There is one final question that occurs to us all… . “What is the meaning and object of it all?” This is the question that down the ages has puzzled all the thinkers and all the philosophers without any real satisfactory answer being found. And now it seems only Science is left to appeal to, and what science says is that there is no indication whatsoever in the whole cosmos that there is any discernible purpose at all… . some deep inner voice says otherwise and prompts us that there must be.428 (Raymond A. Lyttleton)
There are those who deny that it is possible for our existence to have any purpose. Ayer, for instance, says this:
It follows, if my argument is correct, that there is no sense in asking what is the ultimate purpose of our existence, or what is the real meaning of life… those who enquire, in this way, after the meaning of life are raising a question to which it is not logically possible that there should be an answer.429
Ayer concedes that it is possible for a man to have a purpose. “It is a matter,” he says, “of his intending, on the basis of a given situation, to bring about some further situation which for some reason or other he conceives to be desirable.”430 But he insists that it is not possible to show that human life tends toward a specific end, and that even if this were possible, that end would be purely arbitrary from the human standpoint and therefore could not be considered as the fulfillment of a purpose. Our findings now cut the ground out from under this and all similar arguments.
Lyttleton’s comment as to the inability of science to detect any purpose in the universe refers, of course, to science as it stood prior to the development of the Reciprocal System of theory. The results of the investigation on which that system of theory and its extension to the metaphysical region are based have now thrown an altogether different light on the situation. These results show that the entire physical universe, including human life, is directed toward a specific end. The information that has been developed with respect to metaphysical existence makes it clear that this end is, in some way, a desirable end. Here, again, the conclusions reached in this work are in harmony with the basic assertions of the transcendental religions. The inability of the empiricists to find any purpose in life is simply a result of their refusal to look at the situation as a whole, to see beyond the relatively narrow confines of physical existence, and to recognize the greater reality that is offered by religion and verified by the present investigation.
We have identified the “deep inner voice” to which Lyttleton refers. According to our findings, it is intuition, the process whereby human beings obtain information from the metaphysical sector of the universe. In our studies of this non-physical communication process, we have established certain criteria of validity that can be applied to the information that is received. Among these is the conclusion that, where a strong intuitive conviction with respect to a matter on which no factual evidence is available is shared by almost all of the members of the human race, this agreement is tantamount to proof of the validity of the intuition. The existence of a purpose is one of those items on which there is near unanimity. Even those scientists such as Lyttleton who recognize that the scientific views to which they are committed leave no room for a purpose are nevertheless convinced that “there must be” a purpose. It can therefore be taken as an established fact that there is a purpose in the existence of the physical universe. A similar, almost unanimous, intuitive conviction tells us that the purpose for which this universe exists is in the process of being accomplished. Any idea that this immense and complicated structure could be nothing but an exercise in futility is recognized as preposterous. It follows that we can determine the nature of the purpose for which the universe exists by examining what is actually being accomplished.
It is evident from the results of the physical investigation that culminated in the formation of the Reciprocal System of physical theory that all changes taking place in the physical system are no more than transient. The physical universe is always changing, but its processes are cyclical so it always remains the same. Changes taking place in any one direction are constantly being nullified by corresponding changes taking place in the opposite direction, so that the physical universe as a whole conforms to what is known as the Perfect Cosmological Principle; that is, it looks the same from any point in space or from any point in time. The only one-way process that exists anywhere in the area covered by that investigation is the growth process whereby the non-physical control unit that directs the activities of Level 3 of human existence, the level of ethical man, increases in complexity and sophistication. Our findings indicate that this unit is originally a simple structure comparable to the earliest biological units, and that it undergoes a process of development similar to that which produces the higher life forms from the original simple biological entities.
Unlike the products of biological evolution, the products of the Sector 3 development process are permanent, as they are independent of the processes of the physical universe. Here, then, is what is being accomplished, the only permanent result of the operation of this enormously complex mechanism. A simple unit from Sector 3 is developed into a complex unit in the course of, and by reason of, its association with a biological organism. We may logically deduce, on the basis of the considerations outlined in the foregoing paragraphs, that this development is the purpose of existence in the physical universe.
At this point, one may appropriately ask why the physical universe must be brought into the picture. Why must we be exposed to all of the distressing features of biological life? Why cannot the desired results be accomplished in the general metaphysical region itself without the complication of the rather difficult existence in the physical universe? There is no indication that the mechanistic responses of biological organisms that account for the evil and wrongdoing of which we are so acutely conscious contribute to progress toward the ultimate objective. On the contrary, so far as our investigation discloses, they are merely byproducts of existence in a space-time universe, similar in this respect to our extreme vulnerability to physical damage. We must conclude, then, that some feature of existence in the physical universe that is not present in the general metaphysical region is a requirement for the development of ethical personalities.
At the present stage of the investigation, the question as to the nature of this feature cannot be answered positively, but it is not unreasonable to conclude that the general metaphysical region, the region outside the space-time universe, and also outside any other universe that may exist, is one in which no change takes place. Growth and development, if they are to be achieved at all, must be accomplished in a universe of change—either our own or some other. If, as we may conjecture, all universes of change, or motion, are generally similar to our own physical universe, this explains why Omnipotence, if it exists, cannot place us in a universe free of evil. Those aspects of life which we call evil are inherent in a universe of motion. Here we may appropriately make another application of the game analogy that was introduced in Chapter 21. There is much distress, even suffering at times, among those who lose the contests of skill or chance. These are evils of the same nature as those experienced in the game of life, but they are unavoidable if there is to be a game. Even Omnipotence cannot devise a competitive game in which everyone wins.
It should be noted that, while we have identified the objective of human existence in terms of conformity with the laws of Sector 3, we are not yet in a position to say just what is included in those laws. Obviously, compliance with the moral code is one component of the whole, but perhaps something more than irreproachable thought and conduct are required. This question was not investigated in the present work, which is merely a pioneer scientific expedition into an area hitherto unknown to science and does not purport to be a complete exploration. But the scope of these Sector 3 requirements is a very significant issue, and it deserves some mention in the final summing up of our results.
A rather striking feature of the conclusions reached in the investigation with which this volume is concerned is that they are completely silent with respect to one of the five subdivisions of philosophy listed in Chapter 26 as being those commonly included in the university philosophy courses. Metaphysics (in the narrow sense) and ethics were treated in considerable detail. Logic and epistemology were utilized in the work as investigative tools. On the other hand, esthetics does not enter into any of the subjects of discussion in any way. What, then, is its place in the general picture? Surely it is not physical. Might it be possible that there are esthetic standards that the human race will be required to meet as well as ethical standards? Must we learn to know and value that which is beautiful, as well as that which is morally good? These are questions that we cannot answer on the basis of the information that we now possess, but they are high on the list of subjects for further investigation.
Perhaps there are still other requirements that will have to be met. This is what most of the organized religions insist, but they see the situation in so many conflicting ways that it is difficult to draw any definite conclusions as to whether there is a common element among them that may represent something real. The Western religions place worship of the Deity high on the list of requirements, even to the extent, in some cases, of contending that this is the only thing that is absolutely essential. But in the world as a whole, this belief in the necessity of worship is far from unanimous. While nothing in our findings contradicts it, we cannot say that it is verified on the basis of the criteria of validity that we have established. So far as this investigation is concerned, therefore, the issue still remains open.
In any event, even if we consider only the ethical aspect, it is clear that the human race has a very long way to go. Few, if any, of the inhabitants of the earth reach the goal of perfection of the ethical personality. As expressed by John M. E. McTaggart, “Even the best men are not, when they die, in such a state of intellectual and moral perfection as would fit them to enter heaven immediately.”431 The principal business of human life is obviously not being finished within the ordinary human lifetime. Some further action is required before the personality development is complete. What, then, is the nature of this additional process?
As pointed out by McTaggart in the article from which the foregoing quotation was taken, only two possible ways of accomplishing this result have thus far been recognized: (1) a sudden improvement of a major and rather miraculous nature at the time of death, and (2) some provision for additional periods of gradual development. The doctrines of the Western religions lead, in effect, to the first of these alternatives. The present study has not revealed any specific facts that would either affirm or deny its validity. However, as previously pointed out, there does appear to be a significant element of inconsistency in this hypothesis that makes it extremely improbable. If all of the tremendously complex mechanism of the physical universe is required in order to accomplish the first portion of the development of the ethical personality, it hardly seems credible that the balance of the process—by far the greater part—could be accomplished suddenly by fiat.
The standard answer of the theologians to this criticism is that an omnipotent Deity can accomplish anything, even that which to the finite minds of human beings seems impossible. But our findings have confirmed the general intuitive conviction that existence as a whole is rational. As brought out in the previous discussion, this limits the powers of Omnipotence by excluding the irrational. Thus, even if an omnipotent Deity does exist (a question that is beyond the scope of the present investigation), the hypothesis that calls for completion of the human personality by Divine decree is incompatible with the need for an enormously complex mechanism to begin the personality development.
Most of the Eastern religions—all of them, some writers say—embrace the second of the alternatives mentioned by McTaggart, and assert that after death each individual returns to earthly existence in association with a different physical body and begins another life. Just what it is that is supposed to pass from one body to the other, on the basis of this hypothesis, is not clear. “All that is essential to the idea,” says Kaplan, “is a continuity from life to life; whether this continuity is provided by a persistent entity or in some other way is a secondary question.” Buddhism explicitly repudiates, he says, “the notion of some substantive entity which persists through successive incarnations.”432 Yet the canonical writings of Buddha describe the experiences of the Buddha himself in some of his previous incarnations. Evidently the repudiation of any “substantive entity” is a matter of semantics: a question as to what constitutes “substance.”
At present, the Western religions are strongly opposed to the reincarnation idea, and to the reader who has been brought up in the Western tradition, it may seem that this is something which is entitled to no more than a summary dismissal.
In the light of our previous findings with respect to the nature of intuition, we might even be entitled to give some consideration to the possibility that the rejection of reincarnation by Western man may be a valid intuitive understanding rather than a product of religious indoctrination. But whatever weight this possibility may be given is nullified by the widespread acceptance of the reincarnation concept among the Eastern peoples, which may equally well be intuitive. Indeed, as Leslie Weatherhead reminds us, reincarnation was once a Christian doctrine.
It was accepted by the early [Christian] church for the first five hundred years of its existence. Only in A.D. 553 did the second Council of Constantinople reject it and only then by a narrow majority.433 It seems quite a shock to some people even to contemplate such a possibility but… it would be unspeakable arrogance on the part of us in the West to dismiss without examination an idea current since the sixth century B.C., and held tenaciously by all Buddhists and Hindus, that is by about five hundred million people, many of whom are deep thinkers, saints, mystics, and profound scholars.434
Thus, as matters now stand, we have no direct evidence from either physical or intuitive sources which would confirm or refute the reincarnation hypothesis. We can, however, approach the question indirectly by considering the various available items of information that have some bearing on the issue. The criticism of reincarnation that is most effective in the Western world, aside from the rather vague religious objections, rests on the fact that we do not remember any previous lives. It seems to most persons that if we have lived before, there should be a general ability to remember at least some of our previous experiences. Of course, there are a few persons who claim to have such memories, but the circumstances surrounding these claims are such that they are received with skepticism. A second major objection that is advanced is that an individual’s knowledge, skills, habits, etc., are all determined either by heredity or by environmental factors, and cannot be carried forward to a new heredity and a new environmental experience. What, then, is left to be transferred? the critics ask.
The tendency in religious and philosophical circles to identify the physical body as an essential component of the human personality likewise stands in the way of a more general acceptance of the reincarnation concept. From this viewpoint, continuity of personal identity is impossible without resurrection of the body.
Theologians assure us that it [resurrection] will be corporeal. Our body will be involved because we are bodily creatures and to the extent that we are separated from our bodies, our personalities are incomplete.435 (Andrew M. Greeley)
The findings of this present work draw the teeth from all of these criticisms. These results show that the physical body is an assemblage of motions, and the physical processes of that body are likewise nothing but motions. All of these motions are phenomena of the physical universe—a universe of motion—and they can have no existence apart from that universe. Continued, or renewed, existence of the physical body in some post-human life after it has been destroyed by the physical processes that follow death is therefore impossible. Memories are physical phenomena, and they terminate with the rest of physical existence. Similarly, hereditary and acquired skills are properties of the biological component of the physical mechanism, and they, too, cease to exist when physical life comes to an end.
But the physical body and its processes are not the true human individual. They are merely the biological portion of the human composite, the part of existence that we share with the animals and lower organisms. The essence of the human personality is the non-physical component, the distinctly human aspect of existence that animals do not possess. That which persists is this Sector 3 component, the aspect of the personality that is not physical. This entity can be roughly identified with the “soul” or “spirit,” although the concepts usually associated with these terms are rather vague and nebulous and do not reflect the active part which the Sector 3 component of the personality plays in the daily life of the human individual. It is this significant non-physical part of the human personality that survives death, and if there is any such thing as reincarnation, it is this non-physical entity that is transferred to a new physical structure.
The religious insistence on “resurrection of the body,” particularly in the Christian theologies, is rather difficult to understand. In the book from which the statement by Andrew Greeley was taken, the author continues with these words: “The physical, human body that we now possess, presumably transformed in some marvelous fashion, is destined for resurrection, and this no Christian can deny”. But St. Paul, who laid the foundation for Christian theology, did deny this specifically. He asserted categorically that it is not the “natural body” that is resurrected, but the “spiritual body,” a body that, as he said, does not bear the “image of the earthly.” This is essentially the same conclusion that has emerged from our investigation.
The physical body is a piece of equipment that the human individual must possess in order to take part in life in the physical universe, just as he must possess a boat if he is to take part in marine activities. The point brought out in Chapter 27 is that the death of the human individual is like the sinking of the boat; it terminates the particular kind of activities for which a special unit of equipment is required, but it does not prevent the individual from being active in some other environment. What we are now considering is the possibility that the deceased human individual may do something equivalent to buying a new boat, so that he may resume the kind of activities that were interrupted by death.
Thus, in the light of our new findings, the usual objections that have been raised to the general concept of reincarnation are without merit. On the other hand, there are adequate grounds for rejecting some of the specific beliefs of those who regard the reincarnation process as a reality. The idea that a person will return to a higher or lower station in life, depending on the nature of his conduct during the previous existence, cannot be entertained, as there is nothing to indicate that any one human situation is superior to another from the Sector 3 standpoint. The further extension of this idea to include life as an animal is totally unacceptable, as animals do not participate in Sector 3 existence at all. Another belief, widely held in the East, that must be rejected is that whatever evil and suffering a person encounters in his earthly life are punishments for his misdeeds in his earlier incarnations. As emphasized in Chapter 27, the evils of human life are phenomena of the physical sectors of existence as a whole, and they do not survive death in any form. There is no posthumous punishment.
The absence of any valid argument against the reality of reincarnation does not prove that such a process exists. Our next undertaking, therefore, will be to examine the positive evidence in favor of its existence. The strongest argument on the positive side is that reincarnation is the only plausible means thus far envisioned for completing the task that remains unfinished at the death of the human individual. The human life span is far too short to enable accomplishing more than a small fraction of what is necessary in order to reach the ultimate goal, and if existence as a whole actually has the logical and rational character that we have concluded we are justified in attributing to it, there must be some provision for continuing the process of which human life is an unfinished part.
Biological evolution is faced with a similar problem. Here, too, no more than a small fraction of the total task can be accomplished within the lifetime of an individual organism. But the biological sector is not concerned with individuals as such. The task of biological evolution is to develop a highly complex type of organism from a simple life form, without regard for the number of individuals taking part in the process, or what happens to those individuals. Evolution has therefore been able to compensate for the short individual life span by utilizing a long succession of lives of different individuals. This expedient is not available where the objective is development of the individual.
Some of the Eastern religions picture the ultimate fate of the human spirit as a reabsorption back into that Divine essence from which they contend that it originated. This appears to be a reflection of a general attitude toward life that is quite different from the usual Western viewpoint. The Western religions take the stand that individual existence, on the whole, is a desirable thing, and should be perpetuated. These Eastern thinkers, on the other hand, regard individual existence in this world as a heavy burden from which release is desired. Whatever the respective merits of the conflicting appraisals of human life may be, our findings indicate that the extinction of individuality, in accordance with these Eastern doctrines, would conflict with the underlying purpose of human existence. The unfinished task must be carried to completion in some other way. If we rule out completion by decree as being inconsistent with the orderly and law-abiding character of existence as we see it in those portions of the whole that are accessible to observation, it follows that there must be a succession of existences of each non-physical individual, either in the observed physical universe or in some other universe of motion (change).
