Definitions
Oct 17, 1996 04:18 PM
by Dr. A.M.Bain
In message <199610170251.WAA15173@envirolink.org>, John Straughn
<JTarn@envirolink.org> writes
>You (and not you specifically, "you" meaning those
>who have stated that they wish to change the words on the following grounds)
>wish to change the words because you, among and /or in sympathy with others,
>feel offended in a sexually discriminative manner. This is undeniably an
>offence to the ego and the ego only. Therefore, by changing the words because
>of the latter reason, you are giving in to and giving strength to your ego,
>thereby weakening your attraction to the atman.
It is undeniably what it says it is. *People* (not just "egos" - a
term undefined by you) offended, not just parts of them. You seem to be
following a doctrinal position in your posts on this, but without
stating what that position is, or defining your terms. The very word
"Ego" is used in several ways by different schools of thought. Some
might even be equated (by the users) with what you might call "atman."
This is yet another language problem!
Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
