THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON “MASTER JESUS” ON THEOSOPHY IS INACCURATE, and does not portray the philosophical teachings of Theosophy. It is very important to separate the differences between concepts or special and capitalized titles such as the “Ascended Masters,” or “Masters of the Ancient Wisdom” and Theosophy.
- These ideas are not of Theosophy, but adaptations.
- Avoid attaching the ideas of the “Great White Brotherhood,” “Spiritual Hierarchy” (tends toward an ideal of esoteric autocracy), and other terminology to Theosophy.
- It makes Theosophy seem like a religion or sect.
- There is no such thing as “orthodox Theosophy.”
No scholar or researcher dictates how Theosophy is viewed, by dividing the early theoreticians as traditional, or orthodox, who merely see the later influences as a distortion. They are undoubtedly, costly and obvious distortions. Its principal theoreticians perfectly define what it is, and what it is not. Blavatsky specifically wrote, that the Theosophists attempted to correct the many mistakes of theology, and quote “clear the rubbish of the ages,” and “separate the wheat from the chaff.”
The addition of more rubbish is therefore contrary to what Theosophists want to promulgate, especially if we want to bring back “a love for the ancients” (the sentiment expressed by Confucius in the Analects). C.W. Leadbeater, Annie Besant, and Alice Bailey did not establish their ideas on supporting evidences; and their acceptance, just as the Roman sages thought of Christianity in its beginnings, rely entirely upon authoritative statements and belief. A student could not even argue its merits from the standpoint of theology, concerning the idea of Jesus being overshadowed by Maitreya, Sanat Kumara, etc.
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.”
Perhaps, Alice Bailey and crew believed that. It’s not Theosophy.
The “Master Jesus” is not a theosophical concept.
Skim the Wikipedia article.
From top to bottom, it has nothing to do with the original teachings. I can argue against it, even from the orthodox standpoint, because it has a very weak theological basis.
Then there’s the Skeptical View section —
“The scholar K. Paul Johnson maintains that the “Masters” that Madame Blavatsky wrote about and produced letters from were actually idealizations of people who were her mentors. In an article in the New York Times, Paul Zweig maintains that Madame Blavatsky’s revelations were fraudulent.
However, the Master Jesus was never one of the “Masters” that Madame Blavatsky claimed to have met. He was added as a “Master” by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater in their 1913 book Man: Whence, How and Whither.”
The viewpoint of K. Paul Johnson is no longer tenable, or the default. It is incredible that contemporary researchers cannot analyze the flaws in his theory. Paul Zweig has to face other evidences against his mere opinion. Also, Blavatsky’s works were neither revelations, nor the product of channelling. When stating, the “Master Jesus” was added as a “Master” by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, this is correct.
While, it is easy to access articles online about Theosophy and its views about Jesus and Christianity, it is always more refreshing for one to write about it more in-depth, because the information given through certain sources do not capture the viewpoint well. C.W. Leadbeater cannot be excised from the history of the Theosophical Society, of course. This would be an obstruction of historical facts, and while it seems just as bad scapegoating these characters, we are not. We simply state the fact, that because they come after the nineteenth-century theosophical influences, does not merely make them the established, or updated representation of Theosophy.
It is very disrespectful to the men who stated in those Mahatma Papers, that for the first time, they were giving their teachings to the Europeans, for us to then take the teachings, and make of it what we will. That is very dishonourable, and if the false ideas become known as Theosophy, then it is just a repeat of the snub of the Gnostics by the Christian establishment.
Another set of bogus ideas eclipsing the true ones.
Ideas do not have to spread, because they are true and factual (by logos), but because it is also because people are convinced emotionally, or by other means. It is expected, that these persons could not escape their ideas, bred by Christianity; and attempted to Christianize the “Occult Philosophy.” In truth, the “New Age” resembles Christianity in logic, tendency and form more than what was intended of Theosophy, especially when adapting the doctrine of messianism.
Theosophists do not worship God or Gods, in any sense. Whatever Christians say about us, they can say whatever, but as far as it goes, Jesus would not be regarded as uniquely different from the Initiates and Hierophants who were said to come to the same knowledge as known by the character, the Christians place as King above all and induce mankind to worship their Man-God. We think such a concept was deliberately constructed and diametrically opposes the true esotericism; and is false, hostile, obstructive and ultimately pernicious to the growth of man. It is also important to note, that Mystic Christianity as defined by the adepts, is not in opposition to the occult doctrines.
I would be perfectly willing to go into depth on the theosophical view of Jesus, Ben Pandira in the Talmud, Apollonius of Tyana, and the more scientific and occult explanations of the salvific doctrine in connection to the psychology of Greek Gnosis and Buddhism.