Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tl00123)

Dear Dallas and Rafaella and Angie,

Dallas wrote:
> The "cloning" is a physiological process and so far involves
> plants and animals, but has not been successful (that I have
> heard) in regard to humans.

This is partly because even for the famous sheep Dolly it
was neccessary to implant hundreds of embrios befor one
would come to term. So immense numbers of women have to be
subjected to the trauma of the baby in their wombes dying,
before one healthy child can be born.
I have a friend involved in biochemistry and he says that
there are wealthy people willing to pay good money for
people trying to clone them, but so far it has not been
tried.

> In any case the Theosophical view is (as I get it from HPB's KEY
> TO THEOSOPHY) the Spirit/Soul in man (the Real HUMAN) is a
> reincarnating being.  It is immortal.  Karma determines the place
> and family of its new reincarnation.
>
> Unless there is an agreement in terms of karma between the HIGHER
> EGOS OF THE PARENTS (FATHER AND MOTHER) AND THE INCOMING EGO of
> that being who will be their "child," there can be no incarnation
> and consequently no physical body ought to be expected to mature.

> However this is only my speculation, based on the ideas of the
> IMMORTALITY of the REAL EGO, and the accuracy of KARMA which
> operates uniformly and fairly for all beings.

> Cloning is a physical and physiological and astral thing,
and
> does not seem to have the needed roots insofar as humans are
> concerned in the psycho-spiritual planes.

I think that since sheep can be reincarnated healthily, why
can't humans? I do not see how karma should prevent this
experiment. Also because from the S.D. it seems that in the
early days of humanity *we* were all clones from our
parents.

Angie wrote:
> we believe that all matter, down to the tiniest piece is
> a part of the great
> universal light.  This being, even though not born
> conventionally, will be
> created of the same matter as everything else. How then could it
> not be a part
> of that universal light?

exactly my thougt: it will be part of the universal light
or spirit and in the same way that twins are each *created*
or formed with a distinct soul, the new baby will be
infused with its own personality. That is what I think. How
could it not? It will grow up in very different
circomstances from the parent, have a different
astrological sign etc. How could it be an abonimation. If
it is born healthily, than that is good and certainly not
its fault: so it can not be punished for that.

> Now, I think we can agree that the creators, right or
wrong, will
> have to deal
> with whatever karma they have earned.  But what of the child, and
> those around
> it?  I'll start with a question for our group, in particular.  If
> we take the
> tack that it has no soul, who among us would look a child in the
> face and tell
> it that it is a soul-less abomination, that it should never have
> been born?
> What karma do we create for those within our group if we teach
> such ideas?

no good can come from teaching such idea's in my
oppinion...

> As for the child, I have many questions.
Would it pick up part of the spirit and karma of the one
who donated the cells? Or would it follow current though,
that each person has it's own karma? And if it has it's own
karma, which of these would it be - A totally new spirit,
taking it's very first steps on the karmic circles? Or,
with all the trials, and most certainly prejudice against
the method of it's birth, would it be the reincarnation of
a soul that had built up so much karmic debt that it would
need to work through such adversity to move on?>

The child would have as much chance of a full karmic
history as all of us, in my oppinion. Since it need not
mention the way it was born, I don't think the social
stigma need be so bad.

> Another point raised was that when you get a transplant, or blood
transfusion you get some of the essence of that donor.  In
natural conception, the child shares the lifeblood of it's
mother, and some of that essence, as well as that from the
seed of the father.  What of a child without either of
those influences?  Would there be some deficiency of soul?
Or, since the donor had these influences, and the clone is
a copy, would it be similar to the donor, a copy of a whole
soul?  One thing I'm interested in learning is what studies
are out there of children born in test-tubes?  >

This sounds like a misconception to me. No children are
born out of testtubes. Children are sometimes conceived in
testtubes, but for the full development of the baby it will
have to be inplanted in a womb very soon after conception.
So I should think that there are nine months of maternal
influence even in those cases (minus a few days)

> I find amidst all this I do have one firm belief.  So
long as we treat them as we would any other creature on
this planet, with compassion, we cannot go far wrong.>

----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl