H.P Blavatsky's View of Satan: Refuting ChelevSaRa Once and For All!

In my film 'New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement Final Cut' I noted that the founder of Theosophy, Helena Blavatsky, worshiped Satan. This was noted because the film Zeitgeist and its cited sources such as Acharya S, Jordan Maxwell, Manly P. Hall, and many others, are connected to her.

To anyone who has looked into Theosophy and Lucis Trust it should be quite obvious that Helena Blavatsky did worship Satan. A youtube user named ChelevSaRa who, after I refute him, will not get any more attention from me, has attempted to defend Helena Blavatsky in a little two part video series. The majority of the content in his videos that were addressed to me is not really worth consideration. There is no need to waste time on such horrible arguments, however, he did raise some important issues about Theosophies interpretation of Lucifer that I will address here.

Aside from merely distorting all of my arguments and merely claiming that Freemasonry is some club, without providing meaningful argumentation or responding to my arguments on that issue, ChelevSaRa has decided to ignore my arguments and attack straw men instead. For this reason I don't think his pathetic smokescreens warrant a response. So to the topic of Lucifer.

I will call this person Chelev. Chelev noted some quotations that I provided with respect to Blavatsky and her view of Satan. The two following quotations from Blavatsky were examined in his video and here they are:

"... the shadow of the Unknown and Incognizable Deity in Space. But in antiquity and reality, Lucifer, or Luciferus, is the name of the angelic Entity presiding over the light of truth as over the light of the day." (1)

"Demon est Deus inversus: that is to say, through every point of Infinite Space thrill the magnetic and electrical currents of animate Nature, the life-giving and death-giving waves, for death on earth becomes life on another plane. Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the "Holy Ghost" and "Satan," at one and the same time." (2)

Although these aren't the only references I have provided with respect to Blavatsky's view on Satan, Chelev has decided to examine these. So lets see what he says.

"... Keith liked to point out in his New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement video that Blavatsky thought Satan was God. I'd have no issue with this if only he clarified she was speaking of God the character and not God as an actual being. In context of the first quote he used on this issue, we find that she is doing comparative religion - speaking on the tradition of ancient religions to make their ultimate good God and their ultimate evil God one in the same. Just one divine being with two conflicting aspects. The study of ancient and modern religions is one for the primary objectives of the Theosphical society."

Now, there are many errors in his statement here. The first error is that Chelev claimed that Blavatsky thought Satan was just a character and not a being. The reality of the situation is that Blavatsky did believe in Satan/Lucifer as a being of light and a real concept that has inspired man, transforming him into a thinking creature, as opposed to an animal.

With respect to the fact that Blavatsky objectively believed Lucifer and Satan were the same thing originally she states:

"Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the “Holy Ghost” and “Satan,” at one and the same time, visible Space being truly filled with the differentiated Breath invisibly; and the Astral Light, the manifested effects of the two who are one, guided and attracted by ourselves, is the Karma of humanity, both a personal and impersonal entity: personal, because it is the mystic name given by St. Martin to the Host of divine Creators, guides and rulers of this planet; impersonal, as the Cause and effect of universal Life and Death." (3)

In fact Lucis Trust, the modern arm of the Theosophical society, is more qualified to explain Blavatsky's view of Satan/Lucifer then Chelev is. Lucis Trust's members are modern day Theosophists and on their Website, with respect to Blavatsky's view of Satan, they state:

"... like the great teacher H.P. Blavatsky, for whom they had enormous respect, sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer. Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer." (4)

Thus according to modern Theosophists and those who are more acquainted with Blavatsky's works then Chalev is, Blavatsky passed on a tradition that believes that Lucifer was a being from Venus, solar angels - real being.

One of Chelev's assertions is that when Blavatsky talks about Lucifer or Satan in her writings this is only exegetical or her doing comparative religious studies and that she doesn't actually believe the things she writes about.

WRONG. In her work 'Key to Theosophy' she explains why they do comparative religion studies and what their view is regarding all religious belief. Blavatsky's aim is to re-interpret texts in an esoteric way so that all religions fit and so humanity can become a global entity, an idea that would abolish the American constitution, the thing that the truth movement is supposed to be trying to protect. The Theosophical society regards all of the esoteric data from all religions as truth, one divine truth, and here is the proof:

"Enq: I thought you said you had no tenets or doctrines of your own? Theo. No more we have. The society has no wisdom of its own to support or teach. It is simply the storehouse of all the truth's uttered by the great seers, initiates, and prophets of historic and even pre-historic ages; at least, as many as it can get. Therefore, it is merely the channel through which more or less of truth, found in the accumliated utterences of humanities great teachers, is pured out into the world." (5)

"ENQUIRER. But Theosophy, you say, is not a religion? THEOSOPHIST. Most assuredly it is not, since it is the essence of all religion and of absolute truth, a drop of which only underlies every creed. To resort once more to metaphor. Theosophy, on earth, is like the white ray of the spectrum, and every religion only one of the seven prismatic colours. Ignoring all the others, and cursing them as false, every special coloured ray claims not only priority, but to be that white ray itself, and anathematizes even its own tints from light to dark, as heresies. Yet, as the sun of truth rises higher and higher on the horizon of man's perception, and each coloured ray gradually fades out until it is finally re-absorbed in its turn, humanity will at last be cursed no longer with artificial polarizations, but will find itself bathing in the pure colourless sunlight of eternal truth. And this will be Theosophia. ENQUIRER. Your claim is, then, that all the great religions are derived from Theosophy, and that it is by assimilating it that the world will be finally saved from the curse of its great illusions and errors? THEOSOPHIST. Precisely so..." (6)

Thus when Chelev erroneously asserts that, "In context of the first quote he used on this issue, we find that she is doing comparative religion - speaking on the tradition of ancient religions to make their ultimate good God and their ultimate evil God one in the same. Just one divine being with two conflicting aspects. The study of ancient and modern religions is one for the primary objectives of the Theosophical society," he is forgetting that Blavatsky only mentioned those things about Lucifer so that Theosophists will hold them as truth. She only writes and makes these things known so that the Theosophical society adopts the concepts. That is one of the the aims of her organization, or did Chelev forget?

Comparative religion is not simply the aim of the Theosophical society, but rather, they accept all the religious works as truth and interpret them in esoteric ways to make it all fit together, even if they have to distort the true meaning of the texts. Thus, when Chelev merely asserts that Blavatsky is noting Gnostic beliefs wthout believing in it herself, he is not saying anything except unfounded lies. Blavatsky is noting the beliefs that she believes in, and that the Theosophical society believes in. She even says she believes what they believe in the relevant quotation! Blavatsky states:

"But in antiquity and reality, Lucifer, or Luciferus, is the name of the angelic Entity presiding over the light of truth..."

So not only was this view supposedly held in antiquity by post-Christian Gnostic heretics, but Blavatsky believes that in reality it is true that Lucifer is God and since, in another context she said that Satan and Lucifer are one, this means she believes Satan is God. This is why people like Chelev should not be trying to address these issues. They just make fools of themselves. Moreover, Blavatsky clarifies her objective position on the matter in the following quotation, showing that she wasn't merely noting Gnostic belief, but that she actually believed in this:

"The devil is now called Darkness by the Church, whereas, in the Bible he is called the "Son of God" (see Job), the bright star of the early morning, Lucifer (see Isaiah). There is a whole philosophy of dogmatic craft in the reason why the first Archangel, who sprang from the depths of Chaos, was called Lux (Lucifer), the "Luminous Son of the Morning," or man-vantaric Dawn. He was transformed by the Church into Lucifer or Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the new dogma." (7)

She objectively believes that Satan is higher and older than Jehovah. And to put the icing on the cake here she explains her metaphorical dualistic beliefs about Satan. She states:

"And now it stands proven that Satan, or the Red Fiery Dragon, the "Lord of Phosphorus", and Lucifer, or "Light-Bearer," is in us: it is our Mind -- our tempter and Redeemer, our intelligent liberator and Saviour from pure animalism. Without this principle -- the emanation of the very essence of the pure divine principle Mahat (Intelligence), which radiates direct from the Divine mind -- we would be surely no better than animals. " (8)

The reason Lucifer can be beings, solar angels and our mind simultaneously is because Theosophy holds that these beings (Lucifer) from Venus are the "spirit of intellectual enlightenment." Now, Chelev presents a text from Blavatsky saying:

"DEMON EST DEUS INVERSUS. THIS symbolical sentence, in its many-sided forms, is certainly most dangerous and iconoclastic in the face of all the dualistic later religions -- or rather theologies -- and especially so in the light of Christianity. Yet it is neither just nor correct to say that it is Christianity which has conceived and brought forth Satan. As an "adversary," the opposing Power required by the equilibrium and harmony of things in Nature -- like Shadow to throw off still brighter the Light, like Night to bring into greater relief the Day, and like cold to make one appreciate the more the comfort of heat -- SATAN has ever existed. Homogeneity is one and indivisible. But if the homogeneous One and Absolute is no mere figure of speech, and if heterogeneity in its dualistic aspect, is its offspring -- its bifurcous shadow or reflection -- then even that divine Homogeneity must contain in itself the essence of both good and evil. If "God" is Absolute, Infinite, and the Universal Root of all and everything in Nature and its universe, whence comes Evil or D'Evil if not from the same "Golden Womb" of the absolute? Thus we are forced either to accept the emanation of good and evil, of Agathodaemon and Kakodaemon as offshoots from the same trunk of the Tree of Being, or to resign ourselves to the absurdity of believing in two eternal Absolutes!" (9)

He highlights her saying: "SATAN has ever existed," as if this somehow means that she doesn't believe that the Biblical Satan presented is a real being. On the contrary, if you read the immediate context and ponder what she is saying for a minute, instead of superimposing what you want to see onto the text, you will realize that she is not saying she doesn't believe that the being Satan never existed objectively. In a previous article I noted that many new agers appear to display a phenomena called 'new age syndrome.' This is where they see things in the text that aren't there. It is a very detrimental disease indeed, for this illness turns them into deceived deceivers.

See, Blavatsky believed that Satan was never supposed to be interpreted as evil in the Biblical text but that later people distorted the meaning of Satan. This is why she says, "As an "adversary," the opposing Power required by the equilibrium and harmony of things in Nature -- like Shadow to throw off still brighter the Light, like Night to bring into greater relief the Day, and like cold to make one appreciate the more the comfort of heat -- SATAN has ever existed."

She is saying Satan never existed in the sense that Satan was never this opposed value of light and good. She says this because she believes Satan or Lucifer is light and that the conception of Satan being evil is false. If you don't understand how to read literature and you take the saying "SATAN has never existed" out of context, then you arrive at false conclusions distorting the meaning of her statement. She meant that the conception of him being evil or darkness is false - and in that sense he never existed. However she does believe that he did exist in the form of a being who represents light, knowledge and emanation. Merely asserting that she didn't believe the things she wrote about regarding Satan won't cut it. She did believe those things. That is what Theosophy is all about. Taking from all religions things that suit their beliefs. So this "proof text" proposed by Chelev does not support the claim that Blavatsky didn't worship Satan and that she didn't think he is real. She quite obviously did. But isn't it amazing that Zeitgeist supporters are now defending Helena Blavatsky?

I can easily refute her arguments with respect to the Biblical view of Satan and note the flaws in her argumentation but that isn't the point of my writing this article. The point is to highlight the illogic and lies of ChelevSaRa and how he and his camp are nothing but idiots, really.

It is my view that it is dangerous for Zeitgeist to be connected with this woman and that Zeitgeists followers defend her. If Christianity is true and Jesus' second advent to defeat Satan is due soon, that means Zeitgeist is associated with a woman who believes Satan is God and not really an evil force! If she is wrong then Zeitgeist is associated with something very dangerous indeed. If Satan really is the adversary and not a positive force on humanity, as Blavatsky erroneously asserts, that is very dangerous. The fact that Zeitgeists main sources like Maxwell, Hall and Acharya tout this woman as some great teacher is dangerous spiritually. If you disagree with me that is your own prerogative but I could care less what blind deceived new agers believe about Christianity.

Moreover, one of the former leaders of the Theosophical society who was contemporary with Blavatsky and Besant tells us what the 19th century position on Satan is. In his work Spiritualism, Madame Blavatsky & theosophy, Rudolf Steiner states:

"Lucifer is not a being that we can see with our present day physical eyes; Lucifer can be seen only with the awakened clairvoyance. Seen clairvoyently, in fact, Lucifer is a particular being who was left behind during the moon phase of evolution." (10)

In conclusion we have discovered that this deceived deceiver, ChalevSaRa, on youtube, has not studied these issues enough to be able to properly handle the material. We have discovered that although he claims Blavatsky only noted religious ideas, Blavatsky held all esoteric beliefs true, including the ones she mentioned about Lucifer. We discovered that modern Theosophists (Lucis Trust) and ancient Theosophists (Blavatsky, Bailey, and Steiner) held that Lucifer was a real being and not fictional as Chelev claims they believed. We discovered that Chelev takes Blavatsky out of context with respect to the statement that Satan does not exist and ignores the immediate context which is that Blavatsky didn't believe that the traditional views of Satan are really who he is and that that conception of him isn't real - thus he never existed, but that Satan is some light being from Venus who is out to help humanity!

Since I have sufficiently demonstrated that Chelev is incapable of doing real unbiased research, I have decided not to respond to him and lower myself to his level. I don't have time for dishonest, double-speaking, villainous deceivers.

Christ is Lord.

Footnotes:

1.) Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, [Quest Books, 1993], p. 512
2.) Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, [Quest Books, 1993], p. 513
3.) Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, [Quest Books, 1993], p. 513
4.)lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_esoteric_meaning_of_lucifer
5.) Helena Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy, [Kessinger Publishing, 1998,] p.57
6.) Helena Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy, [Kessinger Publishing, 1998,] p.39, 40
7.) Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, [Quest Books, 1993], p. 70, 71
8.) Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, [Quest Books, 1993], p. 513
9.) Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine,Vol. 1, P. 411, 412
10.) Rudolf Steiner, Christopher Spiritualism, Madame & theosophy: An Eyewitness View of Occult History: Lectures, {SteinerBooks, 2002}, p.206