stanza 3, slokas 2-4

STANZA III.
2. The vibration sweeps along, touching with its swift wing the whole universe and the germ that dwelleth in darkness: the darkness that breathes over the slumbering waters of life. . .
3. Darkness radiates light, and light drops one solitary ray into the mother-deep. The ray shoots through the virgin egg the ray causes the eternal egg to thrill, and drop the non- eternal germ, which condenses into the world-egg.
4. Then the three fall into the four. The radiant essence becomes seven inside, seven outside. The luminous egg, which in itself is three, curdles and spreads in milk-white curds throughout the depths of mother, the root that grows in the depths of the ocean of life.

 
“Mr. B. Keightley:  The first Sloka was this (reads again from The Secret Doctrine, Stanza 3, Sloka 2).

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Well, all this is figurative.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  And the whole Sloka refers to the period before there is any manifestation whatever.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Most assuredly. It refers to the abstract things, to the potentiality of that which will be.

 
Space is eternal, as is repeated many times in The Secret Doctrine. Space is something that will be whether there is a manifested universe or an unmanifested universe.  This space is synonymous with the universe. It is synonymous with the “waters of space”, with everything, with eternal darkness and with Parabrahm, so to say.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  Then this vibration is before even differentiation begins.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  There I am just telling you. You read this second question.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  Question 2. Is not the germ here, the point in the circle, the first Logos?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Precisely, and the central point being everywhere, the circumference of the circle is nowhere. This means that all such expressions are simply figures of speech. I think this proves it.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  Is that all you have?

 
The President:  I think one sometimes does not quite see how apparently fresh terms are to be referred back to the old ones; but I think that explains it.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  It seems to be jumping back a little bit. Whereas we began to be catching on to differentiation, now we seem to go back.

 
The President:  The first Stanza is negative and the second positive, in a sense. Almost the whole of the first Stanza says: “There was not this, there was not that, nor the other. It is simply a description of the nothingness or the all”; whereas with the second Stanza we begin at once with that which precedes differentiation, the first movements as it were.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  Speaking of that which will be positive, in fact.

 
The President:  Is not it rather that?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Most assuredly. Perfectly so, just so, that is what I have been saying.

 
The President:  But it really refers to the same points.”

 
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