The term Perfect Master was used in the old days to suggest that M was in the same mould as Christ, Krishna and others. He was very special, divine, unique, a messiah. The idea that the 'Perfect Master teaches perfection' is a relatively new definition - no doubt the old ideas were becoming too embarrassing. 'Perfect Master' just doesn't make sense in the new way. 'Perfection Master' would be a more a more accurate description (if there could be such a thing as a master who could teach perfection - the idea is absurd). The term 'perfect master' describes a master who is perfect, not a master who teaches perfection. This is another of those stupid inaccuracies that premies allow M to get away with, along the lines of John the Baptist having written St. John's gospel. It isn't accurate, and it isn't true, like a lot of what M says. (Which reminds me, the way he says - nuclear! See, I listened!) Perfect! Ha!