stanza 4, slokas 1-5

STANZA IV
1. . . . Listen, ye Sons of the Earth, to your instructors—the Sons of the Fire. Learn, there is neither first nor last, for all is one : number issued from no number.
2. Learn what we who descend from the Primordial Seven, we who are born from the Primordial Flame, have learnt from our fathers. . . .
3. From the effulgency of light—the ray of the ever-darkness—sprung in space the re-awakened energies ; the one from the egg, the six, and the five. Then the three, the one, the four, the one, the five—the twice seven the sum total. And these are the essences, the flames, the elements, the builders, the numbers, the arupa, the rupa, and the force of Divine Man—the sum total. And from the Divine Man emanated the forms, the sparks, the sacred animals, and the messengers of the sacred fathers within the holy four.
4. This was the army of the voice—the divine mother of the seven. The sparks of the seven are subject to, and the servants of, the first, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, and the seventh of the seven. These “sparks” are called spheres, triangles, cubes, lines, and modellers; for thus stands the Eternal Nidana—the Oeaohoo, which is:
5. “Darkness” the boundless, or the no-number, Adi-Nidana Svâbhâvat:—
I. The Adi-Sanat, the number, for he is one.
II. The voice of the Lord Svâbhâvat, the numbers, for he is one and nine.
III. The “ formless square.”
And these three enclosed within the O are the sacred four; and the ten are the arupa universe. Then come the “ sons,” the seven fighters, the one, the eighth left out, and his breath which is the light-maker.

 

 
“Mr. A. Keightley:  Now 10. What is the meaning of “The Sparks of the Seven are subject to and servants of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, and the seventh of the Seven”? Page 95 {93}.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  I have explained it to you. The sparks mean here sparks or monads or the higher intelligences as much as the human sparks, or monads, or the higher intelligences. It means just as I told you. It can be applied on the plane below or the plane above; it relates to the circle and the digits I have just shown you.

 
It is the equivalent to saying in mathematical astronomy that the figures 31415 are all subject to the circumference and diameter, as I told you, of a circle. Think over it and I suppose you will see it. It is no use going over the old ground again; they are all subjects, that is what it means.

 
And in the same way, all these hierarchies are subject to the circle which represents the symbol I. It is the symbol I of the absolute infinite circle; that is all.

 
Mr. A. Keightley:  Now 11. Why is Sarasvati (The Goddess of Speech) also called the goddess of Esoteric Wisdom? If the explanation lies in the meaning of the word Logos, why is there a distinction between the immovable mind and movable speech? Is mind equivalent to Mahat, or to the higher or lower Manas?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Because and for the same reason that Logos or word is called incarnate wisdom in the Holy Bible, in the Book of God. “Light shining in darkness”, also. Is it so?

 
The distinction lies between the immovable or eternal immutable all, and the movable speech or Logos, that is to say, the periodical and the manifested.

 
The Logos is not an eternal, only a [ ]. It becomes manifested only in the Manvantaric periods periodically; therefore it cannot be referred to as the one eternal or the immovable, for he is very much moveable, but moves from the subjective and the unknown.

 
Mind is an abstraction. It can relate to the Universal or the individual Mind, to the Mahat or the higher human Manas, because that which is desire or instinctive impulse in the lower Manas becomes thought in the higher, and consciousness. The former finds expression in acts, the latter in words. Do you understand?

 
Therefore, even in your laws the assault is more severely punished than mere thought. That is a very unpoetical simile, but still it will open your eyes.

 
This is again food for thought to the wise. Do you understand the difference? It is a perfect impossibility not to. You find it in the fourth gospel in the first chapters, which are Platonic and esoteric.

 
Mr. A. Keightley:  The does this mean that there is a further meaning to that allegory that you put there, to speech and mind going and having a dispute?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Yes, it is from Anugita again. Certainly it is, and the Brahmin gave the definition and shows what it is, and he reconciles them.

 
Mr. A. Keightley:  He says neither is superior to the other; but speech having been uttered, and going and asking the question was rare also.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  And he snubs very prettily the speech.

 
Mr. A. Keightley:  And then he talks about moveable and immovable speech.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Yes, it is purely esoteric, all this. Now 12.”

 
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