Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00539)

Bert wrote:

>And if anybody can come up with a non-awkward, non-gender
>specific way of saying "the Brotherhood of Humanity", I will support
>that person 100% in getting the English version of the Objects changed.

Would it just be too simple to say "the Love of Humanity?"

When you remove the limiting masculine referent from words like
"Brotherhood" or "Fellowship" and yet still are trying to say things
like:

>"(Essential) connectedness, at-one-ment, interrelatedness"

or

>"mutual support",

"Love" seems more than adequate.

It always bothered me that "Christ" was refered to in the masculine as
the "Son" of God and all of that. If you do even a simple
recapitualation of esoteric cosmogenesis with respect to polarity, it
becomes obvious that the offspring of Spirit and Matter (Father and
Mother) is the relationship of both. Unmanifest = Manifest (+.-) This
"offspring" is neither pole AND both poles at once. It is Child (+.-).
It is Love (+.-) It is Consciousness (+.-) It is That we are (+.-)

I suppose I'd draw fire for suggesting "Brotherhood" be replaced with
"Childhood of Humanity", or "Consciousness of Humanity", but along
certain lines of thought it fits and places one in good perpective.

But, doesn't "Love" has enough room in it to contain these concepts?

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it?

Lets face it! We err to continue using divisive separatist language when
what we share as common goal presumes to lead us to unity.

______________________________

As an aside,

(IMHO) We really need our personal egos and cannot function without
them. It is right and natural that we have and identify with them.
It is the Great Law which provides for them and will in good time
release the hidden gem from within them. (A deep mystery is hidden in
the word "I" and the silence that surrounds it) Assimilate. Integrate.
Liberate. (+.-)

Also (gently):

>once one is an Initiate, as HPB and A. Bailey then one's
"truth" perspective is not limited to one's "times."  The truths that
are presented are transcendent of personal limitations.

I'd be careful here. Both HPB's writings and the books by Bailey are
chock full of warnings and cautions to the contrary. Will this point of
view lead to spiritual self reliance?

And finally,

To my knowledge, our American founding fathers were Masons and not
Theosophists. The Philosophical Research Organization

http://www.prs.org

and the works of Manley P. Hall are ripe with information for those
interested. I also know of an account of a series of visions George
Washington supposedly had at Valley Forge that might prove of interest
to those looking into the "esoteric origins of the United States". I'll
see if I can dig up the reference.

Yours in earnest Childhood, :-)

Love,

Mark