Tag: Sanat Kumara

The Mystery of the Father

Joseph Dewey

The Mystery of the Father

Here’s some dialog I’ve been having with a member who has an LDS background.

Reader: When you bring up Sanat Kumara, the first Adam, the Ancient of Days, I think of Brigham Young’s Adam God theory. Is this what Brigham Young was referring to? The other question I have: If what you are saying is true, then Sanat Kumara does not appear to be the Father of our spirits. If not, then who is the Father our spirits? Who is our Heavenly Father, the one Jesus Christ referred when he said, “I go to your God and my God”?

JJ: Brigham had a rough idea about Adam God but did not know the details.

Our spirits were not created through heavenly parents having physical sex as taught in m Mormonism. We are eternal beings and have always been. Our essence has been stimulated by other beings and we basically create ourselves with the help of others who have progressed far beyond us. The form you have now was designed by you in conjunction with higher lives and was different in past lives. After each life you participate in designing a more perfect body.

Reader: Various scriptures cll us the children of God such as this one: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” Romans 8:16-17

Then numerous times Jesus and others refer to God as our Father. Are we not to take the words “children” and “Father” literally here, but figuratively?

Also, when Jesus speaks of his heavenly Father, is he referring to Sanat Kumara?

JJ: Notice that Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse did not teach the idea of heavenly parents literally giving birth to our spirits.

“We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.” The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.” End Quote

“There is no outside creation to our spirit essence. The form we have now had a beginning at our physical birth and changes from age to age or life to life. There are those who assist and have assisted in our progress, and in a sense they are fathers and mothers to us.

Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal intelligence or monad which could be called our Father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers. Melchizedek overshadowed Jesus and Jesus referred to him as Father.

Reader: Yes, Mormonism has always believed in the above Joseph Smith quote that we have always co-existed (in some form & essence) with God. Notwithstanding, what about the following principle- Matthew 6:10 “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” The Zohar adds more to this principle: Observe that God has made the earthly kingdom after the pattern of the heavenly kingdom, and whatever is done on earth has been preceded by its prototype in heaven. -Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 197a How could something as foundational as marriage, sexual intimacy, children” the very heart of our earthly sociality ” not even exist in heaven? Yet, the language of the scriptures are filled with family references ” The Father, The Son, Children of God, Sons, Daughters, etc. How could this be?

JJ: You are right that all things that exist on earth first existed in heaven, or higher spheres. There are seven planes altogether. The next level up from us is the astral composed of emotional energy. This is what Mormons generally refer to as the spirit prison. The next up is the mental plane composed of mental matter and is directed by the energy of mind. These three are the worlds of form, the mental being the highest is similar to the LDS celestial kingdom.

Above the mental is the buddhic plane from which true intuition originates. This intuition links the worlds of form to the next plane, the atmic. This plane governs the universe of ideas. On this plane originates all creation that eventually materializes here on the earth. An idea there is carried through the intuitive plane to the mind, then to emotional matter in the spirit world until it materializes here on the earth. The concept of the form of your body originated in the atmic plane and descended as a seed until it reached the physical plane and developed as a physical vehicle for you.

The idea that our archetypes were created previously is true, but just somewhat different than orthodox Mormonism believes. Ideas originate in a formless plane and forms are merely symbols of the ideas from whence they came.

Reader: You even referenced family language in your last post stating, “Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers.” Why use the term “father”? What definition of father are you using?

JJ: The word father is used a number of different ways in the scriptures and other writings. It doesn’t always mean a literal father of a body. Even on this plane an adopted child calls his caretaker his father.

Consider the word in reference to a prophesy of Christ:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isa 9:6

Notice that Isaiah called prophesied Messiah “the everlasting Father.

The Book of Mormon does something similar:

“I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son ” The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And THEY ARE ONE God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. and thus the flesh (Jesus) becoming subject to the Spirit (Christ), or the Son to the Father…” Mosiah 15:1-5.

One reason the Messiah is called Father is that he initiated the fathering of many sons of God. Any creator is a father to his creations.

Reader: Finally, curious to your response to this thought too- “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” John 20:17 Why would Jesus tell Mary Magdalene this if he was referring to Melchizedek? Was Melchizedek Mary Magdalene’s Father too?

JJ: Melchizedek, who overshadowed Jesus was also the Adam of the Bible and responsible for the creation of many of the sons of God here on the earth. He is therefore the father of all who aspire to be such including Mary Magdalene.

Above him is Sanat Kumara who is responsible for the creation of all human life of earth making him our Father also.

