Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00321)

Carlos,

Thanks, but could you please, explain the urgent importers of this? 
Have I said anything about the Aquarian Age, or anything about when 
it started? 

But ok, in which number? I need to read it, to get you point, I 
think.

One can't say that a new cycle starts on an exact date and time; 
hence they are "laying over" one another. But one can say when one 
(the "new one) is more in domination then the previous one, if that 
is what you mean?

But one thing can you prove, if you can, that if the Aquarian Age 
is "anti-ritual". I only accept a quot from the writings of the 
Masters, Blavatsky or Judge (and not that HPB wrote against the 
church ritualism). And still believe that you have misunderstood the 
difference between ritualism, when soulless rituals are preformed 
for it one reasons (like the Roman mass), and rituals preformed in 
esoteric bodies preformed for higher purpose, like an initiation 
(like the Tibetan Kalachakra, Masonry etc). 

Carl 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Carl,
> 
> I intend bringing here tomorror bibliographical evidences of HPB 
writing that 1900 was the starting point for the Aquarius Age.   I 
have to get it at home. 
> 
> It is easy to get it -- I have already written about that in "The 
Aquarian Theosophist". 
> 
> Carlos. 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>