Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00528)

>Richard Ihle writes-->
>Most of the women of my acquaintance seem to think either 1) ~brotherhood~
and ~mankind~ started off as inclusive terms and still are inclusive terms,

Brotherhood did not "start off" as a inclusive term, a cursory look at
history will prove such.

>that even a change for a worthy purpose like gender-neutrality would give
the >signal to the powers within the the TS that THE THREE OBJECTS should
thus also be >able to be easily changed to include statements about service
to the "Masters," HPB >doctrine etc.

Wow, are the "powers" within the TS that sinister?  I had occasionally
suspected, but still had some hope.

>My interest in this is theosophical.  The point I was bringing up for
>discussion is that perhaps ~even if~ there are such differences, a shift from
>utilizing predominently desire-mental (kama-manas) consciousness and toward
>more mental (manas) consciousness would make any putative gender differences
>largely irrelevant, anyway.

The writings and messages of "transmitters" or enlightened ones have often
been used to justify wrongs and stand in the way of change.  Implying that
women (as you did in an earlier post) are predominently desire-mental
(kama-manas)and men are predominately mental (manas) is the same as saying
women are emotional/thinkers and men are rational/thinkers.  In either
language - it's sexism and discriminatory, and demeans both men and women.
It has already been proven that gender-differences are "largely irrelevant
anyway," - what I see being attempted here is to clothe and promote, and
even re-animate, harmful ideas with the cloak of "divine wisdom" or
"enlightenment."

Some "interpreters" of esotericism have managed to insert a skanky side into
the literature (ex: Aryan "superiority," Monad "laggards," etc.)  With this
and more, it is not surprising that a division of the sexes would find
endorsement with some similiar juggling of esoteric wisdom.  I guess we just
see what we want to see and practice what we want to practice, and interpret
the literature in the way that suits us most. "Know a person's god, and you
will know them."

>If less "refinement" is simply the reason you can so easily charge me with
>"worse than sexism," I can breathe a sigh of relief.  I am ashamed to admit
>that for a while was entertaining all kinds of silly ideas about the reasons
>for your "verve."  Once, I even thought you might be a sort-of-a-prince who
>was returning to the list again in drag. . . .

'Cuse me?  Ok, some esoteric literature espouses homophobia as well.

Yo! Richard:  You claim to walk with Blavatsky, yeah, well sometimes, I
think I walk with the big shots too.  Tell ya what, if you find yourself at
"The Door" and your great big key doesn't fit - over to your left you'll see
a dark corner.  Come on over, there'll be one or two who lack "refinement,"
and a "Cleric" or two, who's keys didn't fit either huddled there.  We'll
just sit around and yammer, and try to figure out. . .well. . .where all the
transvestites have gone.


Kym

"If you see the Buddha, kill him."  - Zen