Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00183)

> Keith: "I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing
> deadweight to theosophy as currently presented."
>

This is Jerry:

> 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,

This is K. Paul Johnson:

> You are missing an important word, "the".  It isn't Masters in
> general, but "the" Masters that Keith finds problematic as I
> read it.  As I comment in the sequel, HPB as AN agent of SOME
> Masters is historically solid.  As THE agent of THE Masters,
> we are seeing her in mythical terms.
>
> What is embarrassing deadweight, in my opinion, is the occult
> elitism that emerged from the view of the Masters in the early
> TS.  The whole idea of ladders of spiritual development with
> everyone worried about which rung he/she was on.

This is Keith:

What I said or meant to say, misplacing the phrase "as they are
currently presented", is that the Masters are not deadweight, but
the Masters AS PRESENTED are deadweight.  I don't think most
people can accept the very hazy quasi-historical picture,
including portraits, of the Masters.  Yet this PR approach works
for "Jesus", God knows.  It seems the vauger and more
unbelievable, the better for a lot of people.  One can idolize
and even fall in a kind of "love" with a myth, look at Elvis'
fans.  But someone with warts that farts, well that's asking too
much.  And isn't it asking even more to accept every word of The
Mahatma Letters" as inspired from on high? There is an atrocious
amount of petty organizational gossip and silliness.  Why
couldn't they percipitate something really worthwhile like a cure
for cancer, the theory of relativity, even a really good parable
instead of apoligizing about what they can't give out? How
convenient! I don't want to ramble, because obviously many people
know a lot more.  Yet my questions and concerns are valid, at
least to me, and stand.

I believe K.  Paul and others are doing the society and
theosophists a service by forcing them to reexamine the issue.
Congratulations again to Mr.  Johnson.  It looks like the book
will also bring theosophy back into the eye of some of the
public.

Jerry, I believe, mentioned the Master Jesus.  It is appears to
me as a probable interpretation of the gospels that he wasn't a
Master from cradle to grave.  Maybe now out of incarnation, yes.
Much of the miraculous and "specialness" of Jesus as the ONE AND
ONLY son of God was probably added on later by helpful writers
that weren't even there (Luke).  He spent a lot of time as a
drudge in the carpenter shop before the dove descended.  At that
moment he was "initiated" before that he was probably a regular
kid, teenager and adult.  He couldn't work miracles in the town
with no faith.  He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane to have the
cup removed.  He felt forsaken at the crucifiction and so on.
Guatama Buddha similarly was even married and before that a rich
playboy! This in no way takes away from their Master status it
only shows that they two were evolving, not evolved and had
problems on the way.

Namaste

Keith Price