stanza 1, slokas 3-4

STANZA I.
3. UNIVERSAL MIND WAS NOT, FOR THERE WERE NO AH-HI TO CONTAIN IT.
4. THE SEVEN WAYS TO BLISS WERE NOT. THE GREAT CAUSES OF MISERY WERE NOT, FOR THERE WAS NO ONE TO PRODUCE AND GET ENSNARED BY THEM.

 

“Mr. Kingsland:  When you say it was not, you mean it was not to the absolute.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  I beg your pardon. I say it was not, simply.

 
The President:  If you can say it was, that would be taking a very one-sided view of what we mean by Sat. That would be equivalent to saying that Sat was being.

 
Mr. Mead:  I think the question hangs on the time referred to altogether. It involves the question of time, and no time then existed.

 
The President:  I think it goes even farther back than that. I think it is all inherent in the meaning we attribute to the word Sat, which is as I say both being and non-being.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  I don’t think there is any confusion in our minds, it is in the terms.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Just read this over again, will you?

 
Mr. A. Keightley:  “What are the higher powers which conditions the Ah-hi?”

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  No, no, not that. I mean the thing to which Mr. Kingsland takes objection.

 
(Mr. A. Keightley then read the passage: Secret Doctrine, Stanza 1, Sloka 3 and commentary.)

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  It ought to be higher “power” not “powers”.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  First you say it was, and then it was not.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  I didn’t say that. The Absolute must be always, it is a perfect impossibility for it to be otherwise. The Absolute is a thing which must be taken tacitly.

 
If there is no such thing as absolute something and not something, an absolute unknown or unknowable, then it must always have been and always be. It is impossible it should go out of the universe. This is a tacit assumption.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  But if you take it as written there, “universal mind was not”, it treats of it as if it were a manifestation, but mind itself is not a manifestation.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Mind is a manifestation, universal mind is not the same thing; let us call it an ideation.

 
Cosmic ideation was as soon as the Ah-hi appeared and continues throughout the Manvantara.

 
But this is universal absolute ideation, and is always and cannot get out of the universe, whereas cosmic ideation was not and the only mistake is that I did not put cosmic.

 
But why should I? I cannot put things out of my own head; I just translate as it is. There are many, many verses that come between, that I have left out altogether. It may be this would be better.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  Also, I think the term cosmos is used almost throughout The Secret Doctrine in reference chiefly to the solar manifested universe, and is not taken in the sense as referring to that which precedes.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  I think we shall only deal with “cosmos” as our solar system. I think I say it in some place there, at least I so remember. I have a recollection that I have been writing about it.

 
Mr. A Keightley:  I think I see Kingsland’s objection, he means to say this expression is liable to cause a certain amount of confusion because, just as Madame Blavatsky has now expressed it, the universal mind always is and never can be.

 
But that which is identical with what we call cosmic ideation was not, because the Ah-hi were not there to perceive it.

 
Mme. Blavatsky: And, as there was no manifestation, it was an impotentiality.”

 

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