The Problems with the “Master Jesus” in New Age Thought and Wikipedia Article
Jesus the so-called “Ascended Master” and the Issue with the Wiki Article
“There are not many left true to the “original program”!”MORYA
THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON “MASTER JESUS” ON THEOSOPHY IS INACCURATE, and does not portray the philosophical teachings of Modern Theosophy. Many people must understand, that the system called Theosophy is a philosophical and theoretical elaboration on the fundamentals of the philosophy belonging to the school of Blavatsky’s teachers, mentors, and sponsors. Some people rushed away with a few concepts and began to innovate new ideas, or make compromises to combine it with their particular Christian proclivities, such as views on God and Messianic expectations. Theosophical commentaries offer no hope for this expectation of a coming King, or Messiah, and thus makes it impossible for a ‘Theosophist’ to hold this idea, or even claim to be such an individual. People wanted to keep their beliefs on God, on Jesus and Spiritualist phenomena. Rather than listen, they took. Is this not disrespectful? You will find in “The Mahatma Papers” — where K.H. states “Our doctrine knows no compromises,” and repeated emphasis on “our philosophy.” There are adherents of certain spiritual groups, even Theosophical Society members who may tell you for example, people like me and others explaining this are bigots, mean, or being dogmatic. This is gaslighting, as the case can be proven from the very writings of the early Theosophists.
Intrigue and interest in Ascended Masters beliefs have steadily decreased since the seventies, and the charade of Benjamin Creme’s Maitreya, but still lingers. It has not entirely died out yet. The idea of ‘Ascended Masters’ should not be confused with the Theosophical secret sponsors, or Masters. Proponents of the Ascended Master and Maitreya-Christ concept have used these to place themselves on a hierarchy invented and rearranged by them to bolster their “spiritual authority.”
H.P. Blavatsky had become knowledgeable of new fictionalizations of her masters and mentors, whose identities she was protecting, and attacked it strongly until her death. It is very important to separate the differences between the “Ascended Masters Teachings” and Theosophical Views on Jesus (which vary), especially for this reason in preventing others from forcing the connection, when it can easily be rebutted. Some people however, might argue that these developed exaggerated (key word) myths about clandestine masters and federations of orders in the culture is H.P. Blavatsky and G.I. Gurdjieff’s fault. Although, these ideas however are not odd in Central Asian lore, in the Middle-East, or in India. However, it requires a more grounded approach, for those who make of H.P.B.’s masters as gods, for they are not. Freemasons and Rosicrucians held such ideas of an invisible college or brotherhood and chiefs before the Theosophists, pointing to the lore of the Middle-East, Central Asia and so forth.
“We have no two beliefs or hypotheses on the same subject.”H.P. BLAVATSKY, THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, 87
- Ascended Masters are considered all-powerful angelic god-men in the mould of the Christian Jesus, but additionally, who even communicate through mediumship and channeling.
- Blavatsky’s mentors or sponsors warn against this, and explain that they never communicate through these means. The process and nature of communication is different from the stated two.
- They elaborate that from even the occult view, the ignorance in the very idea. Hence, those claiming to do so are liars.
- The “Great White Brotherhood [as opposed to the ‘Black Magicians”]” was an idea used by F.G. Irwin, who claimed to be in contact with an individual named Cagliostro who informed him of an order called the Fratres Lucis, or Brothers of Light supposedly founded in the fourteenth-century. Terms like “Spiritual ‘Hierarchy’” (Purucker) ought to be avoided.
- These notions breed high obscurantism, autocratic and totalitarian styles of rule or notions about how to govern orders and associations, i.e., creates harmful cult behavior.
- Theosophy is not a religion.
- Attempting to construct a religion from it can only at this point create a very incomplete one.
- There is no such thing as “orthodox Theosophy” as in the article.
The Wikipedia article states:
“The Master Jesus is regarded by Theosophists, was regarded by Alice Bailey and was later regarded by students of the “Ascended Master Teachings” as the Master of the Sixth Ray. (…) they believe that the Master Jesus is still the Chohan of the Sixth Ray and that Maitreya is still the World Teacher.”
This is an Angelology in which Jesus is one of Seven Angelic Beings. The concept of the seven-rayed God is an ancient one, but this ‘Angelology of ‘Ascended Masters'” is something else. As said, the leading proponents of this concept often place themselves on their newly-invented hierarchy, which is what theosophists, Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater had did to make the claim that they “ascended” and were mahatmas during the Jiddu Krishnamurti scandal in T.S. history. Depending on the group, they rearrange which historical gurus and prophets of various religions or sects are in this “hierarchy,” and then place themselves in it. Comte St. Germain is even added to this hierarchy. Alice Bailey and others nurtured these ideas, which were adopted by other people, but does not belong to Theosophy. The ascended “Master Jesus” concept is not a theosophical one.
“After the time of H.P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge, a very different and contradictory system arose, also calling itself “Theosophy” and attempting to supersede the original by claiming to be a progressed, corrected, and improved version. This was primarily the work of C.W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant of “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” but was popularised and prolonged even further by Alice Bailey, an Adyar Society member who went on to found her own organisation, known as the Lucis Trust and the Arcane School. The Bailey teachings are based almost entirely on the Leadbeater/Besant teachings but have numerous additions and elaborations.”ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY AND LATER VERSIONS
“Ready to lay down our life any day for THEOSOPHY – that great cause of the Universal Brotherhood for which we live and breathe – and willing to shield, if need be, every true theosophist with our own body, we yet denounce as openly and as virulently the distortion of the original lines upon which the Theosophical Society was primarily built, and the gradual loosening and undermining of the original system by the sophistry of many of its highest officers. . . . The wise horticulturist uproots the parasitic herbs, and will hardly lose time in using his garden shears to cut off the heads of poisonous weeds.”H.P.B. IS DENUNCIATION A DUTY
“It is pure nonsense to say that “H.P.B. . . . is loyal to the Theosophical Society and to Adyar” (?). H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical CAUSE, and those great Teachers whose philosophy alone can bind the whole of Humanity into one Brotherhood. . . . The degree of her sympathies with the “Theosophical Society and Adyar” depends upon the degree of the loyalty of that Society to the CAUSE. Let it break away from the original lines and show disloyalty in its policy to the CAUSE and the original programme of the Society, and H.P.B. calling the T.S. disloyal, will shake it off like dust from her feet.”H.P.B. SUPPLEMENT TO THE THEOSOPHIST, JULY 1889
“Let it be clearly understood that the rest of my life is devoted only to those who believe in the Masters, and are willing to work for Theosophy as They understand it, and for the T.S. on the lines upon which They originally established it.”H.P.B., WHY I DO NOT RETURN TO INDIA
HELENA P. BLAVATSKY NOT THE “MOTHER OF THE NEW AGE” WOULD HAVE SCORNED “NEW AGE MOVEMENT” AND INFLUENCES. H.P.B. COINS THE TERM “PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY,” FOR THEOSOPHISTS AND OTHERS THAT WERE PALMING OFF […]