5. DARKNESS ALONE FILLED THE BOUNDLESS ALL, FOR FATHER, MOTHER AND SON WERE ONCE MORE ONE, AND THE SON HAD NOT AWAKENED YET FOR THE NEW WHEEL, AND HIS PILGRIMAGE THEREON.
6. THE SEVEN SUBLIME LORDS AND THE SEVEN TRUTHS HAD CEASED TO BE, AND THE UNIVERSE, THE SON OF NECESSITY, WAS IMMERSED IN PARANISHPANNA, TO BE OUTBREATHED BY THAT WHICH IS AND YET IS NOT. NAUGHT WAS.
7. THE CAUSES OF EXISTENCE HAD BEEN DONE AWAY WITH; THE VISIBLE THAT WAS, AND THE INVISIBLE THAT IS, RESTED IN ETERNAL NON-BEING — THE ONE BEING.
8. ALONE THE ONE FORM OF EXISTENCE STRETCHED BOUNDLESS, INFINITE, CAUSELESS, IN DREAMLESS SLEEP; AND LIFE PULSATED UNCONSCIOUS IN UNIVERSAL SPACE, THROUGHOUT THAT ALL-PRESENCE WHICH IS SENSED BY THE OPENED EYE OF THE DANGMA.
“Mr. A. Keightley: Then we pass on to Sloka 6. “The universe, the Son of Necessity, was immersed in Paranishpanna. The causes of existence had been done away with.”
If the “causes of existence” had been done away with, how did they come into existence again? For you state in the Commentary that the chief cause of existence is the desire to exist, and it has been just stated that the Universe is the Son of Necessity.
Mme. Blavatsky: What a contradiction indeed; it is extraordinary. “The causes of existence had been done away with” refers to the past Manvantaras of age of Brahma, but the cause which makes the wheel of Time and Space run into eternity, which is out of time and space (now try and understand me) has nothing to do with finite cause or that which we call Nidanas. What has one thing to do with the other?
This is a little bit of criticism which I could not understand. I received it very humbly with very great gratitude, but I thought to myself of the person who wrote it. I do not think he will ever be a rival Schopenhauer (German philosopher), or anyone like him. That was my intimate opinion. What is contradictory there?
Mr. A. Keightley: Nobody had said it is a contradiction.
Mme. Blavatsky: But read it, if you please. It is a very great contradiction. I want all of you to remark that.
Mr. A. Keightley: It is the contrast here. If the causes of existence had been done away with, how did they come into existence again? And there you answer that by saying that one Manvantara had disappeared into Pralaya and that the cause which led the previous Manvantara to exist is behind the limits of space and time, and therefore causes another Manvantara to come into being.
Mme. Blavatsky: Yes, because that cause is immutable and has nothing to do with the causes of this terrestrial plane produced by finite and conditioned being, and we say that cause is immutable and it can be in no sense a finite consciousness or desire. It postulates and absurdity to give to the Absolute desire or consciousness or necessity.
If you don’t understand it, read it, and you will see it is so. I say it is no more natural to predicate of the Absolute, or to charge the Absolute with desire or thought, than it is to say, for instance – how did I put it here – than the striking of the hours in a clock proves the desire of the clock to strike.
Now you say: “Yes, the clock is wound up.” I say the universe is wound up. The only difference is that this one is wound up in space and time, and the other is out of space and time, that is to say, in eternity; therefore, it is one and the same thing.
Whoever has something to say against it, let him come and say it, and I will see what objection there is. There I am charged positively with the most absurd idea, as if the Absolute could have any desire or feel necessity, is not it so? Read it all over again.”
H. P. Blavatsky