In the long procession of distinguished scientists and
scholars from all parts of the world who traveled the
well-worn path to the door of Luther Burbank's cottage were many Hindu leaders and disciples of the
Vedanta philosophy of India. So close was the bond
between their philosophy of life and that of Burbank
that a hospitable welcome always awaited them. His
nature quickly responded to their spiritual beliefs,
mystical conceptions and the independence that
marked their patient methods of research. He felt
at home with men in whom serenity of spirit and poise
of character were dominant traits. More than one
prominent Swami of Vedanta enjoyed the confidence
of his friendship, and frequent were the discussions
in which the doctrines of reincarnation and transmigration were treated from every angle. It may
safely be affirmed that the inspiring motive of his
desire to master the Vedantic theory of reincarnation
had no connection with a yearning after personal immortality. His interest in this phase of religion, as
in the case of all other religious beliefs, was pursued
in a spirit in which the element of self was entirely
eliminated. His chief concern was to obtain, if possible, a reasonable answer to two questions which were
thrust in the foreground of his inquiry. He was deeply
interested in the claim that reincarnation was based on
evolution, and in the sequel to that claim that reincarnation was founded on the law of cause and effect.
  
Once I called Burbank's attention to the fact that
his name had recently been linked with that of
Henry Ford in a published statement in which their
beliefs in the doctrine of reincarnation had been compared. There were such radical differences between
the beliefs expressed in the reported interview with
him and the opinions so often advanced by him in my
presence that I was convinced he had been altogether
misinterpreted. He told me that the story of that
alleged interview with him, like so many others, had
been evolved from the riotous imagination of a young
reporter. If the statement of Mr. Ford's belief in the
doctrine of reincarnation was as inaccurate as that imputed to him a comparison is impossible. But why
compare? Henry Ford had long been his personal
friend, and he held in great esteem the stability and
sincerity of his character. For his genius, as one of
the world's greatest organizers, he had the most profound respect. If it happened that he had been correctly reported, no man can find fault with him because
he expressed his personal belief in the doctrine of
reincarnation. It is at once his right and his privilege. His own hesitation in affirming a belief in the
preexistence of the soul or in personal immortality
was the logical outcome of a life trained to slow methods in the field of science. If his life-work had placed
restraint upon his judgment in things mortal, how
much more in things immortal! We must never lose
sight of the distinction between opinion and conviction, between the yearning and the belief of the soul.
  
Nor does one of the greatest of
our scientists hesitate to express a favorable opinion
on the tenableness of the theory of reincarnation, for
it was Darwin himself who said: "None but hasty
thinkers will reject it on the ground of inherent absurdity. Like the doctrine of evolution itself, that of
transmigration has its roots in the world of reality."
If he were called upon to choose between the theory
of a miraculous resurrection, as contained in the gospel
story, and the doctrine of reincarnation, which has its
roots in the ages long before the founding of Christianity, as a scientist his choice would rest in a doctrine that included the pre-existence of the soul. He
denied the proposition subscribed to by some theologians "that the spiritual nature has been superadded
to the animal nature by some extracosmic spiritual
agency." His own position would be based on the
conclusion of that eminent English scientist, J. Arthur
Thomson, even though he might find that it put him
at variance with the evolutionists: "The world is one,
not twofold, the spiritual influx is the primal reality,
and there is nothing in the end which was not also in
the beginning." But his choice rested not between the
theory of a miraculous resurrection and the doctrine of
reincarnation. His belief in immortality had no place
for the continued life of the individual, for personality
in his view is absorbed in the UNIVERSAL LIFE.
  
He believed that the soul is a part of God and that,
consciously or unconsciously, it will endure as long as
God lasts. In closing his "Challenge to Thought" he
gave expression to his faith in the noble language of
Olive Schreiner:”
“For the little soul that cries aloud for continued personal existence for itself and its beloved,
there is no help. For the soul which knows itself
no more as a unit, but as a part of the Universal
Unity of which the beloved also is a part, which
feels within itself the throb of the Universal Life
for that soul there is no death.”