Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00595)

Anand and Morten

May I make a break in?
To adapt the Theosophical teachings to the understanding of simpler people IMO we don´t need to base them in books that cannot be trusted entirely as a good basis.
Leadbeater´s manner of teching was very captivating, also his books were very easy for anyone to understand, but the many different visions he had causes a lot of consusion.
Far from any criticism gonna tell ya my little story, Anand.
I used to read lots of kardecist books.
I was introduced to Theos through the book " Life after Death" from CWL, itcaptivated me so much that I read it in a few days.
I could do it in hours.
Then the following book Occult World, Saved by a Spirit , Invisible Helpersand the list got longer.
Then I bought home the book Voice of the silence and some passages from it were almost unforgettable to me.
I confess that much of it I am not in condition of understanding but it called me attention to the author: Helena Blavatsky.
I bought the Isis Sin Velo in spanish and then the Secret Doctrine in portuguese.
Then a friend of mine sent me the facsimile edition from SD Theosophy Company and then studying it according I dicovered many diferences between what Leadbeater was sayingand what Master Koot Hoomi for example, were saying, principally in the M Letters to APS.
I also developed some siddhis together with my wife and then could by clairvoyance and meditation, notice that many things that CWL claimed were incorrect.
IMO the clairvoyance from Charles W L is more relates to the delusions fromthe incorrect and attached development of his Siddhis.
It mostly looked like a enhanced view from the trasdicional spiritists.
Their incorrectness meet the wishes of the average men and women, giving a romantic view of occultism, but now I am pretty sure that life after death and the other teachings about life and enlightment must not originate from a book of author A, B or C, but from the sum of all we listen, read and also meditate or think profoundly of.
I do not sincerely feel diminished spiritually if i sometimes I eat a Hamburger or a beef of salmon.
If you study Biology, Zoogeography, Echology, Zoology you see that life, inits fantastic manifestations, has a whole great purpose: Evolution, and inthe food-chains there are always the "eaten" and the " Eaters".
We need the plants to get the nutrients from soil so that they can transform into food by chemical reactions with solar energy that they get.
Plants were not made to give beauty for the soil only, they´re the primary food makers and have to be of consume to the vegetarians.
The vegetarians are food for the carrnivorours.And the animals only kill for food, not for fun or gaming.
Man is omnivorous, he eats both and can even still choose.
And all choices are individual and individual choices deserve respect not criticism.
All excess is evil and bad for the soul and body.
Certain points of high Tibbet the meat from some mammars are the only choices for a living and that don´t make ´em less spiritual.

Krishtar
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Anand Gholap 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:23 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re:Blavatsky ate flesh of animals regularly




Morten,
> Is it better to help a human or humans who are astray, by seeking 
to 
> communicate, at that persons terms and perhaps level of 
understanding ?

It is important to talk at that person's level and understanding. It 
makes lot of difference.
Anand Gholap






   
Yahoo! Groups Links



   





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]