Theos-Talk Archives (June 2006 Message tt00071)

Carlos A.,

Not any more than you are wasting yours.   Don't you know when it's time to 
stop exposing yourself in public with this constant repetition of your 
misinterpretations, avoidance of responsibility for your own actions, and critical 
projections of your own faults on others?     

Leon

In a message dated 6/3/06 10:08:13 AM, carlosaveline@terra.com.br writes:


> Leon,
> 
> Still loosing your  time with it?
> 
> Carlos
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Cópia:
> 
> Data:Fri, 2 Jun 2006 22:48:39 EDT
> 
> Assunto:[Spam] Re: Theos-World Re: Carlos A. on Leon on Personalities :-)
> 
> > Carlos A,
> >
> > Ha ha... Your pointless, many times belligerent and personally 
> denigrating,
> > mailbox cluttering blabber, apparently attempting to dominate every topic 
> in
> > this forum, is much more of a waste of time for many of us.
> >
> > On the other hand, my time is never wasted if it offers useful 
> information...
> > Or, helps "other" serious students of theosophy see how their time is 
> wasted
> > by those who insist they are always right, can't stand being contradicted 
> or
> > exposed, never seem to practice what they preach, and always do whatever 
> they
> > are accusing others of doing.
> >
> > Leonardo
> >
> > P.S. if you don't wish to add oil to the fire, I suggest you just ignore 
> this
> > letter. ;-)
> >
> > In a message dated 6/2/06 7:25:59 AM, carlosaveline@terra.com.br writes:
> >
> >
> > > Leon,
> > >
> > > Still loosing your  time with it?
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Cópia:
> > >
> > > Data:Fri, 2 Jun 2006 02:55:33 EDT
> > >
> > > Assunto:[Spam] Re: Theos-World To Leon on Personalities
> > >
> > > > 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 k
> > > > > >   nowledgeable 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 m
> > > arks
> > > > > 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]