Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00038)

Part 3 HAVE ANIMALS SOULS ? (CONTINUED)
 
Vivisection considered 
 
 
III
 
 
O Philosophy, thou guide of life, and discoverer of virtue! --CICERO
 
 
Philosophy is a modest profession, it is all reality and plain dealing;
I hate solemnity and pretence, with nothing but pride at the bottom.
--PLINY
 
 
THE destiny of man--of the most brutal, animal-like, as well as of the
most saintly--being immortality, according to theological teaching; what
is the future destiny of the countless hosts of the animal kingdom? We
are told by various Roman Catholic writers--Cardinal Ventura, Count de
Maistre and many others--that "animal soul is a Force." 
 
"It is well established that the soul of the animal," says their echo De
Mirville,--"was produced by the earth, for this is Biblical. All the
living and moving souls (nephesh or life principle) come from the earth;
but, let me be understood, not solely from the dust, of which their
bodies as well as our own were made, but from the power or potency of
the earth; i.e., from its immaterial force, as all forces are . . .
those of the sea, of the air, etc., all of which are those Elementary
Principalities (principautés élementaires) of which we have spoken
elsewhere."l5 
 
What the Marquis de Mirville understands by the term is, that every
"Element" in nature is a domain filled and governed by its respective
invisible spirits. The Western Kabalists and the Rosicrucians named them
Sylphs, Undines, Salamanders and Gnomes; christian mystics, like De
Mirville, give them Hebrew names and class each among the various kinds
of Demons under the sway of Satan--with God's permission, of course. 
 
He too rebels against the decision of St. Thomas, who teaches that the
animal soul is destroyed with the body. "It is a force,"--he says--that
"we are asked to annihilate, the most substantial force on earth, called
animal soul," which, according to the Reverend Father Ventura, isl6 "the
most respectable soul after that of man." 
 
He had just called it an immaterial force, and now it is named by him
"the most substantial thing on earth."l7 
 
But what is this Force? George Cuvier and Flourens the academician tell
us its secret. 
 
"The form or the force of the bodies," (form means soul in this case,
let us remember,) the former writes,--"is far more essential to them
than matter is, as (without being destroyed in its essence) the latter
changes constantly, whereas the form prevails eternally.' To this
Flourens observes: "In everything that has life, the form is more
persistent than matter; for, that which constitutes the BEING of the
living body, its identity and its sameness, is its form."l8 
 
"Being," as De Mirville remarks in his turn, "a magisterial principle. a
philosophical pledge of our immortality,"l9 it must be inferred that
soul--human and animal--is meant under this misleading term. It is
rather what we call the ONE LIFE I suspect. 
 
However this may be, philosophy, both profane and religious,
corroborates this statement that the two "souls" are identical in man
and beast. Leibnitz, the philosopher beloved by Bossuet, appeared to
credit "Animal Resurrection" to a certain extent. Death being for him
"simply the temporary enveloping of the personality" he likens it to the
preservation of ideas in sleep, or to the butterfly within its
caterpillar. "For him," says De Mirville, "resurrection20 is a general
law in nature, which becomes a grand miracle, when performed by a
thaumaturgist, only in virtue of its prematurity, of the surrounding
circumstances, and of the mode in which he operates." 
 
In this Leibnitz is a true Occultist without suspecting it. The growth
and blossoming of a flower or a plant in five minutes instead of several
days and weeks, the forced germination and development of plant, animal
or man, are facts preserved in the records of the Occultists. They are
only seeming miracles; the natural productive forces hurried and a
thousand-fold intensified by the induced conditions under occult laws
known to the Initiate. The abnormally rapid growth is effected by the
forces of nature, whether blind or attached to minor intelligences
subjected to man's occult power, being brought to bear collectively on
the development of the thing to be called forth out of its chaotic
elements. But why call one a divine miracle, the other a satanic
subterfuge or simply a fraudulent performance? 
 
Still as a true philosopher Leibnitz finds himself forced, even in this
dangerous question of the resurrection of the dead, to include in it the
whole of the animal kingdom in its great synthesis, and to say: "I
believe that the souls of the animals are imperishable, . . . and I find
that nothing is better fitted to prove our own immortal nature."2l 
 
Supporting Leibnitz, Dean, the Vicar of Middleton, published in 1748 two
small volumes upon this subject. To sum up his ideas, he says that "the
holy scriptures hint in various passages that the brutes shall live in a
future life. This doctrine has been supported by several Fathers of the
Church. Reason teaching us that the animals have a soul, teaches us at
the same time that they shall exist in a future state. The system of
those who believe that God annihilates the soul of the animal is nowhere
supported, and has no solid foundation to it," etc. etc.22 
 
Many of the men of science of the last century defended Dean's
hypothesis, declaring it extremely probable, one of them especially--the
learned Protestant theologian Charles Bonnet of Geneva. Now, this
theologian was the author of an extremely curious work called by him
Palingenesia23 or the "New Birth," which takes place, as he seeks to
prove, owing to an invisible germ that exists in everybody, and no more
than Leibnitz can he understand that animals should be excluded from a
system, which, in their absence, would not be a unity, since system
means "a collection of laws."24 
 
"The animals," he writes, "are admirable books, in which the creator
gathered the most striking features of his sovereign intelligence. The
anatomist has to study them with respect, and, if in the least endowed
with that delicate and reasoning feeling that characterises the moral
man, he will never imagine, while turning over the pages, that he is
handling slates or breaking pebbles. He will never forget that all that
lives and feels is entitled to his mercy and pity. Man would run the
risk of compromising his ethical feeling were he to become familiarised
with the suffering and the blood of animals. This truth is so evident
that Governments should never lose sight of it. . . . as to the
hypothesis of automatism I should feel inclined to regard it as a
philosophical heresy, very dangerous for society, if it did not so
strongly violate good sense and feeling as to become harmless, for it
can never be generally adopted." 
 
"As to the destiny of the animal, if my hypothesis be right, Providence
holds in reserve for them the greatest compensations in future states.25
. . . And for me, their resurrection is the consequence of that soul or
form we are necessarily obliged to allow them, for a soul being a simple
substance, can neither be divided, nor decomposed, nor yet annihilated.
One cannot escape such an inference without falling back into Descartes'
automatism; and then from animal automatism one would soon and forcibly
arrive at that of man" . . 
. 
Our modern school of biologists has arrived at the theory of
"automaton-man," but its disciples may be left to their own devices and
conclusions. That with which I am at present concerned, is the final and
absolute proof that neither the Bible, nor its most philosophical
interpreters--however much they may have lacked a clearer insight into
other questions--have ever denied, on Biblical authority, an immortal
soul to any animal, more than they have found in it conclusive evidence
as to the existence of such a soul in man--in the old Testament. One has
but to read certain verses in Job and the Ecclesiastes (iii. 17 et seq.
22) to arrive at this conclusion. The truth of the matter is, that the
future state of neither of the two is therein referred to by one single
word. But if, on the other hand, only negative evidence is found in the
Old Testament concerning the immortal soul in animals, in the New it is
as plainly asserted as that of man himself, and it is for the benefit of
those who deride Hindu philozoism, who assert their right to kill
animals at their will and pleasure, and deny them an immortal soul, that
a final and definite proof is now being given.
 
St. Paul was mentioned at the end of Part I as the defender of the
immortality of all the brute creation. Fortunately this statement is not
one of those that can be pooh-poohed by the Christians as "the
blasphemous and heretical interpretations of the holy writ, by a group
of atheists and free-thinkers." Would that every one of the profoundly
wise words of the Apostle Paul--an Initiate whatever else he might have
been--was as clearly understood as those passages that relate to the
animals. For then, as will be shown, the indestructibility of matter
taught by materialistic science; the law of eternal evolution, so
bitterly denied by the Church; the omnipresence of the ONE LIFE, or the
unity of the ONE ELEMENT, and its presence throughout the whole of
nature as preached by esoteric philosophy, and the secret sense of St.
Paul's remarks to the Romans (viii. 18-23 ), would be demonstrated
beyond doubt or cavil to be obviously one and the same thing. Indeed,
what else can that great historical personage, so evidently imbued with
neo-Platonic Alexandrian philosophy, mean by the following, which I
transcribe with comments in the light of occultism, to give a clearer
comprehension of my meaning? 
 
The apostle premises by saying (Romans viii. 16, 17) that "The spirit
itself" (Paramatma) "beareth witness with our spirit" (atman) "that we
are the children of God," and "if children, then heirs"--heirs of course
to the eternity and indestructibility of the eternal or divine essence
in us. Then he tells us that: 
 
"The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with
the glory which shall be revealed." (v. 18.) 
 
