Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00231)

Hello Dallas,
I was a little concerned over your comments on blood transfusions and
organ donations.
As an ex JW I know the needless and pointless suffering and waste of
life that can result from these type of dogmatic beliefs.

The ethical dimension to this is to me not just a matter of our
attachment to the body and/or the occult effects of having someone
else's blood in our veins but if we are able to extend our life though
either a blood transfusion or organ donation are we not duty bound to
use whatever means we can to either save someone else's
(especially!!!) life or our own as long as it is not at the cost of
another's?

The occult consequences of these procedures while perhaps coming at a
price may be far outweighed by the good we can do while in incarnation.

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck"
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Dec 18 2004
> 
> Dear Vera:
> 
> You asked: about blood transfusion and organ donations - does THEOSOPHY
> offer anything.
> 
> 
> THEOSOPHY does not recommend either of these for the reason that the
astral
> body and Karma attached to those are always incompatible and
dangerous to
> some extent. 
> 
> Physical medicine and the science of modern healing look on the
human body
> as a fairly adaptable series if interchangeable parts - which is
not so.
> 
> The Universe organizes through the astral body each person with
their own
> particular set of personalized and individual organs and substances.
These
> are always related to the individual's Karma. 
> 
> To some extent Medical science recognizes incompatibilities such as
in blood
> transfusions and the compatibility (by DNA testing) of proposed organ
> transplants (heart, lungs, etc. ) and cures for cancer attacked
parts of the
> body. 
> 
> One of our problems is psychological: Most fear death. Those who
have had
> NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES ( NDE ) have lost such fear as they realize that
> they as SPIRITUAL SOULS survive physical death. Med. Sc. Tries to
preserve
> "life"-- at any cost, in the most shattered of physical bodies.
> 
> THEOSOPHY states all bodies are replaceable under nature's rules and
laws.
> And while everyone grieves for the loss of a loved one, There is the
> knowledge that under Karma we will all meet again, and love and live and
> work together, in the future. [ For example, we don't grieve when
one goes
> to sleep before another does? We know that we will wake up and continue
> life in a fresh day. It is so with the larger separation of "death." ]
> 
> I attach here an article written generally on this. 
> 
> 
> THE CURE OF DISEASES
> 
> 
> MORTAL ills and the needs of the stomach rank next after the instinct of
> self-preservation among all the subjects which engage the attention
of the
> race. 
> If we do not go on living we cannot do the work we think there is to
do; if
> we remain hungry we will lose the power to work properly or to
enjoy, and at
> last come to the door of death. From bad or scanty food follows a
train of
> physical ills called generally disease. 
> 
> Disease reaches us also through too much food. So in every direction
these
> ills attack us; even when our feeding is correct and sufficient it
is found
> that we fall a prey because our Karma, settled by ourselves is some
previous
> life, ordains that we enter on this one handicapped by the
hereditary taint
> due to the wickedness or the errors of our fathers and mothers. 
> 
> And the records of science show that the taint in the blood or the
lymph may
> jump over many lives, attacking with virulence some generation
distant very
> far from the source. 
> 
> What wonder, then that the cure of disease is an all-absorbing
subject with
> every one! The Christian knows that it is decreed by Almighty God
that He
> will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children even to the
third and
> fourth generation, and the non-believer sees that by some power in
nature
> the penalty is felt even so far.
> 
> All of this has given to the schools of mental and so-called
"metaphysical"
> healing a strong pull on the fears, the feelings, the wishes, and
the bodies
> of those to whom they address themselves, and especially in the United
> States. 
> That there is more attention given to the subject in America seems
true to
> those who have been on the other side of the Atlantic and noticed
how small
> is the proportion of people there who know anything about the
subject. But
> in the United States in every town many can be found who know about
these
> schools and practice after their methods. Why it has more hold here
can be
> left to conjecture, as the point under consideration is why it has
any hold
> at all. It is something like patent medicine. 
> 
> Offer a cure to people for their many ills, and they will take it
up; offer
> it cheap, and they will use it; offer it as an easy method, and they
will
> rush for it under certain conditions. 
> 
> Metaphysical healing is easy for some because it declares, first,
that no
> money need be paid to doctors for medicine; second, that medical
fluids and
> drugs may be dispensed with; and third that it is easily learned and
> practiced. The difficulties that arise out of the necessities of
logic are
> not present for those who never studied it, but are somewhat potent with
> those who reason correctly; - but that is not usual for the general
run of
> minds. 
> 
> They see certain effects and accept the assumed cause as the right
one. But
> many persons will not even investigate the system, because they think it
> requires them to postulate the non-existence of that which they see
before
> their eyes. 
> 
> The statements quoted from the monthly Christian Science in March
PATH are
> bars in the way of such minds. If they could be induced to just try the
> method offered for cure, belief might result, for effects indeed often
> follow. 
> 
