Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00208)

John Straughn <JTarn@envirolink.org> wrote:

>> Titus wrote
>>  
>> I don't think, for example, that a plant reincarnates and will become more
>> conscious. That's one difference in destiny. Animals are invaluable supports
>> to man and may reincarnate, but I don't think they will evolve in
>> consciousness as we do. Is there a statement behind the question?

[John Straughn]
> Well, one *could* think of it in this way.  That it is not so much a
> question of consciousness as self-consciousness that we evolve.  Our ability
> to say "I am" has to be developed.  It can't just appear out of nowhere.  I
> suppose it *could*, but logically I'd have to assume that it doesn't happen
> that way.  Theosophically, as I understand it, every atom in existence
> innately desires self-consciousness and pure spirituality.  These atoms
> would probably be considered the minerals and elements.  One of the first
> things they need to experience in order to have self-consciousness is a
> uniqueness among others.

I would say that each plant, mineral, atom has *intelligence*, but does not
have an individual psyche as we do. I don't believe that killing a plant to
eat it destroys an ability for something to further evolve. Killing an animal
is abhorrent to me (even though I do eat some meat), but if it is a choice
between a person and an attacking tiger I would have to say that killing
the tiger does not diminish the evolving consciousness of the world.

It is possible that in some other "incarnation" of this solar system animals
may evolve into something having self-consciousness - I don't know.

> Hence plant-life.  The monads, between root-races and rounds, "change"
> themselves by their innate, yet still unconscious wills (swabhavas), into
> the most simple life form, i.e. unique form.  Like humans, I don't think you
> can ever have two plants that look exactly the same, grow at the same rate,
> or produce the same amount of fruit or whatever.  Each one of them has a
> unique pattern.  The atomic elements show proise of having a unique pattern
> as well in regards to the boson. (proton) One can split the boson of a
> proton, shattering it, and it will reconstruct itself, retrieve the
> scattered particles, "remember" where they go, and get them back in place,
> totally reconstructing the proton.  So there is uniqueness on the subatomic
> level as well.  But anywho...  Plants are most definitely unique.  They have
> individual characteristics, or are starting to show them at this stage, but
> they are in stasis.  They don't have a lot to do.  They have fewer senses
> than do the animals and man.  They cannot see, or hear, or taste, or smell
> as we do, but I believe they do have senses which we cannot comprehend as of
> yet.  Nevertheless, throughout their lives, their experience is pretty much
> the same.  One place, same scenery, same "whatever" that they sense if they
> sense anything. (Which they most likely do.)  So the next thing the monad
> wants to do innately and unconsciously, is to get more expewriences out of
> its life.  To gain even more individuality.  To get five senses instead of
> one or two.  To see things.  To hear things, smell them taste them and feel
> them.  Then, not only are there more experiences but it asdds to the variety
> of different ones that each animal can have.  They have true individuality.
> They can set themselves apart from others.  They almost have the ability to
> say "I am" I've always thought it somewhat poetic that when an animal is
> dying, one of the last things it might say to itself is, "I don't want this
> to happen to me.  I don't want to die."  It is the point when an animal
> realizes that it is an individual.

> So when that monad is in its fourth round(actually right before it) it can
> say to itself "I am" And from itself will come the "I am I", the human ego.
> Which eventually manifests itself as the human being.  What it comes down
> to, as I understand, is that the sole purpose of all the rounds and root
> races is simply to develop a self-conscious monad, which can only be done
> through matter, for only senses and experience lead to individualism, hence
> the "descent".

Let me demonstrate my profound and wondrous ignorance of theosophy by giving
my pedestrian interpretation of this round business. There is a plant stage
and an animal stage in a developing world preparing the way for
consciousness. We see this on a miniature time scale in the fetus, which
throughout its development adopts animal-like appearances.

We also certainly take much from the animal kingdom in our emotional
nature. Animal yoga postures permit us to develop something of the noble
strengths of animals. Does this mean we started from some animal-like
predecessor? I'm not at all convinced.

> I really don't think free will was so much "given" as discovered, like
> mathematical theorems(sp?).  We have always had will throughout our
> existence as monads and animals and plants, but I think free will actually
> came somewhere during the animal stage.  Perhaps in higher root-races.
> Don't really know.  Perhaps free will is the same as saying self-consciously
> directed will.  In other words, it's the same will that we have had since
> the beginning of the manvantara, only we recognize ourselves and our wills
> and can now control them.  I can agree that God gave us free will only by
> defining God as the Wonderous Being (the great banyan) from which we came
> and of which we are, and by saying that, as a part of that being we have a
> will as well.

Given or discovered? Interesting questions. Both seem right to me.  Is the
poet merely a cheap imitator for finding words to express inexpressible
things? I think not. He is as much a creator as a discoverer.

[Titus]
>> There is more to life than karma. God is certainly large enough to contain 
>> the law of sowing and reaping - and then some. There are "gifts" from God 
>> that we certainly haven't fully earned, but receive out of His Love. Kind of 
>> like a parent asking that a child earn some money, but then giving double 
>> what the child earns once he has shown he is responsible.

[John Straughn]
> I agree that there is more to life than karma.  If Gautama Buddha can get
> away with being immune to karma why can't I?  I also understand how you are
> trying to compare "gifts from God" to the love and method of reward to a
> child from a parent.  However, I can't entirely agree with it.  I don't
> really totally understand the analogy.  What are some examples of the gifts
> to which you are referring?  Are they only explainable as gifts from God?

What is *not* an example? How much did you really earn the mountains, rivers,
creatures, your friends? Partially, I'm sure. We all have a collective
contribution to the mountains, rivers, creatures, but I see them as gifts. I
see a friend as partially earned, but more in payment than what I gave in this
or previous lives.

"Gratitude is the beginning of ecstasy" said my teacher. In this, our
animal companions do seem to be far ahead of us. A dog will lick the
hand of his master in gratitude for what he receives.

Thanks for your questions and comments. They made me take a closer look
at my own views. (You may be quite correct. I just can't fully "connect"
with your view.)

- Titus