STANZA I.
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: Well, it is divided into two or three different headings (reads again).
Mme. Blavatsky: Well I don’t find “the blind will” of Schopenhauer so very stupid; it is a thousand times more philosophical than the philosophy of the ruler who created man. Doesn’t it accuse me of contradiction? Well, not me, but the Sloka there.
Mr. B. Keightley: No, I don’t think so. It seems to me to ask for an explanation.
Mme. Blavatsky: How can I explain why, when I am sitting down. I am not standing up? What can I say?
Mr. A. Keightley: It practically reduces the whole matter to “what is the cause in the Absolute of differentiation?”
Mr. B. Keightley: The difficulty is you can not postulate –
Mme. Blavatsky: Ah! It is a very easy question to ask, you understand. I know you don’t ask, but many ask. Fawcett asked it. He wants to ask what is the cause that propels or compels Parabrahm to create. Parabrahm is not a cause. It is not even the Absolute, as I say, but Absoluteness.
Now, how can we know the cause that propels Parabrahm to create? That which is behind all the veil of matter is incomprehensible, and no finite intellect can conceive it.
Well, we can perhaps have a slight conception in our hazy ideas that there may be such a thing, but we don’t understand it, and to come and ask for the cause is perfectly ridiculous.
Look at what Subba Row says in his lectures; it is perfectly true. He says that even the Logos – the first, not the second – cannot see Parabrahm. He sees simply the veil of matter, Mulaprakriti. So you see what it must be; then how can you know the cause, when we have no idea of Mulaprakriti, even?
It is simply a conception, and it is just as Buddha said: “What is Nirvana? It is nowhere.” “Then it is not, it does not exist?” “No, it does not exist, but it is.” Well, just the same with that.
Nirvana itself is a Maya. You will come always to the old question, unless you can conceive of such a thing as an eternal, endless, perpetual motion machine which you call the universe – though properly we cannot call it a machine. We cannot call that a machine which is unlimited, limitless; but if you can conceive even of such an idea, you will never conceive of the Absolute in the way you do.
You just try to imagine space in nature without giving it limits or form or anything. Understand my idea, and just try to imagine two forces: the centripetal and the centrifugal, which periodically must emanate from IT. Just as the clock must strike so this strikes and emanates periodically. When it has done striking it goes to sleep again. Try to imagine that and then you will have perhaps a notion.
I tell you what was in my conception in the beginning. I had the perpetual motion machine. Mind you, it is not that I say, and certainly not that I would go and advocate, the automatic creation of the materialists; never. But it is for the purpose of giving a shape to it, and to allow people to conceive of it, because otherwise, you cannot.
Mr. B. Keightley: It is a peg to hang your mind upon.
Mme. Blavatsky: Yes, you must have a peg; therefore, imagine a perpetual motion machine which has no form and which is endless. Well, you can, with a little imagination, have these two forces which appear and disappear periodically.”
H. P. Blavatsky
The Mark Of God: Understanding Your "I AM Presence" 