Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00503)

Lmhem111@aol.com writes
>I get the impression that P. Johnson feels that the Masters are mythological
>characters and not the 'highest product in evolution" as stated by WQJ in The
>Ocean of Theosophy.

First define the Masters, but however defined, whether mytholigical or
not, by what token do we know that they *are* the "highest product in
evolution"?  If true, then their saying so is token enough, but it's a
circular proposition that cannot - by definition - be contested, or tested.

> I would contend that they are the logical product of
>evolution because if they are not, then evolution (via reincarnation) doesn't
>make any sense (as I suggested before).

Evoluion (via reincarnation) doesn't make sense, IMO, but again, such a
view does not negate the proposition that the Masters are the logical
product of evolution.

..... unless of course one believes that the Masters know the last word
on everything, and what they say is therefore always true: but that would
not be theosophy, but faith without evidence, the very kind of "blind"
religious view that HPB condemned.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk