stanza 6, sloka 4

Stanza VI
4. He builds them in the likeness of older wheels, placing them on the Imperishable Centres.
How does Fohat build them? He collects the fiery dust. He makes balls of fire, runs through them, and round them, infusing life thereinto, then sets them into motion; some one way, some the other way. They are cold, he makes them hot. They are dry, he makes them moist. They shine, he fans and cools them. Thus acts Fohat from one twilight to the other, during Seven Eternities.”


“Mr. Old:  But it was reading the sentence where you tried to explain what the “Laya centres” was.  You said it is not any point at all, but a condition, and therefore you qualified it with the idea opposed to the conditionless.  I quote the passage.

Mme. Blavatsky:  I must say I had too many editors for it. Now, I have remarked a mistake today, that it is said there “it is thrown into the Laya.” You cannot throw anything into the Laya; I ought to have said “onto” the Laya – around the Laya, you understand. There are many such things that there may be.

I am not English and I do not perceive immediately the mistake; and afterwards when I read it with a little more attention, I see there is something which might have been expressed better.

You know very well under what difficult conditions I wrote this book. I asked two or three there and they helped me; they had to type it out. You had better put a mark for the second edition, “onto” and not “into”.

Mr. Old:  We shan’t complain so long as it draws forth so much intelligent instruction. Even mistakes give rise to intelligent interest.

Mme. Blavatsky:  My dear ladies and gentlemen, if I knew English, I would hold meetings. I have not got the talent for the gab. If I could only put into Olcott’s head that which I know, or have his eloquence (Because he speaks beautifully), I could do something.

Mr. B. Keightley:  You might take each chapter of The Secret Doctrine as it stands and make a volume of it, and not go further than explain the things you say in good English.

Question 6. In what sense are the seven sons of Fohat also his seven brothers (page 145)?

Mme. Blavatsky:  There we come to a most metaphysical thing; that is a thing I want to remember well, now.

I will tell you better than that, that the sons of Fohat are not only his brothers; they are his aunts, his grandmothers, his mothers-in-law, everything, because I am going to prove to you what it is; why they use this phraseology in the Oriental metaphor, in the Oriental philosophy.

In that sense they were sons, brothers, fathers, mothers, etc., only in our evanescent and personal states on this Earth and plane. In our origin we are all one essence, therefore at once fathers, mothers, sons, brothers, what you like. Thus we find in Indian, Egyptian, and other cosmogonies that wives of gods, such as Isis and Aditi and others, called their mothers and daughters.

Take the Egyptian cosmogony, or pantheon; you will see that Isis is called the Mother of Horus, the wife; she is the mother of Osiris, the wife and sister and everything. That is just the reason why, because they are all and everything.

You understand it is only on this plane that we assume personalities and play our parts in this world of Maya and become something to somebody else; there we are all one.

Mr. Old:  But don’t you think when you use a qualificative term like “sons”, you immediately set this said Fohat in relation to some other part of itself?

Mme. Blavatsky:  Most assuredly; and I will give you the explanation. I have given you a rather lengthy thing about Fohat.”

H. P. Blavatsky

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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