ENQ. The most difficult thing for you to do, will be to explain and give reasonable grounds for such a belief. No Theosophist has ever yet succeeded in bringing forward a single valid proof to shake my scepticism. First of all, you have against this theory of re-incarnation, the fact that no single man has yet been found to remember that he has lived, least of all who he was, during his previous life. THEO. Your argument, I see, tends to the same old objection; the loss of memory in each of us of our previous incarnation. You think it invalidates our doctrine? My answer is that it does not, and that at any rate such an objection cannot be final. ENQ. I would like to hear your arguments. THEO. They are short and few. Yet when you take into consideration (_a_) the utter inability of the best modern psychologists to explain to the world the nature of _mind_; and (_b_) their complete ignorance of its potentialities, and higher states, you have to admit that this objection is based on an _a priori_ conclusion drawn from _primâ facie_ and circumstantial evidence more than anything else. Now what is “memory” in your conception, pray? ENQ. That which is generally accepted: the faculty in our mind of remembering and of retaining the knowledge of previous thoughts, deeds and events. THEO. Please add to it that there is a great difference between the three accepted forms of memory. Besides memory in general you have _Remembrance_, _Recollection_ and _Reminiscence_, have you not? Have you ever thought over the difference? Memory, remember, is a generic name. ENQ. Yet, all these are only synonyms.