Theos-Talk Archives (December 1994 Message tl00071)

Jerry and Others,

Jerry Wrote:

Belief in the Masters is not required for membership in any of the
Theosophical Organizations.  I've known members with all kinds of ideas
about them.  Some members idealize them into mythical and magical
beings.  Others speak of them as metaphors, or psychological
projections.  My own research on the subject leads me to believe that
Blavatsky's "Masters" were historical figures, now long dead.  By their
own statements, they were far more human than many theosophists hold
them to be.  For instance, these Masters make it quite clear in their
letters that their primary mode of transportation was horseback--not
astral projection.  Their own accounts also make it clear that they
ate, slept, and one even smoked a pipe--i.e.  they were not
disincarnate beings.  Though their letters exhibit a great deal of
learning, they were not omniscient.

Art: Jerry I really do appreciate this possibility of actual historic
teacher who were encountered by Blavatsky and others.  There people
could then be considered living receptacle of ancient traditions.

Jerry: As for Gautama the Buddha, HPB's teachers expressed a very high
regard for him.  For Mohammed, they had a lessor regard.  Jesus, as a
historical figure, they had a high regard for him too.

Art: This is interesting that they made differentiations here.  I
wonder if Buddha was regarded more favorably because the Masters were
Eastern and that Mohammed may have been considered somewhat alien in
make up to their world.  Jesus, as Yeshuah ben Joseph, is not really a
founder of a new religion but merely an individual who stressed a need
for a new consciousness of freedom toward God as Parent.  Christ on the
other hand is something altogether different than that.  I suppose that
the Masters had a different understanding of the Christ - more logos
oriented?

Jerry: I feel that the "Master" that is within each of us is far more
relevant to our lives than HPB's teachers.  Her teachers were her
teachers.  Our only connection with them is though our involvement with
the theosophical movement.  Otherwise, they belong to the past, they
did their job and they are gone.  What good would it do us to freeze
them in time and "worship" some people whom we know little about?

Art: Indeed but Blavatsky must have become somewhat canonical in her
own way.  I ran into this dilemma in my Christian walk as well.  People
would gravitate to someone, even Jesus, who had made the authentic
steps in their life and then try to imitate it.  C Carl Jung said that
this distances you from your "inner teacher".  He mentioned that he
wanted to follow Christ not imitate him.  What he meant was that
imitation is to replicate in a literal form the life of a mentor to
follow means the much deeper aspect of trying to find your dynamic
equivalent to find your own hypothesis and live it as the one you
admire did.  To be Christ-like, Buddha-like is not mimicry but to find
our own relationship to the Source and follow that to the end.

In another post I would like to discuss with the group the question of
how to we each discern inner authority.

Jerry: There may very well be others like them in the world today, but
unless we are part of that action, I believe our energy is better spent
concentrating on the needed spiritual work that is right in front of
our noses.

Art: Even if there are Teachers, we still must strive with our own
dilemmas and life in the microcosm.  I really get irritated by those
who are so esoteric that there is a cold other worldly glint in their
eyes.  The fruit of spirituality is compassion or it is nothing, a
sounding gong.

Under the Mercy,

Arthur Patterson

Winnipeg, MB
Canada R3E 1Y5
1-204-774-5301