Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00063)

Jim:
>>Personally, I'm in the this-is-no-big-deal category.  But since it is so
>>important to some, it makes for interesting reading on theos-l.  I wish
>>there was more thought given to the proper expression of the idea that was
>>once universally thought of as "Brotherhood".  English sounds are not based
>>upon mantric law, as those in Sanskrit alledgedly are, but there may still
>>be enough of this "idea:spoken word" connection to warrant careful
>>consideration before undertaking changes on words so fundamental to the
>>Society.  If the point is for "the nucleus" to become universal, then the
>>mission statement must express something which is universally admirable.

Bee Brown:
>I think you have a good point about sounds being based on mantric law. I
>suspect that there is still a bit of that in the English language because
>much of it has come down from the time when this was known. Also I
>understand that words can carry vibrations of various sorts so maybe HPB was
>knowledgeable in this area and chose certain ways of expressing the
>Theosophical concepts because of their vibrational value. When I read, there
>will occur a sentence that suddenly has meaning to me over and above the
>rest of the page and I suspect that the vibes represented by those words set
>up a similar vibration within my mind and so a sort of recognision takes
>place. This could possible be more common with architypal ideas expressed in
>sounds that correspond to the vibrations of the symbol.

TTT:
Mantric laws or not, if one records a session of sounds, even totally
cacophonous ones, listen to it again and again, one may find rhythm,
music, and comfort in it.  Even in classical music, there was a period
when cacophonous sounds were the rage in operas and ballets.  I think
that was around Stravinsky's time.  My point is that the word
"Brotherhood" was formed during a time when masculine was considered
strong, and feminine was considered weak and demure.  Just because
tradition dictated and we took comfort in tradition, does not mean that
it should not be changed.

Liesel:
>At least it was Brotherhood 120 years ago, when anybody who was anybody was
>a man. Women weren't considered to be very much, they were just beginning to
>make a racket to be counted. At that time, when the man was the boss,
>everybody thought of our universality as a Brotherhood ... women as well as
>men. It was the style of the times. Well, it's not the style anymore. I'd
>rather think of human "families", to which men & women contribute equally.
>But the most important thing is that lots of young people, whom we'd like to
>attract to the TS, are completely turned off by that kind of terminology.
>They won't even look twice at an organization that says it champions
>brotherhood. The latter is my biggest reason for wanting to change it. But I
>also protest to calling it brotherhood out of principle, because I am and,
>in this life, have always been a sister.

TTT:
Yay, sister!  Tits up, up in the air!!! S=o)