[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

regarding pets

Nov 09, 1995 05:55 AM
by Jerry Schueler

>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 don't think anyone is arguing against this.

> 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

I could be wrong but I think that this "gap" is
because we are killing off all the animals so in the distant
future there will be no more wild animals left. Animals
domesticated for food or pets are all that will exist - and
this dismal future is not so far away.

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

Possibly. But human relationships build more
karmic attachments. Besides you can't show your friends
in confirmation or obedience rings :-

> 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.

Why do you automatically asume that they
would want to be human? My cats feel themselves
superior to humanity - and in a few ways I suspect
that they are.

>. 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.

I don't think that anyone will deny that animals are
better off without us human beings encroaching on their lives.
All wild animals certainly would prefer to be left alone.
However there is the naive idea of animals living wild and free
and there is the dismal reality that such a dream cannot occur
in today's world. Too many people.

>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.

I don't disagree with you in principle. What I am
saying is that we are really unfolding rather than evolving. This
"deep part of ourselves that grows" is slowly returning to its own
natural state exactly the same as when it started out. If you
want to call this evolution then fine.

>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 reject it from any standpoint you want to make
full or empty. A circle is a cirlce not a spiral. I Jerry Schueler
am subject to evolution/growth and karma yes but the
Divine Monad within this Jerry Schueler is not.

> The limitations may be in our understanding of
>the ideas rather than in the ideas themselves.

I suspect that they are in both.

>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.

Yes to the first statement. I do not take it personally.
My problem is that Purucker simply has not explained his
rationale sufficiently for me to accept his suggestion here. The
only reason that he seems to give is that any animal living
with humans will soon be ready to become an a human and
because the "door" has closed the poor animal must wait
until the "door" reopens. If there is another reason and the
excuse that animals are better off in the wild doesn't apply in
today's world because humans have eliminated the "wild"
to a few night-time center-city areas then I would love to hear
it. I simply am not convinced that animals want to become
human in the first place this notion smacks of human conceit.

Jerry S.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application