Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00197)

Daniel, mmh, I welcome your questions and they show that you are interested 
in a serious discourse.
But at the same time I wonder, whether I am too stupid to express myself.

My answer to you is: Yes and No.
It depends on the point of view.
It's like the interpretation of terms like "absolute" or "Immutable 
Principle" of the first proposition.
It depends whether you look from the human or divine point of view.
Or say exoteric and esoteric: With explanation or without explanation.

To say that women are inferior to men is obvioulsy an exoteric expression.
It lacks a rationale for the brain-mind.

KH gave the divine point of view, I gave some examples (much more can be 
found thru history) of the Catholic Church, which seem to present the human 
standpoint.
(BTW, although I don not agree with some things the present Pope wrote, but 
five minutes of address in Cologne the last days had more spiritual content 
and were nearer to Theosophy than one hour psychological blah-blah of Mrs 
Burnier).

Whether HPB taught this or not, I did not check it before writing here.
I do not know hwat she taught or not taught for the easy reason that I was 
not present and that only a little portion of it came down to us in written 
form. I know only that what under her name was published. What she orally 
taught (or Judge or KT or GdeP) I do not know. What I know is that HPB knew 
more and taught more than is published.
I hope you at least agree to that. You should know it much better than I as 
your do your research longer than I and have a better archives than I and 
you have co-edited her I.G.-Instructions.

What I know over Elsie Benjamin and some document (circular?) of GdeP 
elsewhere in my archives, that GdeP taught that as a general rule women must 
not become leading posts for several centuries to come. I have no reason to 
believe that HPB did not taught it, because GdeP was the first messenger who 
was allowed to give higher teachings out. I believe that the theosophical 
tulkus are coming from the same Dzyan School, having the same teachers, were 
trained under the same methods and therefore taught in essence (not 
necessarily in outer words) the same doctrines.

There were clever brain-minders, who played with the words and found 
contradictions between HPB, Judge, KT and GdeP, which is of course their own 
crystallized maya.
Mental Crystallization and fanatism is notoriously the main illness of most 
Theosophists (the chidlren of their time): Flapdoodles.

We know that there were other higher teachings which are not giving out as 
the doctrine about races. Image, what the world under the present condition 
whould shout, when it would turn out, that Theosophy makes race 
distinctions! Are not the races are all equal?? GdeP taught that negroes are 
intellectual inferior to the white man. This is of course not politically 
correct. But is it true?

What do you understand by equal?
I think a woman is a woman and must develop womanhood.
And man is a man and must develop manhood.

GdeP taught (Golden rules): Go out and be a man! (not be a woman)
The TS wants a Universal Brotherhood (not a Universal Sisterhood).

He also said that it was very important for HPB to appear as a woman.
Why could he not appear as a man?

Elsie Benjamin said, because the woman's standing must be lifted up in this 
era.
I think, HPB wrote eslewhere similar. To lift up a standing implies that the 
standing before was not equal.
At least to my logic.

In am not a Hinayana Theosophists who believes only in the exoteric or quasi 
esoteric teachings of HPB and denies all higher Mahayana doctrines.
I believe that GdeP was a Tibetan tulku, trained by HPB's own Masters and 
taught the same doctrines from the same school.

Other theosophists may believe that HPB was the single, unique, 
never-before-never-after messenger without predecessor nor successor.
Frank


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 3:49 PM
Subject: Theos-World Women do NOT possess the divine soul but men do??????


Frank,

So are you saying that the "higher teachings" of
Theosophy do NOT teach that men and women are
equal? But instead that men are somehow "superior" to women??

That men possess the divine soul but that women
lack the divine soul? What is the "divine soul" in
this context??

Does H.P. Blavatsky teach this anywhere in her
writings?

Or is this teaching found only in some obscure or
esoteric text by GdP??

Daniel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer"
<ringding@o...> wrote:
> Bart, as far as I know (I have no time to study in depth Thomas)
he declared
> that a male fetus becomes after 40 days and a female fetus after
80 days
> human.
> But that refers only to that what Theosophy labels the lower self.
As far as
> I know Thomas denied that women have a divine soul.
> That's the reason why he also said that women exists mainly to
serve the men
> and give birth to children and to keep house - not to serve God,
which is a
> privileg of the man.
>
> Thomas also added that a woman is inferior to man (i.e. lack of
the divine
> soul). That is the common convinction in the Catholic church and
the
> rationale why women cannot become priests: they possess no divine
soul,
> therefore have no connection to God and cannot to the work of a
priest.
>
> He also wrote that women are a blunder of nature, not created
according to
> the image of God, therefore it is the natural order of a woman to
serve the
> man. The full expression of the human kind is only possible in a
man's body,
> the women is a corrupted, mistaken man.
>
> For this reason the synod of Paris in 846 A.C. decided that no
priest must
> enter a room where a woman is to be.
>
> And the synod of Coyaca in 1050 decided that in the neighbourhood
of a
> church no woman must live.
>
> And the 2nd synod of Toledo in 589 decided that a priest who hosts
a woman
> under suspicion must be punished and the woman sold into slavery
by the
> bishop.
>
> The synod of Elvira, 4th Century, decided that woman must not
write nor
> receive letters.
>
> 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.
>
> Frank






Yahoo! Groups Links