Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00200)

Frank,

Thanks for your long reply below, but I still
do not understand what IS this "divine soul"
that women apparently are missing or lacking??

Are you saying that men have 7 principles
but women only have 6? In effect, we should
have two charts, one showing the 7 principles
in man and another one showing the 6 principles
in women????

I have a photo here showing both G de Purucker
and Elsie Benjamin. Are you saying that if I
were able to perceive on a deeper, more esoteric
level, I would be able to see that Mrs. Benjamin
obviously lacked a "divine soul" while Mr. Purucker had
one??

Was Mrs. Tingley lacking a "divine soul" also?

I am not trying to joke about this. I am serious and
would like to understand this teaching which I have never
encountered before in my study of Theosophical literature.

Daniel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" 
<ringding@o...> wrote:
> 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@y...>
> 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
>