The "glory" we maintain, is no "new Jerusalem," the symbolical
representation of the future in St. John's kabalistical Revelations--but
the Devachanic periods and the series of births in the succeeding races
when, after every new incarnation we shall find ourselves higher and
more perfect, physically as well as spiritually; and when finally we
shall all become truly the "sons" and "the children of God" at the "last
Resurrection"--whether people call it Christian, Nirvanic or
Parabrahmic; as all these are one and the same. For truly-- 
 
"The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation
of the sons of God." (v. 19.) 
 
 
By creature, animal is here meant, as will be shown further on upon the
authority of St. John Chrysostom. But who are the "sons of God," for the
manifestation of whom the whole creation longs? Are they the "sons of
God" with whom "Satan came also" (see Job) or the "seven angels" of
Revelations? Have they reference to Christians only or to the "sons of
God" all over the world?26 Such "manifestation" is promised at the end
of every Manvantara27 or world-period by the scriptures of every great
Religion, and save in the Esoteric interpretation of all these, in none
so clearly as in the Vedas. For there it is said that at the end of each
Manvantara comes the pralaya, or the destruction of the world--only one
of which is known to, and expected by, the Christians--when there will
be left the Sishtas, or remnants, seven Rishis and one warrior, and all
the seeds, for the next human "tide-wave of the following Round."28 But
the main question with which we are concerned is not at present, whether
the Christian or the Hindu theory is the more correct; but to show that
the Brahmins--in teaching that the seeds of all the creatures are left
over, out of the total periodical and temporary destruction of all
visible things, together with the "sons of God" or the Rishis, who shall
manifest themselves to future humanity--say neither more nor less than
what St. Paul himself preaches. Both include all animal life in the hope
of a new birth and renovation in a more perfect state when every
creature that now "waiteth" shall rejoice in the "manifestation of the
sons of God." Because, as St. Paul explains: "The creature itself
(ipsa) also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption," which
is to say that the seed or the indestructible animal soul, which does
not reach Devachan while in its elementary or animal state, will get
into a higher form and go on, together with man, progressing into still
higher states and forms, to end, animal as well as man, "in the glorious
liberty of the children of God" (v. 21). 
 
And this "glorious liberty" can be reached only through the evolution or
the Karmic progress of all creatures. The dumb brute having evoluted
from the half sentient plant, is itself transformed by degrees into man,
spirit, God--et seq. and ad infinitum! For says St. Paul-- 
 
"We know ("we," the Initiates) that the whole creation, (omnis creatura
or creature, in the Vulgate) groaneth and travaileth (in child-birth) in
pain until now."29 (v. 22.) 
 
This is plainly saying that man and animal are on a par on earth, as to
suffering, in their evolutionary efforts toward the goal and in
accordance with Karmic law. By "until now," is meant up to the fifth
race. To make it still plainer, the great Christian Initiate explains by
saying: 
 
"Not only they (the animals) but ourselves also, which have the
first-fruits of the Spirit, we groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (v. 23.) 
 
Yes, it is we, men, who have the "first-fruits of the Spirit," or the
direct Parabrahmic light, our Atma or seventh principle, owing to the
perfection of our fifth principle (Manas), which is far less developed
in the animal. As a compensation, however, their Karma is far less heavy
than ours. But that is no reason why they too should not reach one day
that perfection that gives the fully evoluted man the Dhyanchohanic
form. 
 
Nothing could be clearer--even to a profane, non-initiated critic--than
those words of the great Apostle, whether we interpret them by the light
of esoteric philosophy, or that of mediæval scholasticism. The hope of
redemption, or, of the survival of the spiritual entity, delivered "from
the bondage of corruption," or the series of temporary material forms,
is for all living creatures, not for man alone. 
 
But the "paragon" of animals, proverbially unfair even to his
fellow-beings, could not be expected to give easy consent to sharing his
expectations with his cattle and domestic poultry. The famous Bible
commentator, Cornelius a Lapide, was the first to point out and charge
his predecessors with the conscious and deliberate intention of doing
all they could to avoid the application of the word creatura to the
inferior creatures of this world. We learn from him that St. Gregory of
Nazianzus, Origen and St. Cyril (the one, most likely, who refused to
see a human creature in Hypatia, and dealt with her as though she were a
wild animal) insisted that the word creatura, in the verses above
quoted, was applied by the Apostle simply to the angels! But, as remarks
Cornelius, who appeals to St. Thomas for corroboration, "this opinion is
too distorted and violent (distorta et violenta); it is moreover
invalidated by the fact that the angels, as such, are already delivered
from the bonds of corruption." Nor is St. Augustine's suggestion any
happier; for he offers the strange hypothesis that the "creatures,"
spoken of by St. Paul, were "the infidels and the heretics" of all the
ages! Cornelius contradicts the venerable father as coolly as he opposed
his earlier brother-saints. "For," says he, "in the text quoted the
creatures spoken of by the Apostle are evidently creatures distinct from
men:--not only they but ourselves also; and then, that which is meant is
not deliverance from sin, but from death to come."30 But even the brave
Cornelius finally gets scared by the general opposition and decides that
under the term creatures St. Paul may have meant--as St. Ambrosius, St.
Hilarius (Hilaire) and others insisted elements (!!) i.e., the sun, the
moon, the stars, the earth, etc. etc. 
 
Unfortunately for the holy speculators and scholastics, and very
fortunately for the animals--if these are ever to profit by
polemics--they are over-ruled by a still greater authority than
themselves. It is St. John Chrysostomus, already mentioned, whom the
Roman Catholic Church, on the testimony given by Bishop Proclus, at one
time his secretary, holds in the highest veneration. In fact St. John
Chrysostom was, if such a profane (in our days) term can be applied to a
saint,--the "medium" of the Apostle to the Gentiles. In the matter of
his Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, St. John is held as directly
inspired by that Apostle himself, in other words as having written his
comments at St. Paul's dictation. This is what we read in those comments
on the 3rd Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
"We must always groan about the delay made for our emigration (death);
for if, as saith the Apostle, the creature deprived of reason (mente,
not anima, "Soul")--and speech (nam si hæc creatura mente et verbo
carens) groans and expects, the more the shame that we ourselves should
fail to do so."3l 
 
Unfortunately we do, and fail most ingloriously in this desire for
"emigration" to countries unknown. Were people to study the scriptures
of all nations and interpret their meaning by the light of esoteric
philosophy, no one would fail to become, if not anxious to die, at least
indifferent to death. We should then make profitable use of the time we
pass on this earth by quietly preparing in each birth for the next by
accumulating good Karma. But man is a sophist by nature. And, even after
reading this opinion of St. John Chrysostom--one that settles the
question of the immortal soul in animals forever, or ought to do so at
any rate, in the mind of every Christian,--we fear the poor dumb brutes
may not benefit much by the lesson after all. Indeed, the subtle
casuist, condemned out of his own mouth, might tell us, that whatever
the nature of the soul in the animal, he is still doing it a favour, and
himself a meritorious action, by killing the poor brute, as thus he puts
an end to its "groans about the delay made for its emigration" into
eternal glory. 
 
The writer is not simple enough to imagine, that a whole British Museum
filled with works against meat diet, would have the effect of stopping
civilized nations from having slaughter-houses, or of making them
renounce their beefsteak and Christmas goose. But if these humble lines
could make a few readers realize the real value of St. Paul's noble
words, and thereby seriously turn their thoughts to all the horrors of
vivisection--then the writer would be content. For verily when the world
feels convinced--and it cannot avoid coming one day to such a
conviction--that animals are creatures as eternal as we ourselves,
vivisection and other permanent tortures, daily inflicted on the poor
brutes, will, after calling forth an outburst of maledictions and
threats from society generally, force all Governments to put an end to
those barbarous and shameful practices. 
 
 
H.P. BLAVATSKY
 
Theosophist, January, February, 
and March, 1886 
 
--------------------------------
 
FOOTNOTES
 
 
 
l De la Resurrection et du Miracle. E. de Mirville.
 
2 De la Resurrection et du Miracle. E. de Mirville. 
 
3 Compare also the difference between the translation of the same verse
in the Vulgata, and the texts of Luther and De Wette.
 
4 Commen. Apocal., ch. v. 137.
 
5 It is but justice to acknowledge here that De Mirville is the first to
recognize the error of the Church in this particular, and to defend
animal life, as far as he dares do so.
 
6 De Beatificatione, etc., by Pope Benedict XIV. 
 
7 In scholastic philosophy, the word "form" applies to the immaterial
principle which informs or animates the body. 
 
8 De Beautificatione. etc. I, IV, c. Xl, Art. 6. 
 
9 Quoted by Cardi
nal de Ventura in his Philosophie Chretienne, Vol. 11, p. 386. See also
De Mirville, Résurrections animales. 
 
