The Spirits' Book

3. Can it be said that God is the infinite?
“This is an incomplete defnition. One shortcoming of the language of humankind is that it lacks the ability to defne that which transcends human intelligence.”

God is infinite in Divine perfections, but infnity is an abstraction. Asserting that God is infinite is to substitute the attribute of something with the thing itself, and to defne something unknown by reference to something else that is likewise unknown.

4. Where can the proof of God’s existence be found?
“In a premise that is applied in science: there is no effect without a cause. Investigate the cause of anything that is not the work of human beings and reason shall provide the answer.”

To believe in God, simply observe the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore there is a cause. Doubting the existence of God would be to deny that every effect has a cause, and to presuppose the idea that something could be created from nothing.

5. What inference can be drawn from the innate perception possessed by all of humanity concerning God’s existence?
“That God exists, because from where would this idea originate if there were no real basis? Once again, this is a corollary of the principle stating that there can be no effect without a cause.”

6. Could our intuitive sense of God’s existence simply be the result of education and the product of acquired ideas?
“If such were the case, how could this intuitive sense be retained by primitive cultures?”

If the sentiment of the existence of a Supreme Being were solely the result of education, it would not be universal and would only exist, like all acquired knowledge, in the minds of those who have received this education.

7. Is the frst cause of creation found in the essential properties of matter?
“Then what would be the cause of these properties? There must always be a frst cause.”

To attribute creation to the essential properties of matter would be to consider the effect as a cause, because these properties are an effect, which must in turn have a cause.

8. What should we think of the opinion that creation was an unplanned combination of matter, in other words, pure chance? “Another absurdity! What person possessing common sense can seriously view chance as an intelligent agent? Besides, what is chance? Nothing.”

The harmony that regulates the universe can only result from predetermined combinations and ends, thereby revealing the existence of an intelligent power. Attributing creation to chance is irrational because chance is blind and cannot produce the effects of intelligence. If chance were intelligent, it would no longer be chance.

9. Where may we see in the frst cause of all things a supreme intelligence, superior to all other intelligences?
“There is the proverb that dictates, ‘The worker is known by his or her work.’ In that case, look at the work and you will fnd the author. Pride is what creates skeptics. Arrogant human beings want nothing to be above them, which is why they are called strong-minded. Pitiful beings, just one breath from God would obliterate them!”

We evaluate the power of intelligence by its works. As no human being could create that which is produced by nature, the frst cause must be superior to humans. Regardless of the wonders accomplished by humankind, human intelligence itself has a cause and the greater the results achieved, the greater the cause of which it is the effect. It is this supreme intelligence that is the frst cause of all things, whatever name humanity may bestow upon it.

11. Will humans ever be able to understand the mystery of Divinity?
“Humans will see and understand God when their spirits are no longer obscured by matter, and when they have come closer by striving for perfection.”

The inferiority of human faculties makes it impossible for human beings to fully grasp the essential nature of God. In the early stages of life, humans often confuse the Creator with the creature, and attribute the imperfections of the latter to God. As the moral sense of human beings becomes more developed, they are able to penetrate the nature of things more deeply. They will be able to form a truer more conforming and rational idea of God, even though it will always be incomplete.

14. Is God a distinct being, or as some believe, or as some believe, the result of all the forces and intelligences of the universe combined?
“If it were the former, God would not be God because the work of creation would be an effect and not the cause. God cannot be both the cause and effect.”

“God exists. You cannot doubt this, and that is a crucial point. Do not try to go beyond it. Do not get lost in a labyrinth from which you will never fnd an exit. Trying to go farther will not make you any better; instead, it would only increase your pride by causing you to believe that you know something, while in reality you know nothing. Cast aside all these systems. You have enough to worry about that directly affects you, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections so that you may shed them. This will be far more useful to you than any attempt to penetrate the impenetrable.”

15. What about the concept that all of nature, beings and worlds of the universe are parts of the Divinity, and they are in their entirety Divinity itself, i.e. the Pantheistic Doctrine?
“Human beings cannot be God. Upon recognizing this, they want to, at least, be a part of God.”

16. Those who support this doctrine claim to fnd some of God’s attributes in it. As there are an infnite number of worlds, then God is infnite. As vacuum or nothingness is nowhere, God is everywhere. Since God is everywhere and everything is an integral part of God; God gives an intelligent purpose to all natural phenomena. How can we oppose this reasoning?
“Reason. Think long and maturely about the assumption in question and you will have no trouble fnding its irrationality.”


This doctrine makes God a material being who, despite being endowed with supreme intelligence, would only be a large scale version of what we are. However, as matter is incessantly transforming, God would have no stability if this theory were true. God would be subject to all the instabilities and needs of humanity. God would lack one of the essential attributes of Divinity, the quality of being unchangeable. The properties of matter cannot be attributed to God without lowering divinity in our thoughts, and all the subtleties of sophism fail to solve the problem of God’s essential nature. While we do not know all that God is, we know what God cannot be and the theory stated above directly contradicts God’s essential attributes. It mistakes the Creator for the creature, as if one were to consider a clever machine to be a vital part of the engineer who designed it. God’s intelligence is revealed in the work of creation, as an artist in his or her canvas. God’s works are no more part of God than the canvas is the artist who painted it.

17. Does humankind have the ability to understand the first principle of things?

“No. There are things that God does not reveal to human beings here in this world.”

18. Will human beings ever be able to penetrate the mystery of things that are concealed from them?
“The veil will be lifted as human beings achieve their purifcation, but to understand certain things they need faculties that they do not yet possess.”

19. Can humankind penetrate some of the secrets of nature through scientifc investigations and research?
“Science is a means of development for human beings, but they cannot surpass the limits set by God.”

The farther humans penetrate the investigation of these mysteries, the greater their veneration of the power and wisdom of the Creator should be. However, due to pride and weakness, human intelligence often leads to misconceptions. Humans pile systems on top of systems and every single day they learn how many errors they have mistaken for truths, and how many truths they have dismissed as errors. This amounts to more disappointment than human pride can bear.

20. Through means other than scientific investigation, is humankind able to receive communications of a higher order that transcend human senses?

“Yes. When God deems it useful. God reveals to human beings what science is incapable of teaching them.”

Through these communications, humans are able to obtain knowledge of their past and future destiny, to a certain degree.

21. Like God, has matter existed for all eternity, or was it created at some fxed point in time?
“Only God knows. However, one fact that reason should point out is that God, the ultimate paradigm of love and charity, is never inactive, no matter how far back in time you may imagine the beginning of God’s action started. Can you deduce that God is ever idle, even for a single moment?”

22. Matter is generally defned as being “that which makes an impression on our senses,” or “that which is impenetrable.” Are these defnitions accurate?
“From your point of view they are accurate because you can only provide a defnition according to what you know. Matter exists in states that are unfamiliar to you. It may be, for instance, so ethereal and subtle that it makes no impression on your senses. It is still matter, even though it would not be such for you.”

a) What defnition can you give of matter?
“Matter is the link that bonds the spirit. It is the instrument that serves it and at the same time it carries out its action.” From this point of view, one could say that matter is the agent or intermediary through and upon which the spirit acts.

23. What is the spirit?
“The intelligent principle of the universe.”


a) What is the essential nature of the spirit?
“Your language is incapable of properly defning the spirit. It is nothing to you because it is not a tangible thing, but for us it is something. Remember this, nothing is nothingness, and nothingness does not exist.”

24. Is spirit synonymous with intelligence?
“Intelligence is an essential attribute of the spirit. In your world they are used interchangeably as a common principle, so much so that for you they are the same thing.”

25. Is the spirit independent of matter, or is it only a property, as colors are a property of light and sound is a property of air? “They are distinct from one another, but the union of the spirit and matter is vital to give intelligent activity to matter.”


a) Is this union also necessary for the manifestation of the spirit? (Spirit here refers to the principle of intelligence, rather than the spiritual individualities usually designated by that term.)
“For you, yes, because your physical makeup is not designed to perceive the spirit apart from matter. Your senses are not designed for that.”

27. Therefore, are there two general elements of the universe: matter and the spirit?
“Yes, and God, the Creator of all things is above them. These three elements are the principle of all that exists – the universal trinity. However, the universal fuid must be added to the material elements, it acts as the intermediary between spirit and matter, as the body is too crude for the spirit to be able to act directly on it. Although this fuid may be classifed as part of the material element from another perspective, it is distinguished by certain special properties. If it were simply classifed as matter, there would be no reason why the spirit could not also be classifed as matter. It is something placed between the spirit and matter. It is fuid, just as matter is material, and through countless combinations under the action of the spirit, it can produce an infnite variety of things of which you only know a very small portion. Without this universal, primitive or elementary fuid, the agent employed by the spirit, matter would permanently remain divided, and would never acquire the properties given to it by gravity.”


a) Is this fuid what we call electricity?
“We have said that it is open to countless blends or arrangements. What you call electric fuid, magnetic fuid, and so on, are modifcations of the universal fuid, which is only matter of a more perfect and subtle nature. It may be regarded as being independent.”

