Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00120)

Bee:< He then likens this to pets too how a pet and its
owner can resemble each other. And he says"It is the change of life-atoms
and it is not always good either. It is not good for the pet and it is not
good for the human being." He says there are other seasons too but doesn't
say so in case he upsets pet owners.>

As a pet owner his remarks upset me a good deal. In the
end I opted to ignore them and keep my pets. Sending animals out
into the "wild" is equivalent to killing them or worse their end will probably
be painful such as a road kill or something. I can't agree with G de P on
this one. I suppose its me but I credit animals with more intelligence
and more evolutionary status than most theosophists are willing to give.
Besides psychological studies prove that petting animals reduces
stress and adds to our longevity. I can't help but think that animals
are better off for receiving love and care also isn't everything?.

Purucker's statement that the animal would be better off in
the wild is based on the idea that they can't enter the human kingdom
until the next manvantara - which seems to us humans to be a very long
time to wait around. This falls in line with his teaching that our evolutionary

"growth" ends up on a higher plane or subplane than we started and thus
justifies the expended effort of all these lifetimes of work. Well I have
rejected that notion too because both of these ideas depend on
space-time and they only "make sense" to our human way of thinking.
I just don't believe life has to function within such a rigid format. I see
HPB's teachings about the planetary chain as being a model and as
such it has its uses as well as its limitations. I suppose that this is
one reason why I get so irritated when I see or hear theosophists
speak of these things as gospel. Well I'm working on this as best
as I can so I ask all recipients of my barbs to please bear with me.

Jerry S.