DOES CHANCE OR JUSTICE RULE OUR LIVES?

An Essay by Nils A. Amneus

In the following discussion the "Law of Cause and Effect" refers to the orderly
processes which operate in nature according to which the same cause always produces
the same effect. If this law operates in human affairs and we reap the effects of our own
acts, our lives are governed by justice; if not, they are governed by chance.

Table of Contents

- A Vital Problem
- The Material World
- The Mental Plane
- A Universal Mind
- Life Must Have a Meaning
- Human Life
- Law or Chance?
- Requirements of Theory
- An Ancient Doctrine
- Survival After Death
- Existence Before Birth
- Delayed Effects
- Is Reincarnation True?
- Beneficial Effects
- Are Ethical Teachings Practical?
- Summary

-------------

A VITAL PROBLEM
Conflict of Facts and Ideas

Our observations of everyday life show that there is a great deal of injustice and a
great deal of chance in the world. We see many instances where the innocent suffer while
the guilty escape; where the honest fail while the dishonest prosper. We see many cases
where the carelessness of some will cause accidents that may bring misfortune and death
to innocent victims. We see a great injustice in the uneven distribution of wealth and the
opportunities of life. We see some children born healthy while others are born invalids,
some born to the most favorable circumstances, while others are born into wretched
conditions. Is it any wonder, then, that we should ask ourselves the question: "Does
Chance or justice rule our lives?"
If we turn to the Christian scriptures for an answer we find such statements as the
following: "Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
judged; and with what measures ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt. vii, 1,
2.) and "....all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matt. xxvi, 52.) In
Galatians vi, 7, St. Paul says: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a
man soweth, that shall he also reap." Similar statements are also found in other great
religions of the world. From such statements we are led to believe that men's lives are
governed by justice. Man's intuitions and his sense of moral values also tell him that justice
must rule, but our observations of life do not bear this out. On the contrary we see a
contradiction, a clash, an unbridgeable gap between the reign of law and justice that ought
to be on the one hand and the facts and experiences of every-day life on the other. This
glaring contradiction of what is and what ought to be presents a problem that has puzzled
thoughtful people in all ages, and many have dropped it, despairing of ever finding a
solution.
Man's failure to demonstrate that justice rules in human affairs has led to very
serious consequences. It has undermined man's faith in religion and removed an important
incentive to right action: the assurance of reward. A disbelief in justice is a belief in chance
and this gives encouragement to selfishness and all kinds of wrongdoing by holding out
hope that the wrongdoer may escape the effect of his evil deeds.
The selfishness of the individual, reinforced by the belief that he may escape the
effect of his evil doing, is the main cause of the disharmony, strife and warfare in the world
today, for the action of the nation, the party, the small group is simply the collective action
of individuals. The ideas that govern individual action will eventually govern national action,
and as nations act they determine the fate of civilization. We see the truth of Plato's
statement: "Ideas rule the world." The idea that we can escape the consequences of our
acts has given free rein to selfishness, brutality and international lawlessness, which
threaten to destroy our Western civilization. A solution of the problem of injustice, then, is
vital to the world's welfare. As conditions in the world ultimately can be traced back to the
thoughts and actions of individuals, let us study the effect that the unsolved problem of
injustice has produced on the individual.

The Individual Looks at Life

Let us take, for example, a young man who has finished his education and enters
business life. We will assume that he has had a good home, where high ideals, right action
and nobility of character have been emphasized. He has been told that honesty is the best
policy and that it is more profitable than dishonesty. He has been taught to follow the
Golden Rule in all his undertakings.
He now enters business life and tries to put his ideals into practice. He finds that in
the world about him most people are striving to accumulate money as a means of satisfying
their various needs and desires. After the necessities are supplied, the surplus goes to
secure various pleasures and comforts, leisure, travel, social position, power, etc. The
more money, the more of these desires can be satisfied, hence everybody is working at top
speed with this aim in view. It is a race to get rich and the quicker one reaches the goal,
the better.
There are certain ethical principles that are supposed to govern in business as
elsewhere, but as he looks about he finds that very few people follow a strict moral code;
in fact, he has to compete with others who are tricky and dishonest. He also finds that
selfishness and dishonesty often pay more than right action. He frequently sees the
unscrupulous prosper while the honest man fails. In brief, he sees numberless instances
where honesty does not pay while dishonesty does.
There is law and order throughout nature; his education has shown him that, and
his sense of the "fitness of things" tells him that the same law and order should apply to all
human dealings also. But he sees many instances where this is not the case. The facts
and experiences of everyday life do not always bear out the teachings of religion. He
recognizes the beautiful sentiment of the Golden Rule and other ethical teachings, but,
also, that there are no means for enforcing these. He knows that man-made laws cannot
be enforced unless they have "teeth"; that is, unless a violation of the law will be followed
by a suitable punishment. But ethical laws evidently have no "teeth." We may follow these
laws if we choose to, but there is nothing to compel us to follow them if we do not want to
do so. The realization that honesty does not always pay, and sometimes may even be a
hindrance to worldly success, is a handicap in his honest endeavors and may in time lead
him into dishonesty.
There is in man an innate sense of right, a moral force that urges him to do his duty
by his fellows, and it is indeed fortunate that so many follow this urge. Under normal
conditions this may be sufficient to influence men to right action, but occasionally
temptations will present themselves which may prove too strong. We know the old saying:
"Everyone has his price," and while the price varies with different individuals, if it is really
great enough we know that many would yield. There are those who would not lower their
standards under any circumstances, but even these will pause and wonder why it is that
justice often is so imperfect and how it can happen that the dishonesty of their competitor
may bring him prosperity, while their own honesty actually retards their success. Is it
strange, then, that many such good people in time give up their ideals and become cynical
and indifferent and perhaps lower their standards and become dishonest?
The selfish man is found in all pursuits: in business, in politics, in finance, and in
common crime. His methods may vary according to his situation, but his objective is the
same in every case, namely to gain advantages for himself with little or no regard for the
rights of others. How is such a man, who is not restrained by any moral considerations,
affected by the apparent prevalence of chance in human life? He sees instances where
others of his kind have enriched themselves by dishonest means without suffering any
apparent evil consequences as a result. He figures that where they succeeded he can
succeed. To him this seeming absence of justice is an invitation to try his luck. The usual
aim is to get rich. If he could do this honestly it would be preferable, for it would involve
less risk. But honest methods are often slow and require hard work. A dishonest method
may offer a short-cut to wealth and require less labor. The only objection to the latter
method is that he might get caught and punished. He knows the law will reach out its arm
and try to get him, but he also knows that it is possible to "beat the law" and that this
depends on good planning, luck, cleverness, daring, a position of power, money for bribery,
etc. If he succeeds in beating the Law, he may win a great stake, and he will not have to
suffer any evil effects. He weighs his chances of success and if they look favorable he
goes ahead.
We see from the above how the unsolved problem of injustice has had an
undermining influence on the individual's behavior and how it has encouraged selfishness
and a disregard for the rights of others. Naturally, the effect will be the same on the social
body and the various groups within it, and the same applies to whole nations. The motives,
the ideologies of thousands and millions of individuals become the factors that determine
the acts of nations. Is it any wonder, then, that selfishness and aggressiveness have
become so powerful in the world that they threaten the existence of our entire civilization?

Vain Appeals to Practice Ethics

The seriousness of this situation is well recognized by leaders of church and state.
We hear appeals from the pulpit, the lecture platform, from educators and from public
officials. Here are a few taken at random from the public press:
"Put Christ in the marketplace." "How are we to evangelize economics?"
"Application of the Golden Rule would give the world international peace and
individual well being. What a sad commentary on our rationality, that we have not attained
the wit to apply the principle!"
A member of the British Parliament once said: "I believe that the British Parliament
and the British nation, if they really believe in the Gospel and in doing to others as they
would be done unto, could lead the world in a new campaign."
A ruler in India says: "Scientists, doctors, engineers, social reformers, religious
seers, all are making things new, but selfishness, race hatred, narrow nationalism, and
greed have thrown all into chaos.... Our economic and political problems are ethical and
spiritual problems."
One churchman says: "Application of the principles of Christ by 'civilized' nations
would end the existence of struggles with which we are now confronted." And another
writes: "Until business is converted and conducted in the sight of God,.... no change in
technique will be of paramount value.... Moral standards everywhere have been challenged
and sometimes discredited."
And what is the effect of these appeals?
We read on other pages of the same publications that crime is increasing. In the
early thirties, the total cost of crime in the United States was estimated at 13 billion dollars
per year. In 1940 the figure had risen to 15 billion. By way of contrast, the estimated total
cost of all education from kindergarten through college, public and private, reported to the
United States Office of Education in 1931-32 was approximately 3 billion. The cost of crime
was five times that of education.
The means used to reform criminals have not been successful. A large percentage
return to crime after release. One investigator reports that out of 923 boys, who had been
given various kinds of reform treatment by juvenile courts, 88% had continued their
delinquency during the first five years after treatment. In another case 510 men who had
spent time in a reformatory were investigated and it was found that 80% of them were still
continuing their criminal careers.
A professor of pediatrics at one of our large universities expresses the opinion that
a criminal is very much like an ordinary individual, who strives to satisfy his comforts and
desires, but, failing to achieve his purpose or to accept his limited circumstances, he
resorts to aggressive methods. Many persons who are situated in high places would do
the same were it not for their favored position which gives them, without the need for
aggression, the comforts and pleasures that they desire.
It has been suggested that more education would solve our problems. Our public
schools and colleges are making great efforts to prepare youth for honest and useful lives
and if it were not for these efforts conditions in the world would undoubtedly be much worse
than they are. But education has not solved our ethical problems and has not proved a
guarantee against wrong action. The knowledge acquired through education can be used
to promote selfishness as well as human welfare. The wrong-doer is not always stupid or
ignorant; he often shows a great deal of intelligence and in some cases he has had a good
education.
The appeal to follow religion, to apply the Golden Rule in daily life may have some
effect on those who are naturally inclined to right action, but it is evident that it has little or
no effect on the selfish type.
If these teachings had been effective, we would not have had a world war followed
after a brief period by a second one.
Why then do ethical teachings have so little effect in the world? Surely, the fault
cannot lie in the doctrines themselves for almost anyone will admit that the "Sermon on the
Mount" and the "Golden Rule" contain teachings which would transform this earth into a
paradise if they were only applied in daily life. Even a depraved nature would probably
agree to this. Why is it, then, that in spite of the efforts continued throughout the centuries
they are no nearer to a realization than the were 2000 years ago? Is it not precisely
because of the unsolved problem of injustice? Is it not because men feel, when they notice
the injustice in human life, that the ethical teachings of religion, although beautiful, are not
true since they fail to work in practice? If a good man has the courage to apply them, a
selfish man will take advantage of him. The unselfish will "sow good seeds" and the selfish
will step in and reap a good harvest without any sowing and so it does not seem to be true
that "whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap," and therefore men lose faith and
give up trying.
We notice that ethical teachings are often given in the form of injunctions or
commands, encouraging unselfishness and right action. They seem to harmonize with the
law of cause and effect, as for example the statement: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that
shall he also reap," but they are not backed by any philosophical explanation of how the
reaping is done. A spiritual appeal may be sufficient for spiritually-minded people, yet the
modern, inquisitive man wants to know the "why" and the "how" before he is willing to
accept any idea and act upon it.
If we could only add to ethical teachings an explanation showing what they are
based on, we would satisfy man's inquisitive mind and thus make the ideas acceptable to
the skeptic. If we could show that man' actions are governed by laws that are just as
sweeping and just as unerring as the laws that govern material nature; if we could show
that ethics have a philosophical as well as a spiritual basis, then the appeal to man's
spiritual nature would no longer be in vain, for it would also appeal to man's mind.

