Dec 19, 1994 02:43 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
JRC> In one of the Mahatma Letters (which I don't currently have time
to find) I believe it is K.H. that talks about the masters as physical
beings, and seems to indicate that only a small fraction of the
*spiritual entity* that is what a "master" actually is can ever
actualize through the physical human form...that they were *both*
incarnate and discarnate at once.
Yes, they say that the spiritual state that we associate
with mahatmaship is not a part of their every day consciousness--
if we are thinking of the same letter.
JRC> Two things. First, I'm curious...how have you concluded that
there is a "master" within each of us? Is it perhaps possible
that what really exists in each of us is the *seed* of what may
someday become a master?
I was using the term metaphorically. I was referring to our
JRC> Second...is our only connection through the TS? I suspect
those huge energy systems called "masters" are virtually
continuously at work, and have probably inspired or overshadowed
countless organizations and movements over time, and still do so
I agree, however, I was writing from the point of view that
everyone on this net is somehow connected to a T.S., either
formally or informally. I can't assume that we are all connected
to any other organizations that might have been inspired by the
AP> 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
Perhaps you will meet one.
AP> 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.
They lived in Northern India, so Islam was very familiar to
them. Yet I'm sure they had personal preferences. They teach
however, that Gautama Buddha was the most spiritual person to
incarnate in the last three thousand years.
AP> 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?
Their historical Jesus seems to have been Yeshuah ben Pandera,
the "love child" of a Roman soldier. Yet he was an initiate, and
a great teacher. Christianity seems to be more the product of
Paul than of Jesus. Christ, theosophically, is a principle,
equivalent to Atma-Buddhi. It was a Greek title given to Jesus
by early followers. But Blavatsky argues that the title
originally given to this great teacher was "Crestos", not
"Christos." Blavatsky makes a distinction between the historical
Jesus, the Biblical Jesus and the theological Jesus. She find
them to be very different concepts.
AP> 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.
I think Eldon's post is a good representation of HPB's attitude
towards the Masters, and how she wanted them to be regarded. In
spite of her warnings, many theosophists have done exactly what
you had seen happen in your "Christian walk."
JP> To be Christ-like, Buddha-like is not mimicry but to find our
own relationship to the Source and follow that to the end.
AP> 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.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application