changes constantly, whereas the form prevails eternally.'
To this Flourens observes: "In everything that has
life, the form is more persistent than matter; for,
that which constitutes the BEING of the living
body, its identity and its sameness, is its form."l8
"Being," as De Mirville remarks in his turn,
"a magisterial principle. a philosophical pledge of
our immortality,"l9 it must be inferred
that soul – human and animal – is meant under this misleading term.
It is rather what we call the ONE LIFE
I suspect.
However this may be, philosophy, both profane and
religious, corroborates this statement that the two "souls"
are identical in man and beast. Leibnitz, the philosopher
beloved by Bossuet, appeared to credit "Animal Resurrection"
to a certain extent. Death being for him "simply
the temporary enveloping of the personality" he likens
it to the preservation of ideas in sleep, or to the butterfly
within its caterpillar. "For him," says
De Mirville, "resurrection20 is a general
law in nature, which becomes a grand miracle, when
performed by a thaumaturgist, only in virtue of its prematurity,
of the surrounding circumstances, and of the mode in which
he operates." In this Leibnitz is a true Occultist
without suspecting it. The growth and blossoming of a flower
or a plant in five minutes instead of several days and weeks,
the forced germination and development of plant, animal
or man, are facts preserved in the records of the Occultists.
They are only seeming miracles; the natural productive
forces hurried and a thousand-fold intensified by the induced
conditions under occult laws known to the Initiate. The
abnormally rapid growth is effected by the forces of nature,
whether blind or attached to minor intelligences subjected to
man's occult power, being brought to bear collectively
on the development of the thing to be called forth out of its
chaotic elements. But why call one a divine miracle,
the other a satanic subterfuge or simply a fraudulent performance?
Still as a true philosopher Leibnitz finds himself forced,
even in this dangerous question of the resurrection of the dead,
to include in it the whole of the animal kingdom in its great
synthesis, and to say: "I believe that the
souls of the animals are imperishable, . .
. and I find that nothing is better fitted to prove our
own immortal nature."2l
Supporting Leibnitz, Dean, the Vicar of Middleton,
published in 1748 two small volumes upon this subject.
To sum up his ideas, he says that "the holy scriptures
hint in various passages that the brutes shall live in a future
life. This doctrine has been supported by several Fathers
of the Church. Reason teaching us that the animals have
a soul, teaches us at the same time that they shall
exist in a future state. The system of those who believe
that God annihilates the soul of the animal is nowhere supported,
and has no solid foundation to it," etc. etc.22
Many of the men of science of the last century defended Dean's
hypothesis, declaring it extremely probable, one
of them especially – the learned Protestant theologian Charles
Bonnet of Geneva. Now, this theologian was the author
of an extremely curious work called by him Palingenesia23
or the "New Birth," which takes place,
as he seeks to prove, owing to an invisible germ that exists
in everybody, and no more than Leibnitz can he understand
that animals should be excluded from a system, which,
in their absence, would not be a unity, since system
means "a collection of laws."24
"The animals," he writes, "are admirable
books, in which the creator gathered the most striking
features of his sovereign intelligence. The anatomist has
to study them with respect, and, if in the
least endowed with that delicate and reasoning feeling that characterises
the moral man, he will never imagine, while turning
over the pages, that he is handling slates or breaking
pebbles. He will never forget that all that lives and feels
is entitled to his mercy and pity. Man would run the risk
of compromising his ethical feeling were he to become familiarised
with the suffering and the blood of animals. This truth
is so evident that Governments should never lose sight of it.
. . . as to the hypothesis of automatism I should feel inclined
to regard it as a philosophical heresy, very dangerous
for society, if it did not so strongly violate good sense
and feeling as to become harmless, for it can never be
generally adopted."
"As to the destiny of the animal, if my hypothesis
be right, Providence holds in reserve for them the greatest
compensations in future states.25 . .
. And for me, their resurrection is the consequence
of that soul or form we are necessarily obliged to allow them,
for a soul being a simple substance, can neither be
divided, nor decomposed, nor yet annihilated.
One cannot escape such an inference without falling back into
Descartes' automatism; and then from animal automatism
one would soon and forcibly arrive at that of man" . . .
Our modern school of biologists has arrived at the theory of "automaton-man,"
but its disciples may be left to their own devices and conclusions.
That with which I am at present concerned, is the final
and absolute proof that neither the Bible, nor its most
philosophical interpreters – however much they may have lacked
a clearer insight into other questions – have ever denied,
on Biblical authority, an immortal soul to any animal,
more than they have found in it conclusive evidence as to
the existence of such a soul in man – in the old Testament.
One has but to read certain verses in Job and the Ecclesiastes
(iii. 17 et seq. 22) to arrive at
this conclusion. The truth of the matter is, that
the future state of neither of the two is therein referred to
by one single word. But if, on the other hand,
only negative evidence is found in the Old Testament concerning
the immortal soul in animals, in the New it is as plainly
asserted as that of man himself, and it is for the benefit
of those who deride Hindu philozoism, who assert
their right to kill animals at their will and pleasure,
and deny them an immortal soul, that a final and definite
proof is now being given.
St. Paul was mentioned at the end of Part I as the defender
of the immortality of all the brute creation. Fortunately
this statement is not one of those that can be pooh-poohed by
the Christians as "the blasphemous and heretical interpretations
of the holy writ, by a group of atheists and free-thinkers."
Would that every one of the profoundly wise words of the Apostle
Paul – an Initiate whatever else he might have been – was as clearly
understood as those passages that relate to the animals.
For then, as will be shown, the indestructibility
of matter taught by materialistic science; the law of eternal
evolution, so bitterly denied by the Church; the
omnipresence of the ONE LIFE,
or the unity of the ONE ELEMENT,
and its presence throughout the whole of nature as preached by
esoteric philosophy, and the secret sense of St.
Paul's remarks to the Romans (viii. 18-23
), would be demonstrated beyond doubt or cavil to be obviously
one and the same thing. Indeed, what else can that
great historical personage, so evidently imbued with neo-Platonic
Alexandrian philosophy, mean by the following, which
I transcribe with comments in the light of occultism, to
give a clearer comprehension of my meaning?
The apostle premises by saying (Romans viii. 16,
17) that "The spirit itself" (Paramatma) "beareth
witness with our spirit" (atman) "that we are
the children of God," and "if children,
then heirs" – heirs of course to the eternity and indestructibility
of the eternal or divine essence in us. Then he tells us
that:
"The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be
compared with the glory which shall be revealed."
(v. 18.)
The "glory" we maintain, is no "new Jerusalem,"
the symbolical representation of the future in St. John's
kabalistical Revelations – but the Devachanic periods and
the series of births in the succeeding races when, after
every new incarnation we shall find ourselves higher and more
perfect, physically as well as spiritually; and
when finally we shall all become truly the "sons" and
"the children of God" at the "last Resurrection" – whether
people call it Christian, Nirvanic or Parabrahmic;
as all these are one and the same. For truly –
"The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
manifestation of the sons of God." (v. 19.)
By creature, animal is here meant, as will be shown
further on upon the authority of St. John Chrysostom.
But who are the "sons of God," for the manifestation
of whom the whole creation longs? Are they the "sons of God"
with whom "Satan came also" (see Job) or the "seven
angels" of Revelations? Have they reference to Christians
only or to the "sons of God" all over the world?26
Such "manifestation" is promised at the end of every
Manvantara27 or world-period by
the scriptures
of every great Religion, and save in the Esoteric interpretation
of all these, in none so clearly as in the Vedas.
For there it is said that at the end of each Manvantara
comes the pralaya, or the destruction of the
world – only one of which is known to, and expected by,
the Christians – when there will be left the Sishtas,
or remnants, seven Rishis and one warrior, and
all the seeds, for the next human "tide-wave of the
following Round."28 But the main question
with which we are concerned is not at present, whether
the Christian or the Hindu theory is the more correct;
but to show that the Brahmins – in teaching that the seeds of all
the creatures are left over, out of the total periodical
and temporary destruction of all visible things, together
with the "sons of God" or the Rishis, who shall
manifest themselves to future humanity – say neither more nor less
than what St. Paul himself preaches. Both include
all animal life in the hope of a new birth and renovation in a
more perfect state when every creature that now "waiteth"
shall rejoice in the "manifestation of the sons of God."
Because, as St. Paul explains:
"The creature itself (ipsa) also shall be delivered from
the bondage of corruption," which is to say that the
seed or the indestructible animal soul, which does not
reach Devachan while in its elementary or animal state,
will get into a higher form and go on, together with man,
progressing into still higher states and forms, to end,
animal as well as man, "in the glorious liberty of
the children of God" (v. 21).
And this "glorious liberty" can be reached only through
the evolution or the Karmic progress of all creatures.
The dumb brute having evoluted from the half sentient plant,
is itself transformed by degrees into man, spirit,
God – et seq. and ad infinitum! For says St.
Paul –
"We know ("we," the Initiates)
that the whole creation, (omnis creatura or
creature, in the Vulgate) groaneth and travaileth
(in child-birth) in pain until now."29
(v. 22.)
This is plainly saying that man and animal are on a par on earth,
as to suffering, in their evolutionary efforts toward the
goal and in accordance with Karmic law. By "until
now," is meant up to the fifth race. To make
it still plainer, the great Christian Initiate explains
by saying:
"Not only they (the animals) but ourselves also, which
have the first-fruits of the Spirit, we groan within ourselves,
waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption
of our body." (v. 23.) Yes, it
is we, men, who have the "first-fruits of the
Spirit," or the direct Parabrahmic light, our
Atma or seventh principle, owing to the perfection of our
fifth principle (Manas), which is far less developed in
the animal. As a compensation, however, their
Karma is far less heavy than ours. But that is no reason
why they too should not reach one day that perfection that gives
the fully evoluted man the Dhyanchohanic form.
Nothing could be clearer – even to a profane, non-initiated
critic – than those words of the great Apostle, whether
we interpret them by the light of esoteric philosophy,
or that of mediæval scholasticism. The hope of redemption,
or, of the survival of the spiritual entity, delivered
"from the bondage of corruption," or the series
of temporary material forms, is for all living creatures,
not for man alone.
But the "paragon" of animals, proverbially unfair
even to his fellow-beings, could not be expected to give
easy consent to sharing his expectations with his cattle and domestic
poultry. The famous Bible commentator, Cornelius
a Lapide, was the first to point out and charge his predecessors
with the conscious and deliberate intention of doing all they
could to avoid the application of the word creatura to
the inferior creatures of this world. We learn from him
that St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Origen and St.
Cyril (the one, most likely, who refused to see
a human creature in Hypatia, and dealt with her as though
she were a wild animal) insisted that the word creatura,
in the verses above quoted, was applied by the Apostle
simply to the angels! But, as remarks Cornelius,
who appeals to St. Thomas for corroboration, "this
opinion is too distorted and violent (distorta et violenta);
it is moreover invalidated by the fact that the angels,
as such, are already delivered from the bonds of corruption."
Nor is St. Augustine's suggestion any happier; for
he offers the strange hypothesis that the "creatures,"
spoken of by St. Paul, were "the infidels and
the heretics" of all the ages! Cornelius contradicts the
venerable father as coolly as he opposed his earlier brother-saints.
"For," says he, "in the text quoted
the creatures spoken of by the Apostle are evidently
creatures
distinct from men: – not only they but ourselves also;
and then, that which is meant is not deliverance from
sin, but from death to come."30
But even the brave Cornelius finally gets scared by the general
opposition and decides that under the term creatures St.
Paul may have meant – as St. Ambrosius, St.
Hilarius (Hilaire) and others insisted elements (!!)
i.e., the sun, the moon, the stars,
the earth, etc. etc.
Unfortunately for the holy speculators and scholastics,
and very fortunately for the animals – if these are ever to profit
by polemics – they are over-ruled by a still greater authority
than themselves. It is St. John Chrysostomus,
already mentioned, whom the Roman Catholic Church,
on the testimony given by Bishop Proclus, at one time his
secretary, holds in the highest veneration. In fact
St. John Chrysostom was, if such a profane (in our
days) term can be applied to a saint, – the "medium"
of the Apostle to the Gentiles. In the matter of his Commentary
on St. Paul's Epistles, St. John is held
as directly inspired by that Apostle himself, in other
words as having written his comments at St. Paul's dictation.
This is what we read in those comments on the 3rd Chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans.
"We must always groan about the delay made for our emigration
(death); for if, as saith the Apostle, the
creature deprived of reason (mente, not anima,
"Soul") – and speech (nam si hæc creatura
mente et verbo carens) groans and expects, the more
the shame that we ourselves should fail to do so."3l
Unfortunately we do, and fail most ingloriously in this
desire for "emigration" to countries unknown.
Were people to study the scriptures of all nations and interpret
their meaning by the light of esoteric philosophy, no one
would fail to become, if not anxious to die, at
least indifferent to death. We should then make profitable
use of the time we pass on this earth by quietly preparing in
each birth for the next by accumulating good Karma. But
man is a sophist by nature. And, even after reading
this opinion of St. John Chrysostom – one that settles the
question of the immortal soul in animals forever, or ought
to do so at any rate, in the mind of every Christian, – we
fear the poor dumb brutes may not benefit much by the lesson after
all. Indeed, the subtle casuist, condemned
out of his own mouth, might tell us, that whatever
the nature of the soul in the animal, he is still doing
it a favour, and himself a meritorious action, by
killing the poor brute, as thus he puts an end to its "groans
about the delay made for its emigration" into eternal glory.
The writer is not simple enough to imagine, that a whole
British Museum filled with works against meat diet, would
have the effect of stopping civilized nations from having slaughter-houses,
or of making them renounce their beefsteak and Christmas goose.
But if these humble lines could make a few readers realize the
real value of St. Paul's noble words, and thereby
seriously turn their thoughts to all the horrors of vivisection – then
the writer would be content. For verily when the world
feels convinced – and it cannot avoid coming one day to such a
conviction – that animals are creatures as eternal as we ourselves,
vivisection and other permanent tortures, daily inflicted
on the poor brutes, will, after calling forth an
outburst of maledictions and threats from society generally,
force all Governments to put an end to those barbarous and shameful
practices.
Theosphist, January, February, and March, 1886
H. P. Blavatsky
l De la Resurrection et du Miracle. E.
de Mirville.