10 Summa--Drioux edition in 8 vols.
 
11 St. Patrick, it is claimed, has Christianized "the most Satanized
country of the globe--Ireland, ignorant in all save magic"--into the
"Island of Saints," by resurrecting "sixty men dead years before."
Suscitavit sexaginta mortuos (Lectio I. ii, from the Roman Breviary,
1520). In the M.S. held to be the famous confession of that saint,
preserved. in the Salisbury Cathedral (Descript. Hibern. I. II, C. 1),
St. Patrick writes in an autograph letter: "To me the last of men, and
the greatest sinner, God has, nevertheless, given, against the magical
practices of this barbarous people the gift of miracles, such as had not
been given to the greatest of our apostles--since he (God) permitted
that among other things (such as the resurrection of animals and
creeping things) I should resuscitate dead bodies reduced to ashes since
many years." Indeed, before such a prodigy, the resurrection of Lazarus
appears a very insignificant incident. 
 
12 More recently Dr. Romanes and Dr. Butler have thrown great light upon
the subject.
 
13 Biographie Universelle, Art. by Cuvier on Buffon's Life.
 
14 Discours sur la nature des Animaux.
 
15 Esprits, 2m. mem. Ch. XII, Cosmolatrie.
 
16 Ibid. 
 
17 Esprits--p. 158. 
 
18 Longevity, pp. 49 and 52.
 
19 Resurrections. p. 621.
 
20 The occultists call it "transformation" during a series of lives and
the final, nirvanic Resurrection.
 
2l Leibnitz. Opera philos., etc. 
 
22 See vol. XXIX of the Bibliothéque des sciences, 1st Trimester of the
year 1768.
 
23 From two Greek words--to be born and reborn again. 
 
24 See Vol. II Palingenesis. Also, De Mirville's Resurrections. 
 
 
25 We too believe in "future states" for the animal from the highest
down to the infusoria--but in a series of rebirths, each in a higher
form, up to man and then beyond --in short, we believe in evolution in
the fullest sense of the word. 
 
26 See Isis, Vol. I.
 
27 What was really meant by the "sons of God" in antiquity is now
demonstrated fully in the SECRET DOCTRINE in its Part I (on the Archaic
Period)--now nearly ready. 
 
 
28 This is the orthodox Hindu as much as the esoteric version. In his
Bangalore Lecture "What is Hindu Religion?"--Dewan Bahadoor Raghunath
Rao, of Madras, says: "At the end of each Manvantara, annihilation of
the world takes place; but one warrior, seven Rishis, and the seeds are
saved from destruction. To them God (or Brahm) communicates the Statute
law or the Vedas . . . as soon as a Manvantara commences these laws are
promulgated . . . and become binding . . . to the end of that
Manvantara. These eight persons are called Sishtas, or remnants, because
they alone remain after the destruction of all the others. Their acts
and precepts are, therefore, known as Sishtacar. They are also
designated 'Sadachar' because such acts and precepts are only what
always existed." 
 
This is the orthodox version. The secret one speaks of seven Initiates
having attained Dhyanchohanship toward the end of the seventh Race on
this earth, who are left on earth during its "obscuration" with the seed
of every mineral, plant, and animal that had not time to evolute into
man for the next Round or world-period. See Esoteric Buddhism, by A. P.
Sinnett, Fifth Edition, Annotations, pp. 146, 147.
 
29 . . . ingemiscit et parturit usque adhuc in the original Latin
translation. 
 
30 Cornelius, edit. Pelagaud, I. IX, p.114.
-----------
31 Homélie XIV. Sur l'Epitre aux Romains.
 
 
 
================
-----Original Message-----

From: martinle
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:12 AM
To: 
Subject: Animals have no Soul - An Interesting article
 
 
Just saw it today.
 
Any opinions on it?
 
Martin
 
 
TODAY IN ITALY
 
Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian Prime Minister's office
  
JESUITS: ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS NOR SOUL BUT DESERVE RESPECT
(AGI) - Vatican City, Oct. 2 - "Animals have no rights, as rights are a
privilege of spiritual beings." Jesuits commented on the issue of
animals rights with an article published on Civiltà Cattolica, and which
will probably stir up the controversies risen some years ago by another
article on the same magazine. "It not true that animals rights should be
protected by the law. In fact, animals have no rights, which are a
privilege of spiritual beings." According to Jesuits, "rights are
connected to the spiritual and personal character of human beings.
Animals, which are not personal and spiritual beings have no rights. The
'ontological' distinction between animals and human kind should not
justify a lack of respect towards these 'minor' creatures." (AGI) 
021858 OTT 03 COPYRIGHTS 2002-2003 AGI S.p.A.  
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]