qualities, although they are born of the same parents at the same time
and brought up under similar conditions and environments? How can
heredity explain such cases? Suppose a man has five children; one is
honest and saintly, another is an idiot, the third becomes a murderer,
the fourth a genius or prodigy, and the fifth a cripple and
diseased. Who made these dissimilarities? They cannot be
accidents. There is no such thing as an accident. Every event of the
universe is bound by the law of cause and effect. There must be some
cause of these inequalities. Who made one honest and saintly, another
an idiot, and so forth? Parents? That cannot be. They never dreamed
that they would beget a murderer or a villain or an idiot. On the
contrary, all parents wish their children to be the best and
happiest. But in spite of such desires they get such children. Why?
What is the cause? Does the theory of heredity explain it? No, not at
all. Suppose a man, twenty-four years old, who has certain traits,
like musical or artistic talents, such as painting and so on, has a
crooked nose and other peculiarities, like cross-eyes, which resemble
those of his grandfather. Suppose his grandfather died six years
before he was born. Now, those who believe in the theory of heredity
will say that this young man inherited all these peculiarities from
his grandfather. When did he inherit? His grandfather had died six
years before he was born. He inherited, of course, in the form of that
germ. What is that germ like? A minute protoplasm, a jelly-like
substance, and if you examine it with a powerful microscope you will
hardly find any difference between it and the proto-plasmic germ of a
dog, or of a cat, or of a tree. It is smaller than a pin's head. And
in that state this young man inherited all these peculiarities from
his grandfather; or, in other words, before he had a nose, he got a
crooked nose; before he had eyes, he inherited cross-eyes, and before
he had any brain, he inherited all the wonderful powers-his musical
and artistic talents. Does it not seem absurd to you? Even if we admit
this theory of heredity, then what do we understand? That the whole of
this young man existed in the form of a protoplasm before he was
born. His cross-eyes, his crooked nose, his artistic talents--all
these pre-existed in the form of a protoplasmic cell. This leads up to
the same thing which is taught by the theory of Reincarnation, or, in
other words, if it be possible for this young man to remain in the
form of a protoplasm and inherit all these things before his birth,
why cannot we believe that the soul or the subtle body of this young
man possessed them from the very beginning? According to Vedanta this
young man was not the creature of his grandfather, but he had his own
independent existence; only by coming through the channel of his
parents he had received certain characteristic impressions, just as a
tree in its process of growth will receive from the environments
certain peculiarities when it assimilates those properties.
The doctrine of Reincarnation alone can explain satisfactorily and
rationally the diversities among children and the reason of the many
instances of uncommon powers and genius displayed in childhood. The
theory of heredity has up to this time failed to give any good reason
for them. Why is it that Pascal, when twelve years old, succeeded in
discovering for himself the greater part of plane geometry. How could
the shepherd Mangiamelo, when five years old, calculate like an
arithmetical machine. Think of the child Zerah Colburn: when he was
under eight years of age he could solve the most tremendous
mathematical problems instantly and without using any figures. "In one
instance he took the number 8 and raised it up progressively to the
sixteenth power and instantly mentioned the result which contained 15
figures--28l,474,976,710,656." Of course he was right in every
figure. When asked the square root of numbers consisting of six
figures, he would state the result instantly with perfect accuracy. He
used to give the cube root of numbers in the hundreds of millions the
very moment when it was asked. Somebody asked him once how many
minutes there were in 48 years, he answered, 25,288,800.
Mozart, the great musician, wrote a sonata when he was four years old
and an opera in his eighth year. Theresa Milanolla played the violin
with such skill that many people thought that she must have played
before her birth. There are many such instances of wonderful powers
exhibited by artists and painters when they were quite young.
Sankarâcharya, the great commentator of the Vedanta philosophy,
finished his commentary when he was twelve years old. How can such
cases be explained by the theory of hereditary transmission? Many of
you have heard of the wonderful musical talents of Blind Tom. This
blind negro slave was born on his master's plantation and was brought
up as a typical negro. He received no training in music or in any
other line. One day when his master's family were at dinner he
happened to come into his master's parlor and displayed his marvelous
musical power for the first time by playing on his master's
piano. Afterwards he was exhibited in different states of this
country. Physically he was nothing but a typical negro. His intellect
was very poor, but in music he was a master. His musical talents were
so great that he composed music for himself and played his own
compositions. Sometimes after hearing a new piece of rapid music once,
he could reproduce it note for note. Where did he get all these
powers? From whom did he inherit them? His parents perhaps never heard
of a piano. He never had a lesson in his life, and he could not have
understood even if he had had any. Not long ago I saw a girl of about
six years, who played the piano most beautifully and who could
reproduce the most difficult music after hearing it once. It seems to
me that she must have played the piano in her previous incarnation.
This is the only explanation that we can give.
Does heredity explain such cases? No. These illustrations are
sufficient to disprove the theory of "cumulative heredity".
"Cumulative" means gradualness. The believers in this theory say that
a genius is the result of cumulative heredity, that is, it presents
itself by degrees from less genius to greater and still greater and so
on. In the whole history of the genealogy of geniuses, like Homer,
Plato, Shakespeare, Goethe, Raphael, there never was in their families
almost Plato, almost Shakespeare, or almost Goethe. Neither is it
possible to trace the extraordinary powers of any of these back to any
member of their ancestral line. Therefore we can say that no other
theory than that of Reincarnation can explain satisfactorily the
causes which produce geniuses and prodigies in this world.
Those who accept the truth of Reincarnation do not blame their parents
for their poor talents, or for not possessing extraordinary powers,
but they remain content with their own lot, knowing that they have
made themselves as they are to-day by their own thoughts and deeds in
their previous incarnations. They understand the meaning of the saying
"what thou sowest thou must reap," and always endeavor to mould their
future by better thoughts and better deeds. They explain all the
inequalities and diversities of life and character by the law of
"Karma," which governs the process of Reincarnation as well as the
gradual evolution of the germs of life from lower to higher stages of
existence.
III. EVOLUTION AND REINCARNATION.
The amazing achievements of modern science have been opening every day
new gates of wisdom and slowly bringing human minds nearer and nearer
to the ultimate reality of the universe. The fire of knowledge kindled
by science has already burnt down many dogmas and beliefs, held sacred
by the superstition of the past, which stood in the way of
truth-seeking minds. In the first place science has disproved the
theory of the creation of the universe out of nothing by the action of
some supernatural power. It has shown that the universe did not appear
in its present form or come into existence all of a sudden only a few
thousand years ago, but that it has taken ages to pass through
different stages before it could reach its present condition. Each of
these stages was directly related to a previous stage by the law of
causation, which always operates in accordance with definite
rules. The phenomena of the universe, according to science, are
subject to evolution, or gradual change and progressive development
from a relatively uniform condition to a relative complexity. From the
greatest solar system down to the smallest blade of grass, everything
in the universe has taken its present shape and form through this
cosmic process of evolution. Our planet earth has gradually evolved,
perhaps out of a nebulous mass which existed at first in a gaseous
state. The sun, moon, stars, satellites and other planets have come
into existence by going through innumerable changes produced by the
evolutionary process of the Cosmos. Through the same process plants,
insects, fishes, reptiles, birds, animals, man, and all living matter
that inhabit this earth have evolved from minute germs of life into
their present forms. The theory of Evolution says that man did not
come into existence all of a sudden, but is related to lower animals
and to plants, either directly or indirectly. The germ of life had
passed through various stages of physical form before it could appear
as a man. That branch of science which is called Embryology has proved
the fact that "man is the epitome of the whole creation." It tells
that the human body before its birth passes through all the different
stages of the animal kingdom--such as the polyp, fish, reptile, dog,
ape, and at last, man. If we remember that nature is always
consistent, that her laws are uniform and that whatever exists in the
microcosm exists also in the macrocosm, and then study nature, we
shall find that all the germs of life which exist in the universe are
bound to pass through stages resembling the embryonic types before
they can appear in the form of man.
In explaining the theory of Evolution, science says that there are two
principal factors in the process of evolution; the first is the
tendency to vary, which exists in all living forms whether vegetable
or animal; the second is the tendency of environment to influence that
variation, either favorably or unfavorably. Without the first,
evolution of any kind would be absolutely impossible. But the cause of
that innate tendency to vary is still unknown to science. Upon the
second depends the law of natural selection. The variation must be
adapted to favorable conditions of life; consequently either the germ
of life will select suitable environments or vary itself in order to
suit the surrounding conditions, if they are unfavorable. But the
agent of this selective process is the struggle for existence, which
is a no less important factor. Thus Evolution depends on these three
laws: Tendency to vary, or variation, natural selection, and struggle
for existence. Science tries to explain through these three laws the
physical, mental, intellectual, moral and spiritual evolution of
mankind. But the theory of Evolution will remain unintelligible until
science can trace the cause of that innate "tendency to vary" which
exists in every stage of all living forms.
If we study closely we find that man's "self" consists of two natures,
one animal and the other moral or spiritual. Animal nature includes
all the animal propensities, desire for sense enjoyments, love of
self, fear of death and struggle for existence. Each of these is to be
found in lower animals as well as in human beings, the difference
being only in degree and not in kind. In a savage tribe the expression
of this animal nature is simple and natural, while in a highly
civilized nation it is expressed not in a simple and straightforward
manner, but in an artful and refined way. In a civilized community the
same nature working through varied device, policy and plan brings the
same results in a more polished form. In the struggle for existence
amongst lower animals and savage tribes, those who are physically
strong survive and gain advantage over those who are physically weak;
while in the civilized world the same result is obtained, not by
displaying physical force, but by art, diplomacy, policy, strategy and
skill. Various kinds of defensive and offensive weapons have been
invented to conquer those who are less skillful in using them,
although they may be physically stronger. The simple expression of
animal nature which we notice in savages and lower animals, by the
natural process of evolution has gradually become more and more
complex, as we find in the civilized nations of the world. The energy
of the lower human nature is spent chiefly in the struggle for
material existence.
But there is another nature in man which is higher than this. It
expresses itself in various ways, but on a higher plane. Love of
truth, mastery over passion, control of the senses, disinterested
self-sacrifice, mercy and kindness to all creatures, desire to help
the distressed, forgiveness, faith in a Supreme Being and devotion;
all these are the expressions of that higher moral and spiritual
nature. They cannot be explained as developed from animal nature by
means of the struggle for material existence. For these qualities are
not to be found in lower animals, although the struggle for existence
is there. The moral and spiritual nature of human beings cannot be
traced as the outgrowth or gradual development of the animal
nature. There is a dispute among the Evolutionists as to the method of
explaining their cause. Some say that these higher faculties have
evolved out of the lower ones and have developed by variation and
natural selection; while others hold that some other higher influence,
law or agency is required to account for them.
Professor Huxley says: "As I have already urged, the practice of that
which is ethically best--what we call goodness or virtue--involves a
course of conduct which in all respects is opposed to that which leads
to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless
self-assertion, it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside
or treading down all competitors, it requires that the individual
shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is
directed not so much to the survival of the fittest as to the fitting
of as many as possible to survive. It repudiates the gladiatorial
theory of existence. It demands that each man who enters into the
enjoyment of the advantages of a polity shall be mindful of his debt
to those who have laboriously constructed it, and shall take heed that
no act of his weakens the fabric in which he has been permitted to
live. Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the
cosmic process, and reminding the individual of his duty to the
community, to the protection and influence of which he owes, if not
existence itself, at least the life of something better than a brutal
savage." ("Evolution and Ethics," pp. 81-82.)
Prof. Calderwood says: "So far as human organism is concerned, there
seem no overwhelming obstacles to be encountered by an evolution
theory, but it seems impossible under such a theory to account for the
appearance of the thinking, self-regulating life distinctly human."
Thus, according to some of the best thinkers, the explanation of the
moral and spiritual nature of man as a development of the animal
nature, is quite insufficient and unsatisfactory. The theory of
natural selection in the struggle for existence cannot explain the
cause of the higher nature of man. We cannot say that a theory is
complete because it explains many facts. On the contrary, if it fails
to explain a single fact, then it is proved to be incomplete. As such,
the theory that cannot explain satisfactorily the cause of the moral
and spiritual nature of man cannot be accepted as a complete
theory. That explanation will be considered as complete which will
explain most satisfactorily all the various manifestations of the
animal, moral and spiritual nature. Moreover, supposing the "tendency
to vary" has evolved into the moral and spiritual nature of man,
science does not explain the cause of that tendency to vary, nor how
animal nature can be transformed into moral and spiritual nature. Is
that "tendency to vary" indefinite, or is it limited by any definite
law? Science does not say anything about it.
The explanation of the theologians, that the spiritual nature has been
superadded to the animal nature by some extra-cosmic spiritual agency
is not scientific, nor does it appeal to our reason. Now let us see
what Vedanta has to say on this point. Vedanta accepts evolution and
admits the laws of variation and natural selection, but goes a step
beyond modern science by explaining the cause of that "tendency to
vary." It says, "there is nothing in the end which was not also in the
beginning." It is a law which governs the process of evolution as well
as the law of causation. If we admit this grand truth of nature, then
it will not be difficult to explain by the theory of Evolution the
gradual manifestation of the higher nature of man. The tendency of
scientific monism is towards that end.
Some of the modern scientists who hold the monistic position have
found out the same truth which was discovered long ago by the Vedantic
philosophers in India. J. Arthur Thomson, an eminent English scientist
of the present day, in his book on "The Study of Animal Life," says:
"The world is one, not two-fold-, the spiritual influx is the primal
reality and there is nothing in the end which was not also in the
beginning." But the evolutionists do not accept this truth. Let us
understand it clearly. It means that that which existed potentially at
the time of the beginning of evolution has gradually manifested in the
various stages and grades of evolution. If we admit that a unicellular
germ of life or a bioplasm, after passing through various stages of
evolution, has ultimately manifested in the form of a highly developed
human being, then we shall have to admit the potentiality of all the
manifested powers in that germ or bioplasm, because the law is "that
which exists in the end existed also in the beginning." The animal
nature, higher nature, mind, intellect, spirit, all these exist
potentially in the germ of life. If we do not admit this law then the
problem will arise: How can non-existence become existent? How can
something come out of nothing? How can that come into existence which
did not exist before? Each germ of life, according to Vedanta,
possesses infinite potentialities and infinite possibilities. The
powers that remain latent have the natural tendency to manifest
perfectly and to become actual. In their attempt they vary according
to the surrounding environments, selecting suitable conditions or
remaining latent as long as circumstances do not favor them. Therefore
variation, according to Vedanta, is caused by this attempt of the
potential powers to become actual. When life and mind began to evolve,
the possibilities of action and reaction hitherto latent in the germ
of life became real and all things became, in a sense, new. Nobody can
imagine the amount of latent power which a minute germ of life
possesses until it expresses in gross form on the physical plane. By
seeing the seed of a Banyan tree, one who has never seen the tree
cannot imagine what powers lie dormant in it. When a baby is born we
cannot tell whether he will be a great saint, or a wonderful artist,
or a philosopher, or an idiot, or a villain of the worst type. Parents
know nothing about his future. Along with his growth certain latent
powers gradually begin to manifest. Those which are the strongest and
most powerful will overcome others and check their course for some
time; but when the powers that remain subdued by stronger ones get
favorable conditions they will appear in manifested forms. As, for
instance, chemical forces may slumber in matter for a thousand years,
but when the contact with the re-agents sets them free, they appear
again and produce certain results. For thousands of years galvanism
slumbered in copper and zinc, which lay quietly beside silver. As soon
as all three are brought together under the required conditions silver
is consumed in flame. A dry seed of a plant may preserve the
slumbering power of growth through two or three thousand years and
then reappear under favorable conditions. Sir G. Wilkinson, the great
archaeologist, found some grains of wheat in a hermetically sealed
vase in a grave at Thebes, which must have lain there for three
thousand years. When Mr. Pettigrew sowed them they grew into plants.
Some vegetable roots found in the hands of an Egyptian mummy, which
must have been at least two thousand years old, were planted in a
flower-pot, and they grew and flourished. Thus, whenever the latent
powers get favorable conditions, they manifest according to their
nature, even after thousands of years.