Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00214)

On Thu, 9 Jan 97, John Straughn <JTarn@envirolink.org> wrote:

>Titus Roth writes:

>>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.

Plants and animals do not evolve as individuals, but all consciousness is
evolving.


>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.  

That something could miraculously arise from nothing, independently of any
law governing it, seems preposterous, but should be considered as a
possibility by a non-omniscient being.  Believing that the universe is
orderly and ruled by laws requires faith.


>Theosophically, as I understand it, every atom in existence innately desires 
>self-consciousness and pure spirituality.  

I wonder if pure spirituality is the ultimate desire or, analogous to
sexual desire, the union of spirit and matter is the ultimate desire.


>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.

I don't believe animals have self-consciousness.  I have heard people say
that animals feel embarrassed, but I have never seen any sign of it.  If
anyone should feel embarrassed, it is my cat.


>I really don't think free will was so much "given" as discovered, like 
>mathematical theorems(sp?).  

I do not see how free will can be given.  Its potential may be "given" in
the same sense that individual existence is "given," but  
It is either developed by the individual or it is not.