Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00201)

At 12:05 AM 10/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Maurice writes
>
>>By the bye, perhaps we should admonish the Masters of the Great
>>White BROTHERHOOD also for daring to use such a gender specific name.
>>The name, of course, was chosen by the Brotherhood itself ...
>
>By the bye, it has always astonished me that throughout the ages there were
>so many white brothers, and hardly ever a sister in the White Brotherhood.
>How do you account for that?
>
>Liesel
>
Hi Liesel,
I remember reading somewhere that because male and female bodies on this
physical plane had specific differences and were constituted differently,
the Masters found it more convenient to use a male body to accomplish what
they were to do. In the end male and female bodies are only a passing phase
of evolution, they weren't the norm earlier and I understand they won't be
the norm later on either. I sort of see us as a sexless consciousness
ensconced in a physical body that allows certain experiences. The experience
one gets in a male body, these days, is quite different from being in a
female body, if only because of the hormones :-)
Personally, I am not much bothered by names but paternalistic attitudes seem
to need an underdog and a boss which is no help to either. I have met male
underdogs who  have  female 'bosses'........ but I guess that is not as
prevalent as the other way around.

>
Bee Brown
Member Theosophy NZ, TI.

Success is getting what you want.
Happiness is liking what you get.