stanza 4, sloka 6

STANZA IV.
6. Then the second seven, who are the Lipika, produced by the three. The rejected son is one. The “Son-suns” are countless.

 

 

“Mr. A. Keightley:  Sloka 6 continued, etc. “The rejected Son is One, the ‘Son-Suns’ are countless.”

 
Question 4. Is this sentence to be understood in the light of the explanations given on page 99 (c)? And if so, why is the “Rejected One” mentioned again here in connection with the “Second Seven”?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  I have been reading the whole page, and I don’t know what you mean. Where do I speak of the second seven? Unless it is the planets that you mean, in which case it would not be the second seven, it would be the seventy-seventh seven, because they are on the material plane.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  It is in this stanza. The stanza speaks of the second seven, and then goes on in the next sentence to speak of the “Rejected One”, and you have been speaking about the “Rejected One” in an earlier part of the stanza.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  But you forget I have been skipping an innumerable number of times not only lines, but whole stanzas. You know perfectly well I have given you only about twelve in the first and about 42 in the second.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  The thing is to find out whether there has been a gap there.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Certainly you will find gaps. I just try to explain as much as I can. It says there the Son is one and the “Sons-Suns” are many. It does not mean our Sun. It means the Spiritual Sun. You read it there.

 
Mr. A. Keightley:  Is the Spiritual Sun also the Rejected One?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  No, no, no. I say here it is said somewhere there that the Son and “Son-Suns” are countless.

 
Mr. A. Keightley:  It is the “Rejected One”.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  But it is this “Rejected One”; they are not the “Son-Suns”. I don’t call the planets the “Son-Suns”. I speak in general. The Spiritual Sun is one, but the “Son-Suns” are countless, and it does not refer at all to the planets.

 
Mr. A. Keightley:  Then has not it an equal application to the planets as well?

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  It may be something like that, but they are not any more suns now. They were suns. In other places I speak about this. I have read it very well.

 
Mr. B. Keightley:  It was in the stanza, that quotation; that is what puzzled me about it.

 
Mme. Blavatsky:  Oh yes. You will be puzzled more than once, you know.”

 
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