Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00170)

>> Bee

>> [Purucker 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.

> Jerry S:

>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 would have been inclined to say the same thing ten years ago
while I had two green Amazon parrots and was not yet married.
Since getting married and having children they've taken my time
and energy and the birds had to be given away. The birds became
neglected due to a lack of time for them and needed a new home.

My thinking is that pets provide a partial substitute for the
absence of human friendship and loving relationships but they
just can't completely take the place of another human being.

>I suppose its me but I credit animals with more intelligence
>and more evolutionary status than most theosophists are willing
>to give.

True. On the higher Globes they're said to be far more advanced
than we are here on Globe D. And they have billions of years of
evolution before them too. There's much to the experience of the
Animal Kingdom in the Fifth Sixth and Seventh Rounds that goes
vastly beyond what is available to animals in the present.

The same is true of us too and the gap between the two Kingdoms
continues to widen since the Manasaputras awakened the fire of
mind in us in the Third Root Race some 18 million years ago. We
will have less-and-less in common with animals in the distant
future.

>Besides psychological studies prove that petting animals reduces
>stress and adds to our longevity.

That's true. But it falls short of a relationship with another
human where an equal amoung of love and time is invested.

>I can't help but think that animals are better off for receiving
>love and care also isn't everything?.

Yes but humans aren't the only creature to be able to express
love and care. Animals do this to their own. We can give animals
a sense of the feeling of what it's like to be a human but
they can't do anything with that feeling.

>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.

These are two separate ideas. There is the closing of the door into
the Human Kingdom but that is based upon the timing of a specific
event the incarnation of the Manasaputras. And there is the idea
that animals are best off in the wild. That is it's in a natural
environment untouched by human hands where the Animal Monads are
able to establish their appropriate ecosystems based upon their own
evolutionary needs unbiased by human society. An animal is more likely
to live a stimulating existence and to achieve future evolution in
a natural setting than in a city part or human's home.

>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.

We differ on this one. I'd say that with each evolutionary
experience we are better off for having undergone the process.
This is akin to our becoming better writers with each article
that we write. There's always a deep part of ourselves that
grows with each cycle of existence.

>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.

>From the standpoint of emptiness you can reject this. From
the standpoint of fullness you are subject to evolution and
karma. Pick your mode of consciousness and see it whichever
way you prefer. Both aspects of life are real in their own
right and continue regardless of *your* perception.

>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.

Perhaps the rigidity is in *our ideas*. We need to keep them
flexible to both exercize them for strength and stretch them
for flexibility like we might do with our leg muscles should
we be joggers. The limitations may be in our understanding of
the ideas rather than in the ideas themselves.

>I suppose that this is one reason
>why I get so irritated when I see or hear theosophists
>speak of these things as gospel.

Gospel in the dead letter or in the living idea the mystery
teaching that the words attempt to express?

>Well I'm working on this as best as I can so I ask all
>recipients of my barbs to please bear with me.

I think that your reaction is to your seemingly being told what to
do by Purucker and not liking what he says. But since you're
not in a particular school with the requirement to not keep
pets and since Purucker's statment was not made in regard
to the partcular circumstances of your life you should not
take it too personally.

-- Eldon