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:  Then you say something in the commentary, speaking about the “Radiant Essence”: “from an astronomical point of view”, etc. (reads from The Secret Doctrine, page 67, b.)

 
Question 6.  “Is the Radiant Essence, Milky Way, or World-Stuff, resolvable into stars or atoms, or is it non atomic?”

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  In its precosmic state, of course, the Radiant Essence is non-atomic, if by atoms you mean molecules or compound units, for where have you seen a real atom that you could show me? An atom is simply a mathematical point with regard to matter. It is what we call in occultism a mathematical point.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  It has position, it has location.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  It has location, certainly, but not a location as you understand it, because a real atom cannot be on this plane.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  That I understand.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Then how can you ask? Just when you go on to this plane, you must go outside time and space.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  An atom cannot, but a molecule can.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  What do you chemists call an atom?

 
Mr. Kingsland:  This ought to be “resolvable into stars or molecules”, not “into atoms”. Now if you read it in that sense it will be all right.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  Then: “is it resolvable into stars or molecules, or is it non-molecular?”

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Most assuredly, because this world stuff from one plane to another goes and forms everything that you see, all the stars and all the worlds, and so on.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  Then when may it be said to be sufficiently differentiated to call it molecular?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Molecular, as you call it, is only simply on this our globe; it is not even on the other globes of our planetary chain, it does not exist in the same way. The others are already on another plane.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  Is not the ether, for instance, molecular?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  I don’t know. It maybe molecular; yes, in its lower or lowest strata, then it may be, but the ether of science, that science suspects, is the grossest manifestation of Akasa. When it penetrates something, or forms something, it may be molecular, because it takes on the shape of it.

 
Now, remember that ether is in every blessed thing that you can think of; there is not a thing in the universe where ether is not. Therefore, we say it takes a shape, but not outside of the gross matter, which is also that ether, only crystallized.

 
What are we, what is matter, but crystallized ether? This is what matter is.

 
Mr. Kingsland:  Then the ether is on its way to a lower differentiation, on its way from Akasa, and it will become ether in this Manvantara or a future Manvantara – what we now know as the physical atoms.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Most assuredly that is so, but not in this Manvantara.”

 
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