The following is a quotation from the same philosopher, dealing with metempsychosis, and which, when compared with the foregoing sentences, appears strangely absurd. We make no comment here, as this obscure question will be dealt with a few pages farther on.
"Those who have exercised human faculties are reborn as men; those who have lived only the life of the senses pa.s.s into animals" bodies, especially into the bodies of wild beasts if they have given way to excesses of anger ... those who have sought only to satisfy their l.u.s.t and gluttony, pa.s.s into the bodies of lascivious and gluttonous animals ... those who have allowed their senses to become atrophied, are sent to vegetate in trees ... those who have reigned tyranically become eagles, if they have no other vice."[181]
Porphyry says:
"The souls that are not destined for the tortures of h.e.l.l (_Tartarus_), and those that have pa.s.sed through this expiation, are born again, and divine Justice gives them a new body, in accordance with their merits and demerits."[182]
The following remarkable lines are from Iamblichus:
"What appears to us to be an accurate definition of justice does not also appear to be so to the G.o.ds. For we, looking at that which is most brief, direct our attention to things present, and to this momentary life, and the manner in which it subsists. But the powers that are superior to us know the whole life of the Soul, and all its former lives; and, in consequence of this, if they inflict a certain punishment in obedience to the entreaties of those that invoke them, they do not inflict it without justice, but looking at the offences committed by souls in former lives: which men, not perceiving, think that they unjustly fall into the calamities which they suffer."[183]
Proclus gave out the same teaching; he affirmed that he had been incarnated in Nichomachus, the Pythagorean.
In his commentary on the _Golden Verses of Pythagoras_, Hierocles expresses himself thus:
"The ways of the Lord can be justified only by metempsychosis."[184]
Damascius and Hermias, as also their masters, proclaimed their belief in Rebirth.
Here a short explanation must be given of what has been said regarding transmigration or metempsychosis, in order that all misunderstanding may be removed.
Neither Pythagoras nor Plotinus nor any of the great Teachers of the past believed in metempsychosis, as it has been described; all their disciples have affirmed if, and these affirmations, set over against a line of teaching which seems to contradict them, because it is incomplete and intended for the less intelligent portion of society at that time, ought to have reminded its opponents that there might be hidden reasons capable of explaining the paradox.
We must first remember that a veil of strictest secrecy was flung over the n.o.blest and most sublime spiritual teachings of the day. According to Bossuet, the teaching of the immortality of the soul seems not to have been deemed suitable for the Hebrew race, and, indeed, it is easy to understand that no double-edged truth should be taught except under conditions that would safeguard it. Ptolemy Philadelphus exiled Hegesias,[185] whose eloquent fanaticism had caused some of his disciples to commit suicide, at Cyrene, after a lesson on immortality.
Ptolemy ordered those schools of philosophy to be closed which continued teaching this doctrine, for in the case of a people insufficiently developed, the instinct which binds to physical life, and the dread of the torture that awaits guilty souls in the Hereafter, are preferable to doctrines of immortality deprived of the safeguards with which they should be surrounded.
The doctrine of Rebirths called for even stricter secrecy than that of immortality, and this secrecy was accorded it in ancient times; after the coming of the Christ, it grew less rigorous, and the Neoplatonists, though obliged to keep the esoteric teaching to themselves, were permitted to throw light on certain points.
Timaeus of Locris, one of the masters of Plotinus, hinted at the existence of a more profound doctrine in the following words:
"Just as by the threat of punishment imperfectly evolved souls are prevented from sinning, so the transmigration of the souls of murderers into the bodies of wild beasts, and of the souls of unchaste persons into the bodies of swine, was taught; and the previous punishment of these souls in the infernal regions was entrusted to Nemesis (Karma)."
Certain modern commentators--though imperfectly instructed in the teachings of palingenesis--have also seen that the masters of philosophy in the past could not possibly have made a mistake which less far-seeing minds would have avoided. Dacier[186] says:
"A sure token that Pythagoras never held the opinion attributed to him lies in the fact that there is not the faintest trace of it in the symbols we have left of him, or in the precepts his disciple, Lysis, collected together and handed down as a summary of the master"s teachings."