> But the popular mind is not in favor of "mind cure," and more
prominence is
> given in the daily papers to cases of death under it than to cures.
And very
> full reports always appear of a case such as one in March, where "faith
> curers," in order to restore life, went to praying over the dead
body of one
> of the members of a believing family.
> 
> During a recent tour over this country from the Atlantic to the
Pacific and
> back, I had the opportunity of meeting hundreds of disciples of these
> schools, and found in nearly all cases that they were not addicted
to logic
> but calmly ignored very plain propositions, satisfied that if cures were
> accomplished the cause claimed must be the right one, and almost without
> exception they denied the existence of evil or pain or suffering. 
> 
> There was a concurrence of testimony from all to show that the
dominant idea
> in their minds was the cure of their bodily ills and the continuance of
> health. The accent was not on the beauty of holiness or the value to
them
> and the community of a right moral system and right life, but on the
cure of
> their diseases. 
> 
> So the conclusion has been forced home that all these schools exist
because
> people desire to be well more than they desire to be good, although
they do
> not object to goodness if that shall bring wholeness.
> 
> And, indeed, one does not have to be good to gain the benefit of the
> teachings. It is enough to have confidence, to assert boldly that
this does
> not exist and that that has no power to hurt one. 
> I do not say the teachers of the "science" agree with me herein, but
only
> that whether you are good or bad the results will follow the firm
practice
> of the method enjoined, irrespective of the ideas of the teachers.
> 
> For in pure mind-cure as compared with its congener "Christian
Science," you
> do not have to believe in Jesus and the gospels, yet the same
results are
> claimed, for Jesus taught that whatever you prayed for with faith,
that you
> should have.
> 
> Scientific research discloses that the bodies of our race are
infected with
> taints that cause nearly all of our diseases, and school after school of
> medicine has tried and still tries to find the remedy that will
dislodge the
> foulness in the blood. 
> 
> This is scientific, since it seeks the real physical cause; metaphysical
> healing says it cures, but cannot prove that the cause is destroyed
and not
> merely palliated. 
> 
> That there is some room for doubt history shows us, for none will
deny that
> many pure thinking and acting pair have brought forth children who
displayed
> some taint derived from a distant ancestor. Evidently their pure
individual
> thoughts had no power over the great universal development of the matter
> used by those human bodies.
> 
> Turning now to medicine we find the Italian Count Mattei promulgating a
> system of cure by the homeopathic use of subtle vegetable essences
which may
> well give pause to those who would make universal the curing by faith or
> mind alone. Some of his liquids will instantly stop a violent pain,
restore
> sight, give back hearing, and dissipate abnormal growths. His
globules will
> make a drunken man sober, and, given to the nurse who suckles a
babe, will
> cure the child who takes the milk. The drunkard and the child do not
think
> about or have faith in the remedies, yet they cure. Is it not better to
> restore health by physical means and leave the high teachings of the
> healers, all taken from well know sources, for the benefit of our moral
> nature? 
> 
> And if Christian healers read these lines, should they not remember that
> when the prophet restored the widow's son he used physical means -
his own
> magnetism applied simultaneously to every member of the child's
body, and
> Jesus, when the woman who touched his garment was cured, lost a
portion of
> his vitality - not his thoughts - for he said "virtue" had gone out from
> him? 
> The Apostle also gave directions that if any were sick the others should
> assemble about the bed and anoint with oil, laying on their hands
meanwhile:
> simply physical therapeutics following a long line of ancient precedent
> dating back to Noah. 
> 
> Moses taught how to cure diseases and to disinfect places where
contagion
> lurked. It was not by using the high power of thought, but by processes
> deemed by him to be effectual, such as sprinkling blood of animals
> slaughtered in peculiar circumstances. 
> 
> Without declaring for or against his methods, it is very certain that he
> supposed by these means subtle forces of a physical nature would be
> liberated and brought to bear on the case in hand.
> 
> The mass of testimony through the ages is against healing physical
ills by
> the use of the higher forces in nature, and the reason, once well
known but
> later on forgotten, is the one given in the article of January,
1892, - that
> diseases are gross manifestations showing themselves on their way
out of the
> nature so that one may be purified. 
> 
> To arrest them though thought ignorantly directed is to throw them
back into
> their cause and replant them in their mental plane.
> 
> This is the true ground of our objection to metaphysical healing
practices,
> which we distinguish from the assumptions and so-called philosophy
on which
> those methods are claimed to stand. For we distinctly urge that the
effects
> are not brought by any philosophical system whatever, but by the
practical
> though ignorant use of psycho-physiological processes.
> 
> William Q. Judge	Path, September, 1892
> 
> 
> ========================================
> 
> I hope this may be of some help,
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> 
> ===================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vera Santos 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 3:30 PM
> To: 
> Subject: [bn-study] help needed
> 
> Your friend asked: about blood transfusion and organ donations - does
> THEOSOPHY offer anything.