Martinus: Livets Bog, vol. 5, sect. 1753

1753. In going through these living experiences or unshakable facts about the terrestrial human psyche we have seen that the beings in question are subject to a process of mental transformation, and that it is this process of transformation that underlies the fact that they are to a strongly increasing degree beginning to become a kind of being that deviates from the state of the "animal". We have seen that the most conspicuous signs or symptoms of this new species of being or mental state occur in the being's sympathetic faculties. We saw that the most cold, brutal, killing and egoistic tendencies of consciousness had gained a firm foothold in the beings whose sexual life was to a great extent characterised by being "masculine" and "feminine", which thus means in beings that were still, so to speak, pure "men" and "women". From this robust and as yet "animal" or – apart from their love of mating – inherently hostile view of life, we saw the beginnings of the development of a more elevated sympathetic ability whose effects were a more conciliatory or humane attitude between beings of the same sex. And since it is here that the very greatest animosity between beings has its origin or source, it was established as fact that the new mental development goes precisely in the direction of transforming this origin or centre of neighbourly animosity, the root of all evil in the world, into an origin or source of the culmination of sympathy or love between everyone and for everyone.
But how could the "animal" actually be transformed into a "human being" unless it were through the transformation of its sympathetic faculties? The difference between the "animal" and the "human being" can lie solely in their sympathetic faculties. Wherever the animal faculties, that is to say the egoistic or selfish sphere in the human being, dominate, there is no difference between the "animal" and the "human being". This in turn means that in these cases the "human being" is still an "animal". The absolute difference between "animal" and "human being" lies only where there are faculties in the human being that show themselves as a more elevated feeling of sympathy, that is, a feeling of love that extends beyond sheer procreation, and thereby beyond even one's spouse and offspring, indeed, even entirely beyond the individual's love for itself, that is, entirely beyond its drive for self-preservation, thereby determining that in given situations one does not shrink from sacrificing one's life if by so doing one could free others from imminent danger of losing theirs. In such a sphere the "human being" represents something that the "animal" absolutely does not have outside spheres that pertain to its own happiness, such as its spouse and offspring. Here the animal is ready to risk its life in battle. Apart from this kind of situation, it is not in the animal's nature to risk its life for other beings. It is true that tame animals can show a certain form of love for their master, and that a tame dog will certainly risk its life to save something that concerns the people that it has come to be fond of, but this love is not a universal, normal state for the beast of prey and absolutely does not occur when it is in its free and original wild state in the jungle. The sympathy of this animal is due only to human sympathetic substance being mixed with its aura over many years. It is not mental material substance that has evolved by means of the being's own sympathetic faculties. Human beings have passed this sympathy on to it ready-made. It is such a transfer of sympathetic substance that takes place when one "pets" an animal. The transfer of human aura substance to the animal's aura can become so overwhelmingly dominating that the animal's original and natural characteristics are almost entirely put out of action. Such an animal would be completely unable to manage by itself, or would do so only with great difficulty if it were suddenly left to itself to find food and other necessities of life. The presence of this human sympathetic state in the animal is established as fact in that, in order to get into this state, the animal must, among other things, keep company with beings in whom this sympathetic aura or love already exists, that is, human beings. And since the human being is the only being in whom this aura exists, it could never arise in the animal without the animal spending time in the company of human beings. The sympathy that can arise between beings of their own sex that belong to wild animal species in the forest, independent of human beings, is merely a tolerance maintained in the face of common dangers, for example, forest fires, flooding or other natural catastrophes, a tolerance that would dissolve as soon as the common danger was over. Such tolerance has nothing to do with love. It is merely a manifestation of a temporary vital necessity, an extension of the animal's flock consciousness, a means of defence analogous to other means of defence that arise from the instinct for self-preservation.