My you take the complex route! All I meant is that Blavatsky knew flesh & blood sages, not non-physical "ascended masters". The latter term is used by new-age channelers & mediums.Jikan wrote:Will: I'm interested in talking about the reality, as you say, of these masters. Specifically: how was that reality produced? Where did it come from, how did it arise, by what causes & conditions, and so on?
It seems to me you can't get to that "reality" without taking its as evidence, which is to say, the philosophy and the material objects that embody that philosophy, as an archive. You can't really separate them. And it's not clear there's a use in separating them, either. What is the point of testifying to the reality of this or that ascended master if not to also testify to the reality of that master's attainment as evidenced by the doctrines produced by Morya et al?
If you wish to pigeon-hole the doctrines & philosophy of the members of the Brotherhood known to Blavatsky, good luck. After 40 years of study, all I can say is their paths, doctrines etc. were varied. Blavatsky mentioned that the one branch of the Brotherhood she knew was made up of 2/3 of Shankara Vedantists & Buddhists, the other 1/3 ???
They are united by a wish & the power to assist the spiritual growth of humanity.