|
|
| [MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |
| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
May 16, 2005 02:10 AM
by M. Sufilight
(p. 47, 1st edition) here at Theos-Talk - I find it safe to say, that one aught to be carefulFrom this and Nigels recent quote on Blavatsky from The Key to Theosophy
Dear Sufilight, Thank you for the explanation. I was just curious about how you were using the term--just what you meant by it. Yes, HPB does use the term "phallicism" and writes of religions becoming "phallic" at a certain period of evolution of the human life wave. I don't recall her giving a precise definition of phallicism, and it appears that she was responding to the then contemporary works on phallicism in religion (Westropp, Knight etc.). Those works seem to be more about the embedded sexual symbolism in religions. Vishnu is often symbolized by the lingam which in turn symbolizes fruition. Indian women (I am told by a member of our study group who was born and grew up in India) will make offerings to the lingam, hoping to be favored with male children. In western religions, the cross and the sword are masculine symbols, where the chalice is feminine. It is this kind of symbolism, which I took HPB to regard as phallic. The personalized male God in Judeo-Christianity suggests to me, phallicism in a more post-modern sense: i.e. the supremacy of the phallocentric order. That is: the children obey mom; mom obeys dad; dad obeys God. As a girlfriend of some thirty years ago once commented in a Lodge meeting: "God is a big penis that lives in the sky." A member of the Lodge, who was a Liberal Catholic Priest, was very shocked by the statement. After them meeting, he took me aside and said that I must tell her that she can't use that kind of language in a Lodge meeting. I reluctantly related to her that at least one member was shocked by her language. She responded: "Well, since my mother was a nurse, I grew up learning to call everything by their correct anatomical terms." So much for communication in Theosophical Lodges. Jerry M. Sufilight wrote:Hallo Jerry and all,
Are you lacking examples in physical writing?
One of the major examples is the
great amount of time used upon
calling God a "He", - and turning God into a male.
Alice A. Bailey - C. W. Leabeater - Annie Besant
has been major promoters of a theosophical teaching
were God has been turned into a male deity.
Try this article by Blavatsky: BUDDHISM, CHRISTIANITY AND PHALLICISM
"Were Theosophists entirely to ignore it, Phallicism1 and such-like works
would be used some day against Theosophy."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/BuddhismChristianityAndPhallicism.htm
Also this from "The Key to Theosophy" by Blavatsky
..." Open the Secret Doctrine, and you will find page after page denouncing
the Jews and other nations precisely on account of this devotion to Phallic
rites, due to the dead letter interpretation of nature symbolism, and the
grossly materialistic conceptions of her dualism in all the exoteric creeds.
Such ceaseless and malicious misrepresentation of our teachings and beliefs
is really disgraceful.
ENQ. But you cannot deny that the Phallic element does exist in the
religions of the East?
THEO. Nor do I deny it; only I maintain that this proves no more than does
its presence in Christianity, the religion of the West. Read Hargrave
Jenning's Rosicrucians, if you would assure yourself of it. In the East, the
Phallic symbolism is, perhaps, more crude, because more true to nature, or,
I would rather say, more naive and sincere than in the West. But it is not
more licentious, nor does it suggest to the Oriental mind the same gross and
coarse ideas as to the Western, with, perhaps, one or two exceptions, such
as the shameful sect known as the "Maharajah," or Vallabhacharya sect. "
http://theosophy.org/tlobooks/key/KeySection13.htm
Annie Besant on the Liberal Catholic Church:
"Mrs. Besant went on to affirm that, "besides the School of which I am the
Outer Head," the "Lord" had especially wanted three lines of activity in
preparation for "His coming" -- the "Liberal Catholic Church"; "Co-Masonry";
and the "World University."
http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/AFTERMATH-10-PartSeries/ArticleNumber3of10.html
More of the same:
"Again quite without evidence, Mr. Gardner said that Mrs. Besant merely
"accepted . . . in good faith" what was told to her by Bishop Leadbeater
about the founding of the Liberal Catholic Church; and again she herself
tells a very different story. In her letter "To all Members of the
Theosophical Society" she specifically mentioned "the three activities"
[which included the Liberal Catholic Church] as one of those matters in
which she herself had independently verified what was told to her.* "
http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_GROC.HTM
Try the "Doctrine" link in the menu.
http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/LCC.GB/LCC.html
(And watch the nice Java animation a the bottom of the Explorer Browser -
branding God as a "HE".)
Do you need more examples?
Let us free the world as a whole from this male-ism.
So what we have in the theosophical líbraries should only be there with the
phallic dangers taken into account.
And the bookshops today?
Well...oh dear oh dear...
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Hejka-Ekins" <jjhe@charter.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World What is Theosophy? Answers....
Dear Sufilight, What do you man by "phallic tendancies"? Jerry M. Sufilight wrote:Hallo all,
My views are:
A few words.
I would say, that Theosophy and the many offshoots using
what can be called Theosophical terminology
have turned their backs very much upon Blavatsky - in the sense, that
most of them have - phallic tendencies these days.
The Alice A. Bailey teachings contains a too relaxed view upon the phallic
issue.
The teachings heavy use of phallic words - creates an unhealthy
atmosphere,
which in fact can be said to be nothing but a hidden support of same
tendencies among
the Christians.
TS Adyar cannot today, say that they themselves have no tendencies in that
direction,
because of their strange affiliation with the Liberal Catholic Church,
which
certainly contain phallic elements.
Other theosophical groups very relaxed behaviour towards this issue -
is quite a surprise and shows, that it appearntly n ot been given
priority at all.
What is needed is a clear stance on these matters,
so that theosophy is not drifting more and more into a kind of Alice A.
Bailey teaching
with phallic tendencies.
The Bailey teachings have as we know the majority of theosophical
terminology followers these days.
I am in a hurry.
Have to run.
from
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message ----- From: "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:11 AM
Subject: Theos-World What is Theosophy? Answer to Jerry's posting no.26453
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> Date: Tue May 10, 2005 11:40 pm Subject: Theosophical libraries jjhe@... Send EmailJerry: you wrote: Dear Nigel, Perry and all Perry writes: Another question maybe is it anybodies role to disallow any information or writer from being in a theosophical library even if that information is known to be questionable? I think there are two questions implied here. 1) Whether or not an item is appropriate for a Theosophical library 2) Whether it is practical to include a certain item in a Theosophical library. The first question concerns one's view of what constitutes Theosophy. The second, is a matter of space. Personally, if you showed me a random issue of Penthouse magazine, I would probably find something in it which is (I believe) Theosophically relevant. But, the reality of the matter is that every library has space limitations. Therefore, specialty library collections, as a matter of practicality, has to set limits and priorities based upon their overall understanding of what Theosophy is. JerryDear Jerry Thank you for your posting. The issue of space is certainly of concern for a small organisation such as ours, although I would not wish to use this as an excuse for refusing certain books. For me, your last sentence raises surely the most thorny of all questions for Theosophical students. There are many and varied perspectives as to "what is Theosophy" which includes "what is theosophy." I spent no end of time with many others attempting to define these, in committee meetings,Lodge and National discussion groups over a period of eighteen years. I understand you have done the same, only for many more years.From my current perspective, and perhaps from mine alone, there are anumber of matters which deserve consideration. As understood by me, the general Theosophical, informational system of Madame Blavatsky and her Mahatmas was never intended to become belief based. If only, but not only, by virtue of the enormous number of references HPB used in Isis Unveiled and the Secret Doctrine alone, and her tangential writing style, it appears she often used a specific technique which was attempting to broaden and keep ever open our minds and hearts. It seems this was in part to avoid the creation of dogmas which might hopefully contribute towards an ever increasing depth of understanding of the truths and mysteries of existence. For me, their Theosophical information was never intended to contain the final word or words, to be learned, remembered and regurgitated in an authoritarian manner, thereby contributing to dominant, "knowledgeable" leaders and compliant followers. Unfortunately, numerous later writers and leaders wrote and acted in such a manner as to establish themselves as authorities and who additionally either subtly or not so subtly insisted on obedience and compliance. Secondly, HPB and her Mahatmas' wrote about a system which demonstrated a vast, impersonal cosmogonical and cosmological scheme of infinite complexity, where Reality was considered "unthinkable and unspeakable" by our limited mind. For me, this system and the approach of its exposure was part of an occult process which was often not accepted by certain later writers and students who apparently preferred a more simplified, absolutist approach with definitive, anthropomorphised cosmic and solar identities and, furthermore, who usually insisted that a + b always equalled c. Finally, although not exhaustively, some of the later writers who claimed to be representing the Theosophical information of HPB and her Mahatmas were dramatically misrepresenting and contradicting it in many areas. This strikes me as being highly dishonourable. Disagreement and challenge were encouraged by HPB, but to dishonour her and her teachers' writings through wilful misrepresentation is disgraceful. These are some of the contributing factors which I consider when determining whether certain literature is the authentic Theosophical information of HPB and her Mahatmas or whether they might come under the much broader heading of theosophy. Whether Theosophy is authentic theosophy is for each to decide for themselves. Whether HPB and her teachers are accurate, or at least more accurate than not with their information, is also for each to decide.From my perspective HPB and her teachers have presented a system ofoccult knowledge and a systematised approach to its dissemination and verification as far as is possible, which satisfies my Freedom loving, ever inquiring heart and mind, my sense of justice and fairness and my "common" sense. Up to now for me, certain others have not. Best wishes Nigel Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links