Helen P. Blavatsky, Champion of Paganism
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 6:21 PM
Subject: Blavatsky (J.J.'s authority) -- champion of Paganism
Having been deeply impressed with J.J.'s post yesterday about "The
Greatest Name -- Jesus Christ," and what it means to take upon us the name of
Christ," when it was pointed out this morning that I should refer to his previous posts which
addressed my questions about Baptism and other gospel matters, I did as suggested and did a search
on "baptism" at the J.J. Dewey archive.
The first document I read was
http://www.dlc.fi/~samu3/JJArchives/JJ635.html
I had just skimmed this post when it first came out, for it came the day my son was born and
obviously I was busy with other tasks. My first impulse was the same as the previous time I read
this post, and that was to shout that J.J. was taking D&C 22 out of context, for the
revelation was given in answer to the question as to why someone already baptized into another
Christian church would need to be baptized into the newly formed Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. But instead of reacting, I just kept reading to see if maybe there might be
something to what J.J. was saying. I wanted to hear him out before drawing conclusions.
I must say that in doing so with that and the post following it and part way into the third
that I was becoming quite impressed, so much so that I began revising my Dewey index page on my
website to once again show an overall favorable bias toward him. I was beginning to think that
perhaps others were right who were saying I just need to shut up and listen for once so that I can
glean the whole paradigm and hence make the shift without clinging to my current paradigm when
things seem out of line.
In the midst of this process, there was one quote he made in the third document
http://www.dlc.fi/~samu3/JJArchives/JJ637.html
That struck me as being very far out of line with the truth.
He is talking about the blood of Christ shed in Gethsemane, and he quotes one of his
"greats," Helen Blavatsky, who he ranks alongside Joseph Smith.
<quote>
In the writings of H P Blavatsky who had direct contact with the Brotherhood we read:
"They make it clear that he would rather have lived to continue what he considered his
mission, and that he died because he could not help it, and only when betrayed. Before, when
threatened with violence, he had made himself invisible by employing the mesmeric power over the
bystanders, claimed by every Eastern adept, and escaped. When, finally, he saw that his time had
come, he succumbed to the inevitable.
<end quote>
A major red flag went up for me on this one. Jesus crucifixion was not a derailment of his
mission, it was the pinnacle of his mission. Take this verse, for example, in which resurrected
Jesus says, "Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have
given unto you--that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted
up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so
should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether
they be good or whether they be evil--" (3 Ne. 27:13,14; also John 12:32.)
But still wanting to give J.J. (and Blavatsky?) the benefit of the doubt, I thought I would try
to find that quote by Blavatsky and read a little more of its context.
I went to www.blavatsky.net and finally found a search feature of some of her articles. A
phrase from that quote did not produce any results, so I tried, "Jesus Christ," which of
course produced a large number of results. I clicked one one and began to read, curious to see how
Blavatsky reads, having never read anything other than a quote here and there.
What I found was a person who was much more favorable toward paganism than toward Christianity,
and who claimed that Christianity basically plagiarized various legends and rituals of paganism,
the latter being the preferable. Another document I looked at methodically redefines the word
"Christ" so as to say that "Jesus the Christ" merely means, "Jesus a good
man."
Below I cite for you several excerpts from Blavatsky. Judge for yourself, based on her own
words. As for me, I must say that I am not impressed in the slightest that J.J. considers
Blavatsky to be one of the most enlightened teachers of our age. That he considers her to be
"in direct contact with the brotherhood of light" makes me wonder just which brotherhood
he is talking about. I don't think it is the one that has anything to do with the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. Blavatsky certainly derides that God (as you will see below).
Bear in mind as you read this that Blavatsky is considered the founder of the New Age movement,
which imported Eastern religion (at least a resemblance of it) to the West.
My conclusion on this matter is that Blavatsky fits the scriptural definition of anti-Christ to
a tee. She is a voice for Satan, who seeks to usurp the kingdom of our God and of his Christ.
THE ROOTS OF RITUALISM IN CHURCH AND MASONRY
http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/RootsOfRitualismInChurchAndMasonry.htm
Blavatsky answers the charge against Theosophists having "infidelity" by basically
saying, "how can there be infidelity when we don't profess anything but the doctrine of:
'believe whatever you want'"?
<quote>
THEOSOPHISTS are very often, and very unjustly too, accused of infidelity and even of Atheism.
