Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00060)

   I grasp Liesel's comment ... but I'm not sure I understand her point.  Is
she suggesting
that, somehow, it would be preferable for budding surgeons <not> to prefect
their skills
first on cadavers (electronic or otherwise) or animals before attempting to
perform them on
humans?
   As for Karmic consequences, lower species of all kinds have been suffering
at the hands
of humans since the very dawn of humanity.  I am not an advocate of suffering
per se but
I can't help but wonder what someone like Liesel does about, say, an
infestation of mice
in her kitchen.  Does she put out "Mousepruff" (a very efficient rodent
poison) or spring-
loaded traps (either lethal or benign)?  Or, instead, out of concern for
Karmic consequence-
quences, does she simply endure the infestation because "they have as much of
a need
to be there as we do."  
   I am not trying to put Liesel (and others who may agree with her) on the
spot but this is
an issue that has perplexed philosophers for ages.  I understand, for
example, that even 
that towering theosophical personage, William Q. Judge, "had to have meat" in
order to
survive physically for as long as he did.  So how many animals suffered and
died for the
express benefit of Judge?  My point is that Theosophists need to look at "the
big picture"
before rushing to judgment about small segments of it.