28. Since the spirit itself is something, would it be more accurate and less confusing to call these two general elements inert matter and intelligent matter? “Words are of little importance to us. You must formulate your expressions so that you may understand one another. Your disputes almost always arise from the lack of a common agreement over the use of words, because your language is incapable of describing that which transcends your senses.”


One obvious fact governs all our hypotheses. Matter in and of itself is not intelligent. Therefore, we see an intelligent principle independent of matter. The origin and connection of these two elements are unknown to us. As to whether they have a common source, or the necessary points of contact, whether intelligence has an independent existence, or is only a property or an effect, or even whether it is an emanation of the Divinity, we have no answers for these questions. They appear to be distinct to us, and we therefore consider them to be two crucial elements of the universe. We see a supreme intelligence above all this that governs all things and is distinguished from them by essential attributes. This supreme intelligence is what we call God.

29. Is ponderability an essential attribute of matter?
“Yes, for matter as you understand it, but not matter that is considered the universal fuid. The ethereal and subtle matter forming this fuid cannot be measured by you, and yet it is the source of your matter that can be weighed.” Gravity is a relative property. Beyond the realm of gravitational pull between planets and stars, there is no such thing as weight, just as there is neither up nor down.

30. Is matter composed of one or several elements?
“One single primordial element. The bodies that you see as simple are not truly elements, but transformations of the primordial matter.”

31. From where do the different properties of matter originate?
“They originate from changes undergone by elementary molecules as a result of their union, and under certain conditions.”

32. According to this interpretation, are favors, odors, colors, sounds, and the toxic or benefcial qualities of bodies solely the result of modifcations of the same basic substance?
“Precisely. These senses only exist according to the design of the organs intended to perceive them.” This principle is demonstrated by the fact that everyone does not perceive the qualities of material items in the same manner. While something may appear to taste good to one person, it may be horrible to another; what appears blue to one person appears red to another. That which is poisonous for some, is harmless or even healthy for others.

33. Can the same elementary matter undergo all possible changes and acquire all properties? “Yes, and it is this fact that is implied in the saying ‘everything is in everything.’” (1)

Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and all the other masses that we see as elements are merely variations of one primordial substance. As we have found it impossible to arrive at this elemental matter other than as an intellectual deduction, they appear to be elementary. We may therefore continue to regard them as such for now.

a) This theory appears to support the opinion of those who acknowledge only two essential properties in matter, force and movement, and who regard all other properties of matter as purely secondary effects, varying according to the intensity of the force and direction of movement.
“This opinion is exact. We must also add according to molecular arrangement, for instance, in an opaque body that may become transparent and vice versa.”

(1) This principle explains the phenomenon known by all magnetizers and that consists in giving radically different properties to any substance, such as a specifc taste to water, and even the active qualities of other substances. Since there is only one primordial element, and the properties of different bodies are only variations of this element, the most inoffensive substance has the same foundation as the most noxious. Water, which is one part oxygen and two parts hydrogen, becomes corrosive when someone doubles the proportion of oxygen. A similar transformation may occur by the magnetic action directed by the will. A.K.

34. Do molecules have a defnite form?
“Of course they have a form, but it cannot be assessed by you.”

a) Is this form constant or variable?
“Constant for primordial elementary molecules, but variable for secondary molecules that are only aggregations of the primary ones. What you call a molecule is very far from being an elementary molecule.”

35. Is universal space infnite or limited?
“Infnite. Assume, for a moment, that there are boundaries. What would be beyond them? This perplexes your reason, which tells you that it cannot be otherwise. The same is true with regard to infnity in all things. The idea of infnity cannot be grasped in your narrow world.”

If we imagine a limit to space, no matter how far away this limit may be, reason dictates that there must always be something beyond it until we arrive at the idea of infnity because this something, even if only an absolute void, would still be space.

The universe comprises an infinite number of worlds that we see and even those we do not see, in addition to all animate and inanimate beings, all the stars that revolve in space, and all the energy that flls up that space.


37. Was the universe created, or has it existed for all eternity, like God?
“The universe obviously could not have made itself, and if it has existed for eternity, as God has, it could not be God’s work.” Reason tells us that the universe cannot have made itself, and as it could not be the work of chance, it must be the work of God.

39. Can we know how the worlds were created?
“All that we can say and that you are capable of understanding is that the worlds were created by the condensation of matter distributed throughout space.”

40. In accordance with current beliefs are comets the beginning of matter condensation and thus, worlds that are in the process of being formed?
“Yes, but it is absurd to believe in their infuence. More specifcally, the infuence that is commonly attributed to them, because all the heavenly bodies have their own role in certain physical phenomena.”

41. Can a completely formed world disappear and have its matter then be re-distributed throughout space?
“Yes. God renews worlds just as living beings are renewed.”

43. When did the population of the Earth frst begin?
“In the beginning there was only chaos. The elements were in a state of confusion, but they gradually settled into their proper places. Once this happened, living beings capable of adapting to the various successive states of the planet appeared accordingly.”

46. Are any living beings born spontaneously?
“Yes, but the original seeds already existed in a dormant state. You witness this phenomenon on a daily basis. For instance, the tissues of the human body and animals contain the germs of many parasites waiting for the fermentation needed for their life. It is a small world of microscopic beings that is dormant, waiting to be created.”

47. Was the human species among the organic elements contained in the Earth?
“Yes, and it arrived at the opportune moment. The saying that human beings were ‘formed out of the dust of the Earth’ is very much true.”

49. If the seeds of the human species were among the organic elements of the Earth, why is it that human beings are not produced spontaneously today, as they originally were?
“The principle of things is one of God’s secrets. Nevertheless, it may be asserted that the frst humans absorbed the elements necessary for their creation to transfer said elements according to the laws of reproduction. The same may be said in regard to all the different species of living beings.”

52. What causes the physical and moral differences in the diversity of the human race on Earth?
“Climate, lifestyles, and habits. The same differences are produced in two children born to the same mother but raised apart from one another under different conditions, bear no moral resemblance to each other.”

55. Are all the planets that revolve in space inhabited?

“Yes and the people on Earth are far from being the leaders in intelligence, goodness, and general development – despite what they may believe. There are many people who have such a high opinion of themselves, and even believe that your little world alone has the privilege of being inhabited by intelligent beings. What an arrogant thought! They believe that God has created the universe only for them.”


God has populated planets with living beings, all of which have a role in the ultimate Divine plan. Believing that living beings are confned to the one point of the universe inhabited by us casts doubt on God’s wisdom. God has done nothing in vain, and must have assigned a purpose to every other world that is more important than merely serving as a lovely backdrop for our planet. Furthermore, there is nothing in the position, size, or physical makeup of Earth that warrants the assumption that it alone, of the thousands of planets in space, has the privilege of being inhabited.

58. Are the planets farthest removed from the sun deprived of light and heat, since the sun only appears to be a tiny star to them? “Are you assuming that there are no other sources of light and heat than the sun? Are you completely dismissing electricity which, in some worlds, plays a role unknown to you and which is much more important than the role it plays on Earth? Besides, how do you know that the beings of those worlds see the same way you do, with organs like yours?”


The conditions of existence for the beings inhabiting different worlds must be adapted to the world in which they are destined to live. If we had never seen fsh, we would not be able to comprehend how any living being could survive in water. This same idea applies to all the other worlds, which most likely contain elements that are unknown to us. On our own planet, the long polar nights are illuminated by the electrical displays of the aurora borealis, commonly called the northern lights. Is it impossible to imagine that electricity may be more abundant in other worlds compared to ours, and play a role that we cannot even fathom? According to this argument, those worlds could contain different sources of heat and light required by their inhabitants.

59. Different populations of Earth have formed contrasting ideas about creation, depending on their degree of scientifc advancement. Reason, supported by science, recognizes the implausibility of some theories. The explanation given by the spirits confirms the theory that has long been recognized by the most enlightened people.


Arguments against this theory are that they contradict sacred texts. However when we examine these statements carefully they show us that this contradiction is more superfcial than genuine. It results from the interpretation that has been given to allegorical expressions.


Adam, widely regarded as the frst man and sole ancestor of the human race, is not the only point that caused religious convictions around the world to change. At one time, the movement of the Earth so blatantly contradicted the Bible that every type of criticism imaginable was fred against it. Despite this, the Earth continued to move in its orbit, and people today couldn’t possibly object to this fact without jeopardizing their own sanity and credibility.


