Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00193)

To ASTREA

> > 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."
>
<snip>
> 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."
<more snip>
> > 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.

Squelch . . .

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

I know _something_ and will admit (!) to it on theos-l.  Dunno
about "in public" though.  Mostly one is either not believed at
all, branded an "imposter, seeking attention" (or some such) or
"deluded," etc., etc.

As far as I am concerned the "Masters" are REAL, they are THERE,
and they _are nowhere near as concerned about us as our vanity
would like them to be_.  I do not in fact call them "Masters" [or
"Mistresses" :)] but simply "Intelligences" - of another and
discarnate order, higher, and difficult to contact.  Even if
contacted, what is received has to be filtered through our tiny
brains and psychological mechanisms, ie., interpreted.

Krishnamurti once said - in the Conway Hall, London, I believe,
that whatever he taught in the moment was only of relevance _in
that moment_ and it was a waste of time and energy to take down
what he said and publish it.  By the time it was published, it
would no longer be accurate.

This I know because I read it in the book which contained the
transcript of his lecture!  "Messages" from the "Masters" are the
same - their meaning is for the moment in which the message is
given.

Gosh, this could sound pompous and mysterious, couldn't it!  It
isn't meant to be.  HPB spoke for all of us when she said that in
our ordinary waking lives we do not amount to much - and she
included herself in this, making that wonderful distinction
between "Madame Blavatsky" and "H.P.B." - the latter _might_ be
worth listening to, the former was just a silly woman (she said,
in effect).

Like all of us on this list, I am a student.  Okay, I teach a
bit, but that makes me a student who teaches a bit.  No big deal.

I once asked a 'Master,' "Why <question of world-shattering
importance>?" The reply: "Tell me why it is _not_ <question>:
which is what you are really asking - and we might get
somewhere." (Interpreted).

That put me in my place - and I am still in it [up to my neck].

Love to all, Alan.