Re: Theos-World Re: Paul & the misleading book "The Masters Revealed"
Mar 09, 2006 10:23 AM
by M. Sufilight
Hallo all,
My views are,
Integrity or not. The following aught to be considered.
Paul I just can't help it. But I disagree very much with the manner
in which you evaluate the importance of ordinary Scholary reasearch.
Avoid the scholars:
Theosophists never have followed scholars, though they have frequently
equaled
or excelled scholars in scholarship.
Theosophists can do this because they do not regard scholarship as an end
but
as something useful: with the advantages and limitations corresponding to
this function.
Scholars, quite often, do not show signs of understanding that there is
anything beyond
scholarship, and therefore they are incapacitated -- while they remain at
this stage -- from
being able to have a higher objective. One must always have an aspiration
higher
than one's actual status in order to rise, even in an existing field.
Such scholars, because they cannot move beyond their conception of
scholarship, are
driven to believe and to practice two things:
1. They tend to make themselves believe that scholarship is of. the
highest nature among things and that scholars are a high, even special,
product with some kind of property-interest in truth or even a peculiar,
perhaps unique, capacity to perceive it. The historical records of scholars
in this respect, not to mention their individual experiences in being
refuted by events, do not daunt them.
2. Because they know inwardly that this posture of theirs is not
true, those of them in the appropriate field are compelled to resort to the
study of the work, of their opponents (the Theosophists ). This is why
scholars study the works of Theosophists, but Theosophists do not have to
study the works of scholars, as one Theosophist has cogently remarked.
So it is certainly NOT important to the theosophical Seeker after Truth to
study such books like "The Masters Revealed"!
I do hope the readers can agree upon this.
- - - - - - -
I personally think, that Sigmund Freud and Carl G. Jung were at least
beloning to the category we call "pseudo-frauds".
If one try to read, the scriptures by the esoteric Sufi's Ibn-El Arabi (d.
1240) and El Al-Gazahli (d. 1111)
one will clearly see both theories being presented hundreds of years before
Sigmund and Carl were newborn babies.
:-)
from
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:06 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Paul & "The Masters Revealed"
Dear Krsanna,
Thanks for an opportunity to clarify some points in a rancor-free
context. Bruce wrote:
"What Paul may have stumbled on in his book "The Masters Revealed"
is the people involved in HPB's education. A world-wide network of
men trying to inspire good people to stand up against tyranny."
While "network" might fit in a very broad sense, that is *HPB's*
network of inspirers, teachers, etc., it tends to obscure that there
were multiple lineages, multiple secret societies and spiritual
reform movements, with whom HPB was allied and from whom she learned
at different times. Some were much more politically involved than
others. And some *became* much more political *after* HPB got
involved with them. What is especially important to me now, and to
the Church of Light which I recently joined, is the transfer of HPB's
allegiance from her Egyptian (and Egyptophile European and
American) "brotherhoods" (which involved women too, most importantly
Emma Hardinge Britten) to a completely different set of Indian
sponsors. Godwin's The Theosophical Enlightenment gives a fuller
explanation of this transfer than my books do.
Two key figures involved in that transfer were Swami Dayananda, about
whom I would urge anyone interested in the Masters question to think
outside the box of Theosophical exegesis, and Mikhail Katkov, who
published HPB's Indian writings in Russian. Both were obviously
revered as spiritual Masters by their disciples-- formally so in the
Swami's case and informally so in Katkov's.
HPB always said the adepts were living men who were part of a
worldwide network that reached far into antiquity. To identify
living men associated with HPB is not surprising. As far as I can
tell from recent posts, Paul Johnson excluded the "paranormal" from
his research to identify some of very real, very human men in HPB's
association.
Real and human but at the same time in most cases recognized
authorities in various spiritual traditions. Here's a quote from TMR
that Desmond recently produced that goes to the heart of your post:
In "The Masters Revealed" you set forth the thesis that "most of these
characters were authorities in one or more spiritual traditions;
others were accomplished writers. They helped prepare HPB for her
mission as a spiritual teacher and/or sponsored the Theosophical
Society from behind the scenes. Although their teachings and example
affected HPB's development, the extent of their influence was usually
secret. In a few cases the argument for their acquaintance with HPB
is speculative, but usually the fact of a relationship is well
established and the real question is its meaning. Because their
'spiritual status' and psychic powers are inaccessible to historical
research, these alleged criteria of 'Mahatmaship' are treated with
agnosticism." (p. 14-15) Personally, I see in these few words not
only a lack of personal bias but also an abundance of integrity.
Thanks to Desmond for the last line. I would just comment as an
aside to Carlos that it makes no sense to say that because spiritual
stature and psychic powers of figures from the past are not readily
accessible to historical investigation, that we ought not pursue *any
knowledge whatsoever* about individuals who have been identified as
adepts, because adepts by definition transcend physicality. NO ONE's
spiritual stature and psychic powers are accessible to standard
scholarly investigation; the obvious implication would be that
historians are committing a spiritual crime to write about *anyone
who ever lived*. Otherwise we are left with special pleading that
says it's OK to ask historical questions about Jesus or Buddha or
Alice Bailey but don't dare ask them about HPB and her Masters
because they are not only beyond reproach but exempt from normal
historical scrutiny. That might play in the ULT or the Adyar ES but
it's Theosophical dogma that no one outside the movement will take
seriously. Why should they? It's like Muslims saying cartoons about
everyone else are fine, but if they're about Muhammad let's have
riots. That just makes the special pleaders look like enraged
fanatics.
Nobody, to my knowledge, ever claimed that Morya's
adept lineage terminated with Morya.
I've read only an excerpt from Paul Johnson's book, so I don't know
how clear he was about the limitations of his research. A good
researcher defines the parameters of the work undertaken.
That was a very important objective of The Masters Revealed, whereas
its self-published predecessor was considerably less clear about what
was being hypothesized. On the back cover of TMR the first reader
report excerpt quoted (from Hal French of the U. of South Carolina)
says this: "The author has transferred the discussion of Blavatsky's
sources from the realm of the mythical to the historical. He has
given us a well-researched series of capsuled biographies of persons
from whom Blavatsky learned, and the nature of her relationships with
each of them. His work brings reasoned conclusions into an area
characterized by vituperative and polarized scholarship. He sets his
limits well. He has not overstretched his mark nor made excessive
claims for his conclusions." The same could be said for Joscelyn
Godwin whose Theosophical Enlightenment is intertwined with TMR in
several ways.
Showing that ordinary people possess extraordinary potentials is a
worthy study. Albeit, this was not Paul Johnson's objective, and he
attempted only to identify ordinary people.
Not quite. How ordinary these people were varies from case to case.
That several were highly regarded as adepts within specific
traditions testifies that they were not seen as ordinary by their
colleagues and associates. It's just that their extraordinariness is
approached historically rather than religiously, as something to be
established (or rather defined) via evidence and reason rather than
ex cathedra pronouncements or reliance on scriptural authority.
Back to politics for a moment, I will just say that my books don't
portray HPB as someone who was motivated primarily by politics, but
rather as someone who was caught up in politics through her
associations with people in India, and lived to regret it. After
leaving India, she appears to have renounced any involvement in
politics and even offered to become an informant on anti-British
activities she had learned about. So it's not a simple yes/no
question as to whether she or her Masters were involved in politics.
Just as it's not a simple yes/no question as to whether the Masters
depicted in her writings were "real." Some were a lot more real than
others, in terms of the amount of fictionalization involved. No one
has ever doubted the reality of Dayananda; but Theosophists
conveniently forget that HPB and Olcott definitely regarded him in
the adept/Mahatma category when they went to India and only later
changed their opinion.
Cheers,
Paul
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd"
<robert.b.macdonald@> wrote:
>
> Dear Carlos,
>
> Given what you have written and other interesting clues, I would
like
> to offer a wildly speculative theory that nevertheless might have
some
> truth in it.
>
> It is clear that HPB was not interested in politics and was never
a
> spy for anyone. It is also clear that the Masters were not
ignorant
> of the political machinations going on in the World at that time.
> Their discussion of Jesuit plots in India being directed at a
future
> Britain (I believe this was around the Ilbert Bill) being a case
in
> point. Their attempts to set up a Phoenix newspaper with Sinnet
as
> the editor is another example of their work to promote an organ of
> justice for the Indian masses. Indeed, your discussion of Mr.
Abdul
> Ghafur and Pope Sixtus V indicates that HPB was not unaware of the
> dark forces of the political world and how they fit together
through
> the centuries. There is also some indication that St. Germain was
> involved with some of the noble families of Europe in an
unofficial
> advisory capacity.
>
> It seems pretty clear that HPB was destined to found a Society of
the
> nature of the TS. Such a Society would have many enemies coming
from
> many quarters. One way to educate a leader of such a Society
would be
> to have her travel around the world and introduced to lesser
adepts
> working in the world giving guidance to various movements
standing
up
> against the dark power of tyranny in its many guises. This
aspect
of
> her education might leave a very sour taste in her mouth for the
art
> of politics and explain why she wanted nothing to do with it. She
> could see it for what it was, two sides of the same coin battling
> against each other and controlled by the same puppet master.
>
> What Paul may have stumbled on in his book "The Masters Revealed"
is
> the people involved in HPB's education. A world-wide network of
men
> trying to inspire good people to stand up against tyranny.
>
> The TS was created in order to seed the minds of humanity with the
> means to learn to think for themselves so that they too could
begin to
> lift the political veil and see the tyranny that lies behind it.
We
> are at a crisis point today. In the same way that a herd of cows
is
> comprised of cows, a true sovereign state would be comprised of
> sovereign citizens. As the citizens of Western Democracies are
> manipulated into giving away their rights and freedoms (individual
> sovereignty), the Western Democratic state is moving towards
tyranny.
> This whole theme is treated masterly in Plato's "Republic".
Perhaps
> it would be interesting to take Paul's research and explore this
theme.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline cardoso aveline"
> <carlosaveline@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Bil, dear Paul, dear Friends,
> >
> > I understand Paul is back to Theos-talk, so this is addressed
to
> him, too.
> >
> > I will answer now some of Bill's statements and questions below.
> >
> > Years ago, I had one of Paul Johnson's books at my disposal,
looked
> at it
> > and decided
> > I was not interested.
> >
> > Beside his recent correspondence, I have with me his
text "Madame
> Blavatsky,
> > the 'Veiled Years' "
> > (T.H.C. London 1987).
> >
> > I also have the "Review Essay" by John Algeo on his book "The
Masters
> > Revealed", published in "Theosophical History", July 1995. And I
> have the
> > recent posting by Paul Johnson with the story of his relations
with
> the TPH
> > and John Algeo.
> >
> > In that story,you will see that he had fluid relations with
the
USA
> TPH
> > for years. You will see that, according to Paul, and I quote ---
> >
> >
> > "" 'In Search of the Masters' was surprisingly well received
in
the
> > Theosophical world, and didn't receive many attacks. John
> > Algeo never indicated any discomfort with the book or desire to
> > squelch it. When I decided to revise and condense it in the
> > form of a series of biographical chapters, I offered it to TPH
> > and the answer was that they would consider it if I was willing
> > to remove or downplay the identifications of M., K.H., etc. and
> > focus mostly on the historical people themselves. This was in
> > 1992; I sent the Ms. in to Brenda Rosen who replied in essence,
> > "No, you completely rewrite it *first* and then we'll consider
> > it." I agreed to do so but the research led in other
> > directions and ultimately I informed her that I would not be
> > able to revise in the way she had requested. Not long after,
> > SUNY Press came through with a contract.
