The Theosophical Society of Pasadena found this popular book addressing the Western Guru tradition to be entertaining but slanted deceit. They correctly have issue with the author (Peter Washington) who refused to correct or address many errors and omissions even in the second printing. Here is one issue they have.

“ERRORS AND OMISSIONS (sequentially listed):

Pages 34e-35b: “According to Blavatsky’s later description of the Brotherhood, this hierarchy is headed by the Lord of the World, who lives at Shamballa in the Gobi Desert.(11) The Lord of the World came originally from Venus with several helpers and now inhabits the body of a sixteen-year-old boy. In descending order of authority, his helpers are the Buddha, the Mahachohan, Manu and Maitreya. . . .

“Manu’s assistant is Blavatsky’s original visitor, Master Morya, often referred to as Master M or simply M. His special duty in the distribution of cosmic responsibilities is to preside over the qualities of Power and Strength, with particular regard to the guidance of nations. . . .

“Maitreya’s assistant is Master Koot Hoomi . . . whose past incarnations include Pythagoras. . . . He is a cultured fellow, a linguist and musician whose work takes in the supervision of Religion, Education and Art. . . . [etc., etc.]“

Comment: Misinformation; misattribution; evident reliance on secondary or tertiary sources; undocumented (Chapter note 11 is a reference to Shambhala by René Guenon and Marco Pallis). This misleading description is not to be found in Blavatsky’s writings, but may be traced to a divergent tradition which gained prominence among some theosophists many years after Blavatsky’s death in 1891. A careful scholar reasonably conversant with theosophic history and doctrine would not confuse the two. Peter Washington (PW) in fact gives very little description of theosophy as presented by HPB and her teachers, and what he does mention is often inaccurate or out of context (see Note on Page 406 below).” (1)

What Mr. Washington is saying may be factually incorrect in detail but his readers would find the Ascended Master concept fully ridiculous enough that he would not have deemed it necessary to address the Theosophical Society. But is he right not to quibble about what kind of hierarchy the Theosophists and their more ancient traditional roots are developing or saying exists?

In defense of Mr. Washington let me say that the matter of what name the Ascended Master is or who authored it – it does not matter except to a nit-picker addressing some agenda. Clearly the Theosophists do promote these hierarchies and so do many other cults or religions. But Mr. Washington goes too far if he dismisses the potential for people to benefit through contact with such knowledge. Blavatsky and her Akashic do have some real truth albeit heavily manipulated, I think. I most certainly agree with the Theosophical position that Mr. Washington engages in a witch-hunt and brands the whole guru tradition unfairly in that he does not understand the truth of these things being in all religions. But I think the Theosophist agenda is not ecumenical or forthcoming either. However, one thing Blavatsky was right about was the fact that all religions (modern ones called ‘absolute’ by Francis Fukayama who proudly states the social engineers like himself use them as tools) are from the same cadre of elite people – that includes the whole world. Yes, the people on earth have been intermingling, trading and traveling it since long before Hinduism existed.