Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.?
Jan 09, 1999 01:31 PM
by Jerry Schueler
>As MKR posts recently, original TS Objects broached the question of the
>relevance of gender way before A.C., as did the (genuine) Mystery Scools
>etc. (NB: original TS Objects phrase it as "without distinction" of sex,
>race, etc., which is not necessarily the same as "equality" of the sexes.
>That which is sex-less has no need of "equality". Neither, for that
Agreed. But then again, "that which is sex-less" has no need for
much of anything.
>The motion of cycles/ages has been taught for millennia. A.C.'s "new age"
>hardly divine revelation (even assuming it is a correct interpretation).
>we know, there are 'ages' within 'ages', each with its particular
His Aeon of Horus came at the new Age of Aquarius anyway, so
I think we all agree that we are beginning a new age of some kind.
>Is it a correct understanding that A.C.'s contribution to "equality of the
>sexes" also ran to the generous use of sex stimulents (e.g. 'sex appeal'
>perfumes) and a sustained entorage of female 'disciples'?
Uncle's Al's writings have helped contribute to an equality of the
sexes, but not his personal behavior or attitude. Most biographies
show him more than just a little sexist.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application