Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00971)

Carlos (Aveline),

Sorry that you took what I wrote directly to Carlos Paterson so personally -- 
as if it were written to you.   Methinks you protest too much.   Could it be 
that its because you have been the worst offender in personality attacks since 
you came onto this forum, and therefore jumped in so quick and cleverly to 
defend yourself -- by reversal (the kettle calling the pot black) -- using the 
same method you are criticizing?   It's no wonder that you had nothing to say 
about the content of my letter that had a direct connection with the theosophy 
you pride yourself in being so knowledgeable about... Or, is Cass the only one 
around here who really does what you say you do? 

Therefore, in my view your comments below are just a crock of self serving 
nonsense.    

But, since the shoe fits, and you stuck your foot in it publicly, I guess 
you'll just have to wear it -- and bear it. ;-)

I suggest you reread my letter to Carlos P., and ask yourself if what you 
criticized is an accurate assessment of what it was all about?   As HPB (and 
Master JC) pointed out, its better to look into your own faults before criticizing 
others by assuming they have the same faults.   Yours is the perfect example 
of an emotional projection that reflects one's inner character for all to see. 
  (So, I guess this verifies everything I pointed out in response to your ad 
hominem letters viciously attacking Daniel and others when you first showed up 
here.)   

If you had read it a bit more carefully -- you'd have seen that my letter to 
Carlos Paterson was not a personality attack... Since it dealt directly with 
his statements that indicated his ignorance of the true purpose of theosophy as 
well as a knowledge of what was taught in the Secret Doctrine, or that the 
later teachings of the pseudo theosophists (AB, CWL, AAB, etc.) were in direct 
opposition to the original theosophical teachings -- that were known as far 
back as ancient Greece, if not thousands of years earlier.     

In fact, my letter was a necessary criticism of the wrong views of the 
student (not him, personally)   by pointing out the correct view for the benefit of 
both him and all other beginning students of theosophy who might be listening 
in to our dialogues.   This also would include old students, who still are 
unable to comprehend the deeper teachings, purposes and scope of theosophy as 
originally given out by the Masters... That certainly wasn't intended by them to 
be a pecking ground for those more interested in historical accuracy and 
personal beliefs, than understanding of the fundamental theosophical truths and 
their application.   

In any event, I'm sure Carlos is capable of responding to my letter in 
response to his -- for himself.

Therefore, if there is anyone on this forum who speaks directly toward 
clarifying the truths of theosophical metaphysics, and exchanging views on 
theosophy, philosophy and their relationship to modern science that currently opposes 
them all (although not for long, as I see it) -- it's certainly not you. Should 
anyone be interested in verifying this -- we'll let the record speak for 
itself.
 
In conclusion, I suggest you start thinking about what you say before you say 
it, speak to the issue and not to the personality, and begin practicing what 
you preach.

Leon Maurer

In a message dated 5/31/06 11:11:22 AM, carlosaveline@terra.com.br writes:


> Dear Leon,
> 
> 
> I see two main things in what you write below:
> 
> 1) You are indulging in discussing people, personalities, not the content of 
> the earch for truth.
> 
> 2) You are being judgmental of other people, people about whom you have 
> scarce information.
> 
> If I remember it right, the goal of Theos-talk is not to discuss 
> personalities, and that is why I feel at home here, since, better than gossips or 
> personal accusations,  I prefer exchanging views of Philosophy and Theosophy.
> 
> 
> Best regards,   Carlos Cardoso Aveline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Cópia:
> 
> Data:Wed, 31 May 2006 01:16:52 EDT
> 
> Assunto:[Spam] Re: Theos-World THEOSOPHY - Is it possible?
> 
> > Carlos,
> >
> > I don't think you have really understood theosophy and why it was given 
> out
> > when it was. Judging from your commentaries, I doubt that you have even
> > studied any of the inner (occult) truths hidden in the secret Doctrine -- 
> for
> > "intuitive students" to dig out for themselves. If you had, you could 
> never say
> > any of the things you did about Blavatsky, the Secret Doctrine, or the
> > fundamental theosophy it teaches. So, from my point of view, it's apparent 
> that
> > everything you did say is based solely on ignorance of those truths. But 
> then,
> > it's understandable, since all newbees think they know enough to make 
> judgments
> > about things they know very little of. :-)
> >
> > So, all you need to quaff your "thirst for more and more" is just to dig a
> > little deeper -- which might (if you can handle it) take several years of
> > serious study of all the Secret Doctrine's inner depths along with all its
> > references to the ancient wisdom -- that hasn't changed one bit in more 
> than 5,000
> > years. All you need is your own intuition awakened through a proper 
> practice of
> > Rajah Yoga meditation.
> >
> > But, then, like most people today, you might want it all spoon fed to you.
> > But that isn't going to happen... Since theosophy is only for those 
> willing to
> > study it through "their own self devised and self determined efforts." The
> > goal, of course, being; to attain individual "'self realization' so as to 
> be
> > better able to help and teach others."
> >
> > For one thing, theosophy has nothing to say about the world we experience
> > outside of ourselves. And this includes all the miseries of our material 
> world
> > brought on by ignorance of the fundamental principles and of the inner 
> truths
> > of Cosmogenesis and its metaphysics and evolution, along with the truths 
> of
> > reincarnation and karma.
> >
> > The theosophical teachings are timeless, and have never been concerned 
> with
> > the state of the world during this period of Kali Yuga that has to 
> inevitably
> > run it's course... But, is concerned only with our inner spiritual life 
> and
> > our becoming a "nuclius of universal brotherhood."
> >
> > What has that to do with crop circles, UFO's, and other world changes that
> > are purely material phenomena that are constantly changing and have no 
> real
> > relationship to the infinite inner life theosophy teaches us about (with 
> the help
> > of the Voice of the Silence, The Bhagavad Gita, and Patanjali's Yoga
> > Aphorisms)? What more of a "revelation" do we want or need to become a 
> true
> > theosophist?
> >
> > As for enlarging theosophy, how can a knowledge of "Portals" or the "Mayan
> > calendar" have anything to do with its fundamental teachings? Anything one
> > needs to know about those other things (we call them "side issues") are 
> well
> > covered in many other "Mystery Schools" that can easily be found on the 
> Internet.
> > But, why waste your time, when everything taught by those other
> > "revelations" are all in the Secret doctrine, its references, and other 
> writings of HPB,
> > WQJ and some of their direct students like Perucker, Farthing, etc. -- 
> whom I
> > suggest you also study before thinking you know anything about true 
> theosophy.
> >
> >
> > The real "duty" of theosophists isn't in "enlarging it's scope" -- but in
> > practicing its teachings of altruism and universal brotherhood, and spread
> > broadcasting it to the outer world by the example of our own individual 
> and group
> > actions. Anything else is just adding onto the mistakes and distortions 
> given
> > to it by the later pseudo theosophists who came after Blavatsky -- from 
> Annie
> > Besant, through Charles Leadbeater, to Alice Bailey... All of whom tried 
> to
> > turn it into another religion no better than all those that already exists 
> and
> > that have, if not led, not been able to prevent the world from following 
> its
> > present materialistic path to near destruction (which, incidentally, is
> > absolutely necessary before the phoenix of a truer theosophical world can 
> rise out of
> > its ashes).
> >
> > What makes you think that adding or enlarging theosophy, and turning it 
> into
> > a new religion with new revelations (that only a Master can give) can do 
> any
> > better? Besides, those revelations can only add to and further clarify 
> what
> > is already hidden under the intentionally "blinded" dead letter gloss of 
> the
> > Secret doctrine. Better now to prepare ourselves with what is already
> > available so as to be able to assist the new 6th sub-racers coming in this 
> Aquarian
> > age -- so they don't get caught up in the materialism of the past 
> Millennium.
> >
> > The reason HPB said the SD was only "fragments of the Secret doctrine", 
> was
> > that the Masters intentionally (and rightly so) held back the bulk of the
> > occult teachings (such as those related to the "correlation of forces" and 
> so
> > called "magic") that would give terrible power to the majority of this 
> world
> > steeped in untrammeled greed and selfishness -- that no amount of 
> spiritual teaching
> > could change. In fact all the "new spiritual movements" have added nothing
> > to the teachings of theosophy -- except, perhaps, to distort them beyond 
> all
> > recognition. Also, any sort of psychic teachings for purposes of attaining
> > individual "powers" have nothing to do with theosophy -- which teaches 
> only a
> > Rajah-Jnana yoga leading to enlightenment or self realization. How anyone
> > could call that "obsolete" is beyond all comprehension. Especially coming 
> from a
> > Brazilian -- where the Aquarian age children have been appearing since the
> > beginning of the new theosophical cycle in the last quarter of the 20th 
> century.
> >
> > Since true theosophy, no matter when it originates, has no "dogma" (as it 
> is
> > not and could never be an "organized religion") -- any additions to its
> > fundamental teachings by ignorant students, or those not yet initiated by 
> a Master,
> > could only make things worse for the world and the coming "indigo" 
> children.
> >
> > Therefore, the best advice I can give you, would be to seriously study
> > theosophy and its ageless wisdom from its original sources -- before even 
> thinking
> > of changing it into another hierarchical organizational entity concerned 
> only
> > with the state or conditions of the present world around us. Anyone who 
> wants
> > to know about any of that can easily find it on Google -- without trying 
> to
> > make theosophy into something it was never intended by the Masters to 
> become.
> >
> > Incidentally (for those ready and perceptive enough to see it) the Masters
> > are still here... And if they wanted to add some new teaching to bring 
> theosophy
> > up to date in the 21st century, they would give it out to a chosen 
> messenger
> > -- like they've already done several times in this new cycle of the
> > theosophical movement since 1975. So, there already are "new theosophical 
> teachings"
> > that go beyond the basic outline in the secret Doctrine -- without in any 
> way
> > making those fundamental teachings less valuable or obsolete.
> >
> > Go look, and you'll find.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Leon Maurer
> > http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
> > http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
> >
> > In a message dated 5/30/06 10:14:50 AM, carlos.paterson@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > Congratulations by the answer...
> > >
> > > It is habitual to hear people saying that Blavatsky presented a 
> "profound"
> > > working, a "vast" one. I commonly see people saying that her writings 
> were not
> > > developed for the time she lived, but for the future one, for the future
> > > generation: and only this "future generation" would be capable of 
> understanding
> > > her discourse.
> > >
> > > But, thereīs something strange...
> > >
> > > When I read affirmations like these:
> > >
> > > (1) "THEOSOPHY offers fundamental principles to help us understand our
> > > world..." http://www.theosophysandiego.org/index.htm
> > > (2) "...These fundamental principles of theosophy have now taken their 
> place
> > > and are demanding attention on the world stage."
> > > http://www.theosophysandiego.org/index.htm
> > > (3) "Theosophy embodies a view of the universe, including theories on 
> the
> > > origin and mysteries ofthe universe."
> > > http://www3.igalaxy.net/~nick/theosophy/lessons01.htm
> > > (4) "Theosophy is a collection of religious and philosophical teachings 
> that
> > > view humanity as constantly evolving to a higher level."
> > > http://www3.igalaxy.net/~nick/theosophy/lessons01.htm
> > >
> > > I see a certain kind of "fanaticism" (sorry for the sincerity - it is 
> only
> > > my opinion), as "nothing new" is viewed in the current Theosophical
> > > Literature. What I perceive is a literature that is a "repetitive 
> discourse".
> > >
> > > The impression is that the theosophical writings stopped in time, at the
> > > time of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891) and at the "New (?) 
> Theosophy",
> > > with Charles Webster Leadbeater (1847-1934) and Annie Besant 
> (1847-1933).
> > >
> > > No person appears to review something new or actual, something that 
> really
> > > approaches of themes like "Crop Circles", the "actual moment, as a 
> transition
> > > one", the "UFO phenomena" and so on... and thereīs much more. And I 
> think:
> > > Where are the "fundamental principles" capable of treating subjects like 
> these,
> > > helping us to understand our world, our MODERN one?
> > >
> > > My and our world is now and here! It didnīt stop (1831 - 1933), but 
> flows.
> > >
> > > So, the affirmations (1) and (2), in my point of view is a fallacy, as 
> my
> > > and our world is not being treated as it must be.
> > >
> > > Related to the (3) affirmation, thereīs a simple and direct question: 
> What
> > > Misteries? The same and old discourses that we see at any corner, at any 
> book?
> > > I woud advise to not waste paper with a old fashioned talking!
> > >
> > > Finally, related to the (4) affirmation, I ask:
> > >
> > > Does Theosophy, as has been presented, really see humanity as constanly
> > > evolving to a higher level? What level? At a level that stopped in 1934 
> and is
> > > now being called "New Theosophy", with all its contradictions?
> > >
> > > Sorry, friends, for that aggressive disembosom. But I am tired and
> > > disappointed!
> > >
> > > I would like to see a "Lively Theosophy", not a New Theosophy!
> > >
> > > A Theosophy dealing with our modern world, with all its stress, waterīs
> > > disappearance, homosexuality, speciesīs extinction, growing 
> catastrophes,
> > > forthcoming of new diseases, the reason of the growing usage of drugs, 
> the
> > > Anti-Christīs controversy, the UFO and so forth! These are the marks of 
> our world and
> > > is a pity that the great part of people is talking about a dead world, a
> > > world of "letters" and about and unreal "Tibet".
> > >
> > > Do you know that Tibet is disappearing (perhaps disappeared), with the
> > > chinese destroying its traditions? This is our world!
> > >
> > > What is the esoteric meaning of this fact? Would be the "transition" of 
> the
> > > spirituality to the South America?
> > >
> > > Do you known that this is a normal converse at the new spiritual 
> movement!
> > >
> > > Have you listened about Portals or Mayaīs calendar yet? What Theosophy 
> has
> > > to talk about it?
> > >
> > > Hello, we are in 2006!
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I see the Thesophy dying... dying in an out-of-date
> > > literature, holding itself in a dogmatism like the Church and Vatican.
> > >
> > > I donīt think that Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Annie Besant and others have
> > > failed. On the contrary, I see them as a "start point" and is our duty 
> to enlarge
> > > its frontiers.
> > >
> > > Blavatsky said:
> > >
> > > "It is needless to explain that this book is not the Secret Doctrine in 
> its
> > > entirety, but a select number of fragments.."
> > > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-0-co.htm#preface
> > >
> > > And I see people looking for the Secret Doctrine (the "fragments") as 
> the
> > > Final Revelation! No! It is just "fragments"!
> > >

> > > It is just 1%... and this undermost quantity of water is not capable to
> > > avert our thirst! It is necessary more, much more...
> > >
> > > I see Blavatsky as one who dropped water in our lips, in our thirsty 
> lips -
> > > as a stimulus! She didnīt wish to avoid our thirst, but increase it; so 
> that
> > > we can understand that Water (The Truth) exists, is real and is the only 
> one
> > > capable to satisfy our necessities.
> > >
> > > It is important to see that she didnīt reveal the river, so donīt be a
> > > fanatic!
> > >
> > > Finding out the river is a task that she has given to us... and 
> certainly we
> > > will find it when our thirst be unsupportable!
> > >
> > > And the most important:
> > >
> > > The River must be full of life, pure and sunny... not a stagnant one, a
> > > prisoner of time and dogmatism.
> > >
> > > Whe must BE FREE! And at this point, Blavatsky was unique example!
> > >
> > > Thank you for all,
> > >
> > > Carlos Paterson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From:
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Theos-World THEOSOPHY - Is it possible?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 5/29/2006 7:39:00 PM Central Standard Time, 
> > > cspn@email.si
> > > > writes:
> > > >
> > > > How the  "Crop Circles" phenomena can be analised through the
> > > Theosophical
> > > > Teachings?
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Probably not, but that won't stop someone from trying.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck the Heretic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> 



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