Re Keith on Masters
Feb 20, 1995 07:53 PM
by Jerry Schueler
The following are some of my comments re Keith's discussion on
Keith: "I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing
deadweight to theosophy as currently presented."
This is doubtless a personal opinion. I don't agree. I see
nothing wrong with the idea of Mahatmas or Adepts - especially
since this is taught in both Hinduism and Buddhism. When alive
they are called Mahatmas, Masters, or Adepts. When discarnate
they are called Nirmanakayas - at least in theosophy. HPB called
discarnate Masters by the name of nirmanakayas, which is *not*
the definition given in Mahayana Buddhism. BTW, the idea of
discarnate Adepts is ancient too, and can be found as far back as
ancient Egypt (where such were called Osiris-Khenti-Amenti, the
Osiris who initiates in Amentet). I don't find the truth
embarrassing at all. If theosophy drops Masters as "deadweight"
then I suspect that other teachings will soon follow down the
Keith: "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."
Again, a personal opinion which I don't agree with. There are
both external Masters and internal Masters (there are lots of
external Masters, but we each have only one internal Master or
inner god). You are confusing occult psychology with occult
ontology (or should I say, inner reality with outer reality?).
These are two entirely different things, Keith. But "as above so
below," and as there are outer Masters, so we have inner Masters.
The central thrust of High Magic (*not* theosophy) is to
acknowledge our inner god, converse with it, and finally to unite
with it (BTW, this is exactly how one goes about becoming a
Keith: "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."
I would prefer to say that Masters are such *because* they can
enter special states like samadhi, rather than when. No one can
be a Master only at certain times of the day. You are making a
Master sound like a psychic. They are much more than that. They
are more than channelers. Zen says that the only real difference
between Buddhas and ordinary people is that Buddhas knows they
are Buddhas, while ordinary people are asleep to that reality. A
small, but important difference. Another Buddhist saying is that
only a hair's width of difference separates heaven from earth, so
there really is a fine, but important, dividing line.
Keith: "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."
While this is true to some extent, there are always a few
disciples who understand and carry on the message - else why
bother? There has never been, and probably never will be, a
single Master who can get everyone to understand him or her.
Each Master comes from the Lodge with a particular message, meant
only for those few who are ready to hear it and be helped from
it. Some Masters find hundred or thousands of followers. Some
find only a handful. HPB knew very well about the Law of Duality
that says for every loving disciple a Master finds, he or she
will also find a hateful enemy. Its a law of this world that
every Master must be willing to accept.
Keith: "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."
I would agree with all but the bodisattva, who deliberately
incarnates to help others. The bodhisattva is a Master in the
true sense. They can be incarnate or discarnate, like everyone
else. Most deliberately hasten their own Devachan in order to
come back sooner and help. Not all bodhisattvas are Buddhists,
by the way. The bodisattvic vow is universal and not especially
limited to any one religion. What does archetype have to do with
Masters? I certainly agree that one should not confuse a Master
with an archetype. Also, I don't agree with you that demons are
far in advance of humanity.
Keith: "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)."
The principles that are developed in a Master are undeveloped in
most of us. They currently remain in us in a potential state
(Kundalini Yoga symbolizes this fact by the snake coiled three
and one-half times in the Muldhara Chakra). We all have a
choice: we can wait and develope slowly along with evolution, or
we can hasten this development through yoga or other means. But
any such deliberate development should be accompanied by a
bodisattvic-like vow of some kind.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application