Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00004)

Kym quotes HPB-->
"The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful destruction of
life,
and interference with the operations of nature, hence--with KARMA--that of
the mother and the would-be future human being.  The sin is not regarded by
the occultists as one of a *religious* character,--for, indeed, there is no
more of spirit and soul, for the matter of that, in a foetus or even in a
child before it arrives at self-consciousness, then there is in any other
small animal,--for we deny the absence of soul in either mineral, plant or
beast, and believe but in the difference of degree.  But foeticide is a crime
against nature."

Richard Ihle writes-->
Thank you for sharing this, Kym.  I had never seen it before, and it is
certainly interesting.

I would think that one could be "pro-choice" and be a ~theosophist~ but not
necessarily a ~"T"heosophist~ if one goes along with the gradual "evolution"
of the capitalized word to mean someone who subscribes to the doctrines
articulated by H.P.B. or at least doctrines which are consistent with them.
 (I don't subscribe to this, though.)

I am hoping that a "short-version" definition of small-t ~theosophy~ will
someday take hold:  "God-assisted speculation."

This definition affirms the existence of a special category of valid
knowledge which is not derived from empirical observation or science;
however, it does not grant any particular theosophist, even H.P.B, final
authority in anything--because one's own God-assisted speculation must always
be used to evaluate how close someone else was to "God" when the speculation
was made.  I use ~God~ here to mean Atma-Buddhi (Self-Spirit) consciousness.

Having said this, I suppose it may surprise some that I usually find H.P.B.'s
writings to be very high and valid theosophy, indeed.  Regarding the
particular quoted passage, what she says about foeticide seems more right to
me than wrong, but not necessarily for all of the articulated reasons--taken
~literally~--she previously gave.  However, what she says about the "soul"
being a matter of acquisition and "degree" rather than a "fixed given" brings
out the familiar ~OH YES!~ that I can often get from reading H.P.B.

Who knows?  Perhaps the best chance for Theosophy (the organization/movement)
to re-establish itself in the world is to suggest the possibilities that not
only may a person have to "gain" a human soul (Self-awareness which can "hold
It's own ground" at least at the desire-mental level) by a certain
longer-term, "automatic" process, but that after a certain point a person may
also have to take certain volitional steps not to lose the human soul as
well. . . .

Best Gold Bond wishes and

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle