THE VENETIAN MASTER DESCRIBED BY ALICE BAILEY

At the end of her book “Treatise on Cosmic Fire” Alice Bailey put a diagram where Master Djwal Khul supposedly describes a part of the solar Hierarchy and the terrestrial planetary Hierarchy:

And in this graph the Venetian Master appears as director of the third ray and chief of:

     -    Master Serapis (4)

     -    Master Hilarion (5)  

     -    Master Jesus (6)

     -    And Master R. [who is the Count of Saint Germain] (7)

(This is found in the third part entitled: “The Electric Fire of the Spirit”, in section A entitled: “Certain Basic Statements”, page 1238)

BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT ALL OF THAT IS FALSE!

So why did Alice Bailey post it?

Because she copied it from Charles Leadbeater who in his book “The Masters and the Path” put the following classification:

•  Morya is the head of the 1st Ray
•  Kuthumi is the head of the 2nd Ray
•  The Venetian is the head of the 3rd Ray
•  Serapis is the head of the 4th Ray
•  Hilarion is the head of the 5th Ray
•  Jesus is the head of the 6th Ray
•  And the Count of Saint Germain is the head of the 7th Ray.

(This is found in chapter XII entitled: “ The Chohans and the Rays ”)

And as you can see, the rays that Leadbeater assigned to those Adepts are the same rays that Alice Bailey also assigned to the same Masters, but the detail is that this classification is pure invention, as I demonstrated in this other chapter (link).

While here below, I am going to explain in more detail the reasons why the Venetian Master does not exist.

To make his classification, Leadbeater first took the names of the Masters who were best known in the Theosophical Society and they are: Morya, Kuthumi, Serapis and Hilarion.

And he also included Jesus to attract the Christian public, and he also included the Count of Saint Germain to please Annie Besant (who at that time was the President of the Adyar Theosophical Society) because she felt a great fascination for this historical figure.

But since there are seven rays, Leadbeater needed one more “leader”, and the problem is that he no longer knew the names of others Masters. So he started searching in the theosophical literature to see who else he could add and when he read Colonel Olcott's Diary, he read this:

« The way in which the first meeting with the Masters of Wisdom takes place varies. Some disciples, like Damodar and Blavatsky, first saw the Masters through visions when they were young, while other disciples met them under strange circumstances and in the least likely places. But in my case, Blavatsky gradually introduced them to me through the great interest that I had at that time in spiritualism and mediumship.

And that is why she initially attributed those phenomena that occurred around her to the spirit of John King (who was well known in the spiritualist sessions), and it was only later and through a progressive friendship that I began to establish with those Adepts, that I began to have personal and direct communication with them.

And so it is that on one occasion “John King” made me meet four of the Masters, of whom:

-      one was a Copt (that is, a Christian Egyptian),

-      another was a representative of the Neoplatonic school of Alexandria,

-      another had a very high position since he was the Master of Masters, so to speak: a Venetian,

-      and the last was an English philosopher who had disappeared from the gaze of men, but who was not dead.

And the first of them became my first guru. »

(Old Diary Leaves, vol. I, p.17-19, excerpts)

And it is based on this text that Leadbeater decided that the head of the third ray was going to be “the Venetian.” But it turns out that “the Venetian” is Serapis, since Serapis is the highest grade Master (the Master of Masters) who was directly in charge of the revival of the Theosophical Movement in the late 19th century.

And therefore it was logical that Serapis should present himself before Olcott, since Colonel Olcott was the first president of the Theosophical Society. And it was also logical that Colonel Olcott did not know Serapis's name the first time he saw him and that is why he described him as "a Venetian."

However, Olcott never mentioned the “Venetian Master” again, but instead he did mention Master Serapis on several occasions.

For example he noted that:

« Serapis is one of our most revered Masters, as he is the Master of our Masters. In India someone like this is called a Paramaguru (meaning a superior spiritual guide). And he gave me a little color sketch of his face, when I lived in New York, before Blavatsky and I embarked for Bombay. »

(Old Diary Leaves, vol. 2, p.430-431, extracts)

« Serapis is the youngest of the Directors of the Hierarchy of Masters. »

(Mahatma Letter 3A, p.10)

And as I specified, Colonel Olcott never again spoke of “a Venetian Master” and nowhere else in the original theosophical teaching does there appear the existence of a member of the Brotherhood of Masters who was known as “the Venetian.” On the other hand, the Superior Master Serapis is mentioned quite frequently.

But to Leadbeater's misfortune, this information that Serapis is a higher level Master and also that he is the chief of Kuthumi, Morya and Hilarion was only known later, so Leadbeater ignoring this fact, positioned Serapis in the same rank as the other Masters, thereby showing his trickery.

And Alice Bailey, ignoring all this, believed what Leadbeater stated, and that is why she also wrote the same falsehoods.