> >
> > When "The Masters Revealed" came out in 1994, I had no hard
> > feelings toward TPH, TUP, PLP or THF although it had been
> > disappointing that things fell through and that in no case did
> > I get any substantive feedback on the research (in a cumulative
> > 3.5 years of consideration!) I went to Wheaton the week it
> > was published, was very cordial with John and everyone there,
> > and felt that the book would be no less politely received than
> > its far inferior predecessor. After all the SUNY imprimatur
> > should bring some increased respect, no?
> > Then the positive reviews started flowing, in and outside of the
> > movement, and by February 1995 things had reached a peak of
> > welcoming reception, with the simultaneous appearance of a rave
> > in the New York Times Book Review and a favorable review by Joy
> > Mills in The Quest. I was so pleased by the latter that I sent
> > an email to John Algeo thanking him for letting it appear.
> > Here's where the story begins to turn sour.
> > John had sent me warm, encouraging, supportive email just a few
> > weeks before, saying to pay no mind to the hostile attacks I
> > was getting on theos-l from outraged Theosophists. And this
> > time, when I wrote thanking him for the Quest piece, he replied
> > in a friendly way, saying that he was glad I liked it but that
> > he had more reservations about the book than Joy did-- and that
> > he'd like to discuss it with me. My reply was that
> > reservations were of course warranted; that the book proved
> > HPB's association with Masters in one sense (that of
> > recognized experts in various spiritual traditions, from whom
> > she learned) but not in the other sense of spiritually advanced
> > beings with paranormal abilities, since that was beyond the
> > reach of historical research.""
> >
> > So far, Paul's words. End of quote.
> >
> > From this point on, his narrative describes how John Algeo
turned
> against
> > him. In the quotation above, you have what, in my opinion and
> assessment
> > (and I respect other opinions) corresponds to an opening of
> territory to
> > Paul Johnson's perspective about the Masters.
> >
> > Since 1875, the theme of the Mahatmas as individuals has always
been
> > considered reserved, or PRIVATE, for magnetic and other
reasons.
> >
> > It is true that A. P. Sinnett started the vulgarization;
Leadbeater
> went on;
> > but since mid century some more care was taken. And sincere
people,
> even if
> > under serious illusions, have some respect if not devotion for
the
> Masters
> > and HPB. Devotion can be accompanied by an open mind, as you
may know.
> >
> > It is from the viewpoint of aspirants to discipleship, then, or
from
> the
> > viewpoint of earnest and lifelong students of HPB/Masters,
that
Paul
> > Johnson's perspective tends to be a gross vulgarization of the
idea of
> > Adept-Teachers.
> >
> > By now, I have reasons to believe that Paul Johnson is an honest
> person, and
> > I respect that, since
> > I believe sincerity is of the essence and more important than
one's
> ideas at
> > the lower mental plane.
> >
> > But if Paul Johnson never belonged to the inner organizations
of
the
> Adyar
> > Movement, and could not have a knowledge or a "sense", let's
say,
> of the
> > real approach to the Mystery of aspiration to lay discipleship,
that
> cannot
> > be said of John Algeo, who helped open room for Johnson's books
> within the
> > movement.
> >
> > The long examination and summary Algeo makes of "The Masters
> Revealed" in
> > "Theosophical History", July 1995, is itself an absurd, because
of the
> > totally naive approach of the book with regard to the Masters
and HPB.
> >
> > The "name-by-name-discussion" Algeo indulges in, with regard
to
the
> > "Masters' revelation",
> > would be hilarious if it were not too disgusting.
> >
> > According to Algeo, Paul Johnson considers HPB a "Russian Spy",
etc.
> Well,
> > she has written vehemently about that, explaining why Solovyof
> invented that
> > lie. It is in her letters to Sinnett.
> >
> > To give credit to a man like V. Solovyof ( a man whose personal
> "ethics"
> > was similar to James Wedgwood's in many ways, if you know what
I
> mean) --
> > and to deny HPB's words and evidences
> > that SHE WAS NOT A SPY is more than a flagrant injustice to
Truth,
> first,
> > and to HPB and the movement, second.
> >
> > Talking about that, discussing it without mentioning HPB's
viewpoint
> and her
> > words, is tantamount
> > to making libels circulate, in my view.
> >
> > If Paul Johnson does not want to have respect for HPB and wants
to
> sell a
> > book saying she was a Spy, this is one thing. He may say and
write
> > whatever he wants. But when the president of the Adyar TS in
the
USA
> (now
> > international vice-president) does the same, or helps this
perspective
> > circulate inside the movement, this is another, different thing.
> >
> > I guess this is enough. If you see Algeo's "review", you will
> examine all
> > purported "personal names" of the Mahatmas. John Algeo writes:
> >
> > ""... Johnson's aim in this thesis to "identify' the Masters is
> reasonable
> > and of considerable interest.""
> > (T.H., July 1995, p. 238).
> >
> > And then Algeo goes on to discuss all minute, useless and
fanciful
> details
> > of speculations about Adepts as if they were some historical
characters
> > completely immersed in present human Karma!!!
> >
> > You see what I mean?
> >
> > Algeo says, p. 245:
> >
> >
> > ""Johnson's thesis is a revisionist view of the Theosophical
> Masters, making
> > them neither what Blavatsky and others said them to be nor
sheer
> > inventions, but rather elaborations of historically attested
> prototypes.
> > That is a reasonable thesis to consider."" ( T.H., JUly 1995,
p. 245).
> >
> > Reasonable thesis ???
> >
> > Such a thesis cannot be considered reasonable, in a Theosophical
> Society,
> > because it shows a
> > complete absence of knowledge about what is an Adept.
> >
> > That is why no Theosophical Publisher, as long as I know,
accepted
> Paul's
> > books. But their
> > ambiguity, their long examination of the originals, their long
> discussing
> > these books, this is meaningful, and in this sense I say that
Algeo
> (and
> > others) used Paul and his books as a way to discredit HPB and
the
> Masters.
> > And, of course, this was not honest with Paul, either.
> >
> > As Gregory Tilletts biography of C. W. Leadbeater showed who
CWL
was
> since
> > the early 1980s,
> > it was "extremely convenient" for some theosophical cardinals
to
put
> HPB at
> > the same moral level as the "Bishop".
> >
> > As to Daniel Caldwell / David Green, his websites published
Paul's
> texts and
> > books for a number of years, if I remember it right from one of
Paul's
> > postings at the Theos-talk. And, if you ask Paul, he will
> certainly agree
> > that Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo are, or seem to be, most
close
> allies.
> > And I add: they share the same "editorial policy"...
> >
> > Believing as I believe that Paul Johnson is a basically honest
> person, I
> > hope he goes ahead and learns in the future something about the
> nature of
> > spiritual teachers, be them Adepts or not.
> >
> > Once he perceives the inner aspects and energies present in the
HPB's
> > writings, in the Mahatma Letters, and in other books and
authors, he
> will
> > understand what I and many theosophists
> > mean by the idea of "respect for H.P.B.".
> >
> > I have some confidence in that, since Paul has shown here at
> Theos-talk that
> > he is a man of good will. I sincerely hope dialogue will bring
a
> better
> > perspective about the Mystery of Initiates, whose identities
are
NOT in
> > their identity cards, so to say.
> >
> > As to the pamphlet "Madame Blavatsky and the 'Veiled Years' ",
by P.
> > Johnson, it is very much in the same line as "The Masters
Revelad".
> Paul
> > writes, page 7:
> >
> > "There are two questions (...).The first concerns the relative
> genuiness of
> > Gurdjieff and Blavatsky (...). Both may have been charlatans,
with
> Gurdjieff
> > merely exploiting the market created by H.P.B. (...)."
> >
> > And so he proceeds with several speculations of that same
level...
> >
> >
> > But, as I said earlier, the real problem is not with Paul. He
has my
> > sincere good wishes and my respect, as you have, Bill.
> >
> > Peace to all beings,
> >
> > Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
> >
> >
> > O o o O o o O o o O
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@>
> > >Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: Re: Theos-World Carlos and the "The Masters
Revealed"???
> > >Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:16:57 -0500
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Bill,
> > > >
> > > > I forgot to write that Paul Johson's books have a lot in
common
> with
> > >John
> > > > Algeos perspective.
> > > >
> > >Are you saying now that you have in fact read PJ's books and
are no
> > >longer passing judgement based on what others have told you to
think
> > >about them? Good for you then. No doubt you have also sat and
talked
> > >with John Algeo for at least long enough to understand his
perspective?
> > >Good for you again.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > There is a common lack of perception about the deeper
aspects of the
> > > > Esoteric Philosophy.
> > > >
> > >This is your perspective. Could you give us some specific
examples from
> > >your interaction with Johnson's books and Algeo's perspective
that we
> > >could then examine for ourselves and perhaps either arrive at
a
similar
> > >conclusion as yours or a different conclusion altogether.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > P. Johnson (who was a Caldwell's and an Algeo's ally for
years)
> will
> > >not
> > > > discuss deep questions regarding the movement or the
spiritual path.
> > > >
> > >Have you attempted to discuss deep questions with either of
these
> > >individuals? Sorry, but to me it sounds like you really are
saying that
> > >these individuals will not agree with your personally accepted
answers
> > >to the deep questions regarding the movement or the spiritual
path. If
> > >that is the case, feel free to add me to the list.
> > >
> > >Could you be more specific about your statement that Johnson,
Caldwell,
> > >and Algeo were allies for years? I have not been privvy to any
> > >information that would lead me to this same conclusion unless
you mean
> > >that these three were allied in their desire to shed some
additional
> > >light on the deep questions regarding the movement or the
spiritual
> > >path. Also, could you provide some idea of what you mean
by "spiritual
> > >path"? Often such a phrase is used to divide our brothers into
that
> > >group that is with us on "our" path and those that are not
with
us and
> > >are therefore against us because they dare to tread a different
> > >spiritual path.
> > > > The difference is that Paul does not have a personal project
> involving
> > > > political power in the movement. An important difference,
by
the
> way.
> > > >
> > >
> > >Do you have a personal project involving political power in the
> movement?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yet -- a book called "The Masters Revealed" -- that is a
> disaster. That
> > >was
> > > > most convenient
> > > > to Algeo and to Caldwell -- for a time.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Can you explain why a book called "The Masters Revealed" is a
disaster?
> > >Do you find it "disgusting" as well?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards, Carlos.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > peace,
> > > >
> > >
> > >bill
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> From: Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@>
> > > >> Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > > >> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > > >> Subject: Re: Theos-World Aveline, Caldwell , Algeo & Dugpas
> > > >> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 11:40:13 -0500
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> carlosaveline cardoso aveline wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOO
> > > >>>
> > > >>> An Adept-Teacher Explains:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Libels Against HPB Were Made By Dugpas in Vatican and
Bhutan.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ARE DANIEL CALDWELL AND JOHN ALGEO NOW
> > > >>>
> > > >>> CONSCIOUSLY PUBLICIZING THE WORK OF DUGPAS?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOO
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Another perspective:
> > > >>
> > > >> Is Carlosaveline Cardoso Aveline now perpetuating the
> heightened public
> > > >> interest in the lies published about HPB through his
extensive and
> > > >> relentless letter writing campaign protesting against the
book
> LETTERS
> > > >> OF HPB and attacking Caldwell and Algeo as agents of
dugpas? Is
> > >Aveline
> > > >> consciously drawing the attention of the public
toward "the libels
> > > >> against HPB" and actually contributing to the increased
sales and
> > > >> publicity of said book?
> > > >>
> > > >> Methinks he doth protest too much.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > > Copa 2006: Sabe como se diz `pênalti' em alemão? Clique
aqui!
> > > > http://copa.br.msn.com/extra/dicionario/l-z/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
> > Copa 2006: Já está na hora de saber o que é
`Freundschaftsspiel'
Clique
> > aqui! http://copa.br.msn.com/extra/dicionario/
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
