Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00102)

Alan:
>Clearly, the use of the 19th century language is one of the things that
>TI sees as an obstacle to attracting new people to theosophy - a known
>fact; I have spoken to many people who have been put off by it, and at
>least one woman who *resigned* in protest at being regarded as a
>"fellow" and a "brother."

Dear Alan, I understand perfectly the objections against the terms.It
however conveys a certain idea though which seems grander, more
all-inclusive. But perhaps I have spend too much time with old writings.
The term "universal brotherhood of humanity" has an important double
meaning lost in the new text. Never mind, never mind.

> To suddenly find the outdated language
>appearing on putative TI Web page was quite alarming, and also
>depressing.

   I actually missed that detail. Could it be a mistake by Rudy? If not he
must feel strongly about it. Like me he probably refrained from joining the
discussion to avoid endless hair-splitting discussions.

> Surely we do not have to debate all over again one of the
>reasons we came into being in the first place?

   Of course not, Alan. When half mankind :-) would be less than satisfied
with the term, it is not satisfactory.  But many of these words loaded with
gender meanings are the results of defects in the english language!
   I think I will refrain from describing why "Law" is another favorite
term of mine (but a hint, hmm... dharma/karma, sssshhhh...).

In friendship,

Kim