This is a grave error, especially with regard to the latter charge.
In a large society, composed of so many races and nationalities, in an association wherein
every man and woman is left to believe in whatever he or she likes, and to follow or not to
follow--just as they please--the religion they were born and brought up in, there is but little
room left for Atheism. As for "infidelity," it becomes a misnomer and a fallacy. To
show how absurd is the charge, in any case, it is sufficient to ask our traducers to point out
to us, in the whole civilized world, that person who is not regarded as an "infidel"
by some other person belonging to some different creed. Whether one moves in highly respectable
and orthodox circles, or in a so-called heterodox "society," it is all the same. It is
a mutual accusation, tacitly, if not openly, expressed; a kind of a mental game at shuttlecock
and battledore flung reciprocally, and in polite silence, at each other's heads. In sober
reality, then, no theosophist any more than a non-theosophist can be an infidel; while, on the
other hand, there is no human being living who is not an infidel in the opinion of some
sectarian or other. As to the charge of Atheism, it is quite another question.
</end quote>
In the following passage, Blavatsky responds to the charge that Theosophists are atheists by
saying that they believe in many Gods, such as those spirits who set aside incarnating so that
they might work with the human family in their progression. {Again, who is it that does not get a
body, but those who along with Satan rebelled against God before the world was created}. They
don't worship these, as the implication is "why worship them when we all are gods and a part
of the gods"?
<quote>
What is Atheism, we ask, first of all? Is it disbelief in and denial of the existence of a God,
or Gods, or simply the refusal to accept a personal deity on the somewhat gushy definition of R.
Hall, who explains Atheism as "a ferocious system" because, "it leaves nothing
above (?) us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness" (!) If the former, then
most of our members--the hosts in India, Burmah, and elsewhere--would demur, as they believe in
Gods and supernal beings, and are in great awe of some of them. Nor would a number of Western
Theosophists fail to confess their full belief in Spirits, whether spatial or planetary, ghosts
or angels. Many of us accept the existence of high and low Intelligences, and of Beings as great
as any "personal" God. This is no occult secret. What we confessed to in the November
LUCIFER (editorial), we reiterate again. Most of us believe in the survival of the Spiritual
Ego, in Planetary Spirits and Nirmanakayas, those great Adepts of the past ages, who, renouncing
their right to Nirvana, remain in our spheres of being, not as "spirits" but as
complete spiritual human Beings. Save their corporeal, visible envelope, which they leave
behind, they remain as they were, in order to help poor humanity, as far as can be done without
sinning against Karmic law. This is the "Great Renunciation," indeed; an incessant,
conscious self-sacrifice throughout ææons and ages till that day when the eyes of blind
mankind will open and, instead of the few, all will see the universal truth. These Beings, may
well be regarded as God and Gods--if they would but allow the fire in our hearts, at the thought
of that purest of all sacrifices, to be fanned into the flame of adoration, or the smallest
altar in their honour. But they will not. Verily, "the secret heart is fair Devotion's
(only) temple," and any other, in this case, would be no better than profane ostentation.
</end quote>
In this next passage, Blavatsky defends theosophy's worshipping of spirits by claiming that
Christianity, specifically the Roman Catholic brand, is nothing but a warmed-over plagiarist
recast of pagan ritual.
<quote>
Shall we then be regarded as atheists, only because while believing in Spiritual Hosts--those
beings who have to be worshipped in their collectivity as a personal God--we reject them
absolutely as representing the ONE Unknown? and because we affirm that the eternal Principle,
the ALL in ALL, or the Absoluteness of the Totality, cannot be expressed by limited words, nor
be symbolized by anything with conditioned and qualificative attributes? Shall we, more over,
permit to pass without protest the charge against us of idolatry--by the Roman Catholics, of all
men? They, whose religion is as pagan as any other of the solar and element worshippers; whose
creed was framed out for them, cut and dry, ages before the year I of Christian era; and whose
dogmas and rites are the same as those of every idolatrous nation--if any such nation still
exists in spirit anywhere at this day. Over the whole face of the earth, from the North to the
South Pole, from the frozen gulfs of Northland to the torrid plains of Southern India, from
Central America to Greece and Chaldea, the Solar Fire, as the symbol of divine Creative Power,
of Life and Love, was worshipped. The union of the Sun (male element)with Earth and the Water
(matter, the female element) was celebrated in the temples of the whole Universe. If Pagans had
a feast commemorative of this union--which they celebrated nine months ere the Winter Solstice,
when Isis was said to have conceived--so have the Roman Catholic Christians. The great and holy
day of the Annunciation, the day on which the Virgin Mary "found favour with(her) God"
and conceived "the Son of the Highest," is kept by Christians nine months before
Christmas. Hence, the worship of the Fire, lights and lamps in the churches. Why? Because
Vulcan, the fire-God, married Venus, the daughter of the Sea; that the Magi watched over the
sacred fire in the East, and the Virgin-Vestals in the West. The Sun was the "Father";
Nature, the eternal Virgin Mother: Osiris and Isis, Spirit-Matter, the latter worshipped under
each of its three states by Pagan and Christian. Hence the Virgins--even in Japan--clothed with
star-spangled blue, standing on the lunar crescent, as symbolical of female Nature (in her three
elements of Air, Water, Earth); Fire or the male Sun, fecundating her yearly with his radiant
beams (the "cloven tongues like as of fire" of the Holy Ghost).
