THEO. Every atom and speck of matter, not of substance only, is _imperishable_ in its essence, but not in its _individual consciousness_. Immortality is but one’s unbroken consciousness; and the _personal_ consciousness can hardly last longer than the personality itself, can it? And such consciousness, as I already told you, survives only throughout Devachan, after which it is reabsorbed, first, in the _individual_, and then in the _universal_ consciousness. Better enquire of your theologians how it is that they have so sorely jumbled up the Jewish Scriptures. Read the Bible, if you would have a good proof that the writers of the _Pentateuch_, and _Genesis_ especially, never regarded _nephesh_, that which God breathes into Adam (Gen. ch. ii.), as the _immortal_ soul. Here are some instances:—“And God created ... every _nephesh_ (life) that moveth” (Gen i. 21), meaning animals; and (Gen. ii. 7) it is said: “And man became a _nephesh_” (living soul), which shows that the word _nephesh_ was indifferently applied to _immortal_ man and to _mortal_ beast. “And surely your blood of your _nepheshim_ (lives) will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man” (Gen. ix. 5), “Escape for _nephesh_” (escape for thy _life_, it is translated), (Gen. xix. 17). “Let us not kill him,” reads the English version (Gen. xxxvii. 21). “Let us not kill his _nephesh_” is the Hebrew text. “_Nephesh_ for _nephesh_,” says Leviticus (xvii. 8). “He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death,” literally “He that smiteth the _nephesh_ of a man” (Lev. xxiv. 17); and from verse 18 and following it reads: “And he that killeth a beast (_nephesh_) shall make it good ... Beast for beast,” whereas the original text has it “nephesh for nephesh.” How could man _kill_ that which is immortal? And this explains also why the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, as it also affords another proof that very probably the Mosaic Jews—the uninitiated at any rate—never believed in the soul’s survival at all. ON ETERNAL REWARD AND PUNISHMENT; AND ON NIRVANA. ENQ. It is hardly necessary, I suppose, to ask you whether you believe in the Christian dogmas of Paradise and Hell, or in future rewards and punishments as taught by the Orthodox churches? THEO. As described in your catechisms, we reject them absolutely; least of all would we accept their eternity. But we believe firmly in what we call the _Law of Retribution_, and in the absolute justice and wisdom guiding this Law, or Karma. Hence we positively refuse to accept the cruel and unphilosophical belief in eternal reward or eternal punishment. We say with Horace:—