Theos-Talk Archives (June 2009 Message tt00234)

Brian,
When are you guys in Melbourne going to get a website and post your lectures on it. I miss Joe's lectures and talks. Come to think of it why arne't all lectures available - visitors and likewise - I know they are recorded. If you ever need anyone to type them up I am up for it. I live in Melbourne.

Cass


>
>From: butchie122 <brianparry@ymail.com>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wednesday, 10 June, 2009 3:04:07 PM
>Subject: Theos-World Re: The Clairvoyants on Krishnamurti?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanks Morten for your interest. 
>Last night I went to the Melbourne Lodge Library. The Mead reference was to a series of articles he wrote on 'Initiation' between September 1906 & February 1907. The particular paragraph that I quoted from is on page 425; in full it says;
>'Indeed it is said that he who has been prepared & purified, or rather, who has made himself ready, (this last phrase is in italics) & freed himself from "the world illusio" so stripping himself naked of opinion, is not made gnostic here on earth by those is body, but that, loosed from the trammels of the flesh, he passes to other inward rites of greater efficacy, where the mystery is consumated in the peace of perfect harmony, amid the unwearied liturgy of Nature's perfect elements, and with the wise cooperation of the all-knowing intelligences of Mind, the Great Initiator.'
>
>I hope that this is helpful.
>
>Incidently, I was also giving a talk on Thomas Merton with particular reference to his interest in Sufism,Zen & Taoism. The 20 or so members present made sure that it was a productive evening
>
>regards
>
>Brian Parry
>
>ps I think that your 'name' Sufilight is wonderful - I wish I had it; the Sufi light I mean.
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@ ...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to you too.
>> I have never read that book by Mead.
>> What kind of meditation does he recommend in it?
>> What kind of "necessity of preparation & purification" is he talking about?
>> 
>> 
>> - - - You mention Annie Besant and ES - - -
>> "The London Lectures" by Annie Besant, 1907.
>> http://www.gutenber g.org/files/ 20800/20800- h/20800-h. htm
>> or (Archives.org)
>> http://ia360918. us.archive. org/2/items/ LondonLectures19 07/LondonLecture s1907.pdf 
>> "The London Lectures" by Annie Besant, 1907 - are to me very interesting, because of what happened, when Olcott died, and the changed influence of ES upon TS. The lecture on "Spiritual and Temporal Authority" was very important , although I will have to disagree with it to a certain extend. A influence which have not changed much since that structural change occured. A change in opposition to the Masters and HPB's stance in 1888. So I am right now wondering why that change was necessary?
>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - 
>> "Spiritual and Temporal Authority"
>> "And the Society grew, became more numerous, and spread in many lands; and naturally as it spread, many of these ties somewhat weakened so far as the Society, as a whole, was concernedÃâ"not weakened with individuals, but somewhat weakened with the Body at large. And so things went on and on, until the Society passed through the same stage through which humanity had passed when the Priest-Kings entirely disappeared, and when those words were spoken by one of the Great Ones: "The Society has liberated itself from our grasp and influence, and we have let it go; we make no unwilling slaves.... Out of the three Objects the second alone is attended to; it is no longer[108] either a Brotherhood, nor a body over the face of which broods the Spirit from beyond the Great Range." And when that time was well established a change was made in the organisation of the Society. It was no longer, so to speak, one and indivisible, but two parts were
 madeÃâ"Exoteric and Esoteric; and, as you know, for some time the Colonel fought against that, thinking it meant an unwise and dangerous division of authority in the Society, until, as he was coming over here with his mind in opposition to the proposal that H.P.B. should form the Esoteric Section, he received, on board the steamer on which he travelled, a letter from his Master telling him to carry out what H.P.B. wished; and, ever obedient as he was, for when his Master spoke he knew no hesitation, when he arrived here in England he did what he had been told, and authorised the formation of what was then called the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society. You can read all this for yourselves; it is all in print. Then came that distinct cleavage of Exoteric and EsotericÃâ"the two heads, H. S. Olcott and H.P.B., one wielding the temporal and the other the spiritual authority in the Society. It meant that the Society had ceased to be the
 spiritual vehicle it was in the earlier days. It meant, as was printed at that time, that some of the members wished to carry on the Society on its original lines, and so they formed themselves into this Section under her, on the original lines. So it went on, like that time in the history of humanity, in order that certain faculties might grow and become strong, and that the spiritual side for a time might seem apart, and the other might go its own way unruled. Many difficulties grew[109] out of it, but still they were not insuperableÃâ"a certain clashing of authorities from time to time, and certain jealousy between the one and the other. These things were the inevitable concomitants of the separation, of the differences between the spiritual and temporal sides, the Spirit and the body, as it were. So things went on until the President passed away. When H.P.B. left us, she left me in charge of her work, as her colleague did in AdÃÂyar lately,
 thus uniting again the two powers, the two authorities, in a single person.
>> Now, what does it mean to the Society? That is the question for us. What is it to bring forth in our Movement? Ill or well? It is only possible, at this beginning of the road, to point out the two things that may happen. For the Society and its President together will have to settle which of the two shall come. It may be that They, who from behind look on, may foresee what is coming; or it may be, as it often is, that They also are not able completely to say what shall come out of the clashing wills of men, differing views, possible antagonisms. Two possibilities there clearly are before us, either of which, I suggest, may come. For you and for me it is to decide which shall come. And I can only tell you how it seems to me, and you must judge and act as you think right. For at last our Society, like humanity, has reached the point when the individual must do his duty, and must no longer be a child guided entirely from without, but a man with the God
 within co-operating with the God without. Hence it is not a question for any to decide for us: we have to decide it for ourselves. And as I say, I can only put to you what seem to me the two possibilities. Let[110] me take the bad possibility first. It may be that I, in whose hands these two powers now are placed, shall prove too weak to bear that burden, too blind to walk along that difficult path. It may be that I shall err on the one side or on the other, either making the Society too exoteric and empty, a material thing, or, on the other hand, pressing too far the spiritual side, with all that that means. It may be that the task is too great, and that the time has not come. I recognise that as possible; for in all questions of peoples, persons, and times, experiments may be made which it is known will fail, in order that out of the failure fresh wisdom may be gathered, and it may be that this shall be a failure. And if so it matters not, for out of
 that failure some higher good will spring. That is the conviction of those who know that the Self is ever in us, and that the Self can never perish; so that it matters not what catastrophe may come, provided faith in the Self remains secure with His endless possibilities of recovery, and greater powers of manifestation. And it may quite well be that, in hands as weak and knowledge as limited as mine, failure will meet this great experiment which the Masters are making, and that we shall find that neither President nor Society is fit to take that step forward, are both still too childish, not sufficiently mature, and therefore not able to tread the path which is the path upwards to the spiritual life, when the organisation shall again become but the mere outside veiling of the spiritual life, carrying the message of regeneration to the world, and the birth of a new civilisation. That is one possibility that should be faced. And the other?[111]
>> 
>> The other is that we may permit the Great Ones to be sufficiently in touch with our little selves to send Their forces through us, and that Their life shall become the life of the Society; that out of this rejoining of spiritual and temporal a greater spirituality shall circulate in every vein and vessel of the Society, and it shall become again truly a vehicle of the Masters of the Wisdom. It may be that it is preparing for a greater and a nobler life, making the place ready for some greater one to come, who shall worthily and strongly wield the power that I am bound to wield too weakly, but yet, perhaps, strongly enough to make that preparation possible. Perhaps you and I together are strong enough and wise enough to till the field, where another shall sow the seed that shall grow up into a greater civilisation and mark a step forward in the history of humanity. That is our great opportunity, that the possibility that I see opening before us in this
 policy now changed for the second time. It may be that we have learned enough in the last eighteen years to tread this path rightly, to tread it sufficiently to prepare a field for a greater one to come; and that is the hope in which I live at the present time. I believe that it is possible, if only we can rise to the height of our great opportunity, that someone will come from the far-off land where greater than we are living, and take this instrument and make it fit to be a tool in a Master's handÃâ"some Disciple greater and mightier than I, someone belonging to the same company, but far wiser and far stronger than I. And that such a one will take this Movement and make it a little more what the heart of the Masters desiresÃâ"more truly a Brotherhood, more full of knowledge, more[112] really linked to the higher worlds by a centre of wise OccultismÃâ"that seems to me the great possibility which is opening before us. But, as I said, I know not
 if we are great enough to take it, or are still too small; but it is to that great work that I would invite your co-operation; it is to that mighty task that I would ask you to address yourselves. At least believe in the possibility of it; at least raise your eyes to that great stature to which it may be our Society shall attain. For if we can rise to it, then it means that we shall be builders of the next civilisation, that our hands shall take part in the making of the foundation of the humanity that is still to be born; it means that we shall be its forerunners, its heralds, that we shall be the messengers whose feet shall be fair upon the mountains, telling of the coming of a greater man, of the birth of a more spiritual humanity. And even supposing that, accepting that ideal, we fail, supposing that we are not strong enough, and wise enough, and unselfish enough, to do it, then, thenÃâ"if I may quote the words of Giordano BrunoÃâ""It is
 better to see the Great and fail in trying to achieve it, than never to see it, nor try to achieve it at all.""
