Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00075)

Apologies to any of you who find the following a long post:

In message <v01530500adac6b3c3dda@[165.227.35.214]>, Rodolfo Don
<rdon@garlic.com> writes
>>In message <v01530500adaaff280d7c@[165.227.35.194]>, Rodolfo Don
>><rdon@garlic.com> writes
>>>The reason that I included those quotes from the M.L. was because it was
>>>inconceivable to me (and still is), that "Universal Brotherhood" is not
>>>mentioned on the TI statement nor in its objects. As a matter of fact could
>>>you answer that question to me: *Why isn't Universal Brotherhood mentioned
>>>on the TI's objects?* I would like to know.
>>
>>Because of the changes in people's understanding of language since the
>>19th century.  The rising generation seem to regard "brotherhood" as a
>>strictly masculine or male-oriented term which, by definition, excludes
>>women, or at least marginalizes them.  Younger women especially do not
>>like this.  Others see "Brotherhood" as relating to arcane rites
>>conducted by male-only freemasons, and so forth.
>
>I don't have any problem with "Universal Brotherhood", are you implying
>that there could be some people that think that "Universal Brotherhood"
>applies only to men and not women? That's ridiculous, Alan. That is taking
>semantics to the level of the absurd.

I do not *think* that *some* people take this view, I am *informed* of
it by some of the people who *do* see things this way.  To them,
"brotherhood" is a male-inclusive, female-exclusive term which *puts
them off anything to do with organisations which proclaim it.  The
problem is not ubique to theosophy - the churches are having the same
problem.  I am relaying the perspectives of modern human beings, not
expressing an opinion.  That you have no probelm with the term does not,
in all justice and fairness, make it OK to go on using it, surely?

> What is mankind? What is love? What
>is compassion? No, I don't happen to agree with you on this!

As I said, it is a matter of fact, not opinion.  Agreement doies not
come into it.
>>
>>When the objects were first set out, these viewpoints did not obtain,
>>and people had no problems with the language as it is still expressed in
>>the 1896 objects.  In an attempt to overcome the difficulty, when TI was
>>developed, it was agreed to opt for the idea of us all being members of
>>a universal human family, and approach the "brotherhood" ideal from
>>there.  As I mentioned before, there is still work to be done on this,
>>and I have tried to do this in my "personal view" which is linked on the
>>Web page.  As modern language stands at present, we have not been able
>>to find an inclusive term to cover all individuals which exactly matches
>>the original ideal of "brotherhood" - and the T.S. worldwide is losing
>>many potential members because of its retaining old and *outdated*
>>language.  It doesn't show up in the membership statistics, for the
>>people concerned *are repelled by the language and go elsewhere!*  I
>>have been told this so many times by so many people, most of whom are in
>>some kind of "new age" movement which in all probability owes its own
>>existence to the T.S. in the first place - but it has moved with the
>>times, and the T.S. has not, and gets smaller with every passing year.
>>Sadly, it does not seem to want to listen to those of us who advise it
>>of this particular problem, and it is not for want of trying, as John
>>Crocker will bear witness.
>
>If you read Theosophy International first object, the way it stands on the
>web now (the revised version), it could apply to any of the criminal gangs
>that we have here in California and elsewhere. "To form a nucleus within
>the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation,
>creed, class, or color."
>
>This is very sad, and I refuse to be part of it.

None of us can opt out of the human race, or the human condition.  That
such criminal gangs exist is a mark of human failure, but the people who
are in such gangs are, whether we like it or them, still members of the
human family within which we hope to create a more harmonious and co-
operative example they may come to appreciate and follow.  Without doubt
(surely?) the founders intended their "nucleus" to reach out to *all*
beings, in which the idea of "class" would include the "criminal class"
- not just those of whom we happen to approve.
>
>>All that said, the problem of restating the ideal remains, hence my
>>suggestions to you.  I am anxious that a Web page, which is, as it were,
>>a front door to other rooms, should be as inviting as possible to people
>>who know nothing of Theosophy, Mahatmas, or H.P.B.
>
>We are still trying to define Theosophy International, what its purpose for
>existence is. As I said before, the way you are explaining it to me, it
>seems that TI is not the place for me.
>
>Rudy
>
>>Once they are able to start following links from the Web page, then all
>>theosophical possibilities can, in time, be open to them.
>>
>>Let me know what you think.
>>
>>Alan

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html