SethianSeth said:
GregoryJ, you have awknowledged that the title of Master has been a "stumbling block" (as my pastor father would say) for others, yet seem to think that because you have a logical understanding and explaination of what the title "means really" that all is quite well. I have done this so many times as a musician and performer, and it has always been an issue of identification and usually a lack of external consideration for others. You asked Anart if she would have had such a reaction if you were called "Sifu," and I think that further indicates that you can't see this issue very clearly.
Even though I loved what you wrote in your "Eye of the Beholder" article, I still felt that I had to share it with some explaination - not because of what you wrote, but precisely because of the "master" title issue. This is a charged word with associative implications for your entire potential spehere of influence whether you like it or not, whether you gave yourself the title or it was handed to you by a teacher. If you are interested in sharing the truth in a way that is considerate of other's subjective state and capacity to take said information on board, why hold onto the title that could so easily be misconstrued in a way detrimental to others (both in the blind "guru follower" catagory and the "skeptic" catagory)? Is it worth it?
*edit: posted this while two other responses took place. Apologies. I will review them now...
OK. Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks, SethianSeth.
I have mulled over this issue many times, actually. Firstly, I would really rather prefer NOT to use the title (I am more inclined to find it awkward, personally). However it is the title I am given by my Master, and it is our tradition, for many very valid reasons. So to honor the tradition and my Teacher, it is somewhat of an obligation (and we could do the whole rigamarole with identification here, but bear with me). I have devoted 15 years of my life to it and I am very grateful for the Path – I have come to see the world and life in a very beautiful way (Clearly).
I have the option of taking the title of Sifu, which means "Master" in Chinese, and is the title given traditionally in China and Taiwan (and some do elect this), however, we try to use mostly English equivalent terms these days, and thus, "Master" is the official title given to me, not "Sifu". For instance, most people have no idea what "Sifu" means (which may be better, in the end).
It's really no different (only in the mind) than a title of Doctor, for instance — which no one seems to have a problem with, in fact they honor it highly. Like a doctor, the title only denotes that a great deal of Work has been done and certain requisites have been met. Also, the title of Master is the mark of one who is recognized and qualified to teach and give transmission of our esoteric practice. It is the same in Zen, Tibetan, Theravada, Siddha Ayurveda, Yoga, and others, however, some of these systems use terms like "Rōshi", "Sotapanna", "Acharya", "Swami", "Rinpoche", "Shihan", etc., which all essentially mean the same thing — "Master Teacher"
That being said, most people don't have a clue about any of this, which leaves me to have to explain, which is tiresome. 
I don't mind having the discussion with those in this forum (even though it was not the original aim of the thread – I suspect this has become the relevant topic, so let's have it).
I know that the use of the title, in general, is a point of contention for some people, especially for Westerners. As far as why I include it in the blog, I have gone round about this as well. Originally, the site was really about presenting the TaiChi Tao Teaching and its esoteric wisdom (in an applicable sense pertinent to modern analogies and circumstances, etc). The title, was really a formality (for "insiders") and a way to indicate both my expertise (to "outsiders") on the subject. In fact, in TaiChi and other East Asian practices, it is
expected that you carry a title if you are going to present knowledge of the practice – or you are not to be taken seriously. I think the main difference is cultural – East vs. West – but I agree, an eye on the subjective observation of my audience is key to getting the message out.
There is the issue of "humbleness", which of course is really an issue of "others' conjectured opinion of what is 'humble' of another", which is of course, ironically, pretty un-humble.  True Humbleness is in the heart, not in the outward appearance of humility, which can be a great trap, actually — for many reasons. So, on one hand, I don't really mind if someone thinks it's not humble (their judgment doesn't really speak to my character or actions at all). On the other hand, I do seek to reach people, and I know that it often involves certain compromises.
So, please, I do invite critique – if indeed what you think changed at all after reading this. I value feedback very much.
But I actually don't "identify myself" as it may appear. I don't really think of myself as a "master", or even as a "man", as "short", as "tall", as "thin", as "caucasian," as "Taoist", as "Gregory", or whatever. I don't mean to be mystical (or "arrogant"), I just don't think of myself as anything special or significant where any identity is concerned. You can ask my students, in fact; they know well that I am not afraid to make an ass of myself to convey a point, or sacrifice my reputation 'round town so to not interrupt a critical process for a student (for example). Indeed, if I seem brazen here it is because I don't much care what anyone thinks of me. And I know that this is something I arrived at; before I was indeed very identified with the whole thing and the idea of one day being a "Master". Thus, you can call me Fred the jackass if you prefer, I will take no offense whatsoever, but the student who calls me "Sifu", I know to take seriously (that said, I do not insist on it – some students seem to need this, others don't). The title is not for "me". Truly.
I just value the system because I know why and how it works. And sticking to what works makes sense. Honoring the title has alway been a valuable part of this process, for the students' sake. I know that this is where the Fourth Way and Eastern practices differ, but I ask you to try to think out of the "Fourth Way box" for just a moment.
But you are right, it probably reaches less people by keeping to a formal title that is "exclusive" from an "outsider's" perspective, rather than something THEY can more easily "identify" with , like a plain-ol' name. It's always a pickle!
I am not sure anyone not trained in an Eastern way can understand what I mean, really. At least, most probably it is very difficult to understand for anyone not responsible to students — like a doctor responsible to his patients, or a pilot to his passengers. We are all responsible to others (by being responsible for who we are) of course, but that's not what I mean. You must know that
when guiding others who still need some kind of idea to trust (before they have seen for themselves) that "idea" of a "Master" is actually very helpful in the trust process. It's all total BS, of course, but it's what the student seems to need.
If a cow can't recognize a cow as a cow and a bird as a bird (thinking that the "bird" is just a "cow with wings") then he may have a hard time accepting the "birdly" paradigm — always approaching it from a "cow's" paradigm, with no way of understanding. But if you tell the cow, "hey man, I'm a bird, not a cow anymore; I've changed from a cow to a bird", then the cow MAY begin to try to figure out what that means, otherwise they think, "oh, he's just a cow like me." (I don't mean that the "bird" is "better" or "special", just that he sees clearly from a totally different perspective, for he can both fly high in the sky AND sit on the ground with the cow; the cow seldom even looks up!) That is the basic reason for the title from the perspective of an Eastern practice.
I have found however that in the Western culture (where people are so very proud) it doesn't work the same as in the East (in that "tradition") and therefore, perhaps you are right, perhaps I should "revise" the tradition a bit. Of course, it is true that the tradition binds the mind, but often binding the mind is the way to Free it — another lovely paradox. The difference is, the one who is accomplished realizes completely that tradition is not real, not NOW, and therefore inflexible and dead. A true teacher throws off the shackles of tradition, as he Knows that the old and dead do not adequately fill into the Renewal of the Living One. That being said, the teacher must know what works and what doesn't based on experience and the formula handed down via a tradition. Irony, all day.

I will deeply consider the advice given — humbly. Thank you.
If you have anything to add, you are always welcome.
