Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01252)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" <carlosaveline@...> 
wrote:
> 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 
karma

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.