Theos-Talk Archives (February 2004 Message tt00168)

Dear James,

The most obvious answer to this question could be that humanity is 
currently manifesting in a masculine cycle. Such has been the case 
for as long as exoteric history records. It has not always been so, 
of course, and it will be different in the future. But in this cycle, 
the masculine sex dominates. A Master is not limited to one physical 
body, but may assume whatever is needed. We are told that the Master 
appears differently to each who perceives him. Considering the 
immense power of such an Entity, it would seem almost obligatory that 
It assume a masculine appearance, male being the dominant sex. But 
the Masters are androgynous. They are not limited by physical 
characteristics such as sex. And the fact is that the cycle of 
masculine domination of human affairs is coming to an end, and the 
feminine principle is beginning to assert its right to "hold up half 
the sky." It seems likely that this fact is partly responsible for 
the appearance of HPB as a woman. 

The separation of the sexes is, in terms of the evolution of 
humanity, a temporary condition. Masters are androgynous, comprising 
both masculine and feminine principles in balance. It's interesting 
to me that we in the west at least currently seem to have quite a bit 
of "confusion" regarding sexual identity anyway. Could this be a fore 
runner of the transfer of power from the masculine principle to the 
femine principle in human affairs?

Best wishes,
Adelasie

On 26 Feb 2004 at 22:31, James wrote:

> The subject of female masters and why there appear to none to speak of
> has arisen several times at our TS meetings. A brief survey of the
> archives here has not thrown up any discussion on this matter so I am
> curious to know what others think about the almost total absence of
> females from the lineup of known masters.
> 
> One possibility put forward by Leadbeater seems to be that the great
> work of women is to allow souls to incarnate and that men are given
> other opportunities but not that of motherhood. This may go some way
> to explaining why masters whom I take to be androgynous, so to speak,
> become associated with male physical plane personalities, but are in
> fact neither male or female. What do you think?
> 
> James