Theos-Talk Archives (June 2006 Message tt00078)

Leon  M.,


Still loosing time? 


Carlos Cardoso Aveline 




De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Sun, 4 Jun 2006 00:10:54 EDT

Assunto:[Spam] Re: Theos-World Leon Loosing Time and is Carlos A loosing (sic) his mind? ;-)

> 
> 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]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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=1,1149394272.9398.10515.almora.hst.terra.com.br,31766,20031127114101,20031127114101
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 02/06/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4776
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
> 


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