Theos-Talk Archives (June 2006 Message tt00032)

Dear Senhor Aveline,

Better then if you just ignored it, rather than publicly admit by your 
refusal to deal with the issues of theosophical teachings that I pointed out below 
to Carlos Paterson (and others who read these public letters) -- along with 
your continued hypocrisy concerning your own activities along the same lines that 
you criticize in others -- that you really have no idea what "discussing 
theosophy" in open forum really means.   

Please note that I have no need to discuss theosophy with you (unless you 
have legitimate question in my own area of such study I can answer)... And, since 
all your letters (other than those with my name in the subject line) are now 
automatically trashed by my mail system, I cannot respond to any of your posts.

 
Leon Maurer
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/

In a message dated 6/1/06 10:01:02 AM, carlosaveline@terra.com.br writes:


> 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
> 



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