The Liberated Soul After Death

Here’s an interesting question that seeks to reconcile the idea of Masters working for the spiritual upliftment of humanity with the advaitic idea of liberation as entry into pure being with no return to the world of becoming. Bodhisattvas versus Buddhas, you might say.


Q. According to Sankara in his Vivekachudamini the liberated man after death becomes like water poured into water or oil poured into oil. This implies complete absorption into the One. How does it square with your idea of the Masters who seem to be still operating in some aspect at least of the phenomenal world hence of duality? There are also contemporary teachers who say that there is no return for the liberated soul after release from the body, and that those who do communicate from the higher or non-physical worlds have not achieved liberation. What would you say to them? 

A. Regarding the Sankara quote, this is an advaita point of view and I don't subscribe to advaita, not completely anyway. I see it as true in absolute terms but one-sided and reductive in reality because reality is not the absolute alone but the absolute and the relative together, both with their own perfectly valid degree of reality even if the latter must be seen as the expression of the former. But advaita admits the relative in theory only to deny it in practice, regarding it as fundamentally unreal once the absolute is realised. A more nuanced and inclusive approach, however, sees the relative as integral to the whole even if it relates to quality, expression and relationship rather than pure being. It is a dry, life-denying sort of spirituality that refuses to allow a proper reality to any kind of form, quality or expression. It relegates love, beauty and goodness to the realm of insubstantial ephemera, but I think the very purpose of manifestation was to allow the expression of these things. That means that in some way they must be present even in the Absolute. I know that some advaitins claim that their system acknowledges the relative but it does so only in a very perfunctory way, giving it a provisional reality but then dismissing it and focusing only on the absolute. It certainly does not give the two equal footing or see that the goal of life is to unify and integrate absolute and relative rather than reject the one in favour of the other. And mitya, Sankara's word to describe the phenomenal world, (usually translated nowadays as neither real nor unreal), takes back with one hand what it gives with the other, and is consequently a very unsatisfactory way in which to view the reality inherent, subsidiary but real, in created things and the phenomenal world. To all intents and purposes advaita sees the world of duality, including individuals, as the product of ignorance, but a deeper understanding shows the One and the Many to be equally part of the whole, and that there is no contradiction in something being both individual and universal. In fact, not only is there no contradiction but that's the point of the whole show.

You talk of liberated souls but just what constitutes liberation? In advaita Vedanta realisation is exclusive, a retreat into pure consciousness, unqualified and static, but other schools of thought teach that Ultimate Reality is not just inert consciousness but has an active side to it too. For these schools true realisation only comes about when all aspects of reality, those belonging to both being and becoming, are accepted, fully integrated and made one. Anything else is incomplete. This encompasses both duality and non-duality and is a step beyond either one of them on its own. 

The Masters do operate in duality as does anything that operates at all. But they are not identified with it, and it is their compassion that brings them back into contact with our world not any need to experience it or any attachment to it. In terms of consciousness they live in non-duality. In terms of individual expression they live in duality or, I should say, they appear in duality. Again, it is not a matter of either/or but of both/and with each aspect of being in its proper place. They have certainly transcended the relative world but that is in consciousness not function or expression which are always and necessarily outward things. And, just as God has an aspect of pure being and an expressed aspect as the Creator, so do the Masters who are one in essence but who each have a unique individual quality.

Now, of course, not all liberated souls remain in touch with the outermost circles of existence (ours), and probably the majority don't. But some do (thank goodness), and even the ones that don't will still exist in some sort of relative form in so far as the expressed aspect of their nature is concerned. You might query whether they would still have an expressed aspect after liberation, but, as I have said, I don't think that death of the liberated person's physical body means unqualified entry into the limitless light with nothing left of the individual being, or water poured into water to use Sankara's words. What would be the point of manifested existence if that were so?  The liberated soul does not become God in the sense of disappear completely into the absolute so that there is nothing left of him as an individual soul at all.  He realises his being to be none other than God's being for what else could it be? There is no other being. However he does not become God qua God so much as enter a path that proceeds ever more deeply into the Divine Presence without ever exhausting the infinitude of that Presence. The fact that the Masters themselves talked of higher Masters, beings beyond even the state of liberation, points this way.

