proportion to its age. The older, the more the chances against its being true.

 

The most difficult matter to meet is a dense fog-bank. So where an opponent has no clear ideas of the subject he treats of, and indulges in unbounded fancies for corroborative evidence of his vague assertions, to attempt discussion is like the blows of an athlete against a suspended bag, that yields to the blow, but constantly returns to receive another.