Alpha: See, the point is when we are talking about hierarchies we are talking about Creative Hierarchies, the twelve that are listed. And now you are talking about Manasadeva Hierarchies.
Beta: Right. That is what the compilations are ... it is not the twelve Creative Hierarchies ... per se.
Alpha: OK. ... but we are going to be talking about the twelve Creative Hierarchies. Look , let’s just ask ourselves just for a minute. What is a Creative Hierarchy?
Beta: Actually my compilation does deal with that to a certain extent. … I associate the Manasadevas with the Creative Hierarchies and I associate Creative Hierarchies with monads, so they are not the egoic principle. She defines Manasadeva as one of the three higher groups of Agnishvattas. But I think of that as a blind for the first aspect which hasn’t been brought in, the situation with the Manasadevas is that they co-ordinate the Buddhic vehicles; Agnishvattas co-ordinate ahamkara.
Alpha: OK. So Ahamkara is the causal body and Agnishvattas co-ordinate the causal vehicle, and the Manasadevas correlate the buddhic vehicle. And then they could be connected, therefore, with the Hierarchies.
Beta: Right.
Alpha: What co-ordinates the atmic vehicle?
Beta: Well, actually the Manasadevas are on the highest level, related to the abstract mind. The Agnishvattas with the petal substance in the causal body, but the Manasaputras with the causal bodies relationship with the mental unit so that lower antahkarana .... But also the three permanent atoms, more correctly, are a part of the causal body.
Alpha: Ah. Are not the three permanent atoms related to the lunar vehicles. Are you saying that the Manasaputras are involved with the three permanent atoms? Are they, in other words, the permanent atoms? The seventh principle of each of the lower vehicles?
Beta: Right. And it is meant basically to co-ordinate manas. You have basically a triad, standard Vedantic or Hindu triad of Buddhi, Ahamkara and Manas, all part of the antahkarana.
Alpha: This is interesting because it is as if the Buddhi is more the second aspect and Ahamkara is a reflection of the first, because its a unitary kind of thing. … Its like a two, one, three or something.
Beta: That is interesting. I am only beginning to see how they cross each other.
Alpha: Now normally when a person reads about the Solar Angels (and you are also going to distinguish there too), I did think of it all as one, but you distinguish between Manasadevas, Agnishvattas, and Manasaputras, correct?
Beta: Right. I think that the names are used on different levels. Because I think that the Agnishvattas could be considered solar pitris; they are in one sense the four higher groups, so they would be subdivided into solar lords, angels and pitris.
Alpha: Can we get some of the divisions on these.
Gamma: Can I just ask what is the use of these? I mean why do we need Hierarchies?
Beta: I think that it is important to distinguish in the human constitution. DK says that the fourth Creative Hierarchy incarnates through the fourth kingdom. They are distinct, and doesn’t even mention the egoic groups. But there are series of quotes all over the place that distinguish and tie them together. … The fourth Creative Hierarchy incarnates through the human kingdom. But it has to incarnate through the egoic groups before it gets to the kingdom level, which I think of as the lowest level of human nature.
Gamma: We have the human kingdom, and we have the deva kingdom. Where are they in that?
Beta: The human kingdom is usually identified with the fourth Creative Hierarchy. But the fourth Creative Hierarchy are only the monadic essences, or the monadic aspect of the human nature. And the monad is part of a Creative Hierarchy. And the ego is part of an egoic group, or ashram if its conscious. And a personality is called part of a kingdom.
Alpha: OK. That is a very good distinction. The Creative Hierarchies are actually monadic; the egoic aspect of the hierarchy is egoic groups (and ashrams if there is personality conscious of the egoic groups); and the kingdoms themselves are on the level of personality and are working in the three worlds or, third aspect.
Gamma: So the kingdoms are the third aspect, and the second the soul aspect is egoic groups, or the ashrams, and the monadic aspect is the Hierarchical aspect. So how do you relate those three. Do those three belong to the whole Hierarchy, or are they expression of the whole Hierarchy?
Beta: They are the expression of the whole Hierarchy and I think that in solar cycles the monadic Hierarchies are more significant, but they are also significant in the evolution of a Planetary Logos, as a cosmic being, but, well everything is assumed under the Creative Hierarchies by the time ...
Gamma: What is the difference between these groups of monads we have, this monad which comes from here … and the Hierarchies? The Hierarchies are sort of a principle, a monadic principle, or what is it?
Beta: I think the Creative Hierarchies, we have twelve Creative Hierarchies, and they all have beings of various types.
Alpha: They are all monadic.
Beta: And they are all monadic though in nature.
Alpha: And it doesn’t make any difference whether they come from Venus or Jupiter or Vulcan ... or wherever they come from. … They are the monad. This aggregation of monads no matter what their source are the members of this fourth Creative Hierarchy.
Beta: If they are monads they last for three solar systems, throughout the personality expression of the Solar Logos, at least.
Alpha: Ah-ha they last for three solar systems, you mean they last for three solar systems defined as a kind of super individual. In other words with their vehicles, auric eggs …
Beta: Right. As in identity. … If we could identify with our monads then we would have that type of individuation already, it goes down into individualisation, we would have that identity, you know ...
Alpha: Identification, monadic awareness as he calls it. Oceanic, he uses oceanic synthesis, and has four methods of monadic awareness. DINA II again. … something that you may be interested in.
Beta: I know the states of awareness above consciousness ... I associate it with the will, I have collected those.
Alpha: Well they all will factors ...it is just formula number two where he simply deals with … (where is that?) you have seen this diagram?
Beta: I probably didn’t recognise it.
Alpha: Formula two. OK. Page 248, DINA II (and maybe we don’t even need to look at this right now. I am beginning to feel the press of time.) Here it is: “... airy expansion, fiery relations, earthy contact and oceanic synthesis”; four methods of monadic awareness.
Beta: I haven’t seen this. No, I have never seen this. Somehow I missed it.
Alpha: Page 273 in DINA II, four methods: “They are, however, related to or expressions of monadic groupings or universal recognitions, and not of soul consciousness.” So that is what those four are.
Beta: OK. That is wonderful.
Alpha: So we are to the point where we realise that Hierarchies are monadic essentially. Are you also saying that all of them express in three ways?
Beta: Yes. The Creative Hierarchies I associate with the kumaras. The Manasadevas, substituting for the kumaras, are monadic. (I am talking about our Human Hierarchy, the 4th).
Gamma: I would like to ask, there is always this mystery, when you have an aggregation of anything, it is ensouled or animated by something else ... is that when you go from monads to hierarchies, is that the same process? … Do you understand what I am saying?
Alpha: Yeah. Well, in other words, in a sense the entire human group of monads must be ensouled by a being that uses them as a vehicle.
Beta: There is a section in Cosmic Fire ... the Planetary Logos … page 1224, about the seven lower hierarchies. It is basically identical to the large hierarchy tabulation except this includes the shaktis and a symbol for each of the Creative Hierarchies.
Alpha: What is the difference between a shakti and a creative force?
Beta: Umm. I can’t decide whether shaktis are buddhic, mental, cosmic buddhi, cosmic mental or cosmic astral.
Alpha: They are the correspondents of what? Every so-and-so has a shakti. What does it mean? Every male deity has a [feminine counterpart, called a] shakti, yes?
Beta: Right. These are the wives of the seven Rishis, really.
Alpha: Well then they are Pleiadian.
Beta: Right. There are only three listed on the top. … In a way these are like sixth ray, seventh ray, first ray … in a very … ah, there is a great challenge there. This is extremely challenging.
Alpha: It is rather difficult. But, are they not the first ones [earlier tabulation, pages 34-35 Esoteric Astrology] listed similarly?
Beta: No. They are different. They are quite different. Those are in the standard, kundalini shakti, Ichchhashakti shakti, Jnanashakti shakti ....
Alpha: … So the divine lives is supposed to have Parashakti or supreme energy [pages 34-35]. But here it says the sixth cosmic force or shakti. And now, does that correspond with the type of energy that says ‘comes through’ them. [Page 1197]: “It should be remembered that this Hierarchy is literally the sixth ...” “ This first (sixth) Hierarchy has for its type of energy the first aspect of the sixth type of cosmic electricity...” The sixth cosmic force is shakti. Wouldn’t you say that what is listed here is the same a what’s stated here [one reference to the other]?
Epsilon: But we cannot say that shakti are rays, because here they give first ray, and here sixth …
Beta: Right. They are cosmic correspondences to rays, I think.
Alpha: If they are Pleiadian ...
Epsilon: But they are cosmic rays ...
Gamma: It seems we change hierarchy when you become an initiate for example. That is what it says here, the initiates and (inaudible) they aspiring and they are all different hierarchies.
Beta: But we are the initiates … We have to become the triads.
Alpha: Ah-haa. And we won’t. We don’t.
Beta: We can’t because they can’t incarnate physically. It is impossible. They can’t incarnate on the physical plane according to DK.
Alpha: So it is quite possible to be very elevated within one’s own hierarchy, to take the eighth or the ninth initiation, or whatever and still not pass over into the hierarchy above, which has its own series of initiations?
Beta: I think that must be true. It is hard to tell. There may be some type of intervening cycle before we could become triads.
Alpha: Can we define them? These are sort of devic lives, aren’t they, above a certain point? The Lesser Builders, The Greater Builders, The Divine Lives, are these not considered angelic lives?
Beta: That is a great question. I have had difficulty with that for a very long time. I know the five liberated Hierarchies are basically the five kumaras.
Alpha: Are they planetary or solar systemic?
Beta: I think in this case, the thing is they are monadic, they may be solar. They may be the solar aspect of the planetary life.
Alpha: OK. Are you saying then that all these hierarchies are planetarily related, or system wide? See, is this man, as he appears in all schemes, or is this (only) related to our Planetary Logos.
Beta: He says that Capricorn and Aquarius change because its a temporary emphasis, and will change in another world cycle. So that suggests our own planet, on a systemic level, but still our own planet, our own scheme. Yeah.
Alpha: OK. Well, that is a definition right there. Better write down here at the bottom because if it changes in another world cycle for us, these world cycles are not co-ordinated with the world cycles of other groups. So this is related to our planetary economy.
Beta: It certainly does, it seems to relate to the humanity being tested on the third subplane of the astral, because if these five kumaras were put on the astral plane as manas, an emanation of manas, controlling the seven lower hierarchies, they are the sum total of manas.
Alpha: On the cosmic astral plane.
Beta: This would explain kama-manas, and kama-manasic focus on the cosmic astral plane. Or maybe, actually, the cosmic mental plane merged with the cosmic astral.
Alpha: So, in other words, you are saying that the kumaras somehow have their origin – we are talking about planetary kumaras, not divine kumaras?
Beta: This a good question. I think these may be the Divine ones because these represent the Dhyani Buddhas rather than the Dhyani Buddhas [sounds likeà] softras.
Alpha: But by Divine Kumara I mean the Lord of the Planetary Scheme. That is his definition.
Beta: No, these would be local ...
Alpha: It is one of those generic terms. Do we know what the word Kumara actually means?
Beta: I know that there were two or maybe three grades of Kumaras. But, I didn’t know that they were ...
Alpha: ... Divine Manasaputra ... the same thing?
Beta: Right That is incredible. The Divine Kumaras
Delta: Can I back track to a previous part in the conversation with the shaktis? It might be worth while going over each thing more slowly. We will see what everyone thinks, page 395-396 of Cosmic Fire. This repeats the names of the shaktis that are listed in Esoteric Astrology on 34 & 35.
I might as well just read this into the tape and maybe you guys can elaborate on your own impressions of it. The footnote is relevant to the sentence, it says:
“The mystery of the resolution of the six-pointed star, into the five-pointed star. It might be of interest to note the correspondences between these six forces and the "shaktis" of the Hindu philosophy. The Secret Doctrine says that: The Six are the six forces of Nature. See SD, I, 312.
Ø They are types of energy.
Ø They are the dynamic quality or characteristic of a planetary Logos.
Ø They are the life force of a Heavenly Man directed in a certain direction.
Ø These "shaktis" are as follows:–
1. “Parashakti–Literally, the supreme force, energy and radiation in and from substance.”
... which is correlated with Leo in page 35.
2. “Jnanashakti–The force of intellect or mind.”
... which is correlated with Libra.
3. “Ichchhashakti–The power of will, or force in producing manifestation.”
... which is correlated with Capricorn.
4. “Kriyashakti–The force which materialises the ideal. “
... which is correlated with Virgo.
5. “Kundalini shakti–The force which adjusts internal relations to the external.”
... which is correlated with Sagittarius.
6. “Mantrikashakti–The force latent in sound, speech and music. “
... which is correlated with Scorpio.
“These six are synthesised by their Primary, the Seventh. The Secret Doctrine says It is on the Hierarchies and the correct number of these Entities that the mystery of the universe is built.”
Then she gives the numbers ten, six and five ... the ten is —“The line and the circle. The symbol of the Heavenly Men. The six is—“The six-pointed star. The subjective life and the objective form, overshadowed by Spirit.” And five—“ This is the pentagon, the Makara, the five pointed Star.”
This seems to be in a part that isn’t put in with the rest of the stuff on the Hierarchies and the shaktis. And it seems to be an important part.
Beta: ... there are some oddities, and I don’t think this is going to be solved immediately. It’s much too complicated, but on 1224 again, you can see the seventh shakti may be the one that he mentions as synthesising the lower six. It’s on the second plane, there are the burning sons of desire interestingly, and its symbol is the seven-colored spheres, each with a central fire, which could represent the six lower shaktis in itself. But the oddity on the far right is, the first shakti is spelled with a lower case ‘s’, the seventh is higher case. … On the first one you have Cosmic Force above a lower case shakti, all capitalised, and this is the only Force of the four mentioned here that is capitalised. … I don’t know. Sometime I think ... (opinions on importance of capitalization).
Epsilon: I found a definition of Kumara, if interested. the origin of the word and so on:
Kumara literally translated means youth ... from a compound of ‘Ku’—with difficulty, and ‘mara’—mortal. From the verbal root ‘mari’—to die. But the Kumaras mystically interpreted prefer to a class of Dyhan Chohans. They are pure spiritual beