Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00360)

Jan 29th
1999

Dear Nancy:

Essentially, in theosophy, and according to one good book, really
worth reading carefully, THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by H.P.Blavatsky,
The SOUL in man is equated with the Greek definition of NOUS -
the thinking principle.

Since thinking involves the whole of man's perceptions, no aspect
of life, memory or anticipation is devoid of this faculty IN
ACTION.  It is the power to perceive,  It is the Self-identifying
feeling of Ego-ship.
Descartes said is succinctly: "I think, therefore I am."

Does this help ?

Dallas

> From: N. Malcom
> Sent:	Thursday, January 28, 1999 12:31 PM
> Subject: Re: A few questions on a touchy subject...

How are you definning "soul"? I thought a soul was simply a
sheath. ???
Nancy

> From: "Angie C." <elemental_fire@geocities.com>
> Subject: A few questions on a touchy subject...
> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:01 AM
>
> In a discussion of the soul and reincarnation last night, I had
brought
up a
> question - Cloning.  Would a clone have a soul, and how would
karma and
> reincarnation work with them?  I'd like to throw out to you
some
questions and
> theories I've come up with, and only ask that your replies not
be to the
> rightness or wrongness of the act of cloning. That is a whole
discussion
in
> itself. The point is, regardless of morals it will happen, and
how do we
> handle it?
>
> To start, it was put forth that no, it would not have a soul.
But I must
> question this - Nature abhors a void.  From simply taking a
scoop of
water out
> of a pool, to the endless ingress of matter to a black hole,
nature in
some
> way or another fills a void.  And think on this, if I've read
aright we
> believe that all matter, down to the tiniest piece is a part of
the great
> universal light.  This being, even though not born
conventionally, will
be
> created of the same matter as everything else. How then could
it not be a
part
> of that universal light?
>
> Now, I think we can agree that the creators, right or wrong,
will have to
deal
> with whatever karma they have earned.  But what of the child,
and those
around
> it?  I'll start with a question for our group, in particular.
If we take
the
> tack that it has no soul, who among us would look a child in
the face and
tell
> it that it is a soul-less abomination, that it should never
have been
born?
> What karma do we create for those within our group if we teach
such
ideas?
>
> As for the child, I have many questions.  Would it pick up part
of the
spirit
> and karma of the one who donated the cells?  Or would it follow
current
> thought, that each person has it's own karma?  And if it has
it's own
karma,
> which of these would it be - A totally new spirit, taking it's
very first
> steps on the karmic circles?  Or, with all the trials, and most
certainly
> prejudice against the method of it's birth, would it be the
reincarnation
of a
> soul that had built up so much karmic debt that it would need
to work
through
> such adversity to move on?
>
> Another point raised was that when you get a transplant, or
blood
transfusion
> you get some of the essence of that donor.  In natural
conception, the
child
> shares the lifeblood of it's mother, and some of that essence,
as well as
that
> from the seed of the father.  What of a child without either of
those
> influences?  Would there be some deficiency of soul?  Or, since
the donor
had
> these influences, and the clone is a copy, would it be similar
to the
donor, a
> copy of a whole soul?  One thing I'm interested in learning is
what
studies
> are out there of children born in test-tubes?  This may shed at
least
some
> light on the question of parental influence.
>
> As for me, I still have too many questions to come to any solid
conclusions
> yet. I think you can guess that I am leaning towards them
having some
sort of
> soul, but still I am not sure of this.  Morally right? Wrong?
Soul or
None?  I
> find amidst all this I do have one firm belief.  So long as we
treat them
as
> we would any other creature on this planet, with compassion, we
cannot go
far wrong.
>
> -Angie
>
theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to
theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.

theos-talk@theosophy.com

of