Jules Simon also speaks as follows regarding Plotinus:[187]
"Here we have the doctrine of metempsychosis which Plotinus found all around, among the Egyptians, the Jews, the Neoplatonists, his predecessors, and finally in Plato himself. Does Plato take metempsychosis seriously, as one would be tempted to believe after reading the _Republic_? Did he mention it only to ridicule the superst.i.tions of his contemporaries, as seems evident from the _Timaeus_?[188]
"However important Plato may have considered metempsychosis, it can scarcely be imagined that Plotinus took it seriously.... Even granting that this doctrine were literally accepted by Plotinus, the question would still have to be asked whether the human soul really does dwell in the body of an animal, or simply enters a human body, which, in its pa.s.sions and vices, recalls the nature of that particular animal."
The reasons mentioned by Dacier and Jules Simon form only a trifling portion of the whole explanation, but if they are added to the constant protests raised by the disciples of the Masters of the Pythagorean and Platonic traditions, against those who said that their instructors taught metempsychosis in all its crudeness, they a.s.sume considerable importance, and show that, although the restrictions of esoteric teaching travestied by the ignorance of the ma.s.ses may have caused it to be believed that the contrary was the case, none the less the Initiates, from the very beginning, denied that human transmigration into the bodies of animals ever took place.
On this question many of them have frequently said that it is the soul which, in such cases, changes its nature, and a.s.sumes the pa.s.sions of animals into which, as is said exoterically, it transmigrates, though it does not enter into their bodies.
"He who believes that he transmigrates, after death, into the body of a beast or a plant," says Hierocles,[189] "is grossly mistaken; he is ignorant of the fact that the essential form of the soul cannot change, that it is and it remains human, and only, metaphorically speaking, does virtue make of it a G.o.d, and vice an animal."
"A human soul," adds Hermes, "cannot go back into the body of an animal; it is preserved from such pollution, for all time, by the will of the G.o.ds."[190]
Mrs. Besant says as follows in a letter dealing with Theosophy and Reincarnation (_The Theosophist_, April, 1906):
"Even with the wealth of detail given in the Hindu Shastras, thousands of facts of the invisible world are omitted, because their statement would hopelessly bewilder the public mind.
"If all the details are given, ere the main principles are grasped, hopeless confusion is caused to the beginner.
"When an Ego, a human soul, by vicious appet.i.te or otherwise, forms a very strong link of attachment to any type of animal, the astral body (Kamarupa) of such a person shows the corresponding animal characteristics, and in the astral world, where thoughts and pa.s.sions are visible as forms, may take the animal shapes; thus, after death, in _Pretaloka_, the soul would be embodied in an animal vesture, resembling or approximating to the animal whose qualities had been encouraged during earth-life. Either at this stage, or when the soul is returning towards reincarnation, and is again in the astral world, it may, in extreme cases, be linked by magnetic affinity to the astral body of the animal it has approached in character, and will then, through the animal"s astral body, be chained as a prisoner to that animal"s physical body. Thus chained, it cannot go onwards to _Svarga_, if the tie be set up while it is a _Preta_; nor go onwards to human birth, if it be descending towards physical life. It is truly undergoing penal servitude, chained to an animal; it is conscious in the astral world, has its human faculties, but it cannot control the brute body with which it is connected, nor express itself through that body on the physical plane. The animal organisation does not possess the mechanism needed by the human Ego for self-expression; it can serve as a jailor, not as a vehicle. Further, the "animal soul" is not ejected, but is the proper tenant and controller of its own body.
S"ri Shankaracharya hints very clearly at the difference between this penal imprisonment and becoming a stone, a tree, or an animal. Such an imprisonment is not "reincarnation," ... the human Ego "cannot reincarnate as an animal," cannot "become an animal."
