# 29. On the Relationship Between the Animal Soul and the Human Soul

The following question is asked: “From the point of view of the view represented in your journal, how should we imagine the relationship between the animal soul and the human soul? It is undeniable that many animals can be taught mental tasks through training that are very similar to those of humans, as can be seen in the much-discussed horse of Mr. von Osten. Should we not therefore logically assume that animals also reincarnate?"

Certainly, it should not be denied that animals show abilities that, when compared to human expressions of the mind, make it difficult to answer the question: where is the boundary between the animal soul and the human soul? And materialism has always derived its justification from denying the *essential difference* between man and animal, and from maintaining that the human soul is only a fully developed animal soul and *only* developed from it. But anyone who is able to observe spiritually will not be misled on this point. And for the theosophist, such phenomena as the horse mentioned in the question (there is therefore no point in discussing this particular case in particular) are neither surprising nor mysterious. The animal soul is a generic soul. And what reincarnates in the animal kingdom is the species. The lion that one sees will not return in the same way as the human being who speaks to us. What reincarnates from the lion is the “species lion”, not this or that “individual” lion. But what reincarnates from the human being is precisely this *individual*. Therefore, in reality, only in the case of the human being can one speak of a biography, that is, of a description of the individual. In the case of animals, we are generally satisfied if we understand and describe the “species”. For example, who would want to write three biographies of a lion in the same way as of a human being, with father, son and grandson? All three have been recognized when one has grasped the one *genus of lion*.

Now it can certainly be objected that something biographical can also be said about animals, and that one dog differs from another just as a human being differs from another. One might say that a dog owner is certainly able to write the biography of his dog; and if one denies the individual differences of animals, this is only because one does not know them exactly. All this is admitted without further ado. But can one not also write the “biography” of any object from this point of view? Do we not remember that children are set the task of writing the “life story of a pin”? In nature, there are transitions everywhere. Thus, an animal can develop individual characteristics to such an extent that these appear like a striking shade of its generic character; and conversely, a human being can have so little individuality that everything about him appears generic. The training of the spiritual observation must ensure that such things do not distract us from the essential, which is what matters. The first books that were produced by the printing press were similar to those that were produced by artistic copying before and even after the invention of the printing press. Would anyone conclude from this that copying and printing are essentially the same?

Now, after these rational explanations, the facts should be put here in the sense of 'theosophy'. In the animal, spirit, soul and body are revealed. However, of these three principles, only the soul and the body find expression in the physical world. The spirit works from a higher world into the animal world. In the case of humans, all three principles express themselves in the physical world. Therefore, one cannot say that the actions of an animal do not originate from the spirit. When the beaver constructs its elaborate lodge, it is the spirit that causes this from a higher world. When humans build, it is the spirit *within them*. When a human being trains an animal, his spirit works on the non-individual spirit of the animal; and the latter uses the organs of the animal to carry out what has been brought about. That is why it is so incorrect to say that the animal, that is to say a particular animal individual, calculates, etc., as if one were to say that my “hand takes the spoon” instead of “I take the spoon”. However, for those who only recognize *material* facts, none of this makes any sense at all. And they have no choice but *first* to marvel at many of the mental expressions of an animal, and *then* to think of the animal's mind as being as similar as possible to the human mind. The fact that today's science is so amazed by the “intelligent” achievements of some animals, and is initially baffled, only proves that this science is still completely materialistic in its way of thinking. However, the characteristic difference between animals and humans does not result from a materialistic point of view, but only from a spiritual point of view.

Theosophists would not be surprised if much “smarter” animals were presented, as happens. But that is why they will always know where the difference in nature between animals and humans lies.