The Washington times., 1894-11-26
KNIFING A LIVE SUBJECT
DR.. Ghandi, Of India, on the Practice
of ViyisectiOn.
BOTH IMMORAL AND INHUMAN
No Hindoo Could Adopt Religion That Toll
crates the Viyisectionist-Uni Love
as the Basis of True Religion-A Doc
trine of sects Can Never Be Universal.

The subject of DIR. Ghandrs lecture last
night at Metzerott Hall was "Vivisection. :"
he treated the theme in particularly inter
esting way and especially from the point of
view that its practice under the sanction of
the Christian religion would be an insepera-
bic obstacle in the way OF reconciling Hin
doc to the Christian faith.
In order to develop this proposition he first
spoke of the idea of universal love which was
the bedrock OF the Hindoo religion. Hindoo
theology did not depend on dogma, and the
uindoo religion was not split up into an in
finite number of schools and sects, each
preaching its doctrine as the infallible truth.
There seemed to be, he said, hat there was
some reason for this variety of sect, because
if there was one universal church there
would be fewer occupations in the pulpit. He
did not mean to criticise any of the institu-
tions of the Western civilization for the mere
sake OF criticism, but only in that spirit in
which the institutions Of his land could be
criticised and with the ultimate end i'll view
on both sides OF arriving at the absolute
truth.
One of the logical results of the idea of
universal love was that cruelty TO animals
was barbarity and that kindness TO them was
OF divine inspiration. Man, in the classihca-
ton of living beings, stands at the head. but
that did not carry with it the right to slay or
matreat them. In this connection he de-
scribed the great hospital for animals at Bonn
bay. Universal love meant a union Of heart
and brain. sectional love meant hatred or in
difference to some other animal existences.
Partial truth might be described as falsehood
Universal love, then, was diametrically op-
posed TO the idea and practice of vivisection.
He would not mar what he had to say by
appealing to the feelings OF animals in the
process of being vivisected. but he would as
sert that the practice necessarily blunted and
obliterated the moral sense. The familiarizing
OF students with the practice had the same
tendency, for it was natural that the student
should initiate the teacher. He denied that
| science had gained anything by the practice,
and maintained that its justification was
based on the Roman Catholic doctrine, that
the end justife the means. They say that
we should not be sentimental, but man who
would vivisect rabbit would not hesitate TO
vivisect q human being.
He mentioned the instances of Dr. Green, Of
Canada, DR.. Gray, DR.. Mccullough. and DR..
Roberts, who had been Yivisectionists, and who
had been tried for murder within the past
two years, TO show the result OF such scientific
doctrines. He laid emphasis on the state
ment that it was better that knowledge
should suffer il its advancement depended on
the degradation of the heart the destruction
of conscience. He expressed the belief that
vivisectioG was the outgrowth OF Roman
lust, luxury and cruelty as exhibited in their
gadiatorial combats, and the fact that it was
now indorse by an enlightened civilization
made it all the worse.
it was not necessary. for the Hindoos long
before this age of modern civilization, were
familiar with the science of nerve centers,
anatomy, and ali kindred subjects. He con-
sidered it blot upon the Christian religion.
and one that would never commend itself TO
the Indian conception OF relig on founded
on love. He thought that a true religion
could live in unison with progress in science
without the assistance of the inhuman practice
of vivisection.