Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00218)

Hi All,

It seems quite amazing to me that any thinking and feeling person 
could take seriously any kind of notion of women 'not having a soul'.

This is one of the worst examples of patriarchal culture where women 
have been until recently largely excluded from elite male power 
structures.

To even consider this as a possibility is I think an act of violence.

Women could not be Priests or monks this applies equally to Buddhism 
as it does to Christianity, EVEN TO THIS DAY women are not allowed in 
fully into the Preistly domain !?!
Theosophy should be taking us away from these egregious and ignorant 
mindsets rather than giving any credence to them what so ever.


Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> Frank, you write in part:
> 
> "Why are you not satisfied when I come to conclusions 
> which may be different from your research? Hang him 
> higher! Bomb them down!"
> 
> Similarly, I might ask you: why are you not satisfied
> when Leadbeater comes to conclusions which may
> be different from your own research? Apparently
> you are not so "satisfied" either and are not shy
> at pointing out Leadbeater's differences and even
> calling him a "swindler"! :)
> 
> My comments were in response to what you had written
> in the following posting:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/27948
> 
> In this posting you refer to the views of Thomas, the synod of 
Paris 
> in 846 A.C, the synod of Coyaca in 1050, other synods, Clemens, 
John 
> Chrysostomos, Pope Pius II, and Buddhist monks on the "lower" 
status 
> of women and then seemingly conclude:
> 
> "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."
> caps added
> 
> Frank, if you want to believe all of this that is up to you, but I 
> simply wanted to point out to readers who may not know that much 
> about Theosophy that there may be other views on the matter!  
> 
> Furthermore, it appears that you wanted to cite Purucker as 
> a "knowledgeable" authority to support this view of yours. Well, 
in 
> turn, I believe that Pedro quoted KH to support an opposite view on 
> the matter.
> 
> If you want me to be brutally honest, I think such a view as the 
one 
> you give ranks up there with some of the other claptrap put out by 
> such "occultists" as Leadbeater, Bailey, Prophet, Ballard, etc. I 
> hope GdP doesn't also believe this "claptrap." 
> 
> But of course that is only my view and others may differ. :)
> 
> I give again for other readers the words of Master KH:
> 
> ". . . 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."
> 
> To Jerry HE: if you are reading this, can you tell us from your 
> study of GdP if he actually teaches this view as given by Frank?
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc