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 chemical idea of the one thing is entirely – and we understand it to be entirely – limited to this point. They do not know what happens to the thing afterwards, and that is what I am trying to get some idea of, what occultism says about it, because their science simply folds her hands and says, “I don’t know.”

 
The President:  Isn’t it just as much a death of the molecule of iron as the losing of the physical body is called death on the physical plane? The remaining principles being there all the same, but minus the body. So the molecule is the earthly principle.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  Iron is not itself properly and occultly an element at all. It does not deserve the name.

 
The President:  It is an element in one sense. It is not an element in the sense in which we speak of the four or seven elements. It is an element in the sense in which Crookes uses it. It is an element in the scientific sense – formed of the protyle or the undifferentiated matter. In that sense it is an element because it has certain definite properties.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  It is the elemental principle; therefore it is that they do not go beyond that. If you told me at once that they analyze or break up any molecule of iron and that it becomes two other things, that you could call elements, I would say:  very well then, we have only to give a name, and then you will have something to speak about. But if they come and tell me it becomes nothing, why, go to bed!

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  So far, science has not succeeded in breaking up the molecule of iron.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Then if it has not succeeded, why then does it speak about it? They don’t do so, and they speak of what could be done.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  Crookes says there is a probability that some day or another they will succeed.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Then we will talk of it. So far they have not done it, and why should we talk about it?

 
Mr. Kingsland:  Occultism says it is possible to do it; we want to know what will become of it when it is done?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  It won’t be one principle; it will be several principles. It passes from the plane of objectivity to the plane of subjectivity.”

 
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