What are the central features of mastery of an art or discipline? Is there a distinction between just being a master and high-level mastery? Does the concept of a master imply something more than mastery of techniques and skills? This paper investigates the conceptual topography of these concepts, attempts to answer these questions and others. It also sets forth general criteria for master-level Tuastery of any art or discipline. In addition, it explores some of the normative questions related to the responsibilities of being a master. A master exemplifies the values of the art or discipline. Do these values stop at the edge of the subject or do they extend beyond it? In this direction two paradigms of masters are discussed. The broader of the two (influenced by Zen-concepts) expands the conceptof a master to include self-mastery, mastery and proper relationships with others, and mastery of nocture as a non-coercive relationship.