Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00267)

> Paul G: <I feel it _is_ valuable to debate who they were, but
> more importantly, _what_ they are, and the implications this has
> for us today.  The masters themselves suggest that they should
> not be considered as personalities, but rather as the Principle
> behind.>

Ah, a light in the wilderness.  Agreed:-)

>I don't disagree with you Paul.  I agree that such a debate is
>important.  I simply suggested that history buffs who want to
>argue about WHO the Masters were can do so in Theos-Roots,
>which John thoughtfully set aside for such things.
>
>As far as WHAT the Masters are, we have been discussing this
>on Theos-L for some time, as is proper.
>
>          Jerry S.