Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00191)

Some passing thoughts on Keith's important and provocative post:

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

Yes, but if they do not exist, the Society was founded on lies,
by liers, and we should dissociate ourselves from it immediately
- who knows what other errors we might also be drawn into
otherwise.  If they do exist, then this is surely an extremely
important fact which should not be ignored, even if
"embarrassing."

> 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.

Why does everything in the occult world have to be _nothing but_
psychology? It's a convenient way out of admitting there might be
"more things in heaven and earth than ever dreamt of in our
(western materialistic) philosphy."

  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."

So what? The fact that the higher principles can be expressed on
the more material levels from time to time doesn't make it any
less wonder-full.

> 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."

How can you be so sure?  Especially as you view Masters as an
embarrassment.

A last thought: any one who knows anything about the Masters is
highly unlikely to admit to it in public.

ASTREA