</end quote>
In this next quote, Blavatsky suggests that the story (implied myth) of Mary's conception by
God was borrowed from a pagan legend that existed long before the time that Christianity began.
She does not give breath to the possibility that the arcane was foreshadowing the divine.
<quote>
In Kalevala the oldest epic Poem of the Finns, of the pre-Christian antiquity of which there
remains no doubt in the minds of scholars, we read of the gods of Finland, the gods of air and
water, of fire and the forest, of Heaven and the Earth. In the superb translation by J. M.
Crawford, in Rune L (Vol. II) the reader will find the whole legend of the Virgin Mary in
Mariatta child
of beauty,
Virgin-Mother of the
Northland. . .
Ukko, the great Spirit, whose abode is in Yûûmääla, the sky or Heaven, chooses the Virgin
Mariatta as his vehicle to incarnate through her in a Man-God. She becomes pregnant by plucking
and eating a red berry (marja), when, repudiated by her parents, she gives birth to a "Son
immortal," in the manger of a stable. Then the "Holy Babe" disappears, and
Mariatta is in search of him. She asks a star, "the guiding star of Northland," where
her "holy baby lies hidden," but the star answers her angrily:--
If I knew, I would not
tell thee;
'Tis thy child that me
created,
In the cold to shine for
ever. . . .
and tells the Virgin nothing. Nor will the golden moon help her, because, Mariatta's babe having
created her, left her in the great sky:--
Here to wander in the
darkness,
All alone at eve to
wander,
Shining for the good of
others. . . .
It is only the "Silver Sun" who, taking pity upon the Virgin-Mother, tells her:--
Yonder is thy golden
infant,
There thy holy babe lies
sleeping,
Hidden to his belt in
water,
Hidden in the reeds and
rushes.
She takes the holy baby home, and while the mother calls him "Flower,"
Others named him Son of Sorrow.
Is this a post-Christian legend? Not at all; for, as said, it is essentially pagan in origin
and recognized as pre-Christian. Hence, with such data in hand in literature, the ever-recurring
taunts of idolatry and atheism, of infidelity and paganism, ought to cease.
<end quote>
In this next passage from Blavatsky, she contrasts the heathen/pagan gods with the God of the
Bible and gives preference to the pagan version.
<quote Blavatsky>
Such being the common origin, we have but to contrast the two deities--the god of the
Gentiles and the god of the Jews--on their own revealed WORD; and judging them on their
respective definitions of themselves, conclude intuitively which is the nearest to the grandest
ideal. We quote Colonel Ingersoll, who brings Jehovah and Brahma parallel with each other. The
former, "from the clouds and darkness of Sinai," said to the Jews:--
<Ingersoll quote>
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. . . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor
serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Contrast
this with the words put by the Hindu into the mouth of Brahm: "I am the same to all
mankind. They who honestly serve other gods, involuntarily worship me. I am he who partaketh
of all worship, and I am the reward of all worshippers." Compare these passages. The
first, a dungeon where crawl the things begot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed
firmament inlaid with suns. . . .
</end Ingersoll quote>
The "first" is the god who haunted Calvin's fancy, when he added to his doctrine of
predestination that of Hell being paved with the skulls of unbaptized infants. The beliefs and
dogmas of our churches are far more blasphemous in the ideas they imply than those of the
benighted Heathen.
</end Blavatsky quote>
Blavatsky does not take into consideration two very significant factors. (1) The Jews received
a lower law because of their refusal to accept a higher. The harshness of language in the OT is
not a function of God's harshness but of their hardheartedness -- it is what they wanted and is
what they got. (2) The apostasy of Christianity from its more pure origin, as illustrated in
Calvin's doctrines cited above.
In this next quote, Blavatsky says that Christianity sprung from (copied) paganism:
<quote>
Christian nations celebrate their Easter, for the same reason, on the first Sunday that follows
the full moon, at the Vernal Equinox. With the festivals of the Pagans, the canonicals of their
priests and Hierophants were copied by Christendom. Will this be denied? In his "Life of
Constantine" Eusebius confesses thus saying, perhaps, the only truth he ever uttered in his
life--that "in order to render Christianity more attractive to the Gentiles, the priests
(of Christ) adopted the exterior vestments and ornaments used in the pagan cult." He might
have added "their rituals" and dogmas also.
</end quote>
Here are some more statements by Blavatsky in this piece:
"Church Ritualism was, and is, exoteric paganism, pure and simple--remodelled, we do not
say reformed."
"Ancient and modern Freemasonry are an obligatory study with every Eastern
Occultist." [a term of endearment for Blavatsky, I should note]
Now quoting from
http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/EsotericCharacterOfTheGospels.htm
Which is a reprint from the magazine, LUCIFER, November, December,
1887 February, 1888
<quote>
"the coming of Christ," means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and
not at all the actual coming in body of "Christ" Jesus
</end quote>
<quote>
All this is evidence that the terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chréést and
Chrééstians 22 were directly borrowed from the Temple terminology of the Pagans, and meant the
same thing.
</end quote>
<quote>
(Chrééstos). Hence this term was applied to every Disciple recognised by a Master, as also
to every good man.
</end quote>
<quote>
Now Chrestos, as already said, is a term applied in various senses. It qualifies both Deity
and Man. It is used in the former sense in the Gospels, and in Luke (vi., 35), where it means
"kind," and "merciful." , in I Peter (ii., 3), where it is said, "Kind
is the Lord," . On the other hand, it is explained by Clemens Alexandrinus as simply
meaning a good man; i.e., "All who believe in Chréést (a good man) both are, and are
called Chrééstians, that is good men." (Strom. lib. ii.)
</end quote>
and for the punch line
<quote>
Thus Jesus, whether of Nazareth or Lüüd,25 was a Chrééstos, as undeniably as that he
never was entitled to the appellation of Christos, during his life-time and before his last
trial. It may have been as Higgins thinks, who surmises that the first name of Jesus was,
perhaps, the second , and the third . "The word was in use before the H (cap. eta) was in
the language." But Taylor (in his answer to Pye Smith, p. 113) is quoted saying "The
complimentary epithet Chrest . . . . signified nothing more than a good man."
</end quote>
<quote>
There is still another and far more weighty proof that the name Christos is pre-Christian.
The evidence for it is found in the prophecy of the Erythrean Sybil. We read in it . Read
esoterically, this string of meaningless detached nouns, which has no sense to the profane,
contains a real prophecy--only not referring to Jesus--and a verse from the mystic catechism of
the Initiate. The prophecy relates to the coming down upon the Earth of the Spirit of Truth (Christos),
after which advent--that has once more nought to do with Jesus--will begin the Golden Age; the
verse refers to the necessity before reaching that blessed condition of inner (or subjective)
theophany and theopneusty, to pass through the crucifixion of flesh or matter. Read
exoterically, the words "Iesous Chreistos theou yios soter stauros," meaning literally
"Iesus, Christos, God, Son, Saviour, Cross," are most excellent handles to hang a
Christian prophecy on, but they are pagan, not Christian.
</end quote>
Having had my fill of this filth, I thought I would look toward the end of the document to see
if there was anything there even more plainly anti-Jesus Christ the Savior.
At the conclusion of attempting to debunk the authors of the four gospels, Blavatsky writes,
<quote>
No wonder that the very meaning of the terms Chrestos and Christos, and the bearing of both
on "Jesus of Nazareth," a name coined out of Joshua the Nazar, has now become a dead
letter for all with the exception of non-Christian Occultists.
</end quote>
In other words, according to Blavatsky, the Biblical account concerning Jesus is bogus, and
only the mystical, paganistic occultists have any sort of clue as what "Christ" means.
In contrast to Blavatsky (and J.J.) I would like to cite two key prophecies from the Book of
Mormon regarding the first and second comings of Messiah. As you read these, ask yourself if there
is any question as to whether or not Jesus is Messiah, not just one of many, but THE Messiah in an
ultra-special sense.
II Nephi 25:
17 And the Lord will set his hand again the second time to restore his people from their lost
and fallen state. Wherefore, he will proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder among the
children of men.18 Wherefore, he shall bring forth his words unto them, which words shall judge
them at the last day, for they shall be given them for the purpose of convincing them of the
true Messiah, who was rejected by them; and unto the convincing of them that they need not look
forward any more for a Messiah to come, for there should not any come, save it should be a false
Messiah which should deceive the people; for there is save one Messiah spoken of by the
prophets, and that Messiah is he who should be rejected of the Jews.
19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the
time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the
word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken plainly that ye cannot err. And as the Lord God liveth
that brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt, and gave unto Moses power that he should heal
the nations after they had been bitten by the poisonous serpents, if they would cast their eyes
unto the serpent which he did raise up before them, and also gave him power that he should smite
the rock and the water should come forth; yea, behold I say unto you, that as these things are
true, and as the Lord God liveth, there is none other name given under heaven save it be this
Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved."
And pertaining to the second advent of Messiah:
II Nephi 6:
13 Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the
dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord
are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah.
14 And behold, according to the words of the prophet, the Messiah will set himself again the
second time to recover them; wherefore, he will manifest himself unto them in power and great
glory, unto the destruction of their enemies, when that day cometh when they shall believe in
him; and none will he destroy that believe in him.
15 And they that believe not in him shall be destroyed, both by fire, and by tempest, and by
earthquakes, and by bloodsheds, and by pestilence, and by famine. And they shall know that the
Lord is God, the Holy One of Israel.
16 For shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered?
17 But thus saith the Lord: Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of
the terrible shall be delivered; for the Mighty God shall deliver his covenant people. For thus
saith the Lord: I will contend with them that contendeth with thee--
18 And I will feed them that oppress thee, with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with
their own blood as with sweet wine; and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Savior and
thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."
At first glance, these two very similarly worded prophecies might seem to be in contradiction,
as one states that we are not to look for another Messiah to come, for Jesus Christ is the one.
That passage is speaking to the Jews. The other one states that the people of the Lord are they
who wait for him, for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah. That one is speaking to the
latter-day Gentiles who are preoccupied with the first coming and are not preparing for the
second, and are in fact going to reject Messiah as the Jews did because of their blindness. These
prophecies very clearly point at the Messiah as being an individual, not a broad-spectrum
application to all who come to a certain level of spiritual advancement.
Here is another quote, this one from a LUCIFER editorial called "Stray Thoughts on Death
and Satan"
http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/StrayThoughtsOnDeathAndSatan.htm
<quote>
. . . the good and the pure strive to reach Nipang (nirvana or that state of absolute
existence and absolute consciousness--which, in the world of finite perceptions, is
non-existence and non-consciousness)
</end quote>
This sure sounds to me like "outer darkness" described with a Satanic positive twist
to make it sound desirable.
Here is another statement from this same discourse:
<quote>
Satan is merely a type, not a real personage.
</end quote>
Contrast this with 2 Nephi 28:22
"And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith
unto them: I am no devil, for there is none--and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he
grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance."
<quote>
If resistance on the part of Satan is possible the power of God no longer exists, God and the
Devil destroy each other, and man remains alone
</end quote>
Contrast with II Nephi 2:11 "For there must needs be an opposition in all things."
As for me, it seems very clear that Blavatsky is in opposition to all things Christian and
Jesus of Nazareth (as anything more than a good man like so many other good men).
As I read through these few documents by Blavatsky, I saw where J.J. gets a lot of his stuff.
He is much more careful in cloaking his writings in terms that will appear on the outside to be
compatible with Christianity in General and Mormonism in particular. He views himself as the One
Mighty and Strong sent to set the house of God in order.
What I am here to tell you is that what he has to present in this setting in order is the
establishment of the most subtly cloaked gospel of Satan that one could imagine. He might
sincerely believe what he is doing is good, but in measuring his teachings against the
foundational principles of the gospel, one must conclude that his foundation is not the same, and
there is only one sure foundation upon which me might build.
