We who were raised by the Masters
Editorial Avenue no. 35: 15th August 2026
Part 1: What precedes Mastery?
In the traditional dyadic notion of a Master-Disciple relationship, the Master occupies a centralised position that the disciple does not yet occupy. The role of discipleship then necessarily presupposes a relationship that is based on a logic of succession. I, the disciple, eventually become who the Master is at the point s/he currently occupies by absorbing their teachings. But this analogy should come with resistance as it is in conflict with the nature of personhood itself, namely that:
“I am therefore I exist.”
For us to better understand what this means, we should therefore be asking:
“Can another being do the existing of my own existence for me?”
Not particularly as existence would then be understood as a task that is granted to the soul upon birth. There can certainly be intrusion, possession or usurpation of identity whereby a parasite occupies the space present within the body, but this develops into a situation of substituted existence. Similarly, a transmission or initiation from higher to lower does not instantiate the capacity of another being for doing the existing for us. Something has simply passed from one to another. In other words, the transferred energy does its own existing in the place that was previously occupied by us, but it can never assume our own act of existing. That invisible boundary that then protects personhood matters because it paradoxically makes substituted existing impossible. None can enter into a state of “becoming” for us, not even the Master whose external power will end precisely where our own free will begins. However, even with free will, a disciple does not simply appear in front of their Master stating:
“Master, I am an autonomous being capable of free will. Here is the person I aspire to become. Please initiate the process of becoming.”
Curiously, human disciples are not mere empty vessels into which Masters insert transformations. Although we have freedom, freedom by its very nature does not induce vertical movement. In freedom, lies choice but nothing within choice dictates why one would experience their present way of being as insufficient enough that they would seek out mastery or the becoming of something that they do not yet have the conscious ability to embody. It would equally be too simplistic to assert that the Master appears whenever the student is ready. This simply places the disciple into another relationship of horizontality whereby unconscious potential determines what s/he is meant to be or to achieve, with the Master being the activator of that potential. This premise assumes that the human disciple is entirely self-referential and has the intellectual capacity for designing a destiny that allows them to remain entirely sovereign over what constitutes their ultimate state of Becoming. But we observe that though our existence is ours to inhabit as we choose, the final norm by which that existence is allowed to expand is not ours to determine. If it were, we would be measuring our own standards of becoming higher in higher in accordance to what our present lives allow us to experience. The future then becomes a glorified version of the present. But that is not the case as human beings do not experience a calling towards positions that they cannot occupy because a psychological force such as ambition or dissatisfaction requires it. There is a phenomenon that is structurally deeper because it is an instinctive orientation towards a Higher Form that the human being cannot reproduce simply by reiterating what it already is within its state of humanity.
This is the paradox that lies at the very foundation of discipleship:
“I am therefore I exist. Yet even though the transformation of my own existence cannot remain alive without my own actions, the measure to which this self can transform itself into what it ought to become cannot originate entirely from within myself.”
Ultimately, it means that even though no one else can exist within my own personhood, my own judgement is not the highest form of authority of what I ought to become.
Who then determines what we ought to become? The premise of Part I is to advise on what precedes Mastery. This is equivalent for both the Masters themselves and their disciples. A Master/Disciple relationship is about the orientation. A disciple does not merely climb upwards towards their Master. S/he climbs through a relationship in which the Master acts as the measure through which the disciple is prevented from making mastery the final destination. The Master is a boundary which prevents verticality from folding back into a human interpersonal connection. This distinction matters. The act of discipleship towards a Master does not induce a relation of “belonging” but that of “becoming”. A Master does not possess the authority to assist in the disciple’s becoming simply because s/he is positioned higher on the path. This authority only becomes intelligible when it is related to the Master’s own sense of verticality. S/he does not define what is Higher. S/he is herself/himself answerable to the Higher and becomes the intelligent force external to the disciple that is capable of influencing the architecture or jurisdiction within which the disciple’s becoming lies.
In that sense, Masters do not substitute themselves as the upwards force that can exist as Heaven nor do they move downwards to exist within the disciple’s journey. They work across that mediated divine jurisdiction which they neither created nor which they can abolish and are bound by their own locus of personhood.
No one can become them as only they carry forth their own existence.
Nor can they eventually become Heaven.
Who then are those Masters who raise us?
They are those who belong to the ontology of Mastery itself.
(To be continued)
***
End note:
Our monthly editorials are pure channellings received from Heaven. The administrative team responsible for their transmission has the duty to publish each editorial on the 15th of every month. This date is symbolic, as it coincides with the official founding date of the web platform of the accredited Centre known as “God's Save Me,” on September 15, 2023. More than a simple editorial, “The Editorial Avenue” is a sacred pathway opened to humanity so that it may reconnect with the Light, for God cares for everyone.
Comments