Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00529)

Richard Ihle writes-->
>Was I stupid or something, Kym?  [about not seeing ~brotherhood~ as a
male-associated word until it was pointed out to me]

Liesel writes-->
No, Richard, you were just being a product of acculturation. We all used to
think that way.

R.I.-->
You are probably right about that, Liesel; however, you know that any
theosophist worth his or her salt won't settle for an easy answer when there
is a chance that there is a complicated and abstruse one somewhere. . . .

In this case I am thinking about what HPB might call "the fundamental human
soul"--the "I AM" (Atman, Purusa) using the mental (manas) "vehicle"
(upadhi).

Curiously, there is a certain paradox with this state of consciousness,
because there seems to be little that we can regard as "familiarly human"
about it--so untainted and neutral it appears.  No likes, dislikes, social
roles, gender identifications etc. deluding the psyche here.  An mentally
active place, but not always exciting.

Desire-Mental consciousness is a different story altogether, isn't it?  Here
not only is the dispassionate mentality compromised by our attraction to or
repulsion from the subject matter etc., but also all the ways we ~like~ to
see ourselves--as Republicans, Afro-Americans, school teachers, men, and
women etc.--comes into play.  Here is where most people think the "real human
action" takes place.

Call a man who likes to be a man and who is currently utilizing a
Desire-Mental type of consciousness a "woman," and you are likely to see
sparks fly.  Call the same man a woman when he is stabilized in Mental
consciousness and, while you may see him expend quite a bit of energy trying
to disprove the assertion, it is unlikely to become a personal matter of
"offended masculinity."  Psychogenetically speaking, he is neither man nor
woman at this (Fifth) Level of consciousness, only a "rational psyche."

So anyway, I think of a woman like HPB who apparently had no trouble
"including herself in" when ~brotherhood~ was used, and again I have to ask,
"Was she stupid or something not to see and react against the obvious male
association?"

The answer I am on the verge of coming up with is "no."  I don't think it is
probable that her consciousness was any "lower" than the modern feminists.
 Indeed, I almost am persuaded of the reverse:  i.e., that HPB might have had
to significantly ~descend~ in terms of regularly utilized consciousness in
order to so solidly start thinking of herself as a woman that she would be
greatly interested by such an issue.

Liesel, I don't know . . . maybe I just want to get HPB off the
stupidity-hook so I can get off it myself.  For sure I'm acculturated enough
not to want Germaine Greer to be in proud possession of an ~authentically~
sooner-raised consciousness than mine. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle