Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00575)

Eldon:

Thanks!

I have noted in the past that some of my posts written in all
innocence have generated some very heated replies. And others have not
been of interest at all. I never know what the response will be.

It seems odd to me that since men and women both have a urine bladder,
they don't attach any importance to the frequent emptying of it, but
since men have a bladder that they don't have, which gets filled up
frequently, and needs to be emptied, Females seize on this as a great
Moral issue to attack men with.

Instead of rage and condemnation, women should cultivate a little
compassion in this manner.

It seems to fill the most often with boys about age 15, and women
insist that it NEVER be emptied, which results in it being emptied at
the most inconvenient times. CWL was counseling the young teens in his
charge to empty it at a time and place of their choosing, avoiding
making a mess in their trousers, or in bed. When it is full, it is
very difficult to concentrate on school homework, which is what he was
counseling them about.

With the teens around 14 and 15, it fills 4 to 5 times per day, (if
emptied promptly). Nature goes to great lengths to insure the survival
of the species, by making this so urgent for the male of the species.

I have always regarded it a great blessing that the filling process
tapers off to almost nothing in old age. Perhaps that is why the great
statesmen and inventors are mostly old men.

Annie Besant and the others of the time blew that all out of
proportion, resulting in his resignation the first time. It seems to
me that this is as far away from Theosophy as it can be.

Dennis

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:36 PM
Subject: Theos-World judging the past by modern-day standards


>
> Dennis:
>
> I think you bring up an important point. Just as we must understand
what the
> early theosophical writers meant in terms of the language and biases
of
> their time, we also need to consider their behavior in terms of the
values
> of the time. (I think this is your main point, but because some of
your
> writing comes across as politically partisan, others may reply from
equally
> partisan positions and get into unrelated political debates of
right-wing
> versus left-wing issues and arguments over which flavor of politics
is the
> best.)
>
> Certain sexual behavior that may have been considered ok a hundred
years ago
> may now be considered perverted and perhaps criminal. Likewise, from
> Victorian eyes, our openness to sexuality may be seen as criminally
lewd.
> Contrast today's television standards between the United States and
Western
> Europe. Sexually explicit content seen on television in Europe would
be
> banned from American network television. Or contrast American
television of
> today to twenty years ago; programs airing nowadays would have been
banned.
>
> It may not be entirely fair to reach back into the past and judge
people by
> today's standards. Things may have been different in their times. In
any
> case, they are not around to be held accountable for things they may
have
> done.
>
> As to Leadbeater, we can say that we know certain things about whom
he was
> and what he did. But he's not around anymore, so we cannot judge his
> behavior of the 1900's, 1910's, and 1920's by what we consider right
in
> 2005. Could anything we say of him apply as well to the typical
unmarried
> priest of his era? Trusting our children to him is a moot point,
since he's
> been dead for so many years. If we need to draw a moral, it should
be, I
> think, about what standards should apply to people of our era. What
> standards should be local and what universal? Should we impose the
same
> standards for child rearing and sexuality in America as in Moslem
countries,
> and use our armed forces to back them up, or should local standards,
however
> bad, be allowed to prevail?
>
> Eldon