[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: From Mark at Art House

Dec 12, 1996 06:57 AM
by Art House

TTT wrote:

>K. Paul J., we at Art House just bought your book "The Masters
>Revealed."  Let's see whether we'll hate you, too.  We're sorry
>that we are going to share your book, that means less profit for
>you.  :-)

It's true that we just got KPJ's book and are interested in reading it
and the critiques that are circulating. TTT is on a good-natured roll
defending womanhood, etc. and I support her in that. But I don't want to
be misunderstood and therefore state for the record that I am not
interested in hating anyone. I'm trying to keep an open heart and mind.

I was only joking. I don't believe in hating anyone, either.

Chuck wrote:
>Re: Intuition vs. Emotion
>Somebody has never read my books.

Chuck, You sound so serious!

I'd be interested in what you have to say.
Can you supply me with more info about your books?


Again To Tom:

>Keeping the "top-down" view does not require blindness to differences in the lower planes

I agree. I was only asking for a proper context for discussion vis-a-vis
the teachings you referenced.

>Whom do you feel the need to caution?  If you have intended to caution
>me against this assumption, then you have probably bought in to Alan's
>and/or Kym's deliberate mischaracterizations of what I have written,
>since I have explicitly written, on this mailing list, that I consider
>men and women to be equal, but different.

"Equal but different" will get no argument from me.

It just seemed like you were saying that men were predominantly logic
oriented (manas) and women predominantly emotional (kama) in some kind
of constant sense, and that according to the chart of planes and your
quote that "higher up was more valuable, significant and real", this
acted as a sort of proof for your assertion of male "superiority". If
that's a mischaracterization, then I apologize.

Maybe all you were trying to get at was that there are characteristic
differences that are noticable. I think the trigger word was

In China, there is the theory about the Pa Kua. A way of understanding
Tao, tai chi, yin and yang, the five elements, and the flow of life. In
it's teachings there definately is a period of both yang and yin
"superiority" or ascendancy as the transformations of move. Life cycles
between the poles transforming from one into the other endlessly. Yet
the system remains whole and in balance all the time. Is this what you
were trying to get at?

>Why have the words "boys" and "girls" if that to which they are
>referring is identical, as many in this list believe?

That's the BIG, big question, isn't it? Why indeed.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application