Jump to content

Blavatsky H.P. - Have Animals Souls: Difference between revisions

Blavatsky H.P. - Have Animals Souls (view source)

Revision as of 09:20, 26 November 2025

81 bytes added ,  26 November
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 74: Line 74:
This statement will startle those good men and women who, however much they may love their cats and dogs, are yet too much devoted to the teachings of their respective churches ever to admit such a heresy. “The ''irrational'' soul of a dog or a frog divine and immortal as our own souls are?”—they are sure to exclaim: but so they are. It is not the humble writer of the present article who says so, but no less an authority for every good Christian than that king of the preachers—St. Paul. Our opponents who so indignantly refuse to listen to the arguments of either modern or esoteric science may perhaps lend a more willing ear to what their own saint and apostle has to say on the matter; the true interpretation of whose words, moreover, shall be given neither by a theosophist nor an opponent, but by one who was as good and pious a Christian as any, namely, another saint—John Chrysostom—he who explained and commented upon the Pauline Epistles, and who is held in the highest reverence by the divines of both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches. Christians have already found that experimental science is not on their side; they may be still more disagreeably surprised upon finding that no Hindu could plead more earnestly for animal life than did St. Paul in writing to the Romans. Hindus indeed claim mercy to the dumb brute only on account of the doctrine of transmigration and hence of the sameness of the principle or element that animates both man and brute. St. Paul goes further: he shows [''Rom''., viii, 21] the animal ''hoping for'', and ''living in the expectation of the same deliverance “from the bondage of corruption''” as any good Christian. The precise. expressions of that great apostle and philosopher will be quoted later on in the present Essay and their true meaning shown.
This statement will startle those good men and women who, however much they may love their cats and dogs, are yet too much devoted to the teachings of their respective churches ever to admit such a heresy. “The ''irrational'' soul of a dog or a frog divine and immortal as our own souls are?”—they are sure to exclaim: but so they are. It is not the humble writer of the present article who says so, but no less an authority for every good Christian than that king of the preachers—St. Paul. Our opponents who so indignantly refuse to listen to the arguments of either modern or esoteric science may perhaps lend a more willing ear to what their own saint and apostle has to say on the matter; the true interpretation of whose words, moreover, shall be given neither by a theosophist nor an opponent, but by one who was as good and pious a Christian as any, namely, another saint—John Chrysostom—he who explained and commented upon the Pauline Epistles, and who is held in the highest reverence by the divines of both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches. Christians have already found that experimental science is not on their side; they may be still more disagreeably surprised upon finding that no Hindu could plead more earnestly for animal life than did St. Paul in writing to the Romans. Hindus indeed claim mercy to the dumb brute only on account of the doctrine of transmigration and hence of the sameness of the principle or element that animates both man and brute. St. Paul goes further: he shows [''Rom''., viii, 21] the animal ''hoping for'', and ''living in the expectation of the same deliverance “from the bondage of corruption''” as any good Christian. The precise. expressions of that great apostle and philosopher will be quoted later on in the present Essay and their true meaning shown.


The fact that so many interpreters—Fathers of the Church and scholastics—tried to evade the real meaning of St. Paul is no proof against its inner sense, but rather against the fairness of the theologians whose inconsistency {{Page aside|21}}will be shown in this particular. But some people will support their propositions, however erroneous, to the last. Others, recognizing their earlier mistake, will, like Cornelius a Lapide, offer the poor animal amende honorable. Speculating upon the part assigned by nature to the brute creation in the great drama of life, he says:
The fact that so many interpreters—Fathers of the Church and scholastics—tried to evade the real meaning of St. Paul is no proof against its inner sense, but rather against the fairness of the theologians whose inconsistency {{Page aside|21}}will be shown in this particular. But some people will support their propositions, however erroneous, to the last. Others, recognizing their earlier mistake, will, like Cornelius a Lapide, offer the poor animal ''amende honorable''. Speculating upon the part assigned by nature to the brute creation in the great drama of life, he says:


The aim of all creatures is the service of man. Hence, together with him [their master] they are waiting for their renovation (cum homine renovationem suam exspectant).<ref>Comment. Apocal., ch. v, p. 137.<br>
{{Style P-Quote|The aim of all creatures is the service of man. Hence, together with him [their master] they are waiting for their renovation (''cum homine renovationem suam exspectant'').<ref>''Comment. Apocal''., ch. v, p. 137.<br>
{{HPB-CW-comment|[Quoted by de Mirville, Des Esprits, etc., Vol. VI, App. G, p. 168. Probably Pélagaud’s edition.—Comp.]}}</ref>
{{HPB-CW-comment|[Quoted by de Mirville, ''Des Esprits'', etc., Vol. VI, App. G, p. 168. Probably Pélagaud’s edition.—''Comp''.]}}</ref>}}


“Serving” man, surely cannot mean being tortured, killed, uselessly shot and otherwise misused; while it is almost needless to explain the word “renovation.” Christians understand by it the renovation of bodies after the second coming of Christ; and limit it to man, to the exclusion of animals. The students of the Secret Doctrine explain it by the successive renovation and perfection of forms on the scale of objective and subjective being, and in a long series of evolutionary transformations from animal to man, and upward.
{{Style P-No indent|“Serving” man, surely cannot mean being tortured, killed, uselessly shot and otherwise misused; while it is almost needless to explain the word “renovation.” Christians understand by it the renovation of bodies after the second coming of Christ; and limit it to man, to the exclusion of animals. The students of the Secret Doctrine explain it by the successive renovation and perfection of forms on the scale of objective and subjective being, and in a long series of evolutionary transformations from animal to man, and upward.}}


This will, of course, be again rejected by Christians with indignation. We shall be told that it is not thus that the Bible was explained to them, nor can it ever mean that. It is useless to insist upon it. Many and sad in their results were the erroneous interpretations of that which people are pleased to call the “Word of God.” The sentence “cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” (Gen., ix, 25)—generated centuries of misery and undeserved woe for the wretched slaves—the negroes. It is the clergy of the United States who were their bitterest enemies in the anti-slavery question, which question they opposed Bible in hand. Yet slavery is proved to have been the cause of the natural decay of every country; and even proud Rome fell because “the majority in the ancient world were slaves,” as Geijer justly remarks. But so terribly imbued at all {{Page aside|22}}times were the best, the most intellectual Christians with those many erroneous interpretations of the Bible, that even one of their grandest poets, while defending the right of man to freedom, allots no such portion to the poor animal.
This will, of course, be again rejected by Christians with indignation. We shall be told that it is not thus that the Bible was explained to them, nor can it ever mean that. It is useless to insist upon it. Many and sad in their results were the erroneous interpretations of that which people are pleased to call the “Word of God.” The sentence “cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” (''Gen''., ix, 25)—generated centuries of misery and undeserved woe for the wretched slaves—the negroes. It is the clergy of the United States who were their bitterest enemies in the anti-slavery question, which question they opposed ''Bible in hand''. Yet slavery is proved to have been the cause of the natural decay of every country; and even proud Rome fell because “the majority in the ancient world were slaves,” as Geijer justly remarks. But so terribly imbued at all {{Page aside|22}}times were the best, the most intellectual Christians with those many erroneous interpretations of the Bible, that even one of their grandest poets, while defending the right of man to freedom, allots no such portion to the poor animal.


{{Style P-Poem|poem=He [God] gave us only over beast, fish, fowl,
{{Style P-Poem|poem=He [God] gave us only over beast, fish, fowl,
Line 89: Line 89:
Reserving, human left from human free.
Reserving, human left from human free.


—says Milton.<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Paradise Lost, Book XII, lines 67-71.]}}</ref>}}
—says Milton.<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[''Paradise Lost'', Book XII, lines 67-71.]}}</ref>}}


But, like murder, error “will out,” an incongruity must unavoidably occur whenever erroneous conclusions are supported either against or in favour of a prejudged question. The opponents of Eastern philozoism thus offer their critics a formidable weapon to upset their ablest arguments by such incongruity between premises and conclusions, facts postulated and deductions made.
But, like murder, error “will out,” an incongruity must unavoidably occur whenever erroneous conclusions are supported either against or in favour of a prejudged question. The opponents of Eastern ''philozoism'' thus offer their critics a formidable weapon to upset their ablest arguments by such incongruity between premises and conclusions, facts postulated and deductions made.


