Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00438)

Dear Sufilight,

You wrote:

> One more time:
> " 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. 
> "
> http://theosophy.org/tlobooks/key/KeySection13.htm
>
> So what is she denouncing?
> Is it not the use of the word "he" about "God"?
I don't think your quote from the Key is necessarily denouncing as you 
say "the use of the word 'he' about 'God'". Rather, the reference she 
gives to her argument, as I read it is "...this devotion to Phallic 
rites." So, I would look into the rites themselves as a clue to what 
she means. Rather than phallicism, I would identify the belief in a 
personal God as anthromorphism, and "His" ultimate authority as the 
foundation for a Phallocentric order--which is a different idea than 
phallicism itself, though related. 
> In one of the Theosophical Glossaries we find the places in The Secret 
> Doctrine.
> Just read and conclude.
> http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/pe-pi.htm
The definition in your link is from the Key:

> KT *Phallic Worship, *or Sex Worship; reverence and adoration shown to 
> those gods and goddesses which, like Siva and Durga in India, 
> symbolise respectively the two sexes.
Well, once again, we have to look at how Siva and Durga are regarded in 
India. As I wrote earlier, in India, Siva's lingam symbolizes the 
creative principle, and women wishing for male children leave offerings 
to the lingam. The testimony of the two Hindus in our study group is 
that, unlike Christians, Hindus regard their gods as metaphors. Perhaps 
our two Hindus are exceptions, or the thinking was different 120 years 
ago. I don't know.

> "Now it is precisely Buddhism which was the first religious system in 
> history that sprang up with the determinate object of putting an end to all 
> the male Gods and to the degrading idea of a sexual personal Deity being the 
> generator of mankind and the Father of men."
Which is why there is a question as to why Buddhism (in its pure form) 
should be regarded as a religion at all. Rather, the Buddha's teachings 
gives to the followers of the Buddha, the techniques awakening without 
the intermediation of any gods. The sexual personal deity of our 
Western heritage is the Canaanite god El, who with his wife, Ashterah, 
were the parents of all that lives. It is a beautiful concept when 
taken metaphorically. Unfortunately, the Jews incorporated El's aspects 
into Yaweh's and degraded the methphor into some kind of meta-tribal 
chieftan. I believe this is the import of HPB's comments here.

> I think this quote is helpful in understanding that Blavatsky do not
> suggest the promotions of "male Gods" within theosophical circles.
I don't think HPB suggests the promotion of female gods either. But she 
does promote the study of comparative religions, which helps one to 
understand those who follow phallic beliefs, and how these beliefs were 
originally metaphors which have been degraded.

> I find it safe to say, that one aught to be careful
> about what one stores in the library, so we don't turn the library into a 
> phallic central.
Cute turn of a phrase. My greater concern is that Theosophical 
libraries not be turned into a phallocentric shrine for for a dead 
letter Theosophy.

> In The Secret Doctrine Blavatsky mentions, that the Hebrew alphabeth 
> contains almost only Phallic letters.
> Hence one is clearly given the view, that some languages are more or less 
> phallic OR more or less "spiritual".
I agree with your statement that some languages can express certain 
ideas better than others. It has been observed, for instance, that 
French is a great language for law, English for business, and Sanskrit 
for spiritual ideas. However, the letters, in the Hebrew alphabet 
represent sounds which are the building blocks for language. Therefore, 
letters and language are not the same thing. The same basic sounds in 
Hebrew are also found in Sanskrit. So, I would say that HPB means 
something else here. Probably she is alluding to the correspondences 
between letters and certain symbols. But I would have to re-read in 
context the section you are alluding to in order to be sure.

> She also says:"The fact is that in archaic Esotericism and Aryan thought we find a grand 
> philosophy,whereas in the Hebrew records we find only the most surprising ingenuity in 
> inventing apotheoses for phallic worship and sexual theogony."
> (The Secret Doctrine - Vol. 1, page 115 - pasadena edition )
Yes, this quote well supports the definition I originally offered. Of 
course, we only have HPB's writings and the Mahatma letters to map out 
for us "archaic Esotericism and Aryan thought." So, this statement 
circles back upon itself. It is not very useful.

> Well as long as these Liberal Catholic priests turns the esoterical 
> teachings into seven sacraments of a phallic nature - I protest.
I have no problem with Liberal Catholicism or any other religion. My 
protest is when this religion was taken into the Adyar E.S. But, I am 
sure we are well in accord over this issue.

> And what TS Adyar with its strange affiliation with this sect is doing
> they only know themselves.
The explanation is in the E.S. documents issued around 1912. That the 
LCC, Schools, and Co-Masonry are part of the work of the Masters and 
that a pledged ES member is expected to support one or more of them. 
> The fact, that also many Alice A. Bailey groups has a relaxed view upon 
> these issues,just shows where we are heading.
The Arcane school teachings very closely reflect the ES teachings of 
that time.

> All this talk about "The Father, the Son and The Holy Ghost" - it is just 
> too far out phallic. Let us keep the feets on ground while promoting theosophical teachings.
This is an issue between the Theosophy of HPB and the so-called 
neo-Theosophical teachings. People make commitments one way or the 
other. I'm not sure if there is much that can be done at this point 
except to make sure that HPB's writings remain available in their 
original form. 
Best wishes,
Jerry
















M. Sufilight wrote:

> Dear Jerry and all,
>
> My views are:
>
> Thanks for your answer.
> Blavatsky giving a "precise definition", that would have been the day.
> I think my quote from The Key to Theosophy in the previous email
> got it as close as almost possible.
>
> 1.
> One more time:
> " 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. 
> "
> http://theosophy.org/tlobooks/key/KeySection13.htm
>
> So what is she denouncing?
> Is it not the use of the word "he" about "God"?
>
> In one of the Theosophical Glossaries we find the places in The Secret 
> Doctrine.
> Just read and conclude.
> http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/pe-pi.htm
>
> 2.
> And in the article BUDDHISM, CHRISTIANITY AND PHALLICISM you will also find 
> the following:
> "Now it is precisely Buddhism which was the first religious system in 
> history that sprang up with the determinate object of putting an end to all 
> the male Gods and to the degrading idea of a sexual personal Deity being the 
> generator of mankind and the Father of men."
> http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/BuddhismChristianityAndPhallicism.htm
>
> I think this quote is helpful in understanding that Blavatsky do not
> suggest the promotions of "male Gods" within theosophical circles.
> > > From this and Nigels recent quote on Blavatsky from The Key to Theosophy
> (p. 47, 1st edition) here at Theos-Talk - I find it safe to say, that one 
> aught to be careful
> about what one stores in the library, so we don't turn the library into a 
> phallic central.
>
>
> 3.
> In The Secret Doctrine Blavatsky mentions, that the Hebrew alphabeth 
> contains almost only Phallic letters.
> Hence one is clearly given the view, that some languages are more or less 
> phallic OR more or less "spiritual".
> She also says:
> "The fact is that in archaic Esotericism and Aryan thought we find a grand 
> philosophy,
> whereas in the Hebrew records we find only the most surprising ingenuity in 
> inventing
> apotheoses for phallic worship and sexual theogony."
> (The Secret Doctrine - Vol. 1, page 115 - pasadena edition )
>
> Also:
> "But the latter and Mr. Piazzi Smyth both seem to labour under the 
> impression that (a)
> the priority of the system belongs to the Israelites,
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [[Vol. 1, Page]] 317 TRUTH MUST PREVAIL AT LAST.
>
> the Hebrew language being the divine language, and that (b) this universal 
> language
> belongs to direct revelation!"
>
> I of course mention this, because of the narrowminded view
> some people have upon this biblical language even today.
>
>
> Also:
> "With the races of our Fifth Race it became in symbology the sacr', and
> in Hebrew n'cabvah, of the first-formed races... See that suggestive work,
> The Source of Measures, where the author explains the real meaning of the 
> word
> 'sacr', from which 'sacred,' 'sacrament,' are derived, which have now 
> become
> synonyms of 'holiness,' though purely phallic!"
> (Secret Doctrine, Proem, I, p. 5)
>
>
> Well as long as these Liberal Catholic priests turns the esoterical 
> teachings
> into seven sacraments of a phallic nature - I protest.
> And what TS Adyar with its strange affiliation with this sect is doing
> they only know themselves.
> The fact, that also many Alice A. Bailey groups has a relaxed view upon 
> these issues,
> just shows where we are heading.
>
>
> 4.
> I am not really that much talking about phallic intentions among some of the 
> participants -
> I am mainly talking about the relaxed behaviour which is being promoted 
> towards these
> issues while the orthodox churches phallic teachings rides high in the 
> multi-medias.
>
> All this talk about "The Father, the Son and The Holy Ghost" - it is just 
> too far out phallic.
> Let us keep the feets on ground while promoting theosophical teachings.
>
> One perhaps augth to write a compilation titled "Phallicism"or "Sexism in 
> ancient and modern religious teachings" or similar
> based on Blavatsky's writings. And of course also covering present day 
> theosophical groups and their relations towards phallic teachings.
> Just so we will be able to stop these continous phallic developments
> from taking place.
> And quite importantly the online Theosophical Glossary shows with its Index, 
> how much
> effort Blavatsky used upon that word "Phallic" or "Phallicism".
>
>
> I hope my special english is readable.
>
>
>
> from
> M. Sufilight
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jerry Hejka-Ekins" <jjhe@charter.net>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World What is Theosophy? Answers....
>
>
>
>
> > 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 Email
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jerry: 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jerry
> > > > > > Dear 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 a
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > number 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 of
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > occult 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 Links
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links