[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Questions from Mid-Atlantic

Sep 14, 1995 05:46 AM
by K. Paul Johnson

Here are some questions addressed to me as well as to the group
last Saturday, with my replies summarized:

2. Is there any circumstantial evidence for Paul's perspective?
 Evidence is for or against particular hypotheses, rather
than for the entire perspective, which is an intuitive reading
of the historical situation. The only evidence that is NOT
circumstantial is eyewitness testimony or confession (in the
absence of physical evidence). As regards my 32 Master
nominees, only 2 are supported by "confession": Swamis
Dayananda and Sankaracharya are clearly treated as Master
figures in letters by HPB and Olcott. The rest of the evidence
for various identifications of pseudonymous adepts is

3. Of the four functions, which is is orthodox view?
 In his longer review of TMR, Dr. Algeo says that one's
view of the Masters is based on metaphysical beliefs and
personal experience, not documented fact and reason. He also
says that what is important about HPB's Masters is not who they
were, but what they have been in the experience of
Theosophists. In light of the model submitted for
consideration, this looks like introverted feeling claiming to
be THE correct way to approach the Masters, and rejecting
extraverted thinking as a path to them. So one might say that
from this signal, feeling is considered to be the orthodox way
to approach the Masters.

4. Assuming you believe in reincarnation, are perfected humans
 The word perfected implies completed, which is the context
of earth life means having attained liberation. Anyone who is
incarnate is by definition imperfect, being clothed in
imperfect vehicles. The Bodhisattva chooses to live in the
world of imperfection rather than escape it, unlike the
Pratyeka Buddha. Generally, referring to the Masters as
perfected is not what I think they or the Founders would want
us to do.

5. Is there a paradigm into which you can fit the concept of
Adept? Awareness/Consciousness?
 My current paradigm is that of initiation. One who has
sufficient understanding and experience to help faciliate the
unfolding of others, is to that extent an adept in the field
under consideration. If he/she influences others in ways that
are initiatory, there is a genuine spiritual transmission going
on and thus a genuine Master/chela link has been made.

7. Is the concept of the Masters of importance today? If so,

More now than ever, because thanks to the Theosophical
impetus (among other things) there is a far greater presence of
alleged Master figures in the West than there were in HPB's
time. Many are making profound contributions to world thought,
such as the Dalai Lama; others epitomize the worst pitfalls of
the path (Rajneesh).

8. Should we have a relationship with the Masters today? If
so, why?

To the same extent that we should with the Founders.
They are the spiritual parents of the TS (both Masters and
Founders) and therefore serve as a continuing source of
inspiration. But a relationship of worship and wonder is not
what the Masters or the Founders wanted us to develop; rather a
relationship of gratitude and respect.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application