which are the leading “Stars” on the great spiritual stage of “materialisations.” And you may be sure of it, it is not they who incarnate; and, therefore, so few of these “dear departed ones” know anything of re-incarnation, misleading thereby the Spiritualists. ENQ. But does not the author of “_Isis Unveiled_” stand accused of having preached against re-incarnation? THEO. By those who have misunderstood what was said, yes. At the time that work was written, re-incarnation was not believed in by any Spiritualists, either English or American, and what is said there of _re-incarnation_ was directed against the French Spiritists, whose theory is as unphilosophical and absurd as the Eastern teaching is logical and self-evident in its truth. The Re-incarnationists of the Allan Kardec School believe in an arbitrary and immediate re-incarnation. With them, the dead father can incarnate in his own unborn daughter, and so on. They have neither Devachan, Karma, nor any philosophy that would warrant or prove the necessity of consecutive rebirths. But how can the author of “Isis” argue against _Karmic_ re-incarnation, at long intervals varying between 1,000 and 1,500 years, when it is the fundamental belief of both Buddhists and Hindus? ENQ. Then you reject the theories of both the Spiritists and the Spiritualists, in their entirety? THEO. Not in their entirety, but only with regard to their respective fundamental beliefs. Both rely on what their “Spirits” tell them; and both disagree as much with each other as we Theosophists disagree with both. Truth is one; and when we hear the French spooks preaching re-incarnation, and the English spooks denying and denouncing the doctrine, we say that either the French or the English “Spirits” do not know what they are talking about. We believe with the Spiritualists and the Spiritists in the existence of “Spirits,” or invisible Beings endowed with more or less intelligence. But, while in our teachings their kinds and _genera_ are legion, our opponents admit of no other than human disembodied “Spirits,” which, to our knowledge, are mostly Kamalokic SHELLS. ENQ. You seem very bitter against Spirits. As you have given me your views and your reasons for disbelieving in the materialization of, and direct communication in _séances_, with the disembodied spirits—or the “spirits of the dead”—would you mind enlightening me as to one more fact? Why are some Theosophists never tired of saying how dangerous is intercourse with spirits, and mediumship? Have they any particular reason for this?