Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00226)

Daniel you ask me:
>=I still do not understand what IS this "divine soul"
that you say women apparently are missing or lacking??

Am I too stupid to express myself?
I did not say that women have no divine soul.
I say that the Catholic church believes this and try to find out in this 
discussion was Theosophy has say about it and whether the churchian view is 
based on a former truth, probably today misunderstood.
Obviously most women are missing the higher principle.
But that counts also for many men.

=>Are you saying that men have 7 "principles"
but women only have 6? In effect, we should
have two charts, one showing the 7 "principles"
in man and another one showing the 6 "principles"
in women????

No, I do not say this.
Its a question what do you understand by principles.
You are following a Theosophy which is sometimes different from "my" 
Theosophy.

To me - following here HPB and GdeP - strictly speaking we have only six, or 
more strictly, five principles as the sthula sharira and Atman are no 
principles from one point of view.
Whether the principles are latent or imbodied depends on multi-factorial 
things, and the sex of the lower self is but one of several conditions.
But the physical sex seems to have an effect on the development of the 
anthaskarana. And Elsie Benjamin told in Berlin that HPB in London taught 
orally - and JUdge, KT and GdeP, too - that with one sex it is easier to 
become an adept as with the other sex. OTOH, Sylvia Cranston's remark in her 
HPB bio that Theosophy states that women can also reach adeptship is not 
untrue. But according to Mrs Benjamin HPB taught that it is much easier to 
ascend in a male body and that is the reason why adepts use for usual a male 
body. That the adept in HPB's case used a female body is not a rule, but the 
exception. Theosophists should learn, why, as GdeP hinted that this was with 
good reason.

GdeP in his advice to prefer men as leading officials in the TS hints 
obvisouly to the same occult reason. I do not think that GdeP's advice 
differs from what HPB taught.
But if you can provide me with her unpublished and unknown higher 
teachings - above I.G. - perhaps including the lost (withdrawn) (time 
capsule?) information contained in the third and fourth vol. of the Secret 
Doctrine (which have never existed, if your interpretation is the right 
one), I'll be glad to check it.

=>>I have a photo here showing both G de Purucker
and Elsie Benjamin. Are you saying that if I
were able to perceive on a deeper, more esoteric
level, I would be able to see that Mrs. Benjamin
obviously lacked a "divine soul" while Mr. Purucker had
one??

I do not know what you actually can see and what not and I have no idee what 
you could see on a deeper, esoteric level.
What I know is that Mrs Benjamin was the pupil and GdeP the teacher.
Someone with a hippie or jewish or socialistic mind will say: Intolerant. We 
are all equal and both were teachers.
As the jewish-socialistic anti-German conspiracy says also in the 
Judge-Besant conspiracy: No difference in spiritual development, both were 
equal.
Anyone who sees a difference is a Nazi! Everyone who believes idealistic in 
higher things or the occult and everyone who eats wholemeal bred and uses 
homeopathy must be a Nazi!
Moral, logic, justice is only on the side of the socialistic conspiracy!

>Was Mrs. Tingley lacking a "divine soul" also?

Describe me what are you criterions to find it out?
If Pythagoras is right - and I guess it is also the theosophical view - that 
only an equal can recognize an equal one.
To discover whether Mrs Tingley had a divine soul can only be seen by people 
who have a divine soul for themselves.
I have heard that sometimes when she spoke in the Aryan glass Temple in 
Point Loma some pupils of her have seen something which could be regarded as 
her higher self.
GdeP attested as a 30-years eye witness that KT possessed the same occult 
knowledge HPB possessed.
So if you think that HPB had a divine soul, then KT would have also one.

=>What are you trying to tell us?

Mmmh. I do not like to judge myself.

=>Or do you now agree with Jerry that both men and
women possess "the divine soul"?

No, I do not now and did never believe that both men and women possess a 
divine soul.
I believe that most men and women are living dead and HPB and GdeP, too, 
believed it.
But I agree with Jerry that sex is limited to the lower self and that the 
higher self is sexless.
This is the reason why I oppose the twin soul doctrine which is in Germany 
spread by T.P.H. agent Dr Peter Michel.
If you'll study the E.S. instructions (whom do I tell this? You have 
published them!) you'll see that to most people the higher principles are 
outside of the auric egg.

My question goes rather into the direction whether it is more easy (or not) 
for one sex as for the other to manifest the higher self.
And as I have learned that each and every dogma, tenet etc., no matter how 
absurd or twisted, when traced back to its origin, is based on a 
level-headed occult doctrine.

As even St. Paul is made teaching in the NT that women must be silent in the 
church and that nuns of the Gelugpa order of the Dalai Lama must sit only in 
behind the monks there may be a difference in actu.
Elsie Benjamin reported that HPB taught that the TS was founded to help 
women to get a higher standing.

If your questions are not rethoric but serious it may be that you limit 
yourself to the lower brain mind which sees only the differences: 
either-else. One needs to possess an active buddhi principle to understand 
yin and yang as parts of a whole. To come with brain-minded clever but 
mayavic explanations or away-explanations that there are no differences 
between man and woman is to me not the proof of active buddhi, but the 
illusion of the astral world, a perversion, the kamic principle travaesting 
as anything higher, or in other worlds: Besant & Leadbeater poppycock.
For the higher buddhi denies not the differences between man and woman but 
abrogates them into the synthesis of a meta level. For this reason theosophy 
regards the immortal higher self as the Indiviuality (a thing the 
Anthroposophists until today - after 100 years - do not understand 
properly).

Frank