To Leon on Personalities
Jun 01, 2006 07:00 AM
by carlosaveline
Dear Leon,
I do not have the time to read your message below, but I sense it it some kind of personal discussion.
I will be available to discuss Theosophy with you, Cass and everyone.
Carlos.
De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Cópia:
Data:Wed, 31 May 2006 17:05:35 EDT
Assunto:[Spam] Re: Theos-World To Leon on Personalities
> 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, there´s 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 there´s 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 didn´t 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, there´s 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, water´s
> > > > disappearance, homosexuality, species´s extinction, growing
> > catastrophes,
> > > > forthcoming of new diseases, the reason of the growing usage of drugs,
> > the
> > > > Anti-Christ´s 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 Maya´s 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 don´t 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 didn´t 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 didn´t reveal the river, so don´t 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]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1149109599.580975.31987.tulear.hst.terra.com.br,22033,20031127114101,20031127114101
>
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 31/05/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4774
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