>> http://www.gutenber g.org/files/ 20800/20800- h/20800-h. htm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - - -
>> 
>> 1. In 1885 when HPB was exiled from Adyar, the Master wrote:
>> 
>> "The Society has liberated itself from our grasp and influence,
>> and we have let it go...It is now a soulless corpse, a machine
>> run so far well enough, but which will fall to pieces when...Out
>> of the three objects, the second alone is attended to; it is no
>> longer a Brotherhood, nor a body over the face of which broods
>> the Spirit beyond the Great Range."
>> [ Theosophist, October 1907 ] Theosophy Mag. Vol. 6, p. 4772. H. P. Blavatsky wrote about Mrs. Coulomb:
>> "Madame C.Ãââs statements might have disturbed his mind a little, but you must kindly remember that even Colonel Olcott, who is not a Hindoo, and who has had, besides, the advantage of knowing you and the Mahatmas for a long time has also been misled by the womanÃââs allegations. If you recall to your mind the past history of the Association you will perhaps be able to see, if the excitement of the moment were to subside a little, that more harm has been done to the Society by Europeans than by Hindoos. Please kindly read DamodarÃââs letter fully before you come to the conclusion that the Hindoo nation should be denounced on account of the momentary folly of a single Hindoo.
>> 
>> For the foregoing reasons I see no objection whatever to your coming here and I hope you will not come to the conclusion that you can now safely give up your work in India or postpone your arrival here indefinitely. "
>> http://www.phx- ult-lodge. org/Letters% 20of%20HPB. htm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 3. Around 1888, K.H. told H.P.B. with regret that -- 
>> 
>> the Society has liberated itself from our grasp and influence and we have let it go -- we make no unwilling slaves. He [Olcott] says he has saved it? He saved its body, but he allowed through fear its soul to escape; it is now a soulless corpse, a machine run so far well enough, but which will fall to pieces when he is gone. Out of the three objects the second alone is attended to (3), but it is no longer either a brotherhood, nor a body over the face of which broods the spirit from beyond the Great Range. His kindness and love of peace are great and truly Gautamic in their spirit; but he has misapplied that kindness. -- L.M.W., II, 68-9 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 4. H. P. Blavatsky said "WHY I DO NOT RETURN TO INDIA":
>> "Acting under the Master's orders. I began a new movement in the West on the
>> original lines ... I founded (the magazine) Lucifer."
>> http://www.blavatsk y.net/blavatsky/ arts/WhyIDoNotRe turnToIndia. htm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> With an eye on Krishnamurti I ask - Did the Masters KH and M leave TS Adyar, when Annie Besant took the "lead" of ES and TS? Yes or no?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M. Sufilight
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: butchie122 
>> To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:58 AM
>> Subject: Theos-World Re: The Clairvoyants on Krishnamurti?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Once again, thanks, Morten. Your view will be shared by many & I certainly not only respect it but defend your right to hold it.
>> 
>> My problem is that I am just not interested in trying to judge people & their opinions or their 'knowledge'. I can't know what you know or that you know. All I know is that my opinions are usually wrong. Just to bolster my 'opinion' can I quote from a fascinating series of articles by G.R.S.Mead in the Theosophical Revies of 1906/7 under the heading of 'Initiation' . Given his closeness to HPB & her instructions for meditation I personally pay considerable attention to his views. He speaks of the necessity of preparation & purification for spiritual growth by freeing oneself from the 'world illusion' so stripping himself naked of opinion.
>> 
>> Incidently whilst in the library I cmae across a reference to Annie Besant's outer headship of the ES. I know that it is not HPB but it's not too far away.
>> 
>> I'm sorry I can't respond as quickly as you - life is busy
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
>> --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@ > wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear friends and
>> > 
>> > My views are:
>> > 
>> > Butchie asked:
>> > "Why not agree that we don't know; be agnostic?"
>> > 
>> > Because we will continue to say, that "a tree is known on its fruits".
>> > And because we can prove that certain activities are false, wrong or incorrect. Proving it will however not seldom take time.
>> > 
>> > Your view is almost like Socrates: "I know that I know nothing".
>> > Yet, we cannot quite agree on that. 
>> > 
>> > And simply because some of us claim that we actually know, and do not assume, that a World Teacher of the age, who claims that himself reading books are allright, and yet a few years later tells people to throw books away, was not all the time a World Teacher. A Torchbearer not giving irrefutable proof on Gupta-Vidya can hardly be the same Torchbearer to come mentioned by H. P. Blavatsky. And when Annie Besant claimed the arrival of twelve apostles and was contradicted by the by herself claimed World Teacher, we cannot agree on both of them was telling the truth. There are persons who karmically liberates people, and there are persons who karmically does the opposite. This we know.
>> > What is good for some is not good for others. Still "a tree is known on its fruits." A World Teacher not creating more impact than an average philosopher from India, who travels to Western countries, can hardly be called a World Teacher, but aught rather to be called an Exclusive "Secterian", who rejected the thought of comparative studying to create peace and end the strifes between the worlds religions on Earth. Even Vivekananda did a better job on that in his day. Please do not misunderstand me, I and others do hold the view and knowledge that meditation, PROVIDED it is understood correctly will lead the Seekers after Truth in the proper direction, but we do not teach the WHOLE world meditation, when they need something else before they will appreciate real occult meditation and not the superficial one, which is almost the same a the Christian dogmatic lip-prayer services towards a physical World Teacher of own their choosning. Occult meditation
 are only to be recommended to those who are ready for it, and guidance is to be recommended and not avoided at all costs.
>> > We know this, prove is something else. Yet we claim, that you can never walk alone!
>> > :-)
>> > 
>> > These are just my views and knowledge on my level.
>> > And I might also be in error.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > M. Sufilight
>> > 
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > From: butchie122 
>> > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>> > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:03 AM
>> > Subject: Theos-World Re: The Clairvoyants on Krishnamurti?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Thanks Morten,
>> > 
>> > What I do know is that I often (usually) fall on the Path or Pathless. The one mislead is me. How can I KNOW what a World Teacher is or what is overshadowing in reality? Nisagardatta famously said that a fact is "an event in awareness unstained by desire or fear". My experience is that I rarely enjoy such unstained moments - hence my opinions, no matter how well researched usually turn out to be wrong or sometimes half right i.e. also half wrong. Why not agree that we don't know; be agnostic?
>> > 
>> > Brian
>> > 
>> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@ > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Dear friends and Butchie
>> > > 
>> > > My views are:
>> > > 
>> > > Butchie wrote:
>> > > "The pro & con discussions on Krishnamurti, Besant, Leadbeater etc were full of lots of heat but little else. "
>> > > 
>> > > May I ask if the anything writing and discussions amounts to the same in your mind, or have we throw a few remarks against a stonewall without a heart?
>> > > 
>> > > I suggest that you rather face the facts, that some persons fall on the Path or Pathless Path.
>> > > And because they do so, they are prone to mislead the Seekers after Truth.
>> > > Denying this you can, but the truth in it will not go away. Do you understand me on this?
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > M. Sufilight
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > > From: butchie122 
>> > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>> > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:50 AM
>> > > Subject: Theos-World Re: The "clairvoyant finding" of Krishnamurti?
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Thanks for your well put point. I don't know if we have a duty to develop a plausible hypothesis on questions on which we cannot really have all the information. The whole Theosophy World site demonstrates the problems associated with 'plausible hypothesis' based on personal opinion. The pro & con discussions on Krishnamurti, Besant, Leadbeater etc were full of lots of heat but little else. 
>> > > 
>> > > In Lucifer in 1887 HPB had an article entitled 'Self KNowledge'; it says ' The first necessity for obtaining self-knowlwedge is to become profoundly conscious of ignorance; to feel with every fibre of the heart that one is ceaselessly self deceived.'
>> > > 
>> > > This seems to match The Voice of the Silence 1st verse which directs its instructions to those 'who are ignorant'.
>> > > 
>> > > This is why I am so cautious of any opinion that I develop. 
>> > > 
>> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Dear Brian,
>> > > > 
>> > > > Thanks for the answer. I think it's perfectly fine to have a somewhat agnostic position on these issues. All your observations are quite true. Question remains for many: What's the overarching, most plausible hypothesis to explain most, if not all, facts? It's up to us to develop the most plausible ones and debate the pros and cons. In the process we can get somewhat hardened or passionate, some more than others, but that comes with debate on profound spiritual issues. And of course, if one has soaked up enough HPB and got a taste for her polemics, one might emulate her rhetorical style. 
>> > > > 
>> > > > Govert
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > > > From: butchie122 
>> > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:13 AM
>> > > > Subject: Theos-World Re: The "clairvoyant finding" of Krishnamurti?
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > Thanks for the question Govert.
>> > > > 
>> > > > The only true answer is that I don't know. Here are a few pointers that I have found useful
>> > > > 
>> > > > All the evidence points to Leadbeater 'discovering' Krishnamurti. Whether he, K, was the world Teacther or not, he turned out to be an extraordinary person in the 20th century. If it was a guess it turned out better than any of my guesses on anything.
>> > > > 
>> > > > In her diagram of Meditation, which is my own favorite, HPB asks us to acquire the capacity to see existing things without love, hate or indifference. I find resonance of this in K's "Look, don't think.' Incidently this is easy to say but extraordinarily difficult to do.
>> > > > 
>> > > > She also urges us to constantly refuse to think of the reality of '...association with places, times & forms. Again there is resonence with K's, 'I have no nationality' & 'I have no religion'. The issue is who/what is the 'I' that has no nationality?
>> > > > 
>> > > > Ramana Maharshi when asked about K said, 'Krishnamurti only speaks in absolutes.
>> > > > 
>> > > > I have known a large number of members who knew Leadbeater very well. Two were boys who lived with him & denyed any impropriety; another was a very senior Australian Public servant who was fascinated by his theosophical teaching but who constantly had to remind himself that Leadbeater was essentially a 19th century Englishman whose conditioning was very different from his own; as both are from mine and mine from young people today. e.g. He used this insight to help him interpret Leadbeater's description of K's initiation in 'Masters & the Path'. Another woman of the same era could not stand the man. I try and suspend judgement. I don't know & I don't have to know. HPB praised awareness of one's own ignorance as necessary before one begins the quest for the Voice of the Silence. In spite of my conditioning I try to 'know that I don't know'.
>> > > > 
>> > > > I'm sorry that in this site where concrete, hardened judgements for and against abound on almost everyone & everything that I am just unable to take a firm stand other thatn to use what appeals to me & not worry about the rest
>> > > > 
>> > > > Brian
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
>> > > > > From: Govert Schuller <schuller@>
>> > > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 May, 2009 11:46:12 AM
>> > > > > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: The "clairvoyant finding" of Krishnamurti?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Addressing Brian or me?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > > > > From: Cass Silva 
>> > > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>> > > > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:23 PM
>> > > > > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: The "clairvoyant finding" of Krishnamurti?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > What is so detrimental about sorting the chaff from the wheat?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Cass
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
>> > > > > From: Govert Schuller <schuller@alpheus. org>
>> > > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 May, 2009 10:57:44 AM
>> > > > > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: The "clairvoyant finding" of Krishnamurti?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Dear Brian,
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Thanks for formulating a fair enough criticism on an esoteric conspiricism. 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > What's your take on the truth about CWL and K? Genuine project? Succesfull project? 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Govert
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > > > > From: butchie122 
>> > > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>> > > > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:38 PM
>> > > > > Subject: Theos-World Re: The "clairvoyant finding" of Krishnamurti?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > This post takes the cake; one puts up a 'possibility' , builds a theory & off we go. Why not suggest that the K finding was the result of a papal plot to discredit Theosophy, or of a dugpa, or if the Raj to further undermine the home rule movement. This sort of speculation is nothing to do with Theosophy or The truth about Leadbeater or K. NO wonder this whole site deals with matters that are largely irrelevant to most members.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Brian Parry 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@ ..> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Dear All
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Historically, there has been much debate concerning the 
>> > > > > > putative "claiorvoyant finding" of Jiddu Krishnamurti by 
>> > > > > > Bishop (then Mr) CW Leadbeater.
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Has anybody considered the possibility that the Mahatmas 
>> > > > > > and/or Karma itself had a role in bringing together the bad 
>> > > > > > Bishop and Krishnamurti for the purpose of ultimately 
>> > > > > > confronting the blind, authoritarian, messianic, follower 
>> > > > > > mindset, promoted by Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Besant, 
>> > > > > > a mindset so utterly abhorrent to genuine Theosophy?
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > As we are witnessing in this forum, is it not extraordinary 
>> > > > > > just how tenaciously resistant the blind, authoritarian mindset 
>> > > > > > can be in the face of overwhelming evidence and facts?
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Regards
>> > > > > > Nigel
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > > >
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > >
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > >
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>


      Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline

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