Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00212)

Titus Roth writes:
>John Straughn <JTarn@envirolink.org> wrote:
>> 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.

:)  Most definitely, if we couldn't eat plants or animals, we'd starve to 
death.  But killing something on this physical plane does not mean that you 
are kill the monad behind it's existence (it's "spiritual nature").  That 
monad may still develop itself once again as a plant, several times over in 
fact.  I believe that for animals the same stands true.  And for humans.  I 
agree with you that plants and animals do not have a "psyche" like our own.  
That is kind of explained theosophically by the "multiple ego" doctrine.  As 
we go up from the body to the paramatman(supreme self) we have several 
souls(vehicles) and egos.  The body, then the astral soul which carries the 
beast ego, then the Human soul which carries the personal ego, then the higher 
human soul which carries the human ego, then the spiritual soul and the divine 
each, in turn, carrying its own ego.  At the highest is the Supreme self.  (I 
don't know if I am a believer of this heirarchy as of yet, but I'm thinking 
about it:))  I still haven't figured out if this works with plants and 
animals, because from whatI understand, they have their own heirarchies 
because of the fact that they are in a different round.  I have kind of the 
pedestrian knowledge of this as well, so really this is only speculation and 
what I am saying may be way off course.  I guess what I'm trying to say is 
that I believe that plants and animals and mountains and trees come from the 
same essence (call it God if you will) and, therefore, must have the same 
potential for evolution as everything else.  Like begats like.  I'm going to 
have to sit back and think this over a bit before I say anymore on it.  
There's a lot more to this than I thought there would be.  (I think I said the 
same thing to Kym a couple of weeks ago regarding the same thing and I still 
haven't gotten back to her yet...hopefully she's reading this string...)

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

As you can tell, I'm not PRECISELY clear on rounds and races yet either, so at 
this point, I must logically agree with the above statement.  Hopefully soon 
I'll be able to change "possible" into probable or improbable ...it is very 
confusing, esp. when heirarchies get involved.

>> 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.

My current hypothesis on rounds is that they are like the "planes" described 
in other literatur, in that they all exist right here right now.  I think I 
read somewhere also that there are seven globes, each having it's own 
heirarchy(eight counting avichi nirvana) and each having it's own seven 
rounds.  I'm nowhere NEAR being clear on that as of yet.  On the above, we 
start out with plant-like appearance, as we divide from a fertilized egg.  
Then we turn into the "elephant(so cute, hehe), and eventually grow into the 
human.  The reason that I can accept the round doctrine is that it seems 
logical that a monad would develop to a certain point depending on it's 
progress in evolution.  As it progressed, it would still retain the growth 
process it had in it's previous existences, only taking it a step further each 
time.  One could call it spiritual growth in manifestation.


>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 agre with the notion that physically we could not have evolved directly from 
animals, plants, minerals, etc.  But spiritually, if we never had experience 
as animals, how could we have ever gained the above-mentioned animal-like 
qualities?

>> 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.

When you put it in those words, I have to say that you're exactly right.  I 
suppose one could say that all creations are discoveries, but not all 
discoveries are creations.  But then again, for it to be discovered, it had to 
be created, didn't it? ...hrmmm...

>> 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 
>thisor 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
Now *I* have much more to think about.  Thank you:)
---
The Triaist