When is Selfishness Profitable?

If justice governs human life we shall reap what we sow. If we shall reap what we
sow it is to our own advantage to sow good seeds. The more good seeds we sow the
greater will be our harvest of good. In due time our acts will return to us. If our acts are of
a beneficial nature and helpful to others, the return that comes to us will be beneficial also.
Under these conditions it is simply good business policy, plain common sense to practice
altruism. It may seem that this is putting ethics on a very low plane, but it just cannot be
helped that it "pays" to do right and that ethics and common sense coincide if justice
governs our lives.
Again, if justice governs human life and we shall reap what we sow, it follows that
selfishness or any kind of wrongdoing can never be to our own advantage, for the evil
effects of such actions will in the course of time return to us and we ourselves shall have
to experience the suffering we cause others. To do an injury to another under such
conditions is to do an injury to oneself. If we defraud others, we shall become the victims
of fraud. Whatever has been gained by such fraud must in the course of time be returned
to the victim. If we use violence and bring injury and death to others, exactly the same will
happen to us. We do not want to reap evil; no one in his right mind does. The only way
to avoid reaping evil is to avoid sowing evil. Under such circumstances any wrong doing,
any act that will bring injury and suffering on others, not only does not "pay," but is
detrimental to our own self-interest. Any person capable of straight thinking would shun
such actions as he would shun the fire. Here, then, is an appeal to the selfish man, which
the selfish man can understand: "Do good: it is sure to bring dividends. Avoid evil and you
will escape future trouble." Whatever push we give to the pendulum, the pendulum will
return to us.
A burglar would not break into a house if he knew that a dozen policemen were on
the inside waiting to catch him. A man would not try his luck at the gambling table if he
knew that the roulette wheel was fixed so that he could not win. There would be nothing
gained by trying in either case. A knowledge that we shall reap what we sow would have
the same restraining effect and keep man from doing wrong for he would realize the folly
of bringing trouble on himself.
Selfishness or any kind of wrongdoing can be profitable only if chance rules our
lives; only if it is possible to sidestep and avoid the effects of such wrong doing. In that
case it would be possible to take advantage of others and to reap benefits which we had
not sown and to do harm to others without having to experience the evil effects of such
action. It is not difficult to see that those who practice wrongdoing believe that chance rules
their lives. A politician who betrays the trust placed in him,
a business man or financier who defrauds others, a gangster who kills his rivals, a dictator
who inflicts suffering on his fellow men, an aggressor nation that oppresses its weaker
neighbors, one and all base their actions on a belief that they can escape the effects of
their evil doing. If they realized that they would have to suffer as they had caused others
to suffer, they would act differently, for they would not want to inflict this on themselves.
Their actions are proof that they believe in chance and not in justice, no matter what they
may say to the contrary.
If men were convinced that their lives are governed by justice and not by chance,
then the appeals of ethics and religion urging men to altruistic action would no longer be
in vain. Man's innate, better nature, which prompts him to unselfishness, would be
reinforced by his knowledge that such action is to his own advantage and that selfishness
is to his disadvantage. Only a person lacking intelligence and common sense would act
selfishly under such circumstances.
It may now be seen how vital to man's welfare and the future of civilization is a
solution of the problem of injustice, as all wrong-doing is based on a disbelief in justice. A
belief in justice brings out the advantages of unselfishness and the disadvantages of
selfishness so clearly that it becomes an incentive for right action, while at the same time
it removes the incentive for wrongdoing. If then we can show that justice rules our lives,
we shall have taken the first step towards a solution of the problem of selfishness and
crime.
Let us now turn to the main question: "Does Chance or justice rule our Lives?" and
seek an answer by examining nature and man and by reasoning from such data as we may
be able to gather.

THE MATERIAL WORLD

From CHEMISTRY we learn that certain atoms of one element combined with a
fixed number of atoms of another element will produce a molecule of a new substance in
a fixed relation to the original elements. The same ingredients will produce the same result
every time. The result never varies. The same causes always produce the same effects.
In PHYSICS we learn that if a body falls in space its velocity will increase with a
uniform acceleration. After a certain number of seconds we will have a certain velocity and
after so many more seconds another corresponding velocity, always the same for the same
number of seconds. The force of gravity follows definite laws.
Many of the laws of ELECTRICITY are known and the electric current is always
found to act the same way under the same circumstances. In other words, effect here also
follows cause with absolute regularity.
Examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely. Heat, light, sound, all are governed
by laws well known to any student of these subjects.
Turning to ASTRONOMY we find that the planets are moving in fixed orbits around
the sun with such regularity that their positions can be calculated far in advance. The sun,
again, with its family of planets moves in a greater orbit of its own, and further, our entire
"home-universe," the Galaxy, seems to travel on a still grander pathway.
As far as we have been able to investigate we have found a reign of law, order and
harmony among the stars and planets in space. They all move in accordance with the law
of gravitation. What may at first appear as a departure from this law is found upon closer
investigation to be in full accord with it. At one time, for instance, Uranus was considered
the outermost planet in the solar system. By careful observations and calculations,
astronomers found that Uranus did not strictly follow the path that it should have taken if
influenced only by the sun and the other known planets. This aroused the suspicion that
there might be another, unknown body in the solar system which caused the irregularities
in Uranus' orbit. Calculations were then made to find the location and mass of a body
which would produce such irregularities, and the planet Neptune was discovered. What
at first looked like a defect in the operation of the gravitational force turned out to be a
demonstration of its perfect dependability.
Astronomers tell us that gravitation acts throughout the whole of space, that every
body in space exerts a pull on every other body, no matter how far apart they may be, and
that its action is so perfect that we cannot move a finger but what this motion affects all the
stars.
We are also told that the length of the day as determined from eclipse observations
extending over some 3000 years has not varied as much as one one-hundredth of a
second during this long period. There are many other interesting facts furnished us by
Astronomy which demonstrate the extreme regularity with which the celestial bodies move
in space and thus prove the reign of law in this department of Nature.
Wherever man has been able to subject Nature's forces to rigid tests he has found
that these forces obey certain invariable laws and that under the same conditions they will
always produce the same effect. It has often happened in early experiments that
irregularities appeared in the results, but that later and more carefully conducted
experiments showed that these irregularities were due to causes that were at first
overlooked and that when all contributing causes were taken into account, there were no
irregularities in the entire process.
There are of course many phenomena of Nature that are not yet understood, but
past experience indicates that, as our knowledge increases it will be found that these
phenomena are also governed by the law of cause and effect.

THE MENTAL PLANE

It is not easy for man to determine what thoughts are or how they operate, for they
are not of a material nature and therefore cannot be examined by man's five senses. As
a result our knowledge of the mental plane is very limited as compared to that of the
physical plane. Certain mental processes, however, such as used in mathematical work,
can be studied directly.
In GEOMETRY, for instance, by starting from a few axioms, or self-evident truths,
we can demonstrate certain other truths that are not so self-evident. The mental process
is one of placing together certain facts and showing that from these other facts must follow.
In other words, the process is governed by a law of cause and effect. Who would know,
for instance, by simply looking at the figure of a right angle triangle with squares drawn on
its three sides, that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the
other two sides? Yet this has been demonstrated from a few simple axioms by such a
step-by-step method of reasoning as above referred to. We are so sure of the absolute
truth of this proposition that, if we measure the areas referred to and find a slight inequality,
we know that this error is due to faulty measurements, and not to an error in the
proposition. The latter is proved without a chance for an argument.
To use another illustration: when we sit down to play a game of chess, we reason
about the various moves and the consequences that will follow from each. Every new
move makes a new combination of causes and the possible effects are all in exact relation
to the new set of causes. An experienced player will be able to trace in his mind the chain
of cause and effect for several moves in advance. An inexperienced player will only see
a few of the effects that follow from a certain move. The entire game might be said to be
a mental exercise with the visible pieces simply aids to the memory of what has been done
and furnishing starting points for the mind to work from. All the mental processes involved
consist in tracing the relations between causes and their effects.
We can form some idea of the nature and operations of thoughts from the effects
they produce on the material plane.
An inventor holds in his mind a certain idea and builds around it a mental picture of
a machine that will make this idea workable. Then he proceeds to make drawings as the
next step and finally he has experienced mechanics build the machine to these drawings.
A change in the idea will result in a change in the machine. Here, then, there is an orderly
sequence of events: a cause on the mental plane, a thought, expresses itself as an effect
on the material plane, a machine.
Mathematics, or the science of numbers, is the basis of engineering, and
engineering is the basis of construction. A bridge or a skyscraper cannot be built without
mathematical analysis and calculations. Here it may be said that the physical forms are
based on numbers.
The painting of the artist is but the physical effect of a thought or an image in the
artist's mind.
In many instances we can trace relations between forms, sounds and other
manifestations on one hand and numbers or mathematical expressions on the other. Every
algebraic expression can be represented by a corresponding curve. A different expression
will have a different curve, but each curve is invariably fixed and determined by its own
equation.
The musical scale is built upon a series of numbers. The variations in sound depend
on varying wave lengths and frequencies of vibrations. And again there is a relation
between sounds and material forms. This may be seen if a thin metal disc, fixed at its
center and sprinkled with fine sand, is caused to vibrate by the bow of a violin drawn
against its edge. If two points on the edge are kept stationary, the sand will assume a
certain pattern, a symmetrical and beautiful design. If the distance between the two
stationary points is varied, the sand will assume a different pattern. Thus the form changes
when the vibration varies. The change in the vibration is directly related to the number of
vibrations per second. Here, then, is a relation between numbers or mental concepts and
physical forms, the patterns in the sand.
The tones of an organ will cause vibrations in a building that can be plainly felt. Low
notes will cause stronger vibrations than high ones. In the Alps, avalanches of snow have
been started by the sound of a human voice. A steamer whistle blown in the neighborhood
of a glacier will, by its vibrations, cause immense blocks of ice to break off and drop into
the ocean. A shrill sound would not produce the same effect. In each of these instances
a change in the number of vibrations produced a difference in the effect, showing that there
is a relation between numbers and effects on the physical plane.
The illustrations given above show that there is a relation between the mental plane
and the material plane and that phenomena on the material plane may be affected by
causes on the mental plane. It seems that we are beginning to trace vaguely the "laws"
that govern the material plane back to some underlying principles on the mental plane.
Where we can make a theoretical calculation and check the result by corresponding
measurements on the physical plane, we find a close agreement. If the calculation is
based on a true theory we know that the calculated result is more accurate than the
measured one.
If the material plane is governed by law, as scientific investigation indicates, is it not
reasonable to assume that the mental plane, which seems to be the basis of the material
plane, must also be governed by law?
The thought that the mental is the basis for the material has been held from remotest
antiquity by some of the greatest intellects. Pythagoras taught that "the Universe is built
on numbers." Plato said: "God geometrizes." Sir James Jeans, the modern astronomer,
suggests that "the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a pure
mathematician" and also that "the universe begins to look more like a great thought than
like a great machine."
We know that our thoughts affect our emotions, and medical science tells us that the
emotions have a powerful influence on the body. A person may die from an excessive grief
or joy. Happiness or anger can be aroused by thinking of past events that were pleasant
or unpleasant. These thoughts and emotions, if harbored continually, will in time affect the
expression of a person's face. Grief and worry will lower the vitality and interfere with
digestion.
In summarizing our observations on the mental plane, we find:
1st. - Those mental processes which can be checked directly, such as used in
mathematics, show an absolute and most perfect relation between cause and effect.
2nd. - Those actions on the mental plane, which can be traced by their effect on the
physical plane, show a distinct relation between physical effect and mental cause.
3rd. - Since theoretical calculations are known to be more exact than physical
measurements, it seems reasonable to conclude that the laws that govern the mental plane
are, if possible, still more rigid, or at any rate no less rigid than those which govern the
material plane.
4th. - There are cases where we are unable to trace effects of mental causes either
on the mental or material plane, on account of our limited knowledge. There is, however,
nothing to prove that such effects do not follow, even if they may be long delayed. Such
researches as we have been able to make show the mental plane to be governed by the
Law of Cause and Effect.

A UNIVERSAL MIND

So far we have built our reasoning on more or less direct observation. There is
some indirect evidence which may be helpful to us.
Having found such wonderful reign of law and order in every field that we are
capable of exploring, it is only natural that we should ask ourselves the question: Who or
What laid down the "plan" or "framed the laws" or principles which seem to govern the
processes of Nature? The orderly working of Nature could not have sprung into existence
spontaneously or accidentally. There must have been someone or something, an
intelligence or intelligences of a superior kind that did the planning, and formulated the laws
according to which Nature operates. We seem justified in this assumption, because we
know from our own experience on a small scale that even the simplest work requires
planning. A heap of building materials will not turn into a house without an architect to draw
a plan and experienced builders to shape the material and construct the building. On the
contrary, we know for a fact that, if a beautiful building is to be erected, first the design must
be beautiful and then the workmanship must be perfect. And we further know that if there
is anything lacking in the plan or in the workmanship, the finished building will show it.
A railroad system could not operate successfully without a time-schedule, train
dispatchers and a vast organization of cooperating officials and workers, and back of all this
is a unified plan. This plan did not come into existence by itself. It was the product of some
mind or some minds that formulated it and drew up the rules or "laws" of operation.
When we look at a building, the architect may not be on hand to answer our
questions regarding it, but we can judge something about him from the building itself.
When we travel on a train we do not see the operating staff, but we can judge something
about this also by the service we receive. And so it is with the Universe; we dwell in it; we
are "passengers" on one of its planets, but the Power that planned it is not on hand to
answer our questions. However, if we could judge something about the architect by
examining the house, and something about the railroad management by observing its
operation, it should be possible for us to draw some conclusions regarding the Power back
of the Universe by a study of that Universe, for "the work reveals its Creator." We have to
admit our inability to get a full understanding of this Power or these Powers, for man's finite,
limited mind cannot comprehend something so vastly superior to itself. This inability to get
a full understanding should not, however, prevent man from using such powers of
observation and reason as he may possess to gain at least such partial understanding as
he is capable of. People of all ages have sensed the existence of such Power or Powers
and referred to them under many different names. The Hindus call it BRAHMAN; Emerson
called it the OVERSOUL. Ancient philosophies state that it is infinite and hence cannot be
personified or limited by any human description. While there are probably no two human
beings that would fully agree in their understanding of it, yet most people will in all likelihood
grant that there must be such a Power or Powers. Agreeing to disagree as to its exact
nature, let us for the purpose of this discussion refer to this power or these powers by the
term: God.* Judging God,* then, by His work, we have seen that He was able to lay down
a plan according to which all nature works, from the miniature universe of the atom to the
star-clusters in space, millions of light-years distant. From the magnitude of the work, we
cannot fail to recognise the infinite greatness and power of its Originator. We have further
seen that God* formulated unvarying laws that govern the operations of Nature so that
there is always an exact relation between cause and effect in these. From this we must
conclude that order, law and harmony are attributes of God.*

-----------
*In the following discussion the asterisk (*) is used with the word God* in order to call
attention to this footnote and to the fact that this word is not here used in any sectarian or
limited sense or as referring to a personal God, but is used for want of a better word to
allude to that Power or those Powers behind Time and Space, which man seems
compelled to postulate as the unseen Cause of the Universe.
-----------

A Power that can construct such a marvelous Universe, could just as well destroy
it with all the life that it contains, if it were so disposed. But the universe evidently has
endured for countless ages - and Nature provides food and other necessities to sustain life.
Therefore God* must be beneficent in His purposes. These are some of the conclusions
we can draw about God* by observing His work which we see around us.
May we not by analogy draw some further conclusions regarding other attributes of
God?*
A cell in our body is a living entity with evidently a certain kind of intelligence and a
certain degree of free will, but in general regulating its life according to the laws that govern
the body as a whole.
We can understand considerable about the cell, but the cell can know very little
about us. The lesser cannot comprehend the greater in its fulness. Is it reasonable to
assume that the cell possesses greater qualities than the man of whose body the cell is a
part? Is it not more reasonable to conclude that any power which may be inherent in the
cell will also be found in the man and found there in a much higher degree of perfection?
Man is but a cell, or less than a cell, in the great body of the Universe. Is it not
reasonable then to assume that any faculty that exists in man must also exist in the
"soul of the universe," in God*? And further, is it not reasonable to suppose that the degree
of perfection of the qualities of God* must be as far superior to the degree of perfection of
man's qualities as the "works" of God,* the Universe, are to the works of man? God* then
must possess all human virtues in their highest degree of perfection. Among human beings
we respect such qualities as intelligence, justice, and love. A man who lacked these
characteristics would not be held in high esteem by his fellows. If these qualities are
necessary in the make-up of a good man, must they not also be necessary in the make-up
of God*? To assume otherwise would be to assume that man possessed qualities greater
than God.*
For the purpose of the present discussion let us consider only one of these qualities
- that of justice.
In all ages justice has been considered one of the great virtues. We cannot think
highly of a man who is not just. From time immemorial all peoples have made laws and
established courts for the administration of justice. Man-made laws are imperfect;
frequently their administration has been imperfect also, but with all that, all men recognise
justice as an ideal to be striven after.
If justice, then, is such a necessary quality in our ideal of a good man, is it not still
more necessary to our conception of God*? To assume the contrary would be to place
God* on a lower level than a good man.
Parents who love their children and desire their welfare, know how necessary it is
to show justice and impartiality in training them. They know that training cannot be
successful if inconsistent and contradictory methods are used. They know that certain
rules of conduct, with suitable rewards and punishments affixed, must be set up and
consistently adhered to, until the children learn by repeated experiences. They know that
if they punished an act today and rewarded the same act tomorrow, the child would
become confused. It would not know what was right or wrong and would soon give up all
effort at self-improvement.
If this is true for the family, it is equally true for the human race as a whole. Absolute
justice or a perfect reign of orderly laws of cause and effect are necessary for the growth
and development of human character. If justice were imperfect, or if chance ruled in
human affairs, men would become confused and discouraged. They would consider it
useless to strive towards self-improvement if their efforts counted for nothing and they
would sooner or later give up trying.
If then man recognizes the necessity for justice in character development, must not
this necessity be still more fully recognized by God*? A God* without justice would be an
absurdity, for it would indicate such a flaw in His nature that it would place Him below the
ideal for a good man. As man is more perfect than the cell, so God* must be more perfect
than man.
An assumption that God* might have wished to provide for justice in the world, but
was unable to formulate and establish laws of cause and effect that would be workable and
binding in all details of human life, is untenable. A God* that can lay down and enforce
laws of cause and effect that operate unfailingly in the physical world has also the ability
to lay down laws that will work unerringly in human life.
An assumption that justice rules in the world to a certain limited extent, but that it is
not perfect in all details, is also untenable. Imperfect justice is after all not justice. If it is
justice at all, it must be 100% perfect. This is man's ideal and nothing less can be the ideal
of God.*
On the basis of this Universe being the result of intelligent planning, then, we are
forced to the conclusion that Justice must be a part of the Universal Plan.

LIFE MUST HAVE A MEANING

We may not all agree that there must be some purpose in life, but probably most
people feel that this is so. It does not make sense to assume that the only purpose of life
is for man to spend a few score of years here on earth, pass thru some commonplace
experiences and perhaps a few odd ones, and then vanish without any permanent benefit
resulting from the experience. Such performance would seem so futile, so useless that it
would probably be rejected by most people, who feel that there must be some higher
purpose in life. And what could such purpose be but growth, evolution, the gradual rising
into some higher state of consciousness and life, a pilgrimage towards perfection?
If we are to become perfect, if we are to learn by experience, law and order in the
universe around us are necessary for this purpose. We find that we are surrounded by law
and order; but we are so accustomed to the orderly processes of Nature that we often
overlook their existence. We take them for granted and do not recognise that life as we
know it would be impossible if Nature did not operate according to law.
Suppose gravitation suddenly ceased to act. If we dropped a stone, instead of
falling to the ground it might go up in the air, or remain suspended, or perhaps shoot off to
one side, nobody knows in what direction. A railroad train might leave the track any minute
and start off into space; water might run uphill; buildings would not stay on their
foundations, in fact they could not be built for there would be no weight to keep one brick
on top of the next. Complete chaos would result, for nothing would "stay put." It would be
impossible to plan or provide ahead for anything, for no two times would the same effect
follow from the same cause and there would be no experience to be guided by.
On the basis that life has a meaning, that it is a school, wherein man learns by
experience, the existence of law and an orderly sequence of cause and effect are
necessities.

HUMAN LIFE

Let us now turn our attention to the field of human relations; how men act towards
one another and the effects that follow their actions. Also to those events and experiences
that life deals out to us, and over which we have little or no control, such as circumstances
of birth, inborn capacities, "luck," accidents, etc. - or what we might summarize under the
term "Human Life."
Is there an orderly sequence of cause and effect here? Is there a reign of justice
and law that governs our lives? Do men's actions always and unerringly bring to men their
just deserts?
The most important parts of a man's life are not his physical actions and
experiences, but his thought life, his aspirations and longings, feelings and emotions. None
of these are directly visible to others, except occasionally in their effects. To trace a chain
of cause and effect in human life is therefore very difficult, for men's motives and the links
that connect causes with their effects are largely concealed from our view. Let us,
however, consider some of the common experiences in life.
In certain cases of wrongdoing what would seem like appropriate effects follow, as
when a person lives a life of dissipation, or otherwise breaks the laws of health, disease
often results. But this is by no means always the case. It frequently happens that people
violate many of the laws of health and abuse their bodies without apparently being much
the worse for it; whereas it frequently happens that people who live with the most regular
habits and take the best care of their bodies are overtaken by disease and suffering, for
which we can find no cause. We often see persons who work hard all their lives to provide
for their families and lay up a little store for their old age. In many cases they are
successful in their efforts, but they often meet unexpected reverses and the work of a
lifetime is lost. Other people may be shiftless and irresponsible; in that case they usually
do not get far, but it frequently happens that they have "good luck" and fare better than
many who work hard and conscientiously.
Occasionally we see striking examples of "luck," good or bad, as the case may be.
One person will be pursued by ill luck and will lose his fortune, perhaps accumulate another
and then lose that also, seemingly through no fault of his own. Another person makes no
great effort to accumulate wealth, but money seems to "fall into his lap." We have read of
cases where the owner of some apparently worthless land became rich overnight when oil
was discovered on his property.
Almost anyone can cite similar instances from his own knowledge.
Take the matter of acting according to one's conscience in, say, a case where a
contrary action would promise a better material reward. Here the person who follows his
conscience will have a certain satisfaction in the knowledge of having acted rightly, but the
one who silenced his conscience and acted contrary to its dictates, may as a result have
enjoyed a material advantage in gaining wealth, position or power. Here "luck" or chance
seems to play a part, and if the wrong act is not found out, the actor may end his days in
full enjoyment of the respect of his fellow men plus the added wealth and position that
would never have come to him if he had obeyed his conscience.
Consider the life of a criminal. In some cases the first act of wrongdoing is
discovered and the man is punished according to human law. Here again the personnel
of the jury, the character of the judge, and the ability of the attorneys may have a great
influence on the severity of the sentence and thus the punishment may be greater or less
according to the court before which the prisoner happens to be tried.
Another criminal may commit many crimes before he is discovered; or if be is very
"lucky," as we say, he may escape detection altogether and may end his days as a
respected member of society.
In the illustrations given above it could be noticed that man's actions towards his
fellows perhaps more often than not brought the results they merited, but it was equally
noticeable that in many cases the appropriate effects did not follow. In fact, wrong could
often be done without the wrong-doer suffering the consequences of his acts. From this
it would seem quite possible at times to sow without having to reap.
The circumstances in which men are placed at birth certainly have a great influence
on their lives. Some men are born into families where the moral atmosphere is of the best.
The influence of the home tends to build up and strengthen a noble character in the child.
The financial circumstances may be favorable and the child may receive a good education.
Influential relations and friends will use their power to aid the individual and the combination
of all these circumstances will certainly be a great help towards an honorable life later on.
Other men may be born in circumstances which are the opposite of those cited. In
their case the home influence tends to degrade the character. The examples of the
grownups may be an education in crime for the child. His direction is wrong from the start.
The circumstances were against him; "he had no chance," we say.
It may be argued that a man's character is the greatest determining factor in his life,
and that individuals with strong characters have been born in the most degrading
circumstances, but in spite of all obstacles have lived noble lives and been of great service
to their fellow men. But the fact remains that on less strong characters these unfavorable
circumstances have a very detrimental effect. Hence the circumstances of birth constitute
serious obstacles to faith in justice.
Children who are born and brought up under the same circumstances show great
differences in health, character, disposition and natural talents or gifts. Some of these
differences may be modified by education, but even education cannot greatly alter the
dissimilarities that exist from birth. In some cases a child will be possessed of a healthy
body, a strong character, an intelligent mind, and a pleasant, winning disposition which will
prove a great aid on his path through life. Another child is born without these gifts and may
indeed be burdened with a sickly body, a weak, vacillating character, a dull mind and a
sullen, irritable disposition, all of which may be serious hindrances to a life of happiness
and service.
The circumstances outlined above have perhaps been the extremes in both the
favorable and unfavorable direction, but of course there are all grades and conditions
between these two. Whether extreme or moderate, such differences all indicate an
element of injustice.
Accidents have a way of striking right and left without any apparent cause.
Sometimes a reckless person will meet with an accident, but very often the most cautious
and careful individual will also be struck. One person may go on some wild adventure and
return without a scratch. Another may stay at home, trip on a rug and break his neck. One
person plans to take a trip on a certain steamer. There is a traffic jam on the way to the
wharf which causes him to miss his connection. Another person had no intention of taking
this boat, but by some unexpected turn of events was caused to take the trip. The steamer
is wrecked and all on board are lost. Here chance seemed to be the deciding element.
Summarizing our observations of human life we note that whereas man's actions
sometimes bring appropriate effects, they often do not.
Unless we choose to ignore the evidence, we must admit that within the span of one
human life here on earth perfect justice simply does not exist, but chance and injustice do
play a large part.

LAW OR CHANCE?
 Let us now review our earlier observations and see how the evidence stands.
In the material world we found a most perfect reign of the Law of Cause and Effect.
On the mental plane we found a perfect reign of law wherever we were able to
investigate.
We found that if there is a God* and an intelligent plan back of the Universe, justice
and law must be parts of this plan.
We also found that if the purpose of life is evolution, growth and an advancement
towards perfection, law and justice are necessary to achieve this end.
In addition to this our moral nature, our sense of "the fitness of things," tells us that
there must be law and justice in the Universe.
When we consider human life we find on one hand that the majority of human
actions are governed by justice, but also on the other hand that much chance and injustice
seem to operate in human affairs.
To summarize: we find that the evidence in favor of law and justice is overwhelming,
but it is not 100%.
The injustice apparent in human life, then, is the "fly in the ointment," the flaw in what
otherwise seems such a perfect plan. It is this which undermines our faith in justice and
in God.*
Two alternate theories present themselves in explanation of these injustices: either
(1) these events actually do happen without due cause, or (2) they are effects of causes
which we cannot see.

1st Alternative
If the first proposition is true, then Human Life would be an exception to the general
plan of Nature. Even though we human beings are a part of Nature, our actions would be
outside of the law and order which governs the rest of Nature. Law, symmetry, harmony,
order everywhere in Nature; but Human Life in contrast to all the rest subject to disorder,
confusion, chance. This would mean that the laws of the Universe would not be universal;
they would apply in spots but not everywhere.
Would we accept such a proposition in regard to other matters with which we are
more familiar? Would we not, for instance, consider it absurd to claim that gravitation works
in parts of the Universe, but breaks down and fails to operate in other parts?
When we turn the switch that controls the light in the ceiling we know that the electric
current travels over wires concealed in the wall and reaches the bulb where the light
appears. We know that there is no accident or chance connected with the entire operation.
But suppose that a primitive man were suddenly transported from his obscure jungle and
placed in our midst; how would he view the sudden appearance and disappearance of the
light in the ceiling, especially if the switch were located in another room? He would know
nothing about the electric current, or the wires concealed in the wall. He might think that
the light came on or off by chance.
Not so long ago we too were ignorant of the laws governing electricity. How would
the light-phenomenon have appeared to us then? With our present knowledge we are
unable to trace the connection between chance-events in Human Life and their causes, but
shall we say that, because we are unable to trace the wires hidden in the wall that there are
no such wires and that there can be none? Are we justified in smiling at the ignorance and
lack of logic on the part of our jungle man if we take a position similar to his? Would it not
be more reasonable to take the stand that, since the Universe is governed by the law of
cause and effect in other departments, human actions and experiences must also be
governed by this law, and recognise that what to us appears as chance because we cannot
see the hidden cause, must be the result of the thoughts and acts of individuals, who
thereby reap what they have sown in the past? Let us then consider the second alternative
and see if it is not more logical than the first.

2nd Alternative
A scientist, who is confronted with a phenomenon which he does not understand,
will not accept chance as an explanation. Knowing that it must follow certain laws, he starts
to investigate and experiment to discover these. If he is successful in his search he traces
the event back to its cause. If he is not successful, he still does not believe that the
phenomenon was the result of chance, but trusts that future research will reveal the
underlying cause.
A few centuries back man knew very little of the law that governs gravitation, but Sir
Isaac Newton's investigations resulted in his formulating this law. Of course this law
existed from time immemorial and had been operating before it was discovered just as
much as afterwards, but, as far as being recognized by man is concerned, it was non-
existent until formulated by Newton.
Newton's third law of motion states that: "to every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction," and this statement has been tested experimentally and found to be a
fact in regard to material bodies. In human affairs action and reaction would be equal and
opposite if a man's acts returned to him, meanness for meanness, service for service, injury
for injury, kindness for kindness. If it is true in material things that "action and reaction are
equal and opposite," may not the same be true regarding human actions also, and how do
we know but what some future "Isaac Newton" will find some way of demonstrating this
experimentally?
Our astronomers tell us that the Universe (on its material side) is so marvelously
balanced, that cause and effect are so delicately and accurately adjusted, that if we move
a finger, the effect of this motion is felt on the farthest star in space.
If gravitation can bridge the inconceivable distances of space and, without visible
connection, link a cause on our earth with an effect on the farthest star, why should it be
any more unreasonable to assume that there is some other force or principle, attraction or
repulsion, some invisible wiring that links our thoughts and our deeds with their effects?
If gravitation operates unaffected across space, why should not this other force act
independent of time and outward circumstances? Surely the latter assumption is no more
unreasonable than the former, and if Nature can provide the mechanism in one case, it can
also provide the mechanism in the other.
In human affairs we may have to leave the full explanation of how effect is linked to
cause, the wire-tracing, to future research. But may it not be possible that an advancing
science will some day trace the wires that are now concealed from us and solve this
problem as it has solved so many others in the past?
Perhaps investigators of the future will have at their disposal more sensitive
instruments than we have, or perhaps man will evolve faculties within his own nature that
will enable him to see directly and without the need of any instruments the connection
between cause and effect everywhere.
 In our present state of ignorance we have to admit our inability to follow the chain
of causation and to link the cause to the effect, but in view of all past experience is it not
reasonable that we should recognise that such a chain must exist?
If, then, we accept the idea that such a chain of causation exists, and while we are
waiting for a complete demonstration of how it operates, let us use the method of the
scientist who seeks to solve his problem. He examines all the known facts before him and
then casts about for a theory or a working hypothesis which fits these facts and also
explains the phenomenon which he is investigating.
As new discoveries are made, the theory is checked with these and altered if it no
longer fits the facts, or perhaps it is completely discarded for a new and better theory.
If, then, the law of cause and effect governs human affairs, it should be possible to
find a theory which explains how it operates.
What are the requirements which such a theory must fulfill?

REQUIREMENTS OF THEORY

If we examine the events of chance and injustice in human life we notice that they
can be grouped under two general headings:
1st - "Uncontrolled events" or those over which the individual has no control, but
which apparently come to him without any action on his part, such as inherited health or
disease, favorable or unfavorable circumstances of birth and inborn characteristics, that
help or hinder him. To this group belong accidents and also such experiences as are
forced on us by the actions of other people, for we are often affected by the deeds of
others, even though we have no control over them.
2nd - "Controlled events" or those acts performed intentionally by the man himself,
which were not followed by their appropriate effects, such as wrongdoing that brought no
suffering in its train, and efforts for good that bore no fruit.
Let us first seek an explanation for the "uncontrolled events" of group 1.

Uncontrolled Events
Evidently there are two explanations possible if these events obey the law of cause
and effect.
(a) Either the injustice of these events may be balanced in some existence after
death;
(b) Or these events are the effects of acts performed by the individual himself during
some existence before birth.
Which is the more logical of these two explanations?
If the soul begins its existence with birth into a human body, then the individual is
in no way responsible for the conditions in which birth places him. And yet, these
conditions have a powerful influence for good or ill on his destiny, and at death he is a
better or a worse man partly due to these conditions. Even if it is true that this injustice
may be balanced in a future life, the man's character may in the meantime have been made
worse and this is a new injustice following from the first.
Further, we cannot help asking: What is the purpose of all this difference in
opportunities? Why must we endure all this injustice in the first place? Some people
believe that it is the "will of God."* Could that be true?
An average human being would not intentionally show such partiality, unfairness and
cruelty to his children even if he planned to adjust it later. It would be meaningless to do
so.
A loving human father would at least try to do the best he could for his children, and
if he could do well by one he could do as well by the others also, and he would certainly
give them all the best chance. And surely a beneficent God* would do no less for His
children. He would see to it that one and all of His children would have the best possible
start in life.
We cannot therefore explain the inequalities that come to us at birth as "the will of
God"* for this would place God* below the level of even an ordinary human being. Further,
it would be utterly meaningless to impose such injustice first, only to balance it later. No
intelligent human being would accept responsibility for such a headless plan; how then
could it be charged to God*?
Therefore, we have to admit that the inequalities of birth cannot be explained by a
balancing after death for this would be both unjust and meaningless.
The only alternative now left open to explain the inequalities of birth and other
"uncontrolled events" is that the individual himself must have existed previous to birth. In
that case all the chance-events of life can be explained as the effects of actions which the
individual himself performed during some such previous existence.
There is no violation of justice in this proposition. In the light of this idea, the chain
of cause and effect can readily be seen. This will be developed more in detail later on.

Controlled Events
Next let us pass on to the "controlled events" under group 2. Under this heading
come the acts of the man himself, which did not bring their appropriate effects in this life.
If justice is to be done in this case, then death cannot be the end of our existence
for this would so preclude the balancing of justice. The wrongdoer would escape the
results of his evil acts. The suicide would be able to step out of the difficulties that surround
him without having to face and solve his problems. There is only one possibility left open.
If justice is to be balanced at all, this balancing must take place in some future existence.
One version of this idea of delayed justice is the doctrine of heaven and hell. According
to this teaching, as usually given, a man enjoys bliss or suffers tortures for eternity for the
acts committed during his life on earth. If this were true, it could not be considered just, for
the effect would be out of all proportion to the cause. Even an ordinary human being would
not be so unjust; how much less then could a beneficent and just God* inflict such
punishment on His children? Punishment of this kind would be a greater injustice than to
let the wrongs of one earth life remain unbalanced.
The doctrine of eternal bliss or suffering, then, does not offer a solution that accords
with justice, but a balancing of justice does require an existence after death during which
we will reap the effects of those acts which do not come to a fruition in this life.
A theory of life, which is in accord with justice, must therefore include both an
existence prior to birth in our present bodies and a survival after the death of the body. It
must have been during some such pre-existence that man sowed the seeds which he reaps
as the inequalities of birth. It must be during some existence after death that unbalanced
causes, which he has set in motion in this life, will be balanced.
 Such a theory of life should also satisfy man's higher aspirations and longings as
well as his reason and logic. It should accord with the idea of a just and beneficent God*
and it should fit in with the scheme of evolution and some worthy purpose in life. What
theory will satisfy all these requirements?

AN ANCIENT DOCTRINE

There is a very ancient doctrine, traces of which are found all over the world. It
appears in the great religions of the past, and was held by some of the early Fathers of the
Christian church. It is found under some form or another in the great philosophies of the
past and has been accepted by individual philosophers throughout the ages from the great
thinkers of antiquity down to modern times.
This doctrine teaches that man's present life here on earth is only one of many such
existences; that he has lived here on earth before as a human being and that he will live
here again many times in the future in human form.
Omitting all details, and briefly sketched, this doctrine teaches that there is in man
a center of consciousness which is a part of the Universal Consciousness. This center of
consciousness, which is the real man, is engaged in a pilgrimage of evolution, in the course
of which it is born repeatedly in human form in order to learn and advance by means of the
experiences that human life offers.
This center of consciousness, this "Pilgrim" or "Monad" as it is sometimes called,
has lived in human bodies an inconceivable number of times in the past and will do so
again in the future.
According to this doctrine our present earth life is like a single page in a book with
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages. If this single "page" is read by itself without
reference to what preceded it and without reference to what follows, it does not "make
sense." It just gives a few odd fragments in the middle of a long story; it relates events
whose causes have to be looked for on earlier pages, and it describes happenings which
will culminate in some future chapter. In order to understand the contents of this page it
is necessary to read both what precedes it and what is to follow.
According to this doctrine of repeated earth-lives, our present circumstances are the
direct results of our own acts during some former life, and the circumstances of our future
lives will be the results of our thoughts and deeds in this life. Our thoughts and acts are
seeds implanted in our character which belongs to the permanent part of our nature. When
the circumstances of life are favorable, the seeds sprout and grow and the effect of the
deed reacts on the doer. This effect may follow during the same life as the act, or it may
be delayed and follow in a later life. In either case, however, it is sure to come, for the
cause and the effect are inextricably interwoven in the man's character, and sooner or later
he will reap what he has sown whether it be good or evil.
Here, then, is a doctrine that harmonizes with the general plan of repetition, which
is seen everywhere in Nature. It recognizes the inequalities of existence but shows that
they are in full accord with the law of cause and effect, and not the result of injustice or
chance. It satisfies our logic and reason, for it shows that we shall reap what we sow and
it explains how and where the reaping is done.
It fits in with the scheme of evolution for it shows that, as we have had infinite
opportunities for growth in the past, we shall have infinite opportunities in the future, and
hence possibilities of rising towards perfection. It accords with the idea of a just and
beneficent God*, for it shows that man's misfortunes are not inflicted on him from outside
sources, but are of his own making. It shows man that he is individually responsible for all
his acts and hence teaches him the wisdom of beneficent and harmonious action.
This doctrine of repeated earth-lives, then, is the missing key that solves the
problem of injustice in the world.
The various aspects of this teaching are purposely omitted here, since they fall
beyond the scope of the present discussion. The whole subject is reserved for separate
treatment. Only enough has been given here to show how the doctrine solves the problem
of injustice.
This doctrine of repeated earth-lives is commonly known under the name
"Reincarnation" from the Latin: re = again; in = in; and carnis = flesh; or "again in flesh,"
thus referring to the idea that the indwelling consciousness has again taken upon itself a
body of flesh.*

----------
* There is a great deal of misinformation current regarding the doctrine of
Reincarnation, some people even taking it to mean that man's consciousness after death
enters the bodies of animals. This is not the doctrine of Reincarnation. Evolution tends to
progress, not retrogression. Once the consciousness has reached the human stage it
cannot embody itself in anything subhuman. - The erroneous notion that man's
consciousness enters animals after death is due to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of
Transmigration.
----------

We have found in Reincarnation, then, a theory which shows what appeared to us

as injustice and chance, when seen from the viewpoint of a single earth life, turns out to be
justice and law when seen from the viewpoint of repeated earth-lives. We have found a
theory which solves the problem of injustice and shows that everything in Nature, human
life included, is governed by the Law of Cause and Effect.
We notice that the doctrine of Reincarnation includes the following three
propositions:
(1) Pre-existence.
(2) Survival after death.
(3) Effects do not always follow immediately upon the causes that produced them,
but may sometimes be delayed.
Let us now examine these propositions to see if there is anything fundamentally
unsound about any of them, anything that is unacceptable to reason and logic.
We shall begin with survival after death.

SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH

Relation of Consciousness to Body

No physical means can be applied to investigate after-death states, hence it is
impossible to bring in proofs of a material nature that man's consciousness survives death.
But let us not forget that it is equally impossible to introduce material proofs that man's
consciousness perishes at death. In our present degree of evolution we know very little
about consciousness in its various states, hence we are largely limited to such proofs as
reason and analogy furnish.
However, there are certain observations which may throw some light on the subject.
Man is a physical body plus something else. This something else includes, among
other things, his feelings, desires, aspirations, his mind, etc., and finally a center of
consciousness, which sits like an observer and, to an extent, a ruler of this little kingdom
which we call a human being.
This center of consciousness, this spectator of the drama of life, is the most
essential part of man and our problem simmers down to this: can and does this center of
consciousness survive death?
It is evident that consciousness must have a physical body in order to contact the
physical plane, since we who are conscious on this material plane do not observe any
consciousness acting outside of any such body.
During sleep the consciousness temporarily abandons the body. The sleeping body
is merely an animated corpse, inert and unresponsive. Where is the consciousness in the
meantime? Is it destroyed? Evidently not, for upon awakening it again begins to function
as it did before sleep. Evidently it must have had some sort of existence, the nature of
which we do not understand, else it could not have returned exactly as it was before going
to sleep. The unconsciousness of sleep, then, has been a temporary disconnection of the
consciousness from the material plane, but this disunion has not destroyed the
consciousness and has caused no change in it.
There are other conditions under which the consciousness temporarily abandons
the body. In case of injury to the brain and in certain fevers and other diseases, the
consciousness is unable to function through its disabled instrument. It is again shut off
from contact with this plane, but as soon as the instrument is repaired, the consciousness
returns and resumes its activity where it left off before the injury. The disability of the
instrument prevented the consciousness from contact with this plane, but did not destroy
the consciousness, neither did it cause any change in it.
A common fainting spell may be induced by a mental shock, a sudden fright or some
physical injury, but when the body recuperates, the consciousness returns unchanged.
There are, then, a number of circumstances which may result in unconsciousness.
They all have one feature in common: they consist in changes in the instrument of
consciousness rather than in the consciousness itself. When the instrument of
consciousness, the brain, the body, the mind, are restored to normal the consciousness
returns unchanged and resumes its former activity. In every instance, then,
unconsciousness was a withdrawal of consciousness, but it was not a destruction or
annihilation of consciousness. It was the passing of consciousness from the active, waking
state that we are all familiar with to some other apparently latent state, the nature of which
we do not yet understand.
What might be the state of our consciousness during periods of so-called
"unconsciousness"? There is a great gap in our knowledge of other states of
consciousness, but does such ignorance justify us in saying that such other states of
consciousness do not exist?
 Dreams prove to us the existence of one such state, and who can say how many
other similar or different states there may be? We may not yet be able to prove the
existence of other states, but neither are we in a position to disprove them.
Death is usually preceded by a period of unconsciousness, sometimes very brief,
other times lasting for weeks or months. Sometimes death takes place during sleep. The
unconsciousness of death, like that of sleep or sickness, is induced by wear and tear or
injury to the instrument, the body, brain, etc. So far, then, the various processes are all
alike: they all consist in a withdrawal of consciousness induced by damage to the
instrument. They differ only according to the degree of damage produced in the
instrument. If the damage can be repaired, the consciousness returns, but if the damage
is beyond repair, the consciousness does not return.
Is there anything to show that the unconsciousness of death is any different from the
unconsciousness of sickness or of sleep, except that it must be of longer duration? Sleep
and sickness did not materially alter the nature of the consciousness itself. Is there
anything to show that death would alter the nature of the consciousness any more than did
sickness or sleep? Sleep and sickness did not annihilate the consciousness. Is there any
more proof that death would annihilate the consciousness?
The action of electricity in manifesting as light resembles that of consciousness
acting through a human body. The electric current will manifest as light in a bulb as long
as the contacts are good and the filament wires inside the bulb are perfect. If we unscrew
the bulb we break the contacts and the light goes out. If the filament is injured, the light
also goes out. The power plant is still running, but the current cannot flow over the broken
circuit and the light does not manifest. If we jiggle the bulb we may cause the filament
wires to touch inside of the bulb and the light again appears. But a time comes when the
filament burns out completely, and this time no amount of jiggling will repair the bulb, which
now must be scrapped. This time we must have a new bulb if we want the light to
reappear, but as soon as the new bulb is provided the light manifests, showing that the
source of the light was unaffected by the injury or destruction of the bulb.
May it not be the same with the consciousness of man? When the body is healthy,
the consciousness manifests normally. In sleep we disconnect the consciousness from this
plane the same as when we unscrew the bulb, and the consciousness ceases to manifest.
In sickness there is a bodily disorder that shuts consciousness out the same as the broken
filament shuts the light out. If health returns, consciousness returns, as the light did with
the repaired filament wires. At death the body is worn out and consciousness again
disappears, and this time can no longer return to the worn-out body any more than the light
to the burnt out bulb.
As in one case the electric energy remained unaffected by the destruction of the
bulb, may not the consciousness of man remain unaffected by the death of the body, as
in fact we know that it does remain unaffected by sickness and by sleep?
Is there any more reason to think that the consciousness has ceased to exist when
the body is destroyed, than there is to think that the electric energy is annihilated because
the bulb is destroyed?

Matter and Energy Exist in Different States. Why Should Not Consciousness Do the
Same?
By chemical action the appearance of substances may change so completely that
the resulting product in no way resembles the elements of which it is composed. For
instance, chlorine is a yellowish, greenish, poisonous gas. Sodium is a metallic substance
resembling steel, but so soft that it can easily be cut with a knife. When these two
substances are combined chemically we have common table salt.
Hydrogen and oxygen are two invisible gases. A chemical combination of the two
is water, a liquid. The water can again be broken up and changed back into its two
constituent gases.
Water can exist as an invisible vapor, as a colorless liquid, or as a solid block of ice.
It can travel in the atmosphere and produce rain; it forms our oceans and carries large
ships; it forms our rivers and drives power plants. It forms bridges over lakes and rivers,
strong enough to carry heavy loads. Yet it is all the same substance in different states, and
it can easily be changed from one state into another and then back again into the first.
Energy also exists in different states. It may be active or latent. Active electrical
energy is changed in a storage battery into chemical energy and can then be stored in a
latent state for long periods of time. When the proper circuit is formed, the chemical energy
will be transformed back into active electrical energy.
The water behind a dam represents the stored energy of the sun. It will remain
inactive as long as it is retained by the dam. If it is to be put to useful work, it must have
a body through which it can be transformed into an active state. The body in this case
consists of the gate, penstock, turbine, generator, etc., and finally the latent energy
emerges as active energy: electricity.
A lump of coal represents solar energy which was stored thousands of years ago.
This energy is latent, inactive, but if the coal is allowed to burn, the stored energy is
released as heat and this heat in its turn can be utilized in driving a steam engine, thus
producing mechanical energy.
An explosive such as dynamite is latent or stored energy which remains inactive until
the explosion takes place, when the energy changes into an active state.
If matter, then, does exist in different states such as solid, liquid and gaseous, as
well as in numberless chemical combinations, why should it not be possible for
consciousness to exist in different states also?
If energy does exist under different forms such as mechanical, electrical, chemical
energy, etc., and if it sometimes remains dormant and stored for long periods as latent
energy and at other times is active, why should it not be possible for consciousness to
change from a state of activity to latency and back to activity again? In fact, is not this
exactly what takes place in sleep? Our consciousness is changed into a latent state, the
nature of which we do not understand, but when the "proper circuit" is formed, it does again
change back into a waking state. Who knows how many states of consciousness there are
which differ from our waking state? The field is almost entirely unexplored. Why should
there not be as many states of consciousness as there are states of matter and of energy?
Is there anything unnatural, then, in interpreting death as simply a change in our
state of consciousness? The awakening from this state will be considered further on.

Matter and Energy Are Indestructible. Why Should Not Consciousness Be the Same?
What is mind? What are thoughts? What is consciousness? Some say by-products
of matter, results of chemical or physical activities in the brain. Others look upon the
subject differently and see in consciousness and mental activities primary functions which
are accompanied by, or depend on, various chemical or electrical activities in the brain
which, as it were, furnish the necessary mechanism through which consciousness acts
when it functions on the material plane. Very little is known today about consciousness and
the methods through which it expresses itself, but one thing is certain: consciousness and
thought are realities of some kind, for consciousness can control and direct thought and
thought guides and determines actions. In other words, man's consciousness and his mind
affect and alter the material world about him, or mind has control over matter. Would it be
reasonable to assume that matter is endowed with indestructibility, but that consciousness
is not? Scientific investigations have shown that not the smallest amount of either matter
or energy can be annihilated or lost, despite all the changes they might undergo. Under
these circumstances, would it not be reasonable to draw the conclusion that if matter and
energy are indestructible, consciousness and mind must be indestructible also and that
hence man's consciousness survives the transformation called death?

A Comparison of Values
Let us next consider the subject of survival in connection with a beneficent and
omnipotent God*.
It is evident that, as far as this planet goes, man represents the highest form of life,
and the most important part of man is not the material part, but the mind and
consciousness. The material part is simply the tool of the consciousness. Does it seem
likely that the great Intelligence which planned this Universe would have bestowed the gift
of indestructibility on matter and energy, which are the tools of consciousness, and refused
immortality to the consciousness itself, which is the highest part? It would be as though a
farmer would bestow greater care and solicitude for the soil of his farm than he would for
his own children. No normal human being would be guilty of such unbalanced judgment.
He would not lavish his best gifts on his cattle and withhold them from his family. How,
then, can we expect God* to do any less? If there is an intelligent plan back of this
Universe and this plan includes indestructibility for matter and energy, must it not also
include indestructibility of consciousness or a survival after death?

Life Must Have A Purpose

Next let us see how the idea of a purpose in life affects the problem of survival.
Assuming again that the purpose of life is the attainment of perfection, could this
purpose be served if death were the end of all?
Man ranges in development all the way from a brute savage to the highest
intellectual type. There would be no hope for the savage to attain the state of his more
developed brothers if he were limited to the span of a single life on earth. And is it not true
that even the most highly developed man on earth does not feel that he has attained
perfection, but rather that his increased capacities have opened to him new fields of
discovery? He sees beyond his present state new horizons with greater possibilities which
he wants to explore. His work is not finished and even he needs more time.
Youth starts out in life with high ideals, hoping to accomplish great things and with
faith that they can be realized. But years pass and, even if he still clings to his ideals, yet
these are far, far from being attained. When man stands at the door of death, but few of
his dreams have been realized. Tasks that he began are left incomplete, arts that he tried
to learn were never mastered. The great promises that life held out before him have not
been fulfilled and never will be if death is the end of all. Could it be possible that the ideals
and hopes of youth were false promises, promises that never could be, and never were
meant to be fulfilled? Then life would be a race in which prizes were offered, but the time
allowed much too short and no one would be able to finish the race. After running a few
laps the contestants drop by the wayside, overtaken by the infirmities of old age. Their
hopes are shattered; the visions of youth fade like mirages; death ends the futile effort and
nothing is left but the body to furnish food for worms. An endless army of new victims is
put through the same treadmill, only to finish in the same way. If this were true, life would
be a ghastly farce. It would be as though a father promised his children beautiful gifts in
order to have them strive, but when the effort was made the gifts were withdrawn. He
made the conditions impossible, the rules of the game did not allow sufficient time. The
ideals were lies to spur the individual to a useless effort.
This hopeless picture would be true if death were the end of all; then life would have
no meaning. But is it possible that this great planet was condensed in space for no higher
purpose than to furnish a stage for the repetition of such a meaningless drama? Is it
possible that the Intelligence which planned this Universe with such marvelous skill in detail
and in execution should have failed so completely in furnishing an adequate purpose for
its existence? No normal human being would waste his energy and time in building an
elaborate mechanism that had no purpose. A plan worthy of this Universe must include the
perfectibility of its parts, and this perfectibility calls for the necessary time for its attainment.
From the standpoint that life must have a meaning, man's consciousness must survive
death.

Summary
Summarizing our observations on survival after death, then, we find:
While there are no material proofs that consciousness survives death, neither are
there material proofs that it perishes at death. There is nothing to show that the
unconsciousness of death is any different from that due to sickness or sleep.
Consciousness survives the gap of sleep and sickness; why should it not survive death?
Matter and Energy exist in many different states and can be changed from one into
another and back again. Why should not consciousness do the same?
Energy is sometimes active, sometimes latent, and may change back and forth
between these states. Consciousness is sometimes active (waking), sometimes latent
(sleep), and may change back and forth between these states. We have nothing to show
that death is not another latent state of consciousness.
Matter and Energy are indestructible; why should not consciousness be the same?
If God* bestowed indestructibility on matter and energy, could He have given
anything less to consciousness and mind?
If there is a purpose in life worthy of this great Universe; if man is to attain
perfection, he must have infinity before him to accomplish this task - and this cannot be
accomplished if consciousness is annihilated at death.
While we do not understand the nature of the after-death state, there is nothing
irrational or unnatural in assuming that consciousness survives death. All the evidence
enumerated above is in favor of such survival.
EXISTENCE BEFORE BIRTH

That Which Is Indestructible Is Uncreatable

The doctrine of Reincarnation also includes the teaching that man has existed prior
to his birth. Is there anything unreasonable in this proposition?
If consciousness can exist without a physical body after death, it can just as well
exist without a physical body before birth.
If we use a straight stick to represent a line, we know that the stick itself is only a
short section of a line that extends infinitely in both directions. If we try to imagine that this
line extends in one direction only, we find ourselves unable to do so, for the idea that the
line extends in the other direction also forces itself on our mind, even against our will. What
is infinite in one direction, must be infinite in the opposite direction also.
If it is impossible to destroy or annihilate matter and energy, then it is equally
impossible to create them. If they are indestructible, this means that they must have
existed throughout the eternities of the past and that they will continue to exist throughout
the eternities of the future. If consciousness is governed by the same laws as matter and
energy, it too is indestructible and could not have been created, but must have existed from
the infinitudes of the past and must endure throughout the eternities of the future. It can
change from state to state, but it can never be destroyed.
If death is a going to sleep from this state of consciousness, why is not birth an
awakening from some other state of consciousness?
Birth and death are doors through which the consciousness comes and goes. If the
human consciousness passes out into the unknown through the door of death, is it not
equally possible that the same human consciousness will some time, in the future re-enter
this world through the door of birth?
Is it not reasonable to see in the birth of a little child a return to our material world
of a human consciousness which left it at death of someone in the past? If birth is not such
a return of a human consciousness, then what is it? Where does the consciousness which
unfolds itself in the growing child come from? It could not have been "created out of
nothing." Nature does not do this in other fields.

Repetition - Nature's Working Method

What is more logical than to assume a birth to be the return of a human entity to
earth, to take up again its unfinished tasks of long ago? If consciousness has entered this
life through the door of birth and left it through the door of death, there is no reason why it
could not have done the same many times in the past or why it cannot repeat the same
cycle many times again in the future. Why should this be the one and only time?
All through nature we see an ebb and flow, a period of activity followed by a period
of rest, repeated again and again. We spend our day in activity, then rest and recuperate
in sleep. The tree sends forth its leaves and blossoms and bears its fruit. Then it rests,
only to repeat the cycle the next year.
If it is the purpose of Nature, as it seems to be, to develop something higher and
more perfect from something inferior, this method of repetition is undoubtedly the most
effective one, for what has been done once can easily be done again, and each time there
is opportunity for a little improvement.
Man recognizes the value of repetition. He applies it in the schools, in
manufacturing, in fact everywhere. No workman becomes skilled who has not performed
the same operation many times. Everyone will readily admit the truth of the maxim,
"Practice makes Perfect."
If attainment of perfection is the object of life, then what better method to attain this
purpose could be chosen than a repetition of our life here on earth, until we have learned
our lessons and attained the goal?

We Reap in the Some Field as we Sowed

We have seen that pre-existence and survival are necessary to demonstrate the rule
of justice in our lives. If the inequalities of birth are due to actions of the individual in the
past, then, when and where did he perform these acts? If the acts of this life, which do not
bring their due reward or punishment, are to be balanced in some future existence, then
when and where is this balancing to be done?
In order that justice may be the most perfectly balanced, naturally the balancing
should be done under circumstances as near as possible duplicating those under which the
act was performed in the first place. And where can these conditions be better duplicated
than right here on earth? If we sow a seed in one field, we do not go to another field and
reap the harvest; we reap it where the seed was sown. And if we perform an act here on
earth, is it not here on earth that we should expect that act to be balanced?
We know that justice balances some of our acts right here on earth and during this
life in which the cause was sown.
If it is in Nature's plan that some of our acts are to be balanced right here on earth,
then why should not all of our acts be balanced right here? Is there anything reasonable
in the assumption that some of our actions must be balanced in a heaven or a hell, when
other acts of a similar nature are balanced right here on earth, and all of them could be
similarly balanced in a future life on earth?
If we were "sent to school" here on earth for one "day," one human life, and did not
finish our lesson, where should we be sent to continue our studies, if not back to the same
school from which we failed to graduate? In our ordinary education we do not attend one
school today and another tomorrow, for this would be wasteful of effort. We attend the
same school until we have mastered all that this school can teach us. Is it likely that the
Intelligence which planned this Universe would have formulated a less effective plan?
Is there a more logical explanation than to look upon the life of a human being as
a period of training and experience for a human soul on its journey towards perfection? As
one such period is insufficient to attain the goal, it will be followed by other lives in other
human bodies right here on earth, when more experience will be gained. Between each
one of these earth lives there will be a period for rest and assimilation. As these earth lives
will be repeated in the future, so have they also been repeated in the past.
The idea of an existence before birth is less familiar to the western mind than that
of an existence after death, but one is just as reasonable as the other. There should be no
difficulty for one who accepts the idea of survival also to accept the idea of pre-existence
for the arguments which support one support the other.

DELAYED EFFECTS
 The explanation of justice offered by the doctrine of Reincarnation further includes
the idea that an effect does not always follow immediately upon its cause; sometimes there
may be a long delay between the two. Is there anything unreasonable in this?

Physical Effects Are Frequently Delayed

We know that during our present earth life effects do not always follow immediately
upon their cause. Dissipation in youth often does not bring its full effect until old age is
reached.
In the material world an effect sometimes follows immediately upon its cause as
when a stone is thrown in the air it falls to the ground where it strikes with an effect which
depends on the height to which it was thrown. Other times the effect may be delayed.
Suppose, for instance, that the stone landed on the top of a building where it remained for
years, perhaps even centuries, before it was pushed over the edge and allowed to resume
its fall. When it finally did hit the ground, its striking effect was the same as it would have
been if it had fallen at once. The effect was delayed, but not changed.
If physical effects can be thus delayed without being changed or lost, is it not
reasonable to assume that the effects of man's thoughts and acts may be similarly delayed
and held in some sort of invisible storage, the nature of which we do not yet understand?
The fact that we see no immediate effect, then, is no sign that this effect will not follow later.

Touching the Trigger

Gunpowder is a combination of chemicals which contain energy in a stored or latent
state. The powder is of course visible, but the stored energy is not visible, yet we know it
is there, and in some way associated with the chemicals.
Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, that we have an old muzzle loader
standing in some corner with the trigger cocked. Each day we put a few grains of
powder in it, but nothing happens. Then one day someone brushes against the trigger, and
the charge goes off. The stored, invisible energy grew in proportion as the powder charge
increased, but no explosion took place until the trigger was touched. No one would have
known by looking at the gun whether it contained a large or small charge or perhaps no
charge at all, but when the explosion took place, its force was great or small in exact
proportion to the quantity of the charge. The energy changed suddenly when the proper
conditions were provided, from a latent and invisible state to an active and visible one. The
touch on the trigger did not determine the strength of the explosion. It was only the means
of releasing an accumulation of energy already existing. The energy had been
accumulated long before, when the powder was made and later placed in the gun.
If such storing and releasing of energy can take place on the material plane, may
it not be possible that the effects of man's thoughts and acts are similarly stored and
released? We know nothing about the "mental gunpowder" that a thought may produce
and we know nothing about the type of mental gun in which it may be stored, but we do
know that thought is an energy of some kind and therefore must have some sort of an
effect. The same reasoning applies also to man's acts. The effect of these may be
delayed, but they, too, represent the expenditure of some kind of energy, and hence must
have some kind of an effect. How do we know but what this effect may be stored as some
kind of latent energy or powder in some sort of gun in a corner of man's invisible nature?
How do we know but what some thought or act or outward circumstance may be the touch
on the trigger that sets off the charge? How, otherwise, are we to explain the varied
effects, sometimes slight, sometimes serious, that often follow such insignificant events as
those illustrated below?
We slip on the sidewalk and fall; it may result in a slight bruise or it may be a skull
fracture, and perhaps death. Our watch is slow and we miss a train and have to wait for
the next one. One of the trains is wrecked and all on board are injured or killed. The slow
watch might have saved our life or caused our death. A little scratch on the finger may heal
in a couple of days, or it may lead to blood-poisoning. An innocent cold may pass off
quickly or lead to pneumonia and perhaps death.
Why do such insignificant causes sometimes pass off so lightly and other times
produce such far-reaching effects? If there is law and order in Nature, the effect should
always be proportionate to its cause, and as there must be law, the difference in effect
must be due to other and now invisible causes. Would not these great differences in effect
be easier to explain if we looked upon the scratch on the finger, the slow watch, etc., as
only the touch on the trigger and the variation in effect as due to the accumulation of
powder in the gun? If there were no accumulation of powder, no effect would follow. May
it not be that the chance-events - the accidents in human life - are the discharges of latent
accumulations of energy which we ourselves stored up in the past? They may be either
good or bad, favorable or unfavorable, but in either case they are the effects of our own
repeated thoughts and acts.

Summary
If, then, in the material world effects may be long delayed, yet in the end produce
the same result as if the effect had been immediate, as in the case of the stone, and if
energy can be stored for long periods in invisible states as in the case of gunpowder - why
is it not just as reasonable to assume that the effects of man's thoughts and acts may be
delayed and accumulated in some invisible state until circumstances permit them to
express themselves; and why should not the effects, when they do appear, be exactly the
same as if they had taken place immediately?
Certainly the last proposition, which we assume to be true, is just as reasonable as
the first proposition, which we know to be true.

IS REINCARNATION TRUE?

What Is Proof?
How are we to judge the truth of any doctrine which deals with life after death and
before birth?
The theory of the materialist that the death of the body is the end of all, the doctrine
of heaven and hell and other religious beliefs of this nature, are alike in that they can
neither be proved nor disproved by any material tests.
Man has not yet learned to look beyond birth and death and hence is unable to
ascertain what takes place there by direct observation. Evidently, then, the only test man
can apply to problems of this nature is that of logic and reason.
In courts of law, proof is defined as "a preponderance of evidence that brings
conviction to the mind." If we are to judge Reincarnation on this basis, the evidence in its
favor would be its ability to answer the questions and solve the problems of life in
accordance with reason and logic. If Reincarnation does this better than other theories of
life, and if we are willing to approach the subject in the scientific attitude of the open mind,
we should be ready to accept it. The only valid reason for rejecting it would be the
appearance of a more logical doctrine.
Let us therefore test Reincarnation as we would any other theory, by checking it
against the problems of life, and let it stand or fall on its ability to solve these problems.
Survival of consciousness after death is in harmony with the indestructibility of
matter and energy which exists in Nature.
Existence of consciousness before birth harmonizes with the idea that what is
indestructible could not have been created. Like matter and energy, it must have pre-
existed in some state.
The delay between cause and effect, which often occurs in Nature, makes it easy
to accept the idea that similar delays may occur in human life.

Reincarnation Explains
If we have a healthy body now, it means that we lived clean and wholesome lives
in the past. If we have a sickly body, the opposite was the case. If we live contrary to the
rules of health now but still enjoy good health, the effect of this indulgence will show in
disease in future lives, starting perhaps in infancy.
If we are born in favorable circumstances in life, it is a sign that we provided
favorable circumstances for those born to us in past lives, and if we are born in wretched
conditions, the opposite was true.
If we are born with talents and "natural gifts," it is because we cultivated these "gifts"
in the past. If we are born with handicaps, shortcomings, and warped tendencies, it is
because in past lives we permitted such weeds to grow in our character.
If a person works hard, but does not get ahead financially and perhaps loses all his
possessions, he is paying back some old debt he had contracted in a past life. If fortune
comes to him unearned, it is the pay for something done in the past which did not bring its
due reward at that time.
If we act for good or ill, but appropriate effects do not follow immediately, the effect
is not lost but will come later in this life or in a future incarnation.
If our way through life is made easier by the help and encouragement of others, it
is because we gave such assistance to others in the past, and similarly, if we are the
victims of dishonesty and fraud, it is the balancing of some wrongdoing of ours in the past.
If we are unjustly accused or our efforts misunderstood, it is because of some similar
injustice done by ourselves to others in the past.
If we, by our wrongdoing, cause injury to others, but seem to escape the
consequences of our act, some time, somewhere, we shall be the victims of similar
circumstances at the hands of someone else.
Accidents and other chance-events that affect our lives and seemingly come to us
without any cause, are the delayed effects of our own acts in former incarnations.
Those who believe in a personal God as a father loving his children, have always
found it difficult to explain the injustice and unmerited suffering in the world. Reincarnation
removes this difficulty. It shows that this suffering is not meted out by a capricious God,
who wills that some shall suffer while others live in happiness. It shows that all our
suffering and all our misery are of our own making. We ourselves violated the laws of
harmony in the past, and Nature reacts accordingly. This thought is a most helpful one, for
it removes the sting of injustice from our suffering. Hardships are easier to bear when we
know that they are not imposed upon us by someone else, but are of our own making. We
have to go through with this suffering now, but it is also a help to know that no suffering can
come to us which does not belong to us and that, when the cause has been exhausted, this
account is closed and there will be no more suffering from that source unless we again
repeat the cause. Our future destiny is in our own hands. Our present thoughts and acts
are seeds sown in our character and their nature will determine the harvest which the future
will bring us.
The doctrine of Reincarnation adds dignity and responsibility to life, for it shows us
that we are the makers of our own future. It also makes us more understanding and
charitable and sympathetic with those who suffer. We may have much greater debts to pay
off than they are now paying, so we are in no position to pass judgment on them or
condemn them. It may be our turn next.
If the purpose of life is to attain perfection, one earth life is utterly inadequate to
reach that goal. The visions of youth would be false promises, impossible of realization,
if we were limited to one earth life alone. A life span of 70 years cannot take us far on the
journey to perfection.
But Reincarnation explains how the needed time is provided. Nature's working
method of repetition, when applied to man, takes the form of repeated existences in human
bodies here on earth, and so we shall return here again and again in the future as we have
already lived here numberless lives in the past. The possibilities for our growth and
unfoldment are infinite. Each earth life will take us one step nearer the goal of perfection.
As a child returns day after day and passes from one grade to another in the same school
until he has mastered all that this school has to teach, so man returns life after life to this
earth, this school of experience, until he has reached the highest state of perfection that
can be attained here on earth.
We shall have new opportunities to develop those qualities which we only began
cultivating in this life. Unfulfilled aspirations, unfinished tasks, hopes and dreams that never
were realized, all these will have opportunities for fulfillment in future incarnations.
Those who missed their chance in this life, and those who committed wrongs that
they now regret, will have another chance, and many other chances to make good in future
lives on earth.