It seems the harder I look, the more this conclusion keeps coming up.
I can't see any way around this conclusion any more. Am I missing something?
Let me quote for you what J.J. said regarding Blavatsky in a recent post.
<quote>
The names of the Bab, Bahaullah, and Joseph Smith will all grow in stature as time passes.
The next revelation of importance that was given to humanity was through Helen Petrovna
Blavatsky, commonly known as H.P. Blavatsky, or H.P.B, the founder of Theosophy. She was perhaps
the most unlikely candidate in history to be the founding prophet of New Age truth. Her
notoriety has greater potential than Joseph Smith. She seemed to make a point of avoiding
piousness and cussed like a trooper, indulged the senses and cared little for neatness and
appearance. She also had a fraudulent streak left over from her previous life as Count
Alessandro Cagliostro, the famous charlatan of the eighteenth century who claimed to have the
elixir of immortal youth and lived his life defrauding men of high stature. This was a very
advanced soul; however, she slipped into retrogression for a time and came back in the
nineteenth century hoping to set the course of her soul straight and thereby aid humanity.
In the first part of her life she traveled extensively throughout the world and became
interested in various occult philosophies and spiritualism. After many years of investigating
every philosophy she could find she teamed up with Henry Olcott and founded Theosophy in New
York and later in India. Her most important work was the SECRET DOCTRINE. During her life she
may have done much that was good and bad, spoken much that was both true and false, but the
basic knowledge of the SECRET DOCTRINE and some of her other writings were obtained through the
Tibetan Master, Djwhal Khul who works with the Christ. Those who accept his writings usually
refer to him merely as the "Tibetan". This Master works in close connection with Koot
Hoomi as well as Master Morya and all three of them are in close association with the Christ.
They are all "resurrected beings", using Christian terminology. In esoteric language
they are referred to merely as "the Masters" or the "Masters of Wisdom".
The Christ once hinted at these associates in a revelation given to Joseph Smith:
"Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I
have reserved unto myself, HOLY MEN THAT YE KNOW NOT OF." D&C 49:8
These holy men that the world and even many prophets knew not of were the Masters. There are
many Masters, but the three mentioned above are of the most important from our point of view.
</end quote>
I had a dream last night that I believe has an important message. Its interpretation and
relevance seem clear to me in light of the above information.
There were basically two parts of the dream.
The first part I dreamt that I had a dream and awoke from the dream and wanted to tell others
about my dream. Yes, a dream within a dream.
The second part was about telling others about the dream and trying to bring the dream to
fruition.
The essence of the dream within a dream was that I was in my parent's home in Fountain Green
and with the knowledge gained in the post from J.J. last night ("The Greatest Name"), I
was going to pour water on the floor of my parent's greenhouse (which was situated on the east
side of the house though in reality it is on the South); and by the strength of will was going to
turn the water into ice so we could have an indoor ice skating rink for my nieces and I to play
on.
In my dream, as I awoke from that dream, I wanted to tell my nieces about this. I ended up
drawing a cartoon to illustrate the dream, showing in successive frames the ideas presented in the
dream. I was working on the last frame when I awoke. The final image took me by surprise. My
oldest niece (of one particular sister) had a spear-like thing sticking into her with a devil-like
spike on it.
I think the greenhouse being on the east side of the house represents "Eastern
wisdom." At first, I thought the obvious interpretation was that the powers of faith and of
God should never be used to satisfy one's own desires for entertainment. But now I would tend to
consider it a warning that though this thing with J.J. might look exciting on the outset, but in
the end there is something inherently evil about it.
One more note of interest in this plot. While I am having this situation with J.J., a person
has been contacting me in regards to the Book of Mormon, rejecting the Book of Mormon saying it
contradicts the Bible. I know full well that the Book of Mormon might contradict her
interpretation of the Bible, but from my paradigm the Bible and Book of Mormon are in very close
harmony. So as I look at this situation with J.J., I am open to the possibility that I am just
missing some pieces and hence tend to think this is bad stuff, for it does not square with my
understanding of the truths I've been given so far. At the same time, I think it would be folly to
just go forging forward where there are these red flags that keep coming up. Am I resisting a
higher truth, or do I posses a higher truth and my spirit is warning me about being side-tracked
into a forbidden path that would take me down in the name of moving forward?
Sterling
Other Blavatsky Quotes:
