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 come to section b, question 6.
Mr. B. Keightley: I think you can pass over those; they have been practically dealt with. We have just been discussing them. Pass on to the next one.
Mme. Blavatsky: Oh no, he has not done. There is a, b, c, and d of that.
Mr. A. Keightley: (Reads) “To conceive of either a necessity or a desire in the Absolute is to destroy the Absoluteness of the Absolute, or to reduce it to the ‘blind will’ of Schopenhauer.”
Mme. Blavatsky: Well, I have answered that question. It is not at all to reduce it to the ‘blind will’ of Schopenhauer, but the “blind will”, as far as I can express it, it is expressed perfectly; that which appears to us as “blind will” is absolute – well, not intelligence; but yes, absolute intelligence, absolute wisdom or knowledge, or absolute consciousness.
Mr. A. Keightley: (b) “If this desire is attributed to the Logos, it can only exist subsequent to the emergence of the Logos.”
Mme. Blavatsky: I say no desire is attributed to Logos number one. That is what I said to you before.
Mr. A. Keightley: (c) “If it is said to exist as a latent potentiality in the Logos during Pralaya, then there must be a cause that makes it pass from latency into activity. Whence then the impulse to manifestation?”
Mme. Blavatsky: That is the old original question. We come again to the first principles. It is old Fawcett, who wants absolutely that someone should leave their visiting card at the door of Parabrahm and ask him what impels him to such capers, to create the universe. How can we answer that? It is a perfect impossibility.
The potentiality, it says, if it exists in the Logos, it exists in everything. It exist in you, it exist in this fan and everywhere.
Once we have approached the Pralaya – well, certainly we are in it, and it exists everywhere – but why should “the impulse” be absolutely limited to the Logos?
There is a thing again which shows he has not been thinking on these Eastern lines.
Mr. A. Keightley: “The visible that was, and the invisible that is, rested in eternal non-being, the One Being.” Question 7. What is the meaning of the expression, “the visible that was, and the invisible that is?”
Mme. Blavatsky: “The visible that was” means the universe of the past Manvantara, which had dropped into eternity and was no more. Very well; and “the invisible that is” means the eternal, present and ever invisible deity. It is abstract space, absolute Sat, and then we go over again what we have been talking about. It is very simple that; I don’t see why the question is asked.
Mr. B. Keightley: It was really to find out from what point of view you were speaking in that Sloka, whether of the past Manvantara or not.
Mme. Blavatsky: Certainly, the past Manvantara. “The visible that was”, was no more, “and the visible that is” in this is certainly that which was, and that which will be in everything.”
H. P. Blavatsky