The Bank of Life

Our work, our effort, our contribution to life, may be compared to capital deposited
in a bank.
The more we put in of constructive work, the greater will be the credit side of our
balance in this Bank of Life. If we do not render service but seek to live off the work of
others we are not putting capital into this bank - we are taking it out. The balance in the
bank is in exact accord with our deposits less our withdrawals.
If it is possible for us to continue drawing benefits from this bank without depositing,
it is an indication that in past lives we rendered service for which we did not then collect.
We are now collecting the reward for that past service, but when that past service has been
exhausted, there will be nothing more to collect. When this point is reached, we meet one
of these inexplicable reverses or misfortunes that come to us by chance and that seem so
puzzling to us. These reverses are the notices from the bank that our cash balance is
gone, and that if we want to draw any more benefits we must now deposit new capital.
It may be possible that our position in the world is so well established that, even after
we have withdrawn all our capital from this Bank of Life, our position of power still enables
us to exact a living from others. In that case we are actually running into debt and are now
borrowing capital from the bank. In a future life this capital has to be repaid and a new
cash balance started before we can begin to draw any benefit from our efforts.
By the light of Reincarnation we can readily see how these readjustments can be
made. We may hold the most trumps in this life, but in each new incarnation there is a
reshuffling of the cards and a new deal, and the trumps pass into other hands. At the new
birth we are drawn by psycho-magnetic attraction to those parents who can give us the
circumstances most like those that we have earned for ourselves.
In the new birth that follows we are no longer in a position of power. This time we
will find ourselves the victims of others who will now live off our labors. But we should not
complain, for in reality we are only returning our loan to the Bank of Life.
If we look about us in life, do we not see illustrations of this? How much greater is
the number of those who labor and get little in return than the few who prosper! Is not this
what should be expected, for do not the majority seek to get a living with the least effort?
If they do so in this life, is it not reasonable to suppose that they did the same in past lives
also? And in that case, what is more natural than that the majority should now find
themselves engaged in paying off old debts?
Once we become convinced of the truth of Reincarnation we will not feel at ease if
we are constantly drawing on our bank account. We will take considerable more interest
in doing and giving than we will in getting, for we know that the latter will take care of itself,
if we take care of the former.
We have in Reincarnation, then, a theory capable of explaining life on the basis of
justice; a theory which shows that human acts are subject to the same Law of Cause and
Effect that operates everywhere else in Nature.

BENEFICIAL EFFECTS

Next let us see what would be the effect on the individual, and hence on the world,
of a firm faith that justice and law govern all affairs of life. How will we act if we know
positively that we shall reap what we sow, no more, no less; that if we sow good seed we
reap accordingly, and if we sow evil we gather evil fruit; that action and reaction are equal
and opposite and in the end must balance?
Suppose that a young man, who starts out in life with high ideals, has an assurance
that these ideals have a philosophical basis - that they are actually founded on Nature's
laws. He would know that, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, his efforts at right
action will bring results, and this knowledge would give him added strength to lead a noble
life.
A selfish man with a lower standard of action would be strongly affected by the
knowledge that he would have to reap his own sowing. He would know that he could never
get "something for nothing" and that lasting benefits can only be obtained as the result of
honest and productive work. The fact that it is possible to make gains by dishonest means
would not constitute a temptation to him, for he would also know that if he practiced fraud
on others he would eventually lose what he had gained by fraud. Under such
circumstances, there would be nothing gained by dishonesty and for his own self-protection
he would avoid storing up trouble that he would have to reap in the future.
Would not even the criminal lose interest in his "profession" when he came to realize
that there is a higher law of justice that he cannot "beat," but which will catch up with him
in the end and return to him each and every one of his acts as the pendulum returns the
impulse given to it? Would he not realize that, when he had to make full restitution for all
his acts, and experience the same suffering he caused others, there would be no
advantage in criminal action and nothing to be gained from it? Would he not then
scrupulously avoid anything that might approach fraud and shun it as he would the fire?
No financier would want to live off the labors of others after he realized that in the
course of time he would have to render full return for all his undue gain.
No politician would betray his trust if he knew that he himself would become the
victim of a similar betrayal in the future.
No dictator would plunge the world into war if he knew that he himself would have
to experience the suffering he brought down on others.
It would be useless for us to try to shirk unpleasant or trying circumstances which
life may place in our path. If justice rules, we brought those experiences on ourselves and
we would be wiser if we faced them bravely rather than tried to evade them. If they do not
belong to us the situation will soon clear up; and if they really are ours, no amount of
shirking or side-stepping can remove them from our path. If we succeed in evading them
now, they will turn up in some other way later on; so why not face them at once and be
done with them?
The suicide may think that his act will solve his problem and free him from an
unhappy situation, but he has only postponed the settlement to some future life, when he
will again be compelled to face the same problem and solve it. By his act of violence he
has deprived himself of all opportunity for growth and development in this life. He has
interfered with the orderly working methods of Nature and thereby forced his consciousness
out of physical life into another state of existence for which Nature has not yet prepared it,
and here it must suffer the consequences of such unpreparedness.
When our minds grasp the idea that we shall reap what we sow, it becomes at once
evident that it is not only unwise but downright stupid to seek gain by wrongdoing, and only
the mentally deficient, those incapable of the simplest reasoning, would still try to get
"something for nothing."
When we defraud others, we take on credit from the Bank of Life and set the stage
for our own defrauding in the future.
Compare this with the honest method of making the same gain. In this case we
earn the right to our gain by work and effort in the first place. We then pay cash, and there
is no debt hanging over us to be collected in the future.
Is not a realization, then, that justice rules in all our affairs a most powerful incentive
to right action and a means for bringing harmony into the world? It strengthens the man
of moral tendencies and gives him faith that right action will bring its due reward in time.
It is a stop signal to the selfish man and the criminal, for it shows them that wrong-doing
results in future grief. It appeals to the better side of the noble man as well as to the self
interest of the selfish man. It strikes at the tap-root of all wrong-doing by showing that
selfishness is self-defeating and that our own self-interest as well as our better impulses
both call for altruistic action.
We have noted the effect on the individual of a faith in justice. The effect on the
individual will eventually make itself felt by the Nation, and in time Nations would be guided
in their actions by principles of justice. No Nation would then oppress or enslave another
Nation, but each would work for the common good of all, each Nation contributing
according to its own innate characteristics, to a more harmonious and grander civilization
of the future.

ARE ETHICAL TEACHINGS PRACTICAL?

Ethical teachings appeal to men to be honest and upright, to fulfill all duties
conscientiously, to think more of the welfare of others than of one's own, to give rather than
take, to "cast thy bread upon the waters," to "love they neighbor as thyself"; in brief, to
practice brotherhood. It is generally agreed that if these teachings were applied in practice,
this earth would become a paradise compared to what it is today, yet few people apply
these principles or do it only to a limited extent, evidently because the one who practices
them is put to a disadvantage unless they are applied by others also, and therefore they
are usually put aside as being impractical.
If a body of teachings which admittedly would benefit mankind is considered
impractical, either these teachings must be intrinsically false or there is something lacking
in their presentation which would show them to be practical.
As already pointed out, ethical teachings urge men to practice brotherhood. If we
were to choose a single one as typical of all the rest, we could probably not find a more all-
inclusive one than the Golden Rule: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye even so to them" (Matt. vii, 12), or as usually worded: "Do unto
others as you would have others do unto you."
There is another version of the Golden Rule given by Confucius: "Do not do unto
others what you would not have others do unto you." The former is an injunction to practice
Brotherhood, the latter is an injunction to avoid injuring others, but in neither case is any
reason given why such action is recommended.
What is it we want others to do unto us, and what is it we want others to refrain from
doing? We naturally want others to act in a way that will benefit us and avoid doing us
harm. The Golden Rule simply instructs us to use this as a rule for our own conduct and
drops the matter there.
If our lives are governed by chance and our actions may or may not bring their
appropriate effects, then the Golden Rule is not practical, for by applying it we would only
play into the hands of any selfish individual who might choose to take advantage of us. If,
on the other hand, our lives are governed by Justice and we reap what we sow, then the
Golden Rule is not only practical; it is plain, hard-boiled common sense. If we reap what
we sow, it is certainly plain common sense to sow good seeds, to practice Brotherhood, for
the effect of this will return to us in the course of time; and it is likewise plain common
sense to avoid injuring others, for such injury will also return to us.
The Golden Rule does not speak of the reward that will follow from its application.
It does not mention the harvest; it speaks only of the sowing. It says: "Sow good seeds,
avoid sowing tares," and leaves the matter there, but we can see the wisdom of this advice
if our acts are governed by the law of cause and effect, for in this case all we need to do
is to take care of the sowing; the law of cause and effect will take care of the result.
Although the Golden Rule makes no reference to the law of cause and effect, yet
when we consider it in its relation to this law, it may be noted that it is in full harmony with
it and might, indeed, be looked upon as advising men to apply it for their own benefit.
Before we can demonstrate that the Golden Rule and other ethical teachings are
practical, however, it is necessary to prove that human actions are governed by the law of
cause and effect and that we shall reap what we sow.

SUMMARY

If justice rules our lives we shall reap what we sow.

It follows that we shall benefit by sowing good seed that we shall suffer by sowing
evil seed.
A knowledge that justice rules will be a strong force influencing men to right action,
thereby gradually eliminating the suffering and misery which result from wrongdoing.
Faith in justice cannot be established unless we can show how justice operates.
The chief difficulty in accepting the law of Cause and Effect as governing human
actions has been the injustice apparent in human life.
This injustice cannot be denied if we accept the theory of a single life on earth, but
it can easily be shown to be actual justice and in harmony with the Law of Cause and Effect
if we accept the idea of repeated lives here on earth.
The doctrine of Reincarnation, then, solves the problem of injustice.
If we accept the idea of an orderly Universe, governed by Law and justice, then
Reincarnation becomes a logical necessity.

--------------------