Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00221)

Perry,

Thanks for stating what to many should be the obvious.

Your last statement bears repetition:

"Theosophy should be taking us away from these egregious and 
ignorant mindsets rather than giving any credence to them what so 
ever."

I was a teenager in the 1960s in Texas and saw many of these
"ignorant mindsets" up close. Intolerance against women, blacks, 
hispanics, gays, non-Christians, hippies, poor people, etc. All 
these people were second class citizens, if that. If you weren't 
part of the "white man" [WASP males] culture, you really didn't 
count for much.....Don't get me started! :)

I remember some of my relatives weren't to happy with me when they 
discovered I was interested in Theosophy - a non-Christian (!) cult 
founded by a Russian (!) woman who smoked (!) and had Masters that 
were pagans who wore beards and long hair and wore funny towels on 
their heads.... I had sorta forgotten all of this until Frank 
brought up the current subject.

I'm wondering if Frank will directly address the questions and 
issues I raised in the following two posts:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/28038

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/28039

Daniel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> It seems quite amazing to me that any thinking and feeling person 
> could take seriously any kind of notion of women 'not having a 
soul'.
> 
> This is one of the worst examples of patriarchal culture where 
women 
> have been until recently largely excluded from elite male power 
> structures.
> 
> To even consider this as a possibility is I think an act of 
violence.
> 
> Women could not be Priests or monks this applies equally to 
Buddhism 
> as it does to Christianity, EVEN TO THIS DAY women are not allowed 
in 
> fully into the Preistly domain !?!
> Theosophy should be taking us away from these egregious and 
ignorant 
> mindsets rather than giving any credence to them what so ever.
> 
> 
> Perry
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
> <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > Frank, you write in part:
> > 
> > "Why are you not satisfied when I come to conclusions 
> > which may be different from your research? Hang him 
> > higher! Bomb them down!"
> > 
> > Similarly, I might ask you: why are you not satisfied
> > when Leadbeater comes to conclusions which may
> > be different from your own research? Apparently
> > you are not so "satisfied" either and are not shy
> > at pointing out Leadbeater's differences and even
> > calling him a "swindler"! :)
> > 
> > My comments were in response to what you had written
> > in the following posting:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/27948
> > 
> > In this posting you refer to the views of Thomas, the synod of 
> Paris 
> > in 846 A.C, the synod of Coyaca in 1050, other synods, Clemens, 
> John 
> > Chrysostomos, Pope Pius II, and Buddhist monks on the "lower" 
> status 
> > of women and then seemingly conclude:
> > 
> > "I think that Theosophy teaches SIMILIAR in its HIGHER 
teachings, 
> > but POPULAR Theosophy looks as is men and women are equal.
> > GdeP elsewhere said (I am looking for the text I read some years 
> > before) - perhaps in one of his circulars - as warning for 
future 
> > theosophists that women may not get leaders in the TM for the 
next 
> > some hundreds of years because of their LACK OF THE DIVINE SOUL 
and 
> > their attraction to the lower astral world."
> > caps added
> > 
> > Frank, if you want to believe all of this that is up to you, but 
I 
> > simply wanted to point out to readers who may not know that much 
> > about Theosophy that there may be other views on the matter!  
> > 
> > Furthermore, it appears that you wanted to cite Purucker as 
> > a "knowledgeable" authority to support this view of yours.  
Well, 
> in 
> > turn, I believe that Pedro quoted KH to support an opposite view 
on 
> > the matter.
> > 
> > If you want me to be brutally honest, I think such a view as the 
> one 
> > you give ranks up there with some of the other claptrap put out 
by 
> > such "occultists" as Leadbeater, Bailey, Prophet, Ballard, etc.  
I 
> > hope GdP doesn't also believe this "claptrap." 
> > 
> > But of course that is only my view and others may differ. :)
> > 
> > I give again for other readers the words of Master KH:
> > 
> > ". . . Woman must not be looked upon as only an appanage of man,
> > since she was not made for his mere benefit or pleasure any more 
> than
> > he for hers; but the two must be realized as equal powers though
> > unlike individualities.
> > 
> > ". . . Woman's mission is to become the mother of future
> > occultists—
> > of those who will be born without sin. On the elevation of woman 
the
> > world's redemption and salvation hinge. And not till woman 
bursts 
> the
> > bonds of her sexual slavery, to which she has ever been 
subjected,
> > will the world obtain an inkling of what she really is and of her
> > proper place in the economy of nature . . .
> > 
> > ". . . Then the world will have a race of Buddhas and Christs, 
for
> > the world will have discovered that individuals have it in their 
own
> > powers to procreate Buddha-like children or — demons. When
that
> > knowledge comes, all dogmatic religions and with these the 
demons,
> > will die out."
> > 
> > To Jerry HE: if you are reading this, can you tell us from your 
> > study of GdP if he actually teaches this view as given by Frank?
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc