Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00084)

Dear Bhakti Ananda Goswami,

Thank you for straightening us out about your psychological, religious and 
genetic background. Next time I will be much more careful in my choice of 
words. I also wish to apologize if your misinterpretation of the meaning 
behind what I said (partly in jest, I must admit) caused you any pain. 
Besides not having any "hostility" toward you personally (although I may not 
agree with your religious, metaphysical or philosophical views) I certainly 
had no intention of painting you as a "male sexist"... Since, what I meant by 
"how they treat their women" referred solely to the initiation of females 
into the priestly hierarchy of your "male dominated" religious orders -- 
along with the fact that women aren't supposed to be initiated (as HPB was) 
into the inner sanctum of esoteric knowledge that might lead them to expose 
and use (as HPB did) the metaphysical "mysteries" that only the highest 
(male) priests are supposed to know and practice. This could very well be 
assumed to lead one of your religious persuasion to a deep seated (repressed, 
from a psychological POV) animosity toward such a women, along with a 
propensity to find fault with her teachings. 

Sorry that I have to put it so bluntly, but that would seem to be a 
reasonable hypothesis (subject to falsification, of course) in light of your 
seemingly unnecessary and overblown efforts to continue denigrating HPB's 
esoteric knowledge, in parallel with the previous hatchet job of 
Brian/Bridgitte long before you came on the scene at his/her invitation... 
Not to mention your equally unnecessary and repetitiously overstated efforts 
to convince everyone of your authority and credentials with regard to 
religious scripture, their history, as well as your metaphysical wisdom -- 
which, supposedly, would enable you to criticize HPB's teachings in the face 
of some of the learned theosophists in this forum (since Brian/Bridgitte had 
given up that tack after his/her crude personality bashing of HPB, and 
unfounded negative opinions about theosophical metaphysics reached a dead 
end). BTW, you'd be surprised how much about him/herself were revealed by 
the sex switch subterfuge used in regaining access to this forum after being 
kicked off, as well as his/her reactive response to my admittedly hard probes 
of his/her theosophical knowledge and non sequitur historical view that 
colored his/her false premises about it that eventually required his/her 
calling on you for confirmation. Of course, since all these inferences are 
based on indirect observation and interpretation, I could be wrong. But 
reliance on personal authority to make a theosophical point is quite useless 
with respect to my own self devised and self determined method of verifying 
theosophical truths -- which has nothing to do with the "authority" of either 
HPB, her Masters or any religious gurus, including Krishna, Christ, Buddha, 
or any other of their disciples you can name. Their teachings stand or fall 
solely on its own merits -- which can either be seen or not by each of us, 
individually -- no "faith" in teachers or revelations being necessary. 

Accordingly, I had no thought whatsoever about your genetic condition, or 
about any of the physical abuse, disempowerment or oppression that women may 
have received in some Hindu societies. So much for my sexism prejudices. No 
need here to go into my loving relationship with my mother or any of my other 
relationships with women, including loving wives, female business partners, 
artistic and scientific collaborators, children and grandchildren, etc., some 
of whom are/were lesbians, bisexuals and what not -- that made no difference 
in any of our relationships... That, of course, puts me as far from being 
sexist as you claim to be... Although, I have to smile at your implications 
-- which indicate you should be more careful to practice what you preach 
about making personal judgments or criticisms without sufficient knowledge of 
whom you are talking about. :-) Also, for your information, one of my 
beloved late wives was an endocrinologist of some renown, and much of my 
knowledge of physiology and biochemistry came through her (besides my higher 
education as a physical chemist and chemical engineeer/technologist). So, I 
am pretty well informed about the workings of genetics. However, although 
that is not one of my major, or even minor interests -- as a scientific 
generalist, I do appreciate whatever information you have offered along the 
lines of cross sexuality. 

As for "real women" I was just using that term (facetiously again, for which 
I ask your pardon) as a generality referring to any woman, YY, XY or 
otherwise, who took on the role of exposing what was formerly, male 
restricted esoteric knowledge within most highly organized religious orders. 
The only speculation implied by that, of a psychological nature, was the 
possible inference that you may have a religious bias (considering both your 
Hindu and Catholic attachments) against HPB personally and, by reflection, 
"theosophy" itself, due to its public exposure by her of the formerly secret 
esoteric teachings of the highest orders of those religions. I might also 
add, as another psychologically sensitive point, HPB's evident disdain for 
the exoteric theological teachings of Catholicism, and those Hindu sects that 
worship a personal God, or practice Tantric sex. I'm sorry that I also 
facetiously included Brian/Bridgitte in this crossover comedy of errors, 
since it's very hard to separate the two of you in our minds, considering the 
thread of common purpose shown by both of you in support of each other over 
the past year or so since Brian/Bridgitte first came on the scene posing as a 
woman. 

The reference to Freud, et al., was also purely facetious in response to the 
previous question by micforster. Those people have never been my gurus. In 
fact, I have been among their most ardent disbelievers since I was in my late 
teens when my aunt was a practicing Freudian psychoanalyst, and my girlfriend 
was a student of Karen Horney (one of Freud's students). Since I have never 
let anyone's authoritative teachings or pronouncements guide or influence my 
own thoughts, research, or conclusions, I have been a critic of psychology 
calling itself a science, and science in general, as well, whenever they 
approach, from a materialistic point of view, any attempt to scientifically 
or reductively determine the origin, nature and mechanisms of consciousness. 
But, that's another story that need not be discussed here. 

So, I hope this clarifies my position, and that you realize that I was not 
trying to "damn" anyone personally... While also hoping that you also realize 
that I do have a perfect right to disagree with anything you might say or do. 
The one thing I do resent, however, is someone trying to attack theosophical 
metaphysics and the principles upon which it rests, using non sequitur 
arguments based on historical references, scriptural interpretations, or 
personality bashings that do not offer a logically and scientifically 
consistent alternative teaching. Yours and Brian/Bridgitt's thousands of 
words of dialogue on this forum, taught us nothing new about theosophical (in 
the literal sense of the word) metaphysics or fundamental principles that we 
didn't already know... And, certainly, gave us nothing substantial that could 
contradict the conclusions of theosophy with regard to Cosmogenesis, the lack 
of a "personal" God/creator, Anthropogenesis, the seven fold nature of both 
the Cosmos and Mankind, the laws of involution of coadunate but not 
consubstantial fields of consciousness, the evolution of galaxies, solar 
systems, planets and mankind, "rounds and races," etc., etc... All in all, a 
perfectly logical and scientifically oriented synthesis based on fundamental 
principles -- for which I find no contradiction in any fundamental religious 
scripture, and much confirmation in recent discoveries and theoretical 
applications of modern and post modern science, along with the most advanced 
fractal and multidimensional topological mathematics. 

Please be assured that, in spite of our possible disagreements on various 
levels of religion, science and philosophy, I have a fundamental belief in 
universal brotherhood without distinctions of race, color, age, sex or 
condition, and, consequently, hold you, from a spiritual point of view, in 
the highest esteem, without any personal animosity. Unfortunately (or 
fortunately, from my point of view :-) I do have, in my old/young age, a 
somewhat twisted, and more or less provocative sense of humor, and can't 
really take anything referring to this mundane life or ours very seriously -- 
including personal insults -- which sometimes can be very useful in drawing 
people out. I hope you understand.
So, thank you again for letting us really know "where you are coming from." 
:-)

Best wishes,

Leonardo Hermes Maurer
Chaim Ben Mosher, Kohane
(whatever that tells you about me, and where I'm coming from. :-)


In a message dated 12/29/02 8:50:16 AM, bhakti.eohn@verizon.net writes:


>Dear Mr. Leon Maurer,
>
>Your apparent hostility towards me seems to be based on some 
>erroneous assumptions that you have made. 
>
>Here are the facts.
>
>I spent the first 20 years of my life living among real girls and 
>women as a real girl and woman. I know vastly more about what it is 
>like to be treated as a girl or woman than you ever will in this 
>life. During and after virilizing I maintained my close 
>relationships with girls and women, refusing to renounce those 
>relationships to fit into ANY kind of sexist male society, or 'Hindu' 
>or 'Christian' religious hierarchy. As an advocate for women's and 
>minorities' rights, I fought the disempowerment and oppression of 
>girls and women in every way that I could...and by the way, intersex 
>C-AIS XY women are "REAL" women too ! I have known hundreds of 
>intersexed WOMEN, and these are all REAL PEOPLE /REAL WOMEN. So what 
>is your point about HPB being a "real women" ? Your statement sounds 
>sexist to me ! I doubt if you know much about what makes a person a 
>woman. You should read the Topical Index to my 2001 study on sex 
>differentiation, so that you can appreciate what a REAL woman is, 
>from the objective scientific and gender identity 
>(neuroendocrinological) point of view. 
>
>As for my background and how I treat women...
>
>I was very close to my own dear mother who passed away in 2001. In 
>fact I took care of her on her death bed. She and Dad were together 
>for 64 years. She was a remarkably virtuous, intelligent and 
>talented women that my non-sexist father adored in every way. I have 
>been faithful to the one romantic love of my life, a REAL WOMAN, for 
>over 40 years. Both my brothers have strong long-lasting marriages 
>of EQUALITY with their wives. My son and Daughter are not sexist, 
>and my 7 grand daughters are not restricted in any way by sexism in 
>our family. I have very close relationships with my Catholic and 
>Vaishnava god-sisters, and as a celibate sannyasi in a traditional 
>male religious order, I am happy to say that I am even loved, 
>respected and trusted by radical feminist and lesbian Vaishnavis and 
>Devi (Shakti) worshipers. In fact a Vaishnava lesbian activist is 
>currently planning a videotape series on religion, women and sexual 
>minorities, that she wants me to make the major historical research 
>and medical /scientific contribution to. 
>
>I have cared nothing for my personal religious hierarchical position 
>or reputation as regards the sexism in some forms of Hinduism and 
>Christianity, and have boldly publicly battled both secular and 
>religiously-based sexism and its worst expressions in sex-selection 
>abortion, female 'circumcision', domestic violence, local forms of 
>sexual exploitation of girls and women, the international traffic in 
>sex slaves, Muslim, Machismo and all other forms of religiously 
>and/or legally sanctioned sexism and abuse of girls and women. I 
>have purposely and publicly violated the fanatical Hindu rules 
>against sannyasis associating with, speaking to, and touching women. 
>I have purposely hugged my godsisters and female friends and 
>relatives in public. Those who hate this about me say that I must 
>still be a women inside, even though my body changed, and I am now 
>medically and legally male. Thus the sexists try to invalidate my 
>entire adult life lived as a man, because I refuse to treat those in 
>female bodies any differently than I treat those in male bodies. I 
>am a physically affectionate and very informal person. My 
>principal 'rasa' or flavor of loving devotion is SAKHYA or SAKHI 
>RASA, or equality in friendship. Therefore I am very playful and 
>informal with persons of all ages and sexes. I refuse to treat girls 
>and women according to fanatical Hindu social conventions that forbid 
>chaste displays of affection between a sannyasi and persons of the 
>opposite sex. Some of my critics say 'well s/he is an hermaphrodite, 
>so what is the opposite sex of an hermaphrodite ? '
>
>Attack me as a male sexist if you want. It is quite refreshing and 
>laughable to me. Daily I get accused by some fool somewhere of being 
>a Tantric Shakti cultist ! I am NOT a Left-Hand Tantrist. I am a 
>SATTVIC devotee of Rhoda /Radha-Shakti, and an expert on the world 
>history of the worship of The Feminine Divine. I am used to getting 
>accused of being a feminist, a lesbian, a Trojan-horse bearded-woman 
>in sannyasi saffron with an agenda to destroy thousands of years of 
>Hindu male privilege, and other nutty things. However, this is the 
>first time anyone has ever accused me of being a male sexist and 
>identified me with the abuse of women ! You have managed to do 
>something never done before ! Congratulations ! Your powers of 
>baseless speculation are truly amazing. 
>
>If really confused and sexist persons like Freud are your 
>authorities, no wonder you are personally so confused. In any event, 
>instead of remaining confused, it would be good for you to actually 
>learn something about someone next time before you publicly claim to 
>have figured out where they are coming from. 
>
>wishing you the humility to actually learn about someone before 
>damning them, 
>
>your well-wisher
>
>Bhakti Ananda Goswami
>
>(whose home Temple 'Altar' is graced by an Icon of Rhoda / Radha, and 
>whose life is full of much-loved, very REAL, FREE, and HONORED girls 
>and women.)
>
>PS Your speculations about "Brian/Bridgitte" are probably no more 
>reality-based than your nonsense speculations about me. Stick to 
>what you know, and stop presenting yourself as having "figured out" 
>two people you apparently know nothing about. 
>
>
>Message 10034 
>From: leonmaurer@a... 
>Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:19 pm
>Subject: Re: Theos-World re BAG's speculations about HPB and ... ?
>
> 
> 
>
>Haven't you guys already figured out where BAG is coming from? 
>Theosophical 
>metaphysics and its denial of a personal (Male) God/creator -- 
>especially, 
>coming from a real women -- could stick in this ones craw like a 
>burning 
>coal. Remember how Hindus and Catholics treat their women? I'll bet 
>Freud, 
>Adler, Jung, Maslow and even Skinner would have loved to speculate on 
>this 
>package of goods.:-) BTW, did anyone ever wonder why we had so much 
>trouble 
>figuring out what ax Brian/Bridgitte had to grind, who he/she was, 
>and where 
>all that HPB & theosophy animosity was coming from? 
>
>LHM 
>
>
>In a message dated 12/28/02 4:46:49 AM, micforster@y... writes: