Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00173)

Daniel,
I do not expect that you share or at least understand what I try to say.
Your remark is not an argument but rather an emotion.
I thank Pedro too for the KH quote.

I guess that both you and Pedro think that KH's words rebuts my theorem.
If so, then this is a fault of your mind, not mine.
To me there is no contradiction. Proof me wrong.

Also the quote cannot alter my many years of experience in theosophical 
circles.
I don't think that KH or HPB or the Buddha would set dogma above experience.

If I have expressed myself not clear enough: I was speaking about today in 
this space and time, not of the condition of women in say a million of 
years.
Did you read in the KH quote that he speaks of recent conditions?
Or is my English still so bad?

Perhaps you are the one who understands KH better than me - I have no 
problem with it.
I never wondered any second whether I am more clever than others in reading 
theosophical texts or to get a post or get a look at being an authority.

That you conclude - and its your conclusion, not mine - that KH does not 
know much about real theosophy seems rather a problem of your mind than a 
problem of KH or myself.

As you seem to have a problem with intermixed different time periods I guess 
when a bank robber is caught and brought to the court and the judge is about 
to sentence him, you will jump in and shout: Don't sentence him, he cannot 
be a bank robber, because I read in the Holy Bible that each man is a temple 
of God - and God is no bank robber.
To me it sounds illogical, Captain. But I have no problem with it when you 
like it.

Why are you not satisfied when I come to conclusions which may be different 
from your research?
Hang him higher!
Bomb them down!

What really concerns me is not quarrel of that woman topic. That is nothing 
than an example. What concerns me more is the wrong way of thinking behind 
it. Failed in one topic means failed in all topics from Platon's logic, 
which is also HPB's or KH's logic. If one understands one basic theosophical 
tenet you understand all and vice versa. The understanding in theory and 
work in practice is the most safe and only real occult identy card - nothing 
else. It seems the Western mind is so full of prejudices, that it is unable 
to understand the Eastern way of thinking.
My remarks are based on the Eastern way. If you read it with Western logic 
it is as logical as if you read the Torah and believe that with founding a 
physical, political state of Israel the Messiah is drawn down to Earth. 
Besides the fact that your position is in danger to be called Anti-Semitism 
as in the OT we find many verses about women portraying them inferior to 
man. The Christian church took this over in contradiction to the heathen 
Teutons, where woman were held in high regards for the luck of home and 
family. It is only the modern "emanzipation" which told the women that they 
were suppressed and can only be lucky when the get enslaved in an outer job 
like man and exchange her duties with the duties of man.

I also have no problem that you have no resonance to Purucker and I am glad 
that you write my name in his connection. But what have I to do with the 
swindler Leadbeater?
That Purucker did not want women in leading posts in the TS for several 
hundreds of years to come is conforming with my own experiences. The 
theosophical women I have met were in the main destructive or at least 
passive to the welfare and future of the cause and mainly interested to have 
a good social standing etc.

I would have hoped that you understand me better. What do you think why I 
write here? To get buddies? Fame? Post? Hobby? Boredom as Garfield?
If the Theosophist the world over would only study the tragic theosophical 
decend in Germany after 1945 they would have be the opportunity to learn 
that this tragic will not be repeated elsewhere.
But I fear you must make your own experiences. When the US infrastructure is 
some day destroyed by a cataclysm (I hope it will not come), all the 
archives are destroyed and run from town to town, door to door to the 
surviving female members to get the remaining documents and books - then 
perhaps you will remember my silly remarks here and what happened in Germany 
after 1945 and what the big H - deliberate or undeliberate did to protect as 
much as possible of manifested Theosophy before the unfaithful theosophists. 
The historical truth about that is quite the opposite of the silly 
speculations on big H of Sylvia Cranston. But Americans seem to have a woman 
mind - it does not matter whether a claim is true or not, the main it sounds 
interesting. Or perhaps the anti-jewish Zionists are satisfied with it.

Otherwise my remarks will be to you nothing else than offense.

And as I am only so short as around 10 years member of this list I also 
cannot expect that you can spell my name correct.

Did I tell you that I was just told that you are a dugpa, because you 
published the pictures of the Masters?:-)
Frank



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:11 AM
Subject: Theos-World Thanks Pedro for your quote about women by Master KH


Thanks for providing the extract so readers can contrast
it with what the previous person wrote about the "higher [??]
teachings" of Theosophy. I guess KH was only giving out
a "popular" [lower?] teaching. Poor KH, he doesn't know
much about real Theosophy so apparently Leadbeater,
Purucker and Reitmeyer had to come along and set the record
straight!!

Daniel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...>
wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer"
<ringding@o...>
> wrote:
>
> > Clemens said before 215 that a woman, thinking of her own being
> must be
> > ashamed.
> >
> > There was another church teacher, John Chrysostomos (in greco-
> German
> > rendering), who said that women mainly exist to satisfy the
> horniness of
> > men.
> >
> > Pope Pius II. (1405-1464) said: If you look at a woman,
consider,
> it is the
> > devil! She is a kind of hell!
> >
> > Buddhist monks is not allowed to give a woman the hand because
they
> are
> > unclean.
> >
> > I think that Theosophy teaches similiar in its higher teachings,
> but popular
> > Theosophy looks as is men and women are equal.
> > GdeP elsewhere said (I am looking for the text I read some years
> before) -
> > perhaps in one of his circulars - as warning for future
> theosophists that
> > women may not get leaders in the TM for the next some hundreds
of
> years
> > because of their lack of the divine soul and their attraction to
> the lower
> > astral world.
>
>
> The words attributed by HPB to one of her Teachers (K.H.) may not
> constitute popular Theosophy but clearly present a theosophical
view
> on the subject of the role of women in human evolution. They
appeared
> as footnotes to Eliphas Levi's PARADOXES OF THE HIGHEST SCIENCE
and
> were signed "E.O." [Eminent Occultist](H.P. Blavatsky Collected
> Writings, vol. 6, 1884, p. 258).
>
>
> ". . . Woman must not be looked upon as only an appanage of man,
> since she was not made for his mere benefit or pleasure any more
than
> he for hers; but the two must be realized as equal powers though
> unlike individualities.
>
> ". . . Woman's mission is to become the mother of future
occultists-
> of those who will be born without sin. On the elevation of woman
the
> world's redemption and salvation hinge. And not till woman bursts
the
> bonds of her sexual slavery, to which she has ever been subjected,
> will the world obtain an inkling of what she really is and of her
> proper place in the economy of nature . . .
>
> ". . . Then the world will have a race of Buddhas and Christs, for
> the world will have discovered that individuals have it in their
own
> powers to procreate Buddha-like children or - demons. When that
> knowledge comes, all dogmatic religions and with these the demons,
> will die out."
>
> pedro





Yahoo! Groups Links