The Bible also states that the world was created in six days, and establishes the date of creation at about 4000 years before Christ. According to the Bible, Earth did not exist before that time and was created out of nothing at the time of creation. Yet science has undeniably proven otherwise. The history of Earth is irrefutably written in fossils, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that the six days of creation are successive periods, each of which may have been millions of years. This is not a matter of opinion, but a fact that is as indisputably certain as the movement of the Earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to acknowledge. This admission provides yet another example of the errors we commit by attributing literal truth to fgurative language. Should we conclude that the Bible is one giant error? No, but we must admit that people have defnitely blundered in its interpretation.


Science, in studying the geological records of the Earth itself, has determined the order in which the different species of living beings appeared, and this order matches the sequence indicated in the Book of Genesis.


The main difference is that Earth was created according to the laws and action of the forces of nature over millions of years. It did not spring miraculously from the hand of God in a few days and it was not formed by the whim of Divine will. Does this eclipse God’s power or strength? Is the result of creative energy less sublime when it does not happen instantaneously? Of course not, and anyone who does not recognize the magnifcence of the Divine in this evolution of eternal laws is quite foolish. Science, far from diminishing the glory of Divine power, shows us that action from a more sublime perspective is consistent with our notions of God’s power and majesty precisely because the work was carried out without disregard for the laws of nature.


Modern science, in agreement with Moses, states that humanity appeared last in the creation of living beings. However, Moses places the great food as having occurred 1654 years after the creation of the world, while geology shows that the great natural disasters occurred before the appearance of human beings. To date, the earliest strata contain no traces of humanity’s presence, nor that of the animals coexisting with it. Nothing conclusively establishes that this is impossible. Since many discoveries have already raised questions about this, it is possible that at any moment the material certainty of the anteriority of the human race may come to light, showing us that in this case, as well as others, the Biblical text portrays an allegory. The question to be examined here is whether the great food is the same suffered by Noah or if the amount of time required for the formation of sedimentary layers and rock formations containing fossils does not allow this conclusion.. If eventually traces of the existence of human beings before the great food are discovered, it is evident then that either Adam was not the frst man, or that his creation dates back closer to the dawn of time. There is no arguing against fact if supporting evidence is found. This fact would have to be acknowledged, in the same manner that the movement of the Earth and the six periods of creation were also acknowledged.


The existence of humans before the great food is still hypothetical. However, the same argument cannot be made against the following considerations: In stating that human beings frst appeared on the Earth 4000 years before Christ, and if the entire human race, with the exception of a single family, was wiped out 1650 years later, that means that the populating of the Earth dates back only to Noah’s time, which is only 2350 years before Christ. However, when the Israelites relocated to Egypt around 1800 BC, they found the country to be a very densely populated, advanced civilization. History also shows that, at that same time, India and various other countries were also populated and fourishing, not to mention other nations that claim to date back further in time. We must therefore presume that, from 2400 BC to 1800 BC---that is 600 years – the descendants of a single individual were able to populate every known country and even those that were unknown which, we have no reason to believe, were devoid of inhabitants. We must further presume that humankind was able to evolve from being unaware to the highest degree of intellectual development, in this brief stint of time, which completely contradicts anthropological theory.


The diversity of the human race supports this opinion. While differences in climate and lifestyle clearly change the physical characteristics of humans, we know the extent to which these adaptations may occur as a result of these infuences. Physiological examination conclusively proves that there are fundamental differences between the races that are too great to have been caused by climate differences alone.


The crossing of races diminishes extreme characteristics by creating new varieties rather than reproducing the extremes. This process presupposes the existence of separate races, but how can this be explained if all of humanity can be traced back to a single ancestor and a short period of creation? How can we deduce, for example, that Noah’s descendants, in such a short time, had transformed into Ethiopians? Such a metamorphosis would be as implausible as a wolf turning into a sheep, a beetle into an elephant, or a bird into a fsh. No preconceived opinion or belief system can resist the evidence of facts. If we believe that humans existed before the most widely accepted time of creation, that there is a diversity of origins, that Adam lived 6000 years ago populating a country that until then had been uninhabited, that Noah’s food was a local catastrophe mistaken for the great geological disaster, and if we make the proper allowances for the allegorical expressions that are characteristic of the eastern style and common to the sacred texts of all religions, every diffculty disappears.


This is why it is important to be careful in literally interpreting fgurative statements of belief systems, which, like so many others, could someday enjoy a retraction from those who currently oppose them. Religion, rather than fearing the discoveries of science, should allow itself to be bolstered by it. This union is the only way that religion can arm itself against skeptics.

Beings Organic beings are those that have an intrinsic source that produces life. They are born, grow, reproduce, and die. Their organs are specifcally adapted to carrying out the different activities of life, in order to satisfy their needs and maintain their existence. Humans, animals, and plants are all organic beings. Inorganic beings possess neither vitality nor the power of spontaneous movement, and are merely the aggregation of matter, such as minerals, water, air, and so on.


60. Does the same force unite the elements of matter in organic and inorganic bodies?
“Yes, the same law of attraction exists for all.”

63. Is the vital principle present in a specifc agent, or is it a property of organized matter? Simply put, is it an effect or a cause?
“It is both. Life is an effect produced by an agent acting on matter. Without matter, this agent is not life, just as matter cannot be alive without this agent. It gives life to every being that absorbs it.”

64. Spirit and matter are two essential elements of the universe. Is the vital principle a third?
“There is no question that it is necessary for the makeup of the universe, but its source is a special variation of universal matter. For you, it is an element like oxygen or hydrogen, which are not primordial elements because everything derives from the same foundation.”

a) This statement seems to imply that vitality does not lie in a distinct primordial agent, but is a special property of the universal matter resulting from certain variations.
“That is the correct conclusion of what we have stated.”

65. Does the vital principle reside in any bodies that we know?
“Its source is the universal fuid, which is what you call the magnetic or electric fuid, only animalized. It is an intermediary, the link between the spirit and matter.”

66. Is the vital principle the same for all organic beings?
“Yes, but adapted according to each species. This principle gives organic beings the power of initiating movement and activity. They are distinguished from inert matter by their ability to produce spontaneous movement. Inert matter can be moved, but it does not initiate movement.”

67. Is vitality a permanent attribute of the vital agent, or is it only developed by the functioning of the organs?
“It is only developed with a body. Have we not established that this agent does not constitute life without matter? The union of the two is necessary for life to exist.”

a) Is it correct to say that vitality is dormant when the vital agent is not united with a body?
“Yes, exactly.”


The organs of the body together form a mechanism that is impelled by their intrinsic action or vital principle residing within them. The vital principle is the driving force of organic bodies. While the vital principle compels the organs in which it resides, the functioning of those organs further develops and sustains the activity of the vital principle, in the same manner that friction develops heat.

71. Is intelligence an attribute of the vital principle?
“No, since plants live and do not think they only possess organic life. Intelligence and matter are independent of one another. A body may live without intelligence, but intelligence can only manifest itself through physical organs. Living matter can only be made intelligent when united with a spirit.”


Intelligence is a special faculty belonging only to certain classes of organic beings that gives these beings the power to think, the will to act, the consciousness of their existence and individuality, and the means of establishing relations with the external world and fulflling their unique needs.


We may therefore distinguish the following:
Inanimate beings, solely matter, without life or intelligence---the bodies of the mineral world;
Non-thinking living beings, made up of matter and endowed with vitality, but not intelligence;
Living and thinking beings, made up of matter, endowed with vitality, and possessing an intelligent principle that gives them the faculty of thought.

72. What is the source of intelligence?
“We have already told you: universal intelligence.”


a) Is it correct to say that every intelligent being draws intelligence from the universal source and absorbs it, as it draws and absorbs the principle of material life?
“This would be an inaccurate comparison. Intelligence is a faculty possessed by each distinct being, which constitutes its moral individuality.
In any case, we have told you that there are things that human beings are unable to fathom. For the time being, this is one of them.”

73. Is instinct independent of intelligence?
“No, not exactly because it is a type of intelligence. Instinct is unreasoned intelligence, by which all beings satisfy their wants.”

74. Can a line be drawn between instinct and intelligence precisely defning where one ends and the other begins?
“No, because they often blend together. However, the actions belonging to instinct and those belonging to intelligence are easily distinguished.”

75. Is it correct to say that the instinctive faculties taper as intellectual faculties develop?
“No, instinct always exists, but humans dismiss it. Instinct, like reason, may lead us in the right direction. It always guides us, and sometimes even more surely than reason. It never goes astray.”


a) Why is reason not always a foolproof guide?


“It would be, if it were not corrupted by poor education, pride, and selfshness. Instinct does not reason. Reason provides freedom of choice and gives individuals free will.” Instinct is a primary form of intelligence, differing from intelligence in that it is often spontaneous, while intelligence is the result of planning and deliberate action. Instinct can manifest itself very differently between species based on their needs. In beings that possess self-consciousness and the perception of things outside themselves, it is associated with intelligence, i.e., freedom of action and will.