Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00230)

Same again, typo corrected. sorry, so much to do, English so 
disturbing...:-))
-------

=>But Frank, our original discussion was not about the "twin
soul doctrine" but concerning your comment about women's
"lack of the divine soul."

Daniel, I know it.
But it occured to me that you will or cannot understand me the right way.
For this reason I made this anolgy.
If you see why the twin soul doctrine is poppycock, you'll see also the 
other
problem.

=>In light of what Jerry wrote, do you still contend
that GdeP taught or that the higher teachings of Theosophy
state that women do NOT possess the divine
soul but men do?

I think that most people do not possess it, according to the E.S.
instructions.
The higher self is sexless.
But the lower self is not sexless and the lower must be developed to the
higher.
One sex is attracted to the moon and one sex is attracted to the SUN.
That's the reason why one sex get's babies and the other not.

=>If I understand what Jerry is writing, he states the
very opposite:

"the higher principles [including the divine soul] do not
have sexual attributes and, they [the higher principles
including the divine soul] are part of all
of our [BOTH male AND female] constitutions."

Clarification please.


I really cannot understand what there is not to be understood.
I fully agree with Jerry from his point of view.
I took another point of view.
Both views are no contradiction to me, but obviously to you.
Jerry speaks from above, I speak from below.
Or exoteric vs. esoteric.
Or infinite vs. finite.
Or in potentio vs. in actu.

I am reminded of an article (in Fohat?) and the question whether HPB's
school is opposed to a Tibetan school, because she wrote of an immutable
principle, while the latter writes about a mutable one.
I was rofl-ing. It's the same as with the women. One who understands the one
doctrine understands also the other, because all theosophical teachings form
a hologram-whole.
Frank









Yahoo! Groups Links