Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00186)

Regarding the Masters -- Eldon Tucker

Following are some comments in response to the recent
posting of Keith Price regarding the Masters.

----

If you're not sure that you believe in the Masters, or are
unsure whom or what they are, that's fine. We each have our
own understanding of the Philosophy.

It's important to remember the context in which we are
speaking from. There are many variations on the original
Theosophy as taught by HPB. Each variation has its own
unique ideas, each brings with it a different worldview. It
might be possible to characterize a few as:

* OSW - [original-source writings] - strictly HPB and maybe
        Judge
* BAL - [Besant/Leadbeater] - variant based upon Besant's &
        CWL's ideas
* PL -  [Point Loma] - variant based upon Purucker's ideas
* JAM - [just another myth] - variant taking Jungian
        Psychology as greater truth
* ULT - [Crosby] - variant based upon Crosby's ideas
* AAB - [Bailey] - variant based upon Alice Bailey's
        writings
* BTB - [back to Buddhism] - variant taking Buddhism as
        greater truth
* PS - [psychical scientist] - philosophy is bunk, psychical
       research reveals truth

There are doubtlessly more, and an individual's beliefs may
not entirely fall into any single category, but for purposes
of discussion, these theosophical groupings are adequate.

For myself, I find the PL appears to be the true, the most
accurate one. I'm sure that in this respect I'd probably be
in the minority on 'theos-l'! I'd hope, though, that as I
share my ideas, that some of them are appreciated and found
useful.

When we talk about one of the key ideas of Theosophy, the
nature of the discussion depends on our worldview. An idea
like that of the Masters may be one of many possible
theories, it may be an archetype, or it may be a limited
description of a real fact of human existence, a description
of real people.

The OSW view of the Masters is as real men that are only
truly Mahatmic when their ordinary personality is paralyzed
and they act apart from it. The BAL view of the Masters is
that they are often superphysical, and go around doing
things in their astral bodies. The PS view might be that
they don't exist, except in the sense that some people have
more advanced psychical powers than others. Each variant of
Theosophy has its own explanation.

When we hear someone talking of Theosophy, we should not be
too quick to criticize them if they disagree with us. We
have to understand which standpoint they are coming from, in
order to understand if they speak accurately. Often when we
may be inclined to say the other person is wrong, we're
really disagreeing with the variant of Theosophy that they
espouse. Do we really intend to take on and condemn the
other school of Theosophy? It's much better, I'd say, to
stick to expressing our own understanding as clearly and
lucidly as possible, and let a discussion be a beauty
contest of ideas, rather than a battle to prove which system
is the Truth.

It should be possible for your discussion on the validity of
the idea of the Masters, to coexist with another person
writing about the wonderful attributes of a BAL Master or
the initiations undergone by a PL Master.

What's important is that we all keep thinking, that we all
keep exploring the Philosophy, and don't become rigid,
crystallized, locked-in with our ideas. We should freshly
rethink what we know on a regular basis. It's only when we
think we've got it, and we're no longer exploring, that
we've come to a dead end and start to lose the true essence
of our understanding.