There are also some considerations of equity that have an important bearing on this situation. Some individuals are born into environments in which they have little chance of developing their ethical personalities to more than a minimum degree. Others are similarly limited by a short life span, by disease, or by physical infirmities. It does not seem equitable to hold these individuals to the same standards that apply to those who have not been subject to such handicaps. But neither would it be equitable to credit them with an accomplishment when, in fact, nothing has been accomplished. Equitable treatment for all is undoubtedly part of the Sector 3 code. Our intuitive knowledge of elementary ethical principles assures us of this. The far-from-ideal allocation of human happiness appears to conflict with this principle, but we have found that happiness has no significance from the standpoint of existence in general. Whether one receives more or less of it is therefore immaterial from the long range viewpoint, and consequently there is no real need for any equalization in an after life. Equitable treatment with respect to opportunity for ethical advancement, on the other hand, is vital, and it would seem to be an essential part of the overall program. A series of successive existences is the only adequate solution to this equity problem that has yet been suggested. If there are a considerable number of such existences, the operation of probability will give each individual approximately the same average environment.
While the idea of reincarnation is anathema to much of the Western world, the new light on the subject that has been contributed by this present work should help to make it more palatable. One of the principal conceptual obstacles has been the strong commitment to the idea of the uniqueness of the individual that is characteristic of Western thinking. The hypothesis that two human beings who have been identified as different individuals may actually have been the same individual living at different times seems to undermine this uniqueness and to be more in harmony with Eastern concepts of collective existence. This objection should, however, be minimized by our findings, which now show that reincarnation does not necessarily, or even probably, involve successive earthly existences.
According to these findings, the new life of the individual may emerge on another of the millions of earth-like planets in our physical universe that were discussed in Chapter 6. Or it may emerge in some entirely different universe; perhaps even a totally different kind of a universe. This concept of successive lives in different, and entirely separate, places should not be so difficult to accept as a logical possibility. Except for a difference in the viewpoint as to the objective to be accomplished, a new stage of existence of this nature is not unlike the purgatory to which a large segment of Western religious thought is already committed. In fact, some of the views of existence as a whole that have previously been formulated (perhaps by intuition) are remarkably similar to the conclusions of this work. For instance, G. R. S. Mead tells us that some people regard “the present life as a stage leading to ever superior states of existence either on other planets or in other conditions of life higher than are possible on this earth”.436
Just where the improvement of ethical conduct in earthly society (together with corresponding advances in collateral areas) fits into the general picture is not definitely indicated, but it would be logical to conclude that the reincarnation process, if it exists, involves some kind of a mechanism whereby individuals are assigned to successively more advanced environments as their individual personalities advance toward the ultimate goal. This is what is implied in the statement just quoted. On the assumption that the ethical improvement that is taking place on earth is a reflection of a general trend that is applicable to all life-supporting planets, it is possible that the succession of existences takes place on successively older and more advanced planets in the known physical universe. There will always be a range of planets of ages from very young to very old, as no planet is permanent, and new ones are continually being formed. Even if the central star of a planetary system maintains the precarious balance between inflow and outflow of energy that is essential to continuation of biological life on its attendant planet, the existence of the galaxy of which that central star is a part is limited to a finite period of time. Thus the appropriate conditions for a succession of existences within the observed physical universe are always present.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that the future existences of the Sector 3 components of the human personalities are restricted to the universe that contains the earth. There is no actual evidence of such a restriction, and we must therefore give consideration to the possibility that the Sector 3 entities released from their ties to earthly bodies may have their future existences in some altogether different universes. The range of possibilities that can now be visualized, even without taking into consideration the likelihood that we are seeing only a small part of the total picture, is the most striking fact about the survival situation, as it appears in the light of the new information developed in the present investigation. It is clear that human thinking on subjects such as the reality of metaphysical existence and the nature thereof has thus far been based on very inadequate foundations.
“There are people,” says C. G. Jung, “who feel no craving for immortality, and who shudder at the thought of sitting on a cloud and playing the harp for ten thousand years.”437 Behind the facetious wording of this comment there is a reflection of the prevailing concept of existence after physical death as an extension of physical life. The objects symbolized by clouds and harps are physical objects; years are periods of physical time. None of these entities survives, and the entity that does survive death therefore cannot be either physical or permanent. The concept of “eternity” that looms so large in the teachings of many religions has no meaning in an existence that transcends space and time.
Unfortunately, this knowledge of what the metaphysical existence is not does not give us many clues as to what it is. As has been demonstrated in the preceding pages, the door to an understanding of this existence is certainly not closed, but the opening that we have accomplished is still only a very narrow crack, and we are a long way from being able to speak with certainty about what we see. However, the balance of probabilities, as it appears at the moment, is definitely in favor of a succession of existences, in which the individual metaphysical entities play many different roles, and human life on earth occupies only one place, probably relatively low in the scale.
This brings us back to the question as to why the development and improvement of these metaphysical entities—ethical personalities—in human life and elsewhere, should be a desirable end, or a desirable intermediate step if it is not an end in itself. This is a question that we cannot answer as matters now stand. We will have to wait for more light from some source: additional scientific investigations similar to the one reported herein, a study and analysis of revelation along the lines suggested in Chapter 25, clear insight on the part of some competent investigator making his “inductive leap” from a higher platform of accumulated knowledge than now exists, or something else on that order.
It is even possible that existence as a whole does not proceed toward any “end,” in the sense of a final goal. Indeed, finality may be meaningless where time does not exist. We have found that the physical universe is cyclical. The only one-way process that we observe in operation is the development of ethical personalities: a non-physical process. If we extrapolate the general cyclic characteristics of the physical universe to existence as a whole, as we have previously done with the various observed properties of that universe—a procedure that would seem to be justified by the same basic considerations—it would follow that the entire development process, whether it is accomplished in one step or a series of steps, is merely one phase of a great cycle. Just what would be involved in the inverse phase of the cycle is an open question.
Of course, none of the foregoing answers the question, What is the meaning and object of it all? It merely pushes the question a little farther into the background. But even though the ultimate “why” still eludes us, recognition of our immediate goal, the purpose of our earthly existence, is sufficient to put the various activities of human life into their proper perspective. Science, for instance, which has sought to abrogate to itself the prominence formerly accorded to religion, is now seen to be of permanent value only to the extent that it contributes indirectly to the purposes with which religion is directly concerned. Human happiness, which so many philosophers have regarded as the primary objective of life, now appears as only an incidental and largely irrelevant aspect of the pattern of events. The affairs of the here and now that loom so large in our world picture are actually of little significance in themselves; they are important only by reason of the opportunities that they afford for making progress toward our ultimate objective. If life has been a pleasant experience, we are fortunate, but nothing more. The extent to which we have accomplished the purpose of our existence depends on the nature of the structure that we have built, not on the amount of sunshine during the progress of the work.
For the present, the matters that we have discussed in this final chapter must remain to a large degree speculative. But one inspiring fact now stands out in bold relief. We and our first cousins, the intelligent beings elsewhere in the physical universe, are the actors in the portion of the cosmic drama that is played in that universe; all else is but a stage upon which we go through our routines.
One of the effects of scientific progress, particularly that of the last few centuries, has been to deflate man’s previously exalted opinion of his place in the universe. He who once thought that he stood at the center of all things, with a mandate calling for “dominion over all the earth,” has been stripped of his glories one by one. That earth, which he had assumed was coextensive with the universe as a whole, was found to be merely one of the lesser members of a group of planets encircling the sun. That sun, it developed, is not the unique object which it appears to be when viewed from man’s location. On the contrary, it is just an undistinguished star on the outskirts of a galaxy containing billions of stars, a large proportion of which far outshine the sun. Finally, more recent discoveries have shown that the Galaxy itself has no special claim to distinction, and is merely one of billions that populate space in every direction as far as our most powerful instruments can reach. On this basis, man is no more than an insignificant speck in the vast expanse of the cosmos, a tiny bit of matter whose actions have an utterly negligible effect on the processes of the universe.
All this is now profoundly altered. The facts as discovered by scientific observation and measurement still stand, as they must, but their significance is now altogether different. As an aggregate of matter, man is still dwarfed by his physical surroundings, but this investigation has revealed that the physical aspect is a relatively unimportant facet of human existence, and that the scientists’ conclusions as to man’s insignificance, based as they are on physical size and the performance of physical functions, are wholly invalid. According to our findings, the physical universe accomplishes nothing on its own account; it exists only for the purpose of facilitating the development of the more advanced aspects of intelligent life: to aid man and his relatives on other planets to make progress toward their final goal. Our universe of motion is only one portion—perhaps no more than a very small portion—of a larger system. But we human beings are not limited to this small portion of the whole; we are citizens of the greater cosmos, and we will find our ultimate destiny in that wider field.