It is the purpose of the present Essay to throw a ray of light upon this most serious and interesting subject. Roman Catholic writers in order to support the genuineness of the many miraculous resurrections of animals produced by their saints, have made them the subject of endless debates. The “soul in animals” is, in the opinion of Bossuet, “the most difficult as the most important of all philosophical questions.”
It is the purpose of the present Essay to throw a ray of light upon this most serious and interesting subject. Roman Catholic writers in order to support the genuineness of the many miraculous resurrections of animals produced by their saints, have made them the subject of endless debates. The “soul in animals” is, in the opinion of Bossuet, “the most difficult as the most important of all philosophical questions.”


Confronted with the doctrine of the Church that animals, though not soulless, have no permanent or immortal soul in them, and that the principle which animates them dies with the body, it becomes interesting to learn how the school-men and the Church divines reconcile this statement with that other claim that animals may be and have been frequently and miraculously resurrected.
Confronted with the doctrine of the Church that animals, though not soulless, have no ''permanent'' or immortal soul in them, and that the principle which animates them dies with the body, it becomes interesting to learn how the school-men and the Church divines reconcile this statement with that other claim that animals may be and have been frequently and miraculously resurrected.


Though but a feeble attempt—one more elaborate would require volumes—the present Essay, by showing {{Page aside|23}}the inconsistency of the scholastic and theological interpretations of the Bible, aims at convincing people of the great criminality of taking––especially in sport and vivisection—animal life. Its object, at any rate, is to show that however absurd the notion that either man or brute can be resurrected after the life-principle has fled from the body for ever, such resurrections—if they were true—would not be more impossible in the case of a dumb brute than in that of a man; for either both are endowed by nature with what is so loosely called by us “soul,” or neither the one nor the other is so endowed.
Though but a feeble attempt—one more elaborate would require volumes—the present Essay, by showing {{Page aside|23}}the inconsistency of the scholastic and theological interpretations of the Bible, aims at convincing people of the great criminality of taking––especially in sport and vivisection—animal life. Its object, at any rate, is to show that however absurd the notion that either man or brute can be resurrected after the life-principle has fled from the body for ever, such resurrections—if they were true—would not be more impossible in the case of a dumb brute than in that of a man; for either both are endowed by nature with what is so loosely called by us “soul,” or neither the one nor the other is so endowed.
{{HPB-CW-separator}}
{{HPB-CW-separator}}


<center>'''II'''</center>
{{Style P-Title|II}}
{{Vertical space|}}
{{Vertical space|}}
<center>{{HPB-CW-comment|[The Theosophist, Vol. VII, No. 77, February, 1886, pp. 295-302]}}</center>
{{HPB-CW-comment|view=center|[''The Theosophist'', Vol. VII, No. 77, February, 1886, pp. 295-302]}}
{{Vertical space|}}
{{Vertical space|}}


{{Style P-Quote|“What a chimera is man! what a confused chaos, what a subject of contradiction! a professed judge of all things, and yet a feeble worm of the earth! the great depository and guardian of truth, and yet a mere huddle of uncertainty! the glory and the scandal of the universe!”—{{Style S-Small capitals|Pascal}}.}}
{{Style P-Epigraph|“What a chimera is man! what a confused chaos, what a subject of contradiction! a professed judge of all things, and yet a feeble worm of the earth! the great depository and guardian of truth, and yet a mere huddle of uncertainty! the ''glory and the scandal'' of the universe!”|—{{Style S-Small capitals|Pascal}}.}}


We shall now proceed to see what are the views of the Christian Church as to the nature of the soul in the brute, to examine how she reconciles the discrepancy between the resurrection of a dead animal and the assumption that its soul dies with it, and to notice some miracles in connection with animals. Before the final and decisive blow is dealt to that selfish doctrine, which has become so pregnant with cruel and merciless practices toward the poor animal world, the reader must be made acquainted with the early hesitations of the Fathers of the Patristic age themselves, as to the right interpretation of the words spoken with reference to that question by St. Paul.
We shall now proceed to see what are the views of the Christian Church as to the nature of the soul in the brute, to examine how she reconciles the discrepancy between the resurrection of a dead animal and the assumption that its soul dies with it, and to notice some miracles in connection with animals. Before the final and decisive blow is dealt to that selfish doctrine, which has become so pregnant with cruel and merciless practices toward the poor animal world, the reader must be made acquainted with the early hesitations of the Fathers of the Patristic age themselves, as to the right interpretation of the words spoken with reference to that question by St. Paul.
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/32525"