Theos-Talk Archives (March 2008 Message tt00175)

Dear Nigel, thank you for such a detailed contribution and explanation of your study / findings.  I found it valuable and rewarding.
Shel

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: nhcareyta 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:39 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Animals, "group souls" and do we meet our pets again?


  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Scribe" <scribe@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear Nigel,
  > 
  > I have been troubled by this, too. Apparently it was, as you noted, 
  written by AB that animals had a "group soul" and my idea of what was 
  said was that when an animal--I'm thinking about my pets--when they 
  die their soul will sort of "dissolve" back into the animal soul 
  pool, sort of like the "shape-shifter" in Babylon 5 or whichever. 
  This bothered me and I was saddened by it. Then later I read a 
  contraction (I guess by AB again) saying that statement had caused 
  controversy and it was wrong. Also, I recall it being intimated that 
  actually being close to an animal--pet--is doing it no favors because 
  it's difficult for it to handle the increase in vibrations/evolution 
  being in such contact and rapport with humans, in fact after they die 
  they go into some kind of limbo until the next Mantavara when they 
  can progress. In other words, that it was better not to get too close 
  or emotionally attached because it wasn't good for them, or it would 
  be hard or difficult for them, because of the increased something or 
  other.
  > 
  > But, reading the links you provided in your post, I don't see how 
  they address that issue, in fact the second one seems to agree with 
  the concept of animal group souls.
  > 
  > I guess the question is: Are the animal souls individual--I guess 
  I'm talking about domesticated pets--and can we meet again some day 
  (because there's so much love there)?

  Dear Don

  Thank you for this response and apologies for a tardy
  reply, my time is very limited.

  As a fellow animal and pet lover, this is a subject of
  considerable interest to me.

  Don, you write, "Apparently it was, as you noted, 
  written by AB that animals had a "group soul" and my 
  idea of what was said was that when an animal--I'm 
  thinking about my pets--when they die their soul will 
  sort of "dissolve" back into the animal soul pool, 
  sort of like the "shape-shifter" in
  Babylon 5 or whichever."

  I probably need to mention that in posting these 
  references I wasn't endorsing Dr Besant or Bishop 
  Leadbeater's ideas. I was merely pointing out that 
  it was they who wrote about "group souls" of animals 
  and that this differed from Madame Blavatsky's 
  teachings. Nowhere does she write about "group souls" 
  for animals that I have found.

  Madame Blavatsky writes:

  "Animals again are almost immediately reincarnated 
  in higher animal organisms."
  Cruelty To Animals [Lucifer, Vol. VI, No. 34, June, 
  1890, p. 336]

  This implies that "they" spend little time in between 
  death and rebirth.

  Additionally she writes:

  "The animal has an astral body, that survives the 
  physical body for a short period." S D II 196fn

  She also writes:

  "Still it [ Kama-loca on the astral plane ] exists, 
  and it is there that the astral eidolons of all 
  beings that have lived, animals included, await their 
  second death. For the animals it comes with the 
  disintegration and the entire fading out of their 
  astral particles to the last." Key to Theosophy 143

  If this astral eidolon is all that is the animal, then 
  what "survives?"

  Don, you write, "I guess the question is: Are the 
  animal souls individual--I guess I'm talking about 
  domesticated pets--and can we meet again some day 
  (because there's so much
  love there)?"

  This largely depends on what you mean by "individual."

  If you mean will Fido our dog meet up with us again 
  as Fido, according to Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical 
  teachings, unfortunately for our emotions perhaps, 
  probably not. Although this doesn't mean they are 
  "soulless."

  As she writes:

  "In calling the animal "Soulless," it is not 
  depriving the beast, from the humblest to the highest 
  species, of a "soul" but only of a conscious surviving 
  Ego-soul, i.e., that principle which survives after a 
  man, and reincarnates like a man. The animal has an 
  astral body, that survives the physical body for a 
  short period; but its (animal) Monad does not 
  reincarnate in the same, but in a higher species, and 
  has no "Devachan" of course. It has the seeds of all 
  the human principles in itself, but they are latent." 
  S D II 196fn

  Herein lies the key. The real individual, the real 
  Man or pure, self-aware and self-conscious manas, is 
  not within the animal form of Fido.

  Madame Blavatsky writes:

  ".because man is a perfected animal, the vehicle of 
  a fully developed monad, self-conscious and 
  deliberately following its own line of progress, 
  whereas in the insect, and even the higher animal, 
  the higher triad of principles is absolutely dormant."
  Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge 14-15

  The real individual is the awakened part of the higher 
  triad, which is "non-existent" in the animal form.

  As Madame Blavatsky explains:

  "The doctrine teaches that the only difference between
  animals and inanimate objects on earth, between an 
  animal and a human frame, is that in some the various 
  "fires" are latent, and in others they are active. 
  The vital fires are in all things and not an atom is
  devoid of them. But no animal has the three higher 
  principles awakened in him; they are simply potential, 
  latent, and thus non-existing." S D II 267

  And:

  "Between man and animal--whose Monads (or Jivas) are
  fundamentally identical--there is the impassable 
  abyss of Mentality and Self-consciousness. What is 
  human mind in its higher aspect, whence comes it, if 
  it is not a portion of the essence--and, in some 
  rare cases of incarnation, the very essence--of a 
  higher Being: one from a higher and divine plane? 
  Can man--a god in the animal form--be the product of
  Material Nature by evolution alone, even as is the 
  animal, which differs from man in external shape, but 
  by no means in the materials of its physical fabric, 
  and is informed by the same, though undeveloped,
  Monad--seeing that the intellectual potentialities of 
  the two differ as the Sun does from the Glow-worm ? 
  And what is it that creates such a difference, unless 
  man is an animal plus a living god within his physical 
  shell ?" S D II 81

  So, it appears from the above that at the level of 
  our evanescent, astral and emotional desire/mind 
  state of consciousness we will not meet Fido again 
  as these vehicles disintegrate for both man and 
  animal after physical termination.

  In saying this however, the Love that has occurred 
  through the consciously awakened state of 
  interconnection, does survive, and becomes part of 
  the vehicles of later habitation. 

  This conscious, selfless Love though is not that of 
  emotional infatuation, of mutual gratification where 
  our self-concerned personality desires the 
  "unconditional" "love" of a dog. 
  It concerns the states of consciousness which are, 
  and which recognise, the principles of 
  interconnectedness, interrelatedness and 
  interdependence. 
  This true Love embraces the Whole, as it is the Whole, 
  without the individual distinctions of me or mine. 
  It is at this level that the Love of a pet can soar 
  to the level of true Love within the heart and mind 
  of man. From this state, a profound comprehension of 
  the evolutionary process arises, where all beings of 
  Consciousness in mineral, plant, animal and human 
  forms are "seen" and "known" in their true light, 
  for their true value. From this then, compassion 
  arises within the consciousness of the real 
  individual, our "higher Ego", leading to a profound 
  concern for all beings, which is translated through 
  the lower vehicles as emotional sympathy and empathy 
  for our fellow life-forms.

  This to me is one of the genuine benefits of sharing 
  our lives with pets, however from an occult 
  perspective, we may be doing our animal forms a 
  disservice.

  As you write, "..I recall it being intimated that 
  actually being close to an animal--pet--is doing 
  it no favors."

  Madame Blavatsky responds:

  "A dog that has to exercise its own sagacity to find 
  food, will sooner develop psychical powers in that 
  direction, than one that does nothing but eat and 
  sleep, and the individual or differentiated monad of 
  the former will sooner reach the condition necessary 
  to enter the human kingdom. The rudiments of hope, 
  patience, faith, fidelity, confidence, etc., are 
  found in the animal kingdom."
  -- HPB Theosophist 5- p. 223

  This is a profound passage which should not be idly 
  dismissed due to possible sentimentality from attachment 
  to our pets. 

  It deserves considerable reflection and study as it 
  relates to the monadic evolutionary process on which 
  the entire Theosophical cosmology rests.

  I leave that for your consideration.

  Kind regards
  Nigel



   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1327 - Release Date: 3/12/2008 1:27 PM


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