Talk:Ascended master

Mess

As ever with articles of this topic, someone with a personal agenda against the general topic has obviously crusaded for removing a load of information and "compressing" it into one article, and since their only agenda is censoring information they don't like rather than building an encyclopedia, they've done a terrible job of it. I got redirected here while looking for information on Serapis Bey, whom this article does not mention once. I know I'm banging my head against a brick wall, but change your attitude and sort this out. - filelakeshoe 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you have a point to make or did you just come here to rant? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've marked my main point in bold to make it easier for you. Undoubtedly there are other censored articles which uselessly redirect here too. - filelakeshoe 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep - Paul the Venetian, Manu (Theosophy), Lord Ling, Lady Master Sachita Kaur redirect here too with no mention in the article. If someone types X into the search box they want information on X, not the general topic to which X belongs. I can't even find a deletion discussion which gained consensus for all these articles like Kuthumi, Serapis Bey, Master Hilarion etc. being redirected. If they had been merged properly I wouldn't care, but they haven't. - filelakeshoe 13:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Then go to those redirects, find the last diff and read the edit summary. To speak of some sort of "censorship" is entirely irrational. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did that while looking for evidence of an AfD. There isn't, there's just someone redirecting all the articles saying the topic is covered here and that there are no third party sources available. Both, imo, are false, though I understand the way of thinking employed because I've seen it around Wikipedia enough already. Anyone affiliated with any of these topics is not a reliable source. This leads to the "necessary assumption" that anyone who isn't criticising something is affiliated with it. I don't see why this article can't exist, really, it even seems to have "third party sources" (under the ridiculous definition of "sources written by non-theosophists") on it. - filelakeshoe 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe about a month ago there was a large discussion about Theosophical articles on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. If I can remember correctly some of the members there and even some admins were willing to AfD a large number of these Theosophical articles becuase most of them either had no sources at all, or no third party sources and some of these articles have been on wikipedia for 3 or 5 years and it was time something had to be done about them, most of them had been created by a user called M Alan Kazlev who owns a well known new age website (he appears to be a Theosophist himself) and if you check the edit histories of these articles it appears a large number of IPs (who obviously are connected to the Theosophical Society, Adyar) are copying and pasting many lines from Leadbeater or Bailey books. Many of these articles were not notable outside of Theosophy and contained hardly any sources at all, infact I spent some time looking and could not see any nontheosophical references. Theosophy has some very far out ideas and there is no reliable third party sources for some its claims relating to things like Kuthumi or Serapis Bey etc. Most of these articles quote from a single book from Charles Leadbeater or Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Even for occultism some of these concepts are very unknown and there doesnt need to be a wikipedia article for every Theosophy belief or claim. The majority of claims by the Theosophists have all been merged to the Ascended Master article.

There is not an agenda to remove Theosophy from wikipedia only material which does not have reliable references. GreenUniverse (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into a rant about how ridiculous the double standards about what constitutes "reliable sources" are (how many articles on saints have 3rd party sources written by non-christians?) because this has probably already been exhausted on the censorship-of-what-random- consensus-determines-are-far-out-ideas noticeboard. Sure, some of that article is written badly and with a COI but that's no reason to delete all of it. Anyway, I'm just going to go back to my original point - I typed "Serapis Bey" into the search box. I'd seen the name in a few places and wanted to know who or what he was. I was redirected to this article. This article told me nothing. I used my find function and the only mention of "Serapis Bey" was the small text in the top prefixed "redirected from". Then I found the information I was looking for, albeit not very well written, in the edit history of the redirect. Is this how you think Wikipedia should work? - filelakeshoe 09:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Next time you can't find some obscure information on Wikipedia: TRY THE REST OF THE INTERNET. Also, user GreenUniverse updated this article here with some information on Serapis Bey. I think it's sufficient. Instead of complaining that you can't find things here, you might want to propose some constructive changes. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This guy has his point. If the page mentions a specific name or individual whether real or fictional, the character should be elaborated upon at least enough to provide further linking to another page or sources they can research. Remember to be objective and look at things from the point of the highest good. Sure this page and works could be better organized and part of that organization of knowledge is where it came from. BenMachAzoulay (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article appears to depend predominantly on the views of prominent theosophists themselves (WP:PRIMARY), rather than analysis from secondary sources (e.g. academics working in Comparative religion, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How to get to ascension

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wouldnt one have to go through ascension via elemental kingdom>vegetable kingdom>animal kingdom> non-initiate or human kingdm>aspirant-to-initiation>disciple or adept>deva or master which are 100yrs-500yrs-1000yrs-10,000 years consciousnesses. Some say jesus was a full 100,000 years consciousness. Every 2,000 years the sun turns a day old, it turned a day old in pisces 2000 years ago. It is turning a day old today, april 19 2011 all the natal signs were in aries and taurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.60.164 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Ascension is understanding that to be at all is to be of God. Understand first what is. GOD. In everything. Every thought and every word is a prayer, pray goodness and goodness only. Life is one continuous prayer. Hear only goodness, see only goodness, speak only goodness. Love is to be. I pray with all who pray with me, as all are perceptive beings, as God is in all. All goodness is from God, therefore, be the voice and hear it spoken, but understand who to pray to is also one who prays with. Meditation with butterfly effect, good ripples only. Proprioception, God is within. Heaven on Earth is being realized. God has created all, therefore all is heaven. Our responsibility is to first understand where we are, and then act like it. Seek in earnest and find, as I am. Ambiguity, consider all perspectives, find the goodness in all. I am on Earth, and also in Heaven, as "On Earth, as IT IS in Heaven". I am ascended. RoyceBBrown (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC) How to Make the Ascension is a very good question in this theme. But that would involve some research and order. BenMachAzoulay (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal (November 2020)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. GPinkerton (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Ascended Master Teachings into Ascended master. This is basically the same subject, but with one article written from an in-universe perspective. GPinkerton (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge with ruthless gutting of extensive quotes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge as above, trim superfluous technical stuff. Acousmana (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge, no need to keep both articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing rewrite of the entire article

Hey! I'm currently doing an overhaul of the entire ascended masters article, mostly fixing tone, removing redundancies and taking the wheat from the chaff. If anyone's interested, my sandbox is right here. Rajavlitra23 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rajavlitra23 You or anyone else contributing in this effort: please attempt to clearly separate the different views of 'masters', instead of the current form as 'one truth'. These views very often do not agree with each other at all, but they are now portrayed as if that is the case. There is a separate Masters of the Ancient Wisdom, which is more limited to theosophy and that is a very useful distinction, for example. A separate 'Ascended Masters' section could be another useful distinction. As would be an Alice Bailey/Benjamin Creme, and even Annie Besant/Leadbeater version. Nowhere in the work of the latter four is there any mention of the concept 'ascended masters'. I think the Ascended Masters / I Am should be very clearly separated from the others.

This doctorate thesis could be a secondary source for some aspects:

BRENDAN, J.F. (2000) 'THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS: An Investigation into the Conceptual Domains of, H. P. Blavatsky and C. W. Leadbeater'

Vol 1: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/7147/THE%20THEOSOPHICAL%20MASTERS%20_VOLUME%201.PDF?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Vol 2: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/7147/THE%20THEOSOPHICAL%20MASTERS%20_VOLUME%202.PDF?sequence=2&isAllowed=y 2001:1C02:280A:5600:C09C:B7D3:9B93:A3D (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I see, there was a merger between Ascended Master Teachings and Ascended master, which explains the current mess. Then I propose this: let this article solely reflect the Ascended Master perspetive, and move Alice Bailey/Benjamin Creme and Annie Besant/Leadbeater as subsections to the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom article, where they belong instead of here. 2001:1C02:280A:5600:C09C:B7D3:9B93:A3D (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a note to say your draft looks great. Big improvement! Njsamizdat (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am an award-winning writer and a student of Eastern and Western religion. The previous rendition of this article was off-putting and indecipherable. I am working hard to liberate the major ideas from under the rubble of unnecessary words! RayofLightning (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"recent consensus version"

Per this [1] revert by User:Skyerise, can anyone point to a discussion where consensus for User:RayofLightning's recent massive additions to the article was arrived at? I can't see any, and given the discussions at WP:FTN, [2] at WP:ANI, [3] and at an AfD discussion [4], where a series of related articles appear per general agreement to have been subject to systemic WP:OR based on a misunderstanding as to the policies and purpose of Wikipedia, I think it unlikely that any such consensus would be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know about said consensus at the time of my edits, and I am still not sure it exists. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I support nuking RayofLightning's edits and reverting Skyerise's revert. RofL has re-written the article based on their interpretation of primary sources. They don't seem to understand WP:PRIMARY. But worse, they have re-written it so that it is an uncritical repetition of personal beliefs in wikivoice. There are multiple appalling examples of this, but the "Skeptical views" is particularly egregious. It now begins with this utterly unacceptable WP:RGW paragraph:

It is an esoteric principle that "the lower cannot see (i.e., recognize) the higher".[124] Therefore, what one commonly observes emanating from those who are disturbed by — yet stimulated by — the higher frequencies of the Initiates or Masters, is: ridicule; condemnation; and even, in some cases, murder (as the very lives and writings of high Initiates or Masters provoke difficult, if not very hard-to-attain, changes deeply within ordinary individuals, often thereby precipitating a period of crises upon them). [125] One such initiate was the Russian woman Helena Blavatsky, who took great risks to travel widely, and who studied directly with Tibetan high llamas [sic, !?!] that recognized her stature — as Blavatsky was a fourth degree initiate.

WTF??? DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored Big Money Threepwood's reversion. That wasn't a great version in itself but at least it's not the horrendous policy failure of RoL's version. And by the way, if RofL's version had "consensus" it was WP:EDITCONSENSUS of a very low traffic page and as we all know "an edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted" which has now happened. DeCausa (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur with going back to Big Money Threepwood's version. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)