stanza, slokas 1-2

STANZA I.
1. THE ETERNAL PARENT WRAPPED IN HER EVER INVISIBLE ROBES HAD SLUMBERED ONCE AGAIN FOR SEVEN ETERNITIES.
2. TIME WAS NOT, FOR IT LAY ASLEEP IN THE INFINITE BOSOM OF DURATION.

 

“Mr. _____:  Seeing that the “Gods” have a beginning and an ending, they must exist in time.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  They exist in space and time. Duration cannot be divided.

 
The President:  But the word succession applies to them.

 
Mr. _____:  But is there not a consciousness which can take cognizance of it?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Certainly the universal mind can.

 
Mr. _____:  Then the idea exists there.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  I don’t think so. In the Absolute there cannot exist the same division of time as in our conception. I would say there is a consciousness there, but I don’t think time has got anything to do with it.

 
Can you say that the sea has also a conception of time in its rhythmical striking of the shore, in the movement of the waves, and so on?

 
To my mind, the Absolute can have no consciousness, or not a consciousness such as we have here, and that is why they speak as they do about the Absolute.

 
It has neither consciousness, nor desire, nor wish, nor thought, because it is absolute thought, absolute desire, absolute all – just what the Daily News laughed at from not understanding the true definition of the Absolute.

 
They said — I don’t remember how the phrase went there in the Daily News, do you, Miss_____?

 
Miss _____:  I do not.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  They laughed at “Be-ness” and yet there is no other way in this world of translating the word Sat but by Be-ness, because it is not existence, for existence implies something that feels that it exist.

 
Existence must give you the idea of having a beginning, a creation, and an end, it is just what Gautama Buddha says about Nirvana – or if not Buddha, it is {Nagasena?}. He says Nirvana does not exist, but it is.

 
Try to make what you can of this Oriental metaphysical conception. Still it is there, it exists and all the philosophy is built on it.

 
Mr. Ellis:  The Hebrew Jehovah was “I am”.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  He calls himself so. So is the Ormuz{d} of the Persians, too.

 

Every one of us is {Ehyeh asher Ehyeh?} the “I am that I am”.

 

H. P. Blavatsky

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s