In a series of phone calls earlier this year at the request of President Clinton, the National Bioethics Advisory Committee has asked the heads of many major American religions to submit opinions on the ethics of human cloning, an high priority issue in the wake of Scottish scientists who, earlier this year, cloned a sheep. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniaswami of Kapaa, Hawaii, representing Hinduism, solicited the opinions of Hindu leaders from around the world in response to the request.  Amid all the science-fiction-like fears that a human clone would turn out to be "demon-possessed," "soulless monsters," these prominent Hindus had some fascinating questions about our material culture and about the soul's work, and how these might play out in a world that includes human cloning.

Mata Amritanandamayi of India, who was elected President of Hinduism at the 1993 Parliament of the Worlds Religions, was quick to point out medical benefits. "The fuller understanding of cellular and reproductive processes can enhance the genetic engineering already underway and lead to new treatments for disease and the relief of suffering." In spite of accusations that scientists experimenting with cloning are arrogant men trying to have babies without women, a new fertility treatment has already been proposed using the same nucleic transfer technique used to clone Dolly the sheep: The genetic material from the egg of a woman with fertility problems can be placed in the egg of a healthier donor.

"Presently we do not require any such methods of procreation," asserts Sri Tiruchi Mahaswamigal of India, "so man does not need to develop them. There was a time when [it may have been necessary] for population, but now there are so many methods to stop population growth [that are required instead] so it does not call for new methods of procreation."

"What kind of creature is going to be created without direct participation of the pranic force?" asks Ayurvedic doctor, Vamadeva Shastri of New Mexico, referring to the missing vitality of absent parents. "The circumstance of conception creates the field which attracts a suitable soul, so what kind of soul can be attracted into that circumstance?" Vedic astrologer Chakrapani D. Ullal of California states that without the element of conscious parents present at the moment of conception "cloning creates animals and rakshasas [demons] this creates an inhuman being." Of course there is nothing new about this idea. When British researchers perfected in vitro fertilization of the human egg, leading to the 1978 birth of Louise Brown, the first "test tube" baby cultivated outside the human body, the religious and moral furor was universal and intense. Since that time, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization have produced normal healthy, perfectly human babies. "in the final analysis, matter itself is for the spirit," Dr. M.M. Sankhandher of India asserts.

"The vital question," according to Swami Chidananda Saraswati "Munji" of India, "is whether the clones will have the same feelings of love, hatred, anger etc. as the donor, as nay human being has? Is the clone different in any sense from the normal human being produced by the reproductive system? Will the laws of society apply equally to the clone?" And indeed, the very idea of soulless or demon possessed clones could certainly be an excuse to permit human cloning for, in the words of Swami Omkarananda Saraswati of Austria "destructive commercial exploitation in the hands of a greedy human nature that lacks scruples."

"Nevertheless, a parallel race of clones may precipitate into a powerful force," Sri Pramukh Swami Maharaj of India speculates. "Humanity will have to compete or compromise and design a new structure, constitution and patter of life. This may lead to more unrest than progress." Would clones then become second class citizens or even slaves? "To produce clones at our whims and fancies, may also lead to their use, abuse and destruction at will. It would be unthinkable to see man become as intolerant to human life as he has become to nature. A clone may become a thing or product for self-gratification."

The harvesting of clones for "spare parts," slavery, and armies of look-alike clones were common among the concerns. And, if this were to occur, the biological peril would be extreme. Maharaj cites that "uncontrollable diseases and deficiencies may spring up. The idea is nightmarish." Diversity within a species is its strength. Too many members of a species with the same set of strengths and weaknesses could result in the extinction of the human race resulting from, for example, a new strain of virus.

How society would change with the advent of human cloning is a vital issue. Maharaj further points out that "human cloning would mean a parentless society, full of surrogate mothers, careless donors and loveless children. The thought itself is shocking. Our world would become too individualistic and egocentric and perhaps the word 'society' would lose its meaning. The sacredness of life would be lost."

Shivaya Subramuniaswami's own statements further question the personal rights and responsibilities involved. "With all that complex surrogacy, whose children are the clones, and what happens to the concept of family?"

As to the mindset of the (in this case, absent) parents at the moment of conception, however Subramuniaswami had this to say: "Instructions exist in ancient Indian text, explaining how to conceive a child of a passionless and poised nature, all based on the thoughts and yogic practices of the parents during coitus. If that is true, might not cloning, with its total elimination of human sexuality, provide a physical-emotional home for an advanced soul seeking an earthly passage of solace, needing to live without emotion or powerful desires and sentiments?"

Would a passionless conception attract saints and sages? If no parents are present, then who's mindset will affect the conception, the doctors and laboratory staff? The surrogate mother? Perhaps it is whoever has the most emotion invested in the outcome, most likely the person being cloned.

Then an important question is who would volunteer for the first experiments? The most likely people to wish to be cloned would be the most egotistical and narcissistic among us, those who feel that the world would be better if there were more of them. "The chances are that good minded people will refrain and evil minded people will go ahead," Maharaj observes. The second most likely would be the extremely lonely, who may be hoping that their clones would be children after their own hearts. Perhaps the souls most attracted to such births would be those attracted to unreasonable pressure and unrealistic expectations in their environments, and whose parabdha karma, the part of karma that one is destined to experience in a particular lifetime, requires extreme conflict.

What impact will cloning have on the originator of the genetic material, the person being cloned? "A soul is born with parabdha karma. When it lives through the parabdha karma, that body will die," Bhairava Sundaram Sivacharya of Maryland explains. "Now if we take a cell from that body and make another man, do the parabdha karmas of the first man continue in some way? If so, the original soul cannot get released into the next world upon the [original] body's death."

Subramuniaswami adds, "Would your parabdha karma be impacted if a duplicate of your body live on, say 50 years, 100 years or more beyond your death? Would your soul be held up in the astral plane awaiting a new birth indefinitely, waiting for your very-much-alive cloned physical entity to succumb and release you? If cloning so impacts spiritual progress, we would certainly want to approach it with circumspection." On the other hand, perhaps one soul with additional bodies may be able to work out its parabdha karma more quickly.

Astrologer Chakrapani D. Ullal's opinion was quite the reverse: "The timing when the baby was born is very important. For instance, when having twins, hardly a few minutes difference in birth time still creates different persons psychologically. Because the parabdha karmas are different. So there can be not identical persons. The souls are different, even if the bodies are the same."

Maharaj agrees. "As Hindus we believe that every clone, thought genetically identical, will be spiritually different, just like identical twins who live separate lives a new jiva [soul] enters the embryo stage, with its own separate karma. Hence, no two clones can possibly lead the same lives and have the same experiences, let alone the original human."

Swami Omkarananda Saraswati also agrees. "By human cloning, one cannot create a Plato or Einstein, Michaelangelo or Homer, Mahatma Gandhi or St. Francis of Assisi. Such model human beings are products of eons of evolutionary nature. Man is not a mere artifact of genetic material, but an imperishable being bearing in himself the perfections of the Creator who is indwelling and transcending the genetic matrix."

Which of course leads to the ultimate concern of Hinduism; a spiritual one.

The Hindu's concern for the well being of the soul in its journey from life to life far surpass concern for the well being of the current embodiment," Subramunyaswami writes. "Just as the soul may make great spiritual progress in an imperfect body, it may also experience meager advancement in a perfect body. It is this inner progress towards our inherent perfection and the divinity within all that defines the preciousness of life, not the quality of physical existence."