In addition to this if we were able (as did Christ) to ascend to the sixth plane we would arrive at the plane of the monad where the seed of our existence and intelligence resides. This dwells as a point of light in divine space something like a star dwells in physical space. This divine space is the mind of God and there is only one space which is the ultimate Father of us all.

There is nothing more likely to start disagreement among people or countries than an agreement. – E. B. White

Dec 15, 2011

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

The Mystery of Melchizedek

Joseph Dewey

The Mystery of Melchizedek

Several times in the Bailey writings DK identifies Melchizedek with Sanat Kumara, the Lord of the World. Here is one:

“The Lord of the World, the Ancient of Days, Sanat Kumara, the planetary Logos, Melchizedek, He to Whom Christ referred when He said, ‘I and My Father are One.’” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 287

On the other hand, he indicated that the famous statement of oneness is not limited to a connection to one being but is more universal, for he also said this:

“The first Logos is electric fire, the fire of pure Spirit. Yet in manifestation He is the Son, for by union with matter (the mother) the Son is produced by Whom He is known. ‘I and my Father are One’ is the most occult statement in the Christian Bible, for it not only refers to the union of a man with his source, the monad, via the ego, but to the union of all life with its source, the will aspect, the first Logos.” TCF, Pages 150-151

He says quite a bit in this quote. First, he says that when in manifestation through matter the First Logos becomes the Son, or we could say the first ray of power manifests as love-wisdom.

Secondly, he says that the famous statement of union embraces more than a union with one being “for it not only refers to the union of a man with his source, the monad, via the ego, but to the union of all life with its source, the will aspect, the first Logos.”

What does this tell us? It tells us that Jesus and the overshadowing Christ saw themselves as, first of all, having a oneness to their source the monad, which is one with the universal God beyond all the hierarchies. Secondly there was a vision of oneness of not just the Christ, but “all life with its source.”

In other words, that which was realized by the Christ would eventually be achieved by all of us.

That Source he says is “the will aspect, the first Logos.” This would include Sanat Kumara, but not be limited to him, for this first aspect runs through all the Logoi in the universe.

Since DK links the name Melchizedek with Sanat Kumara it is natural to assume that the entity of that name in the Bible is the Lord of the World, but there is a major problem with this assumption which can be found in this statement:

“Sanat Kumara and His Pupils are in physical form, but have not taken dense physical bodies. They work on the vital etheric levels, and dwell in etheric bodies. Shamballa, where They dwell, exists in physical matter as do the Kumaras.” TCF Page 753

The type of bodies they have is revealed here:

“Shamballa will be one of the latest etheric sacred spots to be revealed as it exists in the matter of the second ether.” Initiation Human and Solar, Page 33

Thus Sanat Kumara dwells in Shamballa where all forms are composed of the second ether, which is normally invisible to human eyes, much more difficult to see than the fourth ether of Kirlian photography.

From the writings we have about Melchizedek it appears that he existed in a dense physical body. Consider this account from Genesis:

When Abraham learned that his nephew Lot had been kidnapped by four kings involved a conflict, he decided to rescue him and retrieve his stolen flocks and herds. He gathered 318 of his men and attacked them by night and made a daring rescue as well as retrieving his goods and some from his enemies. On his return he was greeted by a mysterious person. It is written:  

“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.” Genesis14:18-20

Outside of a brief mention in Psalms this is all the Old Testament has to say about him. However, Josephus, the Jewish historian, adds a couple more details. His name means “Righteous King” and says he was a Canaanite leader who founded Salem, which was later named Jerusalem. There he built the first temple and served there as the first priest.

Then in some of the Aramaic renderings of the Book of Genesis we have this added detail: “And Melchisedech, king of Jerusalem—he is Shem the Great—brought out bread and wine, for he was the priest who ministered in the high priesthood before the most High God.”

So here Melchizedek is identified as Shem, son of Noah, who according to Biblical chronology outlived Abraham by about 35 years.

According to these various Old Testament era accounts it sounds like the Melchizedek of Abraham’s era could not have been Sanat Kumara, Lord of the World for the following reasons.

He was said to be a priest of the most high, not the most high himself.

He was obliviously in a dense physical body even sharing food and wine with Abraham.

So where does the idea come from that he was a supernatural being such as the Lord of the World?

It seems to largely come from the Book of Hebrews of the New Testament. There we are told that Christ was “Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.” Heb 5:10

Then it indicates that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham because Abraham paid tithes to him, a recognition of superior status. Then it makes a statement about him not found in the Old Testament that adds to his mystique as someone more than human:

He is: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” Heb 7:3

This was indeed a strange statement since the ancient records tell us he was born and died and had parents. How could the mortal Melchizedek of the time of Abraham also be an almost godlike and immortal figure as presented in the Book of Hebrews?