I would say to those teachers who deny the possibility of Masters communicating, how can you possibly know if you have not had the experience? They are speaking from a theoretical position and according to a mindset. I would never dispute the fact that the great majority of channeled entities are psychic beings rather than those who have achieved liberation. This is certainly the case however they may present themselves. But why should a liberated being not communicate if deemed necessary and in line with the recipient's karma? Granted, it is rare but it does happen. I do have some sympathy with the naysayers given that the bulk of channeled messages are fairly obviously not from beings of the calibre of the great saints and sages. Nevertheless I can testify from my own experience that Masters can and do communicate, and that liberated beings are not without an individual aspect even if for them now consciousness is no longer limited by that.

Mindfulness Question

Now and then certain spiritual concepts and/or practices rise up into public awareness and become popular. But does this indicate a real spiritual hunger or is it simply symptomatic of a number of worldly people jumping on a bandwagon and seeking to add a bit of spirituality to their other possessions? Can it lead to a genuine opportunity for awakening, at least for some, or is it just superficial, the fad of the moment, with no more significance than the latest diet or yoga craze? The following enquiry addresses this question.


Q. What do you think of the recent spread of mindfulness practices with teachers springing up all over the place and even apps that are supposed to help you meditate? Do you see it as a positive development that might lead to a greater spiritual awareness in the general public or is it just the latest fashion that will blow over when another one comes along? I must confess that I view it as another example of the desacralisation of proper spirituality and so of not much long term value, but I appreciate that could be seen as a rather intolerant attitude so I thought I'd ask you your opinion.


A. Well, I wouldn't bet on a mass spiritual awakening but anything that suggests there is a spiritual component to human beings has the potential to progress some people, even if it's only a few, further along the path. It's easy to dismiss the whole thing as no more than a passing craze that attracts those seeking a little spiritual spice in their lives with its novelty value, and for some people it may well be that. But for others it can be a valid initial approach to meditation which is the bedrock of any spiritual practice. No doubt many of its adherents are simply looking for a space in which to find a measure of peace amidst the hurly burly of modern life, and there is nothing wrong with that. But there may be others who are inspired to search more deeply, to go further into the whole matter of what a human being really is and how best to conform oneself to that.


Having said that, there is always a danger when bona fide spiritual practices are separated from their religious sources and taken out of context. In the case of mindfulness that source is Buddhism, of course, and within Buddhism mindfulness finds its place as part of a wider practice and within the framework of a strong ethical foundation. To practise it without a sense of true spiritual values will not take one very far, spiritually speaking, and might even lead to a parody of spirituality as it replaces the real with a shallow imitation of it. That is the risk when spiritual means are divorced from spiritual ethics and proper metaphysical understanding. It can be just another road to egoic inflation.
 

So, if mindfulness is coupled with attempts to purify the lower self of greed, anger, attachment, ignorance and so on, all of which distort perception both of the world and of oneself, and if the practitioner does not fall into the common modern trap of neglecting the transcendent on discovering the immanent (recollection of the simple formula 'Remember the Creator' would save spiritual seekers a great deal of misapprehension and trouble), then it can be a useful approach to the spiritual path. But if practised out of context and without an ethical foundation or a real sense of dedication to truth as well as the understanding that the purpose of spirituality is not to benefit the ego, its effects will be superficial at best. 

I would say that what your question really amounts to is this. Is the current popularity of mindfulness just a trivialisation of proper spirituality or does it represent a real chance for some people to step onto the spiritual path?  And the answer is both, potentially. It all depends on how each individual reacts, on the depth and sincerity of their approach and whether they are prepared to dig more deeply into spiritual practice than simple exercises to establish peace in the mind or direct attention to the present moment. And on that note, let me draw attention to a common misunderstanding of the day, one which falls into the category of confusion of levels. In this case spiritual or pertaining to the soul (formlessness), and psychological or pertaining to the mind (the phenomenal world). Don’t mistake the present moment for the Eternal Now. The present moment is still a passing moment in time. It is not the deep immutable state of timelessness beyond the flow of time. It is good to live from moment to moment as a means of detaching yourself from identification with past and future, but don’t confuse that mental fixing on the present with transcendent awareness of timelessness. That is like mistaking ordinary, everyday awareness with establishment in Divine Presence.

Why Am I Not Enlightened?

Here is a question which expresses a common or even a persistent problem, but one that really comes from looking at things the wrong way round. What I mean by that should become clearer further on.

Q. I have been a seeker of enlightenment for nearly forty years now.  When I first started out on this path I was full of enthusiasm and hope, and genuinely thought that the goal was attainable in this life.  I mastered meditation to the extent that I could enter into deep states of peace, and had several profound spiritual experiences. However after a while my spiritual life seemed to stagnate. I stopped progressing and my attainments seemed to dry up. Now as I approach my seventh decade I feel I am no nearer to the goal than when I started out. What do you think your Masters would advise in my case?

A. To start off with I must make clear that I no longer have any outer contact with the Masters and have not done so since 1999. So I can't say what they would advise. However, based on things they said to me, as well as my own understanding, I would make the following points. 


First of all, I would ask you a question. What has been your motive in following the spiritual path? What were you hoping to gain from it? That's a rhetorical question because the answer is clear from your own words. You were hoping to gain enlightenment. So I would now ask you, why? Why do you seek enlightenment? That may seem a strange thing to ask. After all, assuming enlightenment exists, why would anyone not seek it? But that's the problem. We have been told that if we seek we will find, but we might equally well have been told that if we seek we will not find. It all depends on why we seek because in the spiritual world motive is all, and the only proper motive on the spiritual path is love. That is why Jesus said that we should love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. This is the most important commandment but it is one often forgotten by the modern mystic or contemporary seeker who only looks inside himself for truth. But without this love you will never find what you are looking for because it, and it alone, provides the true self-forgetfulness that takes you beyond egotistical searching. No knowledge or insight can replace it or make up for it if it is not present. The fact is that enlightenment will never be found by one who seeks it. This is the well-known paradox, but the solution is not not to seek it (if you don't seek, you certainly won't find), nor is it to assume that it is already there and you only have to realise it. That will just lead to self-deception with intellectual enlightenment the best you can hope for. The solution is to seek but to seek from love rather than desire. If you ask me how to kindle this love if it doesn't already exist I can only suggest that you try to forget yourself and your goals, and concentrate instead on the good, the beautiful and the true. God is transcendent as well as immanent and will only be found by those who recognise that and all that it implies. Open yourself up to the vertical.

Having said that, I would now suggest that you put aside ideas about enlightenment altogether.  I have often used the word both here and elsewhere but I'm not convinced that the concept is in any way helpful, not in the sense of a spiritually perfected completion. It really only exists in Buddhism, and with the many contemporary false claimants to enlightenment the whole idea has become trivialised and spiritually polluted anyway. Far better just to meditate, pray and work to cleanse yourself of all psychic and psychological impurities and habits formed from faulty identification with the external sheaths of your being, and then let the divine power that rules the universe do the rest in the time that it thinks good not that you do. Otherwise put, simply serve God and do his will as you think it may apply to you at the point you are now. That is a much wiser course than to chase after enlightenment. Spiritual growth will come when you least expect it and in ways you may not anticipate. So don't project yourself into an unknown future but be faithful to and serve your divine source here and now without expectation of reward. This may seem unexciting but it is the best way to make the progress you currently desire.

It's very common to seem to make rapid strides initially but then find that everything, as you put it, dries up. This is partly because of action and reaction. Perhaps you over-reacted to the spiritual highs and so had to suffer the corresponding lows, but it's also a test of your resolve. You were given openings into the higher life but then thrown back into this world and your everyday mind to see what you make of that. To see if you can integrate your spiritual awareness into the fabric of your being. To become it, in fact, and not have it dependent on, let's be honest, spiritual pleasures and rewards. 

The long and short of this is that enlightenment is not the goal of the spiritual life. As I was taught by the Masters the purpose of the spiritual path is to develop love of God and his creation, including mankind, intuitive awareness of 'what is' and self-forgetfulness. It is, furthermore, to become a co-creator with God through service to his will in manifesting the higher realities in this world. In essence, it is to become a pure channel for the light but for the sake of the light not for your own sake. Of course, this brings its own rewards and its own joy because by following such a course you are fulfilling your own true nature and purpose, but that is not a personal thing.

I've already written something about  this here and you might wish to read that post in conjunction with this one.

Question on Esoteric Schools

Here’s a question that follows on from the previous one on how to determine the authenticity of spiritual teachings.

Q. I was interested to read your reply to the question about the books of Alice Bailey. I was a member of an esoteric group that partly based itself on these books, putting itself forward as a school for initiation. I did a lengthy correspondence course which went into all kinds of occult matters such as the make up of the spiritual man, the higher planes, techniques of meditation, chakras and so on. The leaders of the group claimed to bring through occasional messages from the Masters but these never seemed to add much to what was already known until messages referring to the coming world changes associated with 2012 began to come through. But by then I was rather disillusioned with the whole thing because, after the initial excitement of learning so many higher truths, I felt myself to be no different in terms of actual spiritual attainment. I knew many more spiritual facts but was the same person I had always been. What's more the attitude of superiority that some members of the group showed began to put me off. And then, of course, 2012 came and went with none of the anticipated changes. The leaders of the group gave their reasons for this but these were obviously excuses and so I left. However I remain a seeker. Are there any comments you might make about this experience? I don't regard it as completely wasted because I've learnt something from it even if it's not exactly what I was hoping for when I began.

I can make some general remarks. First of all, nothing need be wasted for anyone who treads the spiritual path. Every experience can be used to advance one's understanding both of oneself and of life. That is, if one chooses to react to the experience positively. As you say, what we get out of it may not be what we anticipated at the start but it may be what we needed at that particular point on our journey. In order to learn what is right we sometimes have to find out what is wrong.

Secondly, I must say that if any group claims itself to be a school for initiation you should look at its claims with a sceptical eye. Initiation, in its true spiritual sense, is not something that is organised by any earthly body. These may give basic spiritual training and be useful in that respect but they are probably only so for those who are (to use their own terminology) on the probationary path. That is to say, those have yet to anchor the spiritual current firmly in the heart so that they have actually started to become the soul as opposed to being a personality reaching towards it. These groups can help lay the groundwork and provide a support in which true spirituality can start to take hold, but that is always (always and without exception) an inner thing. Most of them would doubtless say as much themselves, but then that raises the question of what they are really for. Spirituality grows from the inside out, but what many of these groups do is effectively reverse that process because they present the spiritual as it exists when reflected in the mind.

For these reasons I would define most self-styled esoteric schools of the present day as exoteric esoteric schools. One must also consider the possibility that as the esoteric has entered the public domain, which it has over the last hundred and fifty years, any initiatory capabilities it might have possessed have diminished almost as though a quantitative increase inevitably leads to a reduction in the qualitative side of the equation. I am not saying that the publicizing of previously esoteric teachings is a bad thing or that it should not have happened. I believe it to be both inevitable and right as many people were in a position to benefit from the exposure of hitherto hidden teachings. But bringing something out into the light of day often causes it to fade a little. And, even if one disregards this, it has to be said that esoteric knowledge or the lack of it has little to do with initiation as it really is. What is important is (as it always has been) what a person thinks in his heart. How a person perceives the world. Not what he knows, or even what he understands, but what he is.

The concept of initiation can cause unnecessary problems for an aspirant in that it may well fuel pride and ambition. Spiritual training has many levels and we sometimes tend to over-estimate our position on the evolutionary ladder. So it is not really helpful to focus on initiation as a goal, especially since, let us be frank, no one in this world really knows what it is, not from the higher perspective anyway and that's the only one that counts. Far better to forget about spiritual status and rewards and simply seek to bring the lower self under the dominion of the higher so that the focal point of awareness is gradually transferred from the personality to the soul. Initiation might seem an enticing prospect but spiritual training has only one purpose and that is to teach the disciple to become detached from identification with the separate self. We must do this out of love of God and a burning desire for truth not for any other end or goal. If we do pursue the path with a goal such as initiation in mind we will pursue it at the mental level rather than the spiritual one, and so try to think ourselves into the soul. This is obviously impossible, and it was so I might avoid just such an error that the Masters who spoke to me recommended (or perhaps I should say, insisted on) both meditation and prayer for the aspiring disciple. This entails a balanced approach of head and heart. Meditation opens up a channel between lower and higher self, mind and soul, and allows the latter to receive the spiritual influence of the former. But you need the humbling experience of prayer also (in the Master's words) in order to purify the lower self through submission to a higher power because the purer it becomes, the fewer obstructions it places between itself and the soul, the more it will be able to receive and accurately reflect the soul's influence, eventually reaching the point where it may become one with it.

So, the idea of initiation has its problems but it can be helpful too as it introduces the sense of gradual steps along the path, and gets rid of the nonsensical notion that full and complete enlightenment is available to anyone at any time simply because we all have consciousness. Nevertheless the fact remains that initiation, as a spiritual reality, is not something any worldly group or esoteric school can prepare you for, other than by introducing you to the spiritual basics, because it is not gained through method or practice or understanding (necessary as these all may be), or any outward activity of the self.  It comes only with the awakening of the heart. It is entirely dependent on an authentic inner response to the soul, and this response must be sufficiently strong that, of itself, it starts the process of transformation.

Those who feel they benefit from membership of an esoteric school can ignore what I have written above. If something works for you then stick with it. At least until it no longer does. The remarks made here are in response to the question above, but are also addressed to anyone who finds a gap between their inner perceptions and outer presentations of truth. 

Authenticity of Teachings

I have been asked an interesting, and I think very relevant, question about how one can determine whether the source of a teaching is what it purports to be. This is a perennial problem to which there is no straightforward answer, but it is one every seeker must ask. It's one I've considered many times myself, and I give my conclusions in the answer below. 

Q. I have a question that pertains to the access others have had to the Masters in the past, and the authenticity of their books. My inquiry is prompted by your post on Cyril Scott. I first read his trilogy when I was a young man and was deeply affected by them. Admittedly, they are overly “romantic”, and perhaps unduly dramatize certain aspects of a Master’s life. But yet, the books struck a chord. I’ve also read the books by Guy Ballard regarding his claimed experiences with St. Germain, which later led to the whole “I Am” movement. And others as well. All of these books, just as those of Scott, were claimed by the author to be true accounts. And all of them have been later questioned. From my perspective, they all contain profound truths, so I don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, so to say. I believe that in following any path, we are required to utilize our best sense of discrimination and wisdom, but the readers of these books is largely asked to take them on faith. So what to do?

There are also the dictated transmissions of Alice Bailey, which were reputed at that time to be from one of the Masters who had worked through the Theosophical Society. Very detailed and complex teachings, written in a somewhat obtuse style, but clearly coming from some profound source.

All of these books are premised on the authenticity of the Masters, but then if the truth of the narrative itself is in question, then the source must also be questioned. For example, how do we know if Scott was indeed in contact? So, as the fortunate recipient of authentic teachings, can you offer any perspective on these previous teachings, and guidance to help the novice evaluate other teachings that are still coming through from other sources? Perhaps the best we can do is to follow the admonition of Jesus that “by their fruits you shall know them”, but the “fruits” of some of these other books are deeply nourishing indeed. So, on that basis, the books are profound indeed.  Or perhaps the source doesn’t matter at all, and it is sufficient to know that each of us will respond to those teachings that resonate with him. But then, how do we know what teachings are from the Masters, or whether they are even in touch with us at all?

So, how do we determine what teachings are “revealed teachings” coming from those who have walked before us, and who know the way?

A. It seems to me that in essence what you are asking is how do we know that something really is what it claims to be, and the short answer is that we can’t know for sure. Not in this world anyway. We have to use our discrimination and developing powers of intuition to size up what’s on offer. But this, I think, is intended for the modern spiritual aspirant has to know things for himself and not rely on anything external. Only in this way can his spirituality be his own and not borrowed.

Nowadays a lot of information is out there but hardly any of it, or so it seems to me, is completely pure. There is always some falseness, or, if this implies deliberate deception, inexactitude, mixed in with the truth. That is partly the fault of the age, and the fact that there is so much ego in all our seeking and so many imperfect vessels looking to promote their version of the truth, but it also something that can be used by our spiritual mentors on the higher planes in order that we may develop our own insight. We mustn’t remain spiritual babies or become esoteric fundamentalists!

You mention the books of Cyril Scott and Alice Bailey. Interestingly enough, when I searched around for books about Masters in the late 1970s these ones were among the first I read. To begin with I took them at face value and assumed they were exactly what they said they were, but there was always a bit of a nagging doubt. The Bailey books were very wordy, and long-windedness was not a quality I associated with the Masters. They (the books) were also very mentally oriented, and the Masters who spoke to me, while encouraging me to read and to learn, always discouraged excessive philosophizing, always emphasizing that spiritual truth was simple, and warning against getting caught up in in words and ideas. I found these books very interesting, and indeed useful, but I don’t think I ever read any of them all the way through, even though I bought many of them and often used them for reference. They were just too dense, seeming to contain a lot of knowledge but not much light. Almost like textbooks for a university course on esoteric spirituality, in fact. There was probably a need for transmitting esoteric knowledge when they came out but I’m not sure how much of a truly spiritual ‘vibration’ they carry. 

Eventually I decided that a spiritual being of some sort may have inspired them, but there was a good deal of Alice Bailey in them too. Probably she clothed the impressions she was given with her own thoughts. So, as with practically all spiritual writings, you have to read them with discrimination, learning to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

I enjoyed Scott's Initiate series of books when I read them in my mid-twenties but never entirely believed they were as factual as he made out. Now I think they were fiction based on fact. I think he had some genuine contact with the Masters, probably through the medium he mentions in the third book, but a lot of the rest is just made up, although maybe based on his experiences with various teachers he encountered along the way. As far as I know, no one else has ever substantiated anything about this Master supposedly wandering around the drawing rooms of London and Boston! What confirms me in this opinion is another book he produced called The Boy Who Saw True which purports to be the diary of a clairvoyant Victorian boy that was sent to Scott, but is clearly a fabrication of Scott himself, so closely does it echo his other works and what he writes of his own childhood in his autobiography. I think he had good intentions in writing these books but it’s a shame he felt the need to mix truth with fiction as, to my way of thinking, that sullies the truth, especially in a subject such as this where there is so much illusion and sensationalism anyway.

I was never attracted to Guy Ballard or Elizabeth Claire Prophet as their work seemed very contaminated with 'astralitis’. And their tendency to turn the Masters into personalities, common to many Theosophists, runs completely counter to my experience and, indeed, to my intuition about these things. As you say, ‘by their fruits’ etc, and the fruits of these two were very cultish.

I think there are various positions we can take regarding communications claiming to come from discarnate Masters or any spiritually perfected beings. We can think that the whole thing is made up and a fake. Sometimes that is undoubtedly the case. Then we can think that there may be some true basis to the claim but it is not as represented. The psychic world tends to reflect our own state of consciousness back to us, and mediumistically inclined people can pick up all sorts of wandering influences which they interpret in their own way. They can translate impression into concrete form which owes a lot to their own understanding and mental state and conditioning. There are also spirits that may imitate enlightened souls or even mistakenly think they are such, and these can put through teachings that are seemingly elevated but which lack a truly spiritual quality. Quite a lot of communication seems to me to fall into this category. But even if something does genuinely originate from the Masters (which I think is quite rare), that does not mean that the form in which it comes out in this world perfectly reflects the source, owing to the limitations of the channel.

Ultimately, as you quite rightly say, we have to make our own judgment based on common sense and intuition. And something doesn’t have to be perfect to contain valuable teaching, teaching which we may outgrow but which may also serve us well at a certain point in our journey. For me that would be the case with the Scott and Bailey books so even if I no longer think of them as true in the way they were presented as being, I have definitely learnt from them.

We need take nothing on faith in the sense of giving it unconditional and unquestioning belief. As the Masters told me, “there is nothing perfect in your world”. At the same time, some things, and some teachings, are a good deal more perfect than others and we have to exercise discrimination to work out what these are. I think that the source does matter in the sense that only a pure source will give a pure teaching, transmitting not just spiritual words but also a spiritual quality (which will convey more than just words), but until we are able to discern the purity of a particular source it makes sense to do as you suggest, and follow a teaching with which you resonate.

As I said in my book, the only teachings I know of that I think do come from the Masters in an unadulterated form are those in the books by Swami Omananda, “The Boy and the Brothers” and “Towards the Mysteries”. The tone of these is very similar to that of my experience, and the direct method (a complete overshadowing in which there was no influence from the medium) was the same too. I feel that these do present the Masters and their teachings as they are. No doubt there are other records of which I am unaware but I have to say I have explored this question quite a lot over the last 35 years, and while there are a number of teachings I find profound and impressive (there are also many I find much less so!), there’s nothing else that speaks to me quite as these do.

I won’t have said anything you don’t already know here. My view is that the Masters do communicate with humanity but most of that communication is on the spiritual level, i.e. through wordless impression. The person who picks it up then has to put it in their own terms which is where some degree of confusion will always set in. We then have to use our spiritual intuition to separate out timeless truth from the form in which it is presented.

You ask how we can determine what teachings really do come from the Masters, or even if any do. Some certainly do even if most of the time, I believe, the Masters work through their disciples, both incarnate and discarnate. And to the first part of the question I would answer, we determine this through our own purity of heart. If we have sincere love of God and true aspiration in our hearts we will not be led astray. Not seriously anyway.

The authenticity or otherwise of spiritual teachings has long been a question that I have grappled with. It would be nice if the fountain always flowed with pure water but it seems that is not yet the case in this imperfect world. Perhaps through learning, maybe through trial and error but learning all the same, that all that glitters is not gold we are able to develop our powers of intuition in a way that might not be possible if we were given to drink directly from the source.