"In cases where the Ego is not degraded enough for absolute imprisonment, but in which the astral body has become very animal, it may pa.s.s on normally to human re-birth, but the animal characteristic will be largely reproduced in the physical body--as witness the "monsters" who in face are sometimes repulsively animal, pig-faced, dog-faced, &c. Men, by yielding to the most b.e.s.t.i.a.l vices, entail on themselves penalties more terrible than they, for the most part, realise; for Nature"s laws work on unbrokenly and bring to every man the harvest of the seed he sows. The suffering entailed on the conscious human ent.i.ty, thus cut off from progress and from self-expression, is very great, and is, of course, reformatory in its action; it is somewhat similar to that endured by other Egos, who are linked to bodies human in form, but without normal brains--those we call idiots, lunatics, &c. Idiocy and lunacy are the results of vices different in kind from those that bring about the animal servitude above explained, but the Ego in these cases also is attached to a form through which he cannot express himself."
"True reason," says Proclus,[191] "affirms that the human soul may at times find lodgment in brutes, but that it is possible for it to live its own life and rise above the lower nature whilst bound to it by the similarity of its tendencies and desires. We have never meant anything else, as has often been proved by the reasoning in our commentaries on _Phaedrus_."
There is a note in the _Vahan_[192] on a pa.s.sage from _Phaedrus_ which sheds all the light that can be shed on the question of metempsychosis; in the s.p.a.ce of a few lines everything is said that may be publicly revealed, without trespa.s.sing on forbidden ground.
After stating that, on returning from the internal regions, the soul pa.s.ses into the "life" of a beast, and that if it were human previously, it afterwards goes into another human body, the note continues:
"We must not understand by this that the soul of a man becomes the soul of a brute, but that by way of punishment it is bound to the soul of a brute, or carried in it, just as daemons used to reside in our souls. Hence all the energies of the rational soul are absolutely impeded, and its intellectual eye beholds nothing but the dark and tumultuous phantasms of a brutal life."[193]
This pa.s.sage contains the explanation of what might be called the metempsychosis of certain human souls at the present time; we once heard a great Teacher fully reveal this mystery to a chosen group of Hindus, but it must for some time to come remain a mystery to the western world. All that can be said on the matter is that it has nothing to do with the incarnation of a human soul in the body of an animal, but rather with a certain temporary karmic bond, in the life Hereafter, between a human soul and an animal one, a bond intended to teach many a hard lesson to the one who has brought upon himself so unpleasant an experience.
Metempsychosis included many other facts in human evolution, facts that were plainly taught to the disciples in the "inner circles" of the ancient Schools and pa.s.sed out to the confused medley of public teaching.
The astral body, for instance, of a man of an exceedingly pa.s.sionate nature, when the soul leaves the physical body, sometimes a.s.sumes forms resembling those of the animals which represent these pa.s.sions on the physical plane, and so the disincarnate soul of an a.s.sa.s.sin has been said to pa.s.s into the body of a wild beast.
Metempsychosis, properly so-called, that is to say, the pa.s.sing of a human soul into the body of a brute, did however exist during the infancy of the human race, when highly developed animal souls were becoming fit to enter the human kingdom. The bodies of these newly-born human souls were coa.r.s.e and rudimentary in their nature, showing scarcely any difference in form and organic function from the bodies of the higher animals of that period, for these instruments were very similar to one another. The improvements subsequently effected by human bodies did not then exist; the difference, or distinction, which has now widened into a gulf, was scarcely perceptible, and in the early incarnations of these rudimentary human souls back-slidings and falls were so frequent that some of them, thus enfeebled, might find it to their advantage[194] to become incarnate, at times, in highly-developed animal bodies. But that was always an exception, and the exception has long ago become an impossibility.
We think these explanations, along with those given in other portions of this work, will throw as much light as is permitted publicly on the subject of metempsychosis--a subject frequently discussed and one that has. .h.i.therto been so obscure. Such illumination as is here given is due to the teachings of theosophy.
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
The doc.u.ments to which we have access, dealing with the philosophical and religious history of Christianity in the first few centuries of our era, are so questionable, that we can place but faint reliance upon them, if we would really become acquainted with the thought of that period. We have already seen that the number of spurious or counterfeit productions was so great that a strange kind of sorting out, or selection, took place at the first Council of Nicaea, resulting in the choice of four so-called canonical Gospels. It is evident, too, that the copyists, compilers, and translators of the period were anxious, above all else, to make facts and opinions agree with their preconceived ideas and personal sympathies or likings. Each author worked _pro domo sua_, emphasising whatever fitted in with his personal views and carefully concealing what was calculated to weaken them; so that at the present time the only clues we have to guide us out of the labyrinth consist of the brief opinions expressed by a few historians, here and there, on whose honesty reliance may be placed.
In the present chapter, for instance, it is no easy matter to unravel the Truth from out of these tangled threads of personal opinions. Some believe that the early Christians and the Fathers of the Church were reincarnationists; others say they were not; the texts, we are in possession of, contradict one another. Thus, whereas Saint Jerome brings against Origen the reproach of having in his book _De Principiis_ taught that, in certain cases, the transmigration of human souls into the bodies of animals, was possible--as, indeed, seems to be the case--certain writers deny that he ever said anything on the subject. These contradictory affirmations are easy to explain, once we know that Ruffinus, when translating into Latin the Greek text of _De Principiis_, omitted all that referred to this question, that the conspiracy of silence might be preserved on the matter of Origenian transmigration.
At the close of his article "_Origen on Reincarnation_," in the _Theosophical Review_, February, 1906, G. R. S. Mead says:
"It therefore follows that those who have claimed Origen as a believer in reincarnation--and many have done so, confounding reincarnation with pre-existence--have been mistaken. Origen himself answers in no uncertain tones, and stigmatises the belief as a false doctrine, utterly opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church."
Others affirm that Saint Justin Martyr believed in rebirths and even in the transmigration of human souls into animal bodies. In his book _Against Heresies_, volume 2, chapter 33, the _Absurdity of the Doctrine of the Transmigration of Souls_ is dealt with; and in the following chapter, the pre-existence of the soul is denied! Is this another instance, like the one just mentioned, of tampering with the writings of this Father of the Church?[195]
At times an author gives two contradictory opinions on the same subject. In Tertullian"s _Apology for the Christians_, for instance, we find the following:
"If you can find it reasonable to believe the transmigration of human souls from body to body, why should you think it incredible for the soul to return to the substance it first inhabited?[196] For this is our notion of a resurrection, to be that again after death which we were before, for according to the Pythagorean doctrine these souls now are not the same they were, because they cannot be what they were not without ceasing to be what they were.... I think it of more consequence to establish this doctrine of the resurrection; and we propose it as more consonant with reason and the dignity of human nature to believe that man will be remade man, each person the person he was, a human being a human being; in other words, that the soul shall be habited with the same qualities it was invested with in its former union, though the man may receive some alteration in his form.... The light which daily departs rises again with its original splendour, and darkness succeeds by equal turns; the stars which leave the world, revive; the seasons, when they have finished their course, renew it again; the fruits are consumed and bloom afresh; and that which we sow is not quickened except it die, and by that dissolution rises more fruitful. Thus you see how all things are renewed by corruption and reformed by dying.... How, then, could you imagine that man, the lord of all these dying and reviving things, should himself die for ever?"
After such a clear and n.o.ble profession of faith, we may well wonder if it were the same man who, in _De Anima_, could have both refuted and pitilessly ridiculed the idea of rebirth, and denied the separation of the soul from the body as well as the influence of the former upon the latter. We prefer to believe that we are dealing with two writers, or else that some literary forger, anxious to create a diversion, deliberately made Tertullian responsible for this strange contradiction.
Another reason for the difficulty in unravelling the tangled skein of the religious and philosophical teachings prevalent in the early centuries of Christianity is the lack of precision in the language of the writers, the loss of the key to the special vocabulary they used, and the veils which writers who possessed some degree of initiation, deliberately threw over teachings which could only be given to the ma.s.ses in general terms.