A hint is given in verse 15 where Jesus is said to be “after the similitude of Melchisedec.”

This takes on additional meaning when we look at the Gnostic Library of Nag Hammadi wherein we discover that many Gnostic Christians saw Christ and Melchizedek as the same being. In other words, Christ was Melchizedek in a previous life.

In saying this we must take into consideration the teachings from DK that there were two entities involved in the life of Christ. There was Jesus who was incarnated as the Son of Mary. DK says that in previous lives he was Joshua who was with Moses and Jeshua from the time of Ezra. Also, Yogananda tells us he was Elisha who made this unusual request from Elijah: “let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.” II Kings 2:9 He then manifested that double portion as Jesus.

Then at the baptism we are told that an even higher entity who had the position of the Christ descended upon Jesus and dwelt with him for the next three years. DK tells us that his entity was the same as Krishna of Hindu fame.

Thus, this entity who DK says is the Christ was not born into the body of Jesus but functions with him and filled the description of Melchizedek being “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God.” Heb 7:3

This indeed sounds as if it was Melchizedek who descended upon Jesus and assisted him. No wonder DK says that the words of Jesus “I and My Father are One” refer to Melchizedek as the Father. (See Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 287)

All these details are enough to make a student’s head spin. How do we put all these pieces together so they all make sense? Actually, it is pretty simple. Everything makes sense when we consider this scenario:

The mortal Melchizedek from the days of Abraham, who had a mother and father, was an incarnation of the entity who currently holds the position of the Christ. Even Abraham recognized him as greater than himself.

Melchizedek then returned at the baptism of Jesus and entered into him and assisted him for three years.

But, the overshadowing of Jesus was not a one-time event as it has happened numerous times, including at the time of Melchizedek’s mortal life.

Sanat Kumara could not take off 600 years from his position as the head of the Council Chamber at Shamballa to incarnate as Melchizedek so, instead, he overshadowed him and assisted him from a distance. Melchizedek and Sanat Kumara were thus one just as Jesus and Christ/ Melchizedek were one.

This Sanat Kumara, who was without father and mother, assisted Melchizedek in the days of Abraham as well as in the days of Jesus.

This explanation is far from orthodox, but seeing it from this vision causes all the pieces to fall into place and make sense.

May true seekers contemplate and receive soul confirmation or themselves.

 “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (the disciples); that they may be one, even as we are one.” Jesus, John 17:22

April 18, 2026

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Service

Joseph Dewey

7/11/99

Service

Our next quality for the disciple to possess is:

(19) Service before personal growth.

The Question:

Why is this such an important quality? To the disciple approaching the path of service it may seem that personal growth will be sacrificed, but is this the case? What are the personal benefits of unselfish service?

For the beginning seeker personal growth is number one, but as one proceeds upon the path something else comes to the forefront. Service to humanity is seen as much more important than the progression of the tiny self.

The average seeker may think that this is an obvious quality and that the majority of seekers endorse this principle. They may in word, but few are able to carry out this principle in deed.

Why?

Because we all have an innate desire to make as much spiritual progress as possible. In fact when one first enters upon the path it is sometimes difficult to think or be concerned with anything else. The aspirant desires to climb and learn and progress with almost an obsession at times. He may be happy to rub shoulders with other seekers and share knowledge to a degree, but to serve others at the expense of his learning and progression is often far from his mind.

The Ancient of Days who is the voice for the Planetary Logos set the example for us.

He is a disciple or the Solar Logos and instead of staying in His aura and making further progress in direct learning He sacrificed himself and came to this little unimportant planet to become a Father to developing humanity and guide them until they enter the Kingdom of God.

The Brotherhood teaches thus:

“He turned His back on the Sun and became a Sun to the lesser lives.”

Alice A. Bailey words it well saying this about the Ancient of Days, Sanat Kumara.

“Under this Law of Sacrifice, Sanat Kumara (to express the idea in occult terms) “must turn His back upon the Central Spiritual Sun, and with the light of His Countenance irradiate the path of the prisoners of the planet.” He sentences Himself to stay for as long as may be needed, “acting as the Sun and light of the planet until the Day be with us and the night of pralaya descends upon His finished task.” Thus and only thus can the light of the Central Spiritual Sun begin to penetrate the dark places of the Earth; when this happens all “shadows disappear”-an occult reference to the all-embracing radiance of the Monad as it absorbs both its reflection, the soul, and its shadow, the personality.

“The initiate, on his tiny scale, achieves a paralleling expression of the Law of Sacrifice; he eventually turns his back upon the courts of Shamballa and upon the Way of the Higher Evolution as he retains his contact with the Earth and works as a Member of the Hierarchy for the extension of the will-to-good among men, and therefore among all the lesser evolutions.”

While it is true that we do concretize much of our learning through service, there is also substantial sacrifice involved.

Keep in mind here that even though we are leaving the age of sacrifice (Pisces) and going into the age of service (Aquarius) that we do not leave sacrifice behind. Instead, we take with us the usable fulfilling aspects of it. In this age sacrifice will be seen more as a payment for goods that will be received in the near future.

The servant disciple may have to go long periods where he has no direct contact with a teacher who will feed him with higher knowledge. He may have no time to read books, learn new skills, attend interesting classes and seminars. The work he is given to do may take close to 100% of his time for some period.

So why do all the great lives on down to human disciples make great sacrifices to serve?

The answer is that service is not a sacrifice as it is defined by ordinary humanity. Instead it is a form a payment that must be made to insure the next great step in the disciple’s progression.

The principle is this. The progression of aspiring entities goes through cycles of learning/receiving followed by service/teaching. After a person finishes a cycle of learning/receiving served by one greater than himself the time comes for him to follow the example of his teacher and move into a cycle of service/teaching. Even if the disciple is dragging his feet and sluggish about changing his mode he is eventually forced into service.

And what is this force?

It is this. When the cycle of learning/receiving and being served is completed his progression comes to a standstill. He may gain facts and knowledge after the cycle and have the illusion of progression, but he comes to realize that the law is that real progression in usable learning cannot continue until he takes what he has gained in the learning cycle and gives it out freely to others who are seeking as he once did in the past. This law of cycles literally forces the disciple to make a decision that takes him into a period of service.

The cycles of giving and receiving will vary. For the beginner they will be short, but as the disciple evolves he enters long and longer cycles. The Ancient of Days has been on this planet in the service mode for over 23 million years (and took human form 18 million years ago) and is committed to stay until “the last weary pilgrim finds his way home.”

After His work is done He will then turn his face toward the sun or Solar Logos and become a student again and go through another long cycle of learning/receiving.

How do we know which cycle we are in? The average person goes through several such cycles in one lifetime and must tune into his inner self and sense the sending or receiving mode. If he feels a passion to teach that is a clue he is in the sending mode, but if he feels a passion to learn that is an indication he is in the receiving mode. If he seems to be drifting with no such passion he is probably between cycles. In this case he must follow the highest he knows and the correct passion will soon come.

We have one more quality to discuss which is:

(20) The acceptance and understanding of freedom.

Notice that we do not just list this quality as freedom, but “the acceptance and understanding of freedom.”

One may ask: “Doesn’t everyone accept freedom?”

No they do not. Freedom is actually a difficult principle to accept and the lesser lives are happy to give most of theirs away for a bowl of porridge.

Even though this is listed last, it is perhaps the defining principle of discipleship. The basic distinction between the light and dark brotherhoods lies in the execution of the principle of freedom.

One of the problems with these controversial issues is that both sides always think they are promoting the highest and best freedom. The truth is there is much illusion associated with freedom and it always manifests on one side of the argument and often appears on both sides.

Glenys spoke wisely when she said: “The attitude seems to be ‘we believe in freedom for all as long as it is our definition of freedom that we’re talking about.”

Let’s take abortion for instance. The conservatives are against it in the name of freedom for the unborn and the liberals support it in the name of freedom for the born.

If one is unbiased he will see the virtues of both arguments but few seem to be objective here.

We are going to explore this important principle in more detail. Question: If both sides of the fence have their arguments for freedom how does one decide which decision to make or which side to take?

Let us take an example. The State decides to increase taxes of the people without their consent and give the money to retired people.

The results are that the people taxed have less freedom, but the retired people have more freedom.

Since one group of people are being given more freedom is the basic principle of freedom being followed here? If not, why?

Outside or Inside?

Chris makes this comment :

“If a string is plucked at a single point, it produces a fundamental vibration. It does not produce harmonics or overtones unless there is further outside interference to the string.”

God is not the plucking of the string, but is in the string, or wavelength and adjusts the vibration by the power of decision. The infinite number of wavelengths are occupied by intelligence just as our bodies have intelligence in them (us). As the lives within the physical bodies (which are also made of wavelengths) produce harmonics and overtones so do all lives on all levels evolve through the small and great vibrating wavelengths.

The reflections of the One Great Life do all the building in the universe with their developing intelligence. The One God experiences through them and thus savors all experiences within the realm of possibility.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives (Like this One) in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE