Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00167)

I just read a review by Joy Mills in the current QUEST magazine
of K.  Paul Johnson's "The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and
the Myth of the Great White Lodge.  I will not comment on the
book since I haven't read it.  It looks very interesting and K.
Paul has discussed elements of the issues here on theos-l before.
I will request that our lodge get a copy as it looks like "must
reading".

I hope the book opens up a much needed airing of the whole
Masters "thing".  The question always arises at our lodge,
particullarly by newcomers: "do you have to believe in the
Masters?" The standard "no" is given, but with implication that
most "real" theosophist do somehow.

I have thought about voicing my opinion which is a little, well a
lot, on the skeptical side, but I am relying more on my
"feelings" and intuitions than on research.  Joy Mills in her
review takes her theosophical hat off to K.  Paul for his serious
research and insights into the Masters as "enlightened"
westerners (usually) who were very much real people and friends
etc.  of Blavatsky and others (from what I can tell from the
review only) and not disembodied (from Tibetan and Indian bodies)
spirits sitting in Shamballa or elsewhere forever holding
meetings and writing letters it seems.

His book (IMHO) may add some insights to a very old issue.  I
think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing deadweight
to theosophy as currently presented.  Their contribution could be
better assimilated by me, and I assume by many in the 20th almost
21st century, if they were made a little more plausible by being
"that higher MANAS which is inseparably linked to the ATMA and
its vehicle (the 6th principle)" -HPB quoted by Joy Mills in the
review.  The higher Manas is not disembodied but activated to a
very unusal degree in real human beings just like you and me and
then only for short periods of time.

Much of what I'm suggesting you've already heard.  There are so
many hints that the Masters are just ordinary men or women but
are Masters only when in a special state ie.  meditaion, contact
with even higher beings, ritual, and so on.  In other works we
are offered the hope of activating our latent powers by these and
other methods, not in the hope of being super-persons but of
being fully awake in our current stage of evolution.

In other words, a monkey who could talk would be a Monkey Master,
but who would listen? A man who had awakened his latent poweres
would be so advanced, no one could understand him.  He would be a
prophet without honor in his own land.

A parting thouht, the Master should not be confused with the
Dhyani-Choans, Boddhisattvas, archetypes, gods, angels, demons
etc.  who are far in advance of humanity and trully on another
plane and not in incarnation at all.  The Masters are in human
incarnation, but carry the principles that we all have and will
be more fully developed in later cylces (6th rounders).

I hope K.  Paul will share his insights and research with us on
this very important topic.  It would make a very good live Chat
topic.

Namaste

Keith Price