Re: St. Germain Not an Adept Yet?!
Nov 27, 2006 11:38 AM
by Konstantin Zaitzev
--- In email@example.com, "carlosaveline" <carlosaveline@...>
> see Clara Codd's book for example, that St. Germain as 18th
> century incarnation was not a full Adept.
She could be mistaken. At least, she followed Leadbeater closely, and
if you don't believe him, you have no reasons to believe her.
> The reason for that is that an Adept is outside short term human
First of all, the deeds of an adept are beyond our understanding.
> Masters explain that if Disciples were not Autonomous and
> Responsible for their own actions, the Karma would belong to
> their Teachers, and not to them.
Yes, thus wrote Master in his letter to his beloved pupil Leadbeater
Nevertheless, this letter was about progress and karma of the
disciple, it not touched the deeds which Master does himself.
> St. Germain, who strongly interacted with political, public
> and social issues, was not an Adept.
> The incarnation in which an Initiate will get the decisive
> initiation needs to be a new one.
It's just an assumption, not the inference.
For example, Blavatsky describes how she had seen an old picture of a
Master involved into political activity. She recognized him, as he had
the same body as he had in her time.
A century or two ago he could be not an adept or he could be an adept
? I don't know, but surely he lived in the same body.
So St. Germain could. Moreover, he wasn't a politician, he just
consulted influential persons. Exactly as later the Masters consulted
Sinnett in his projects with Pioneer and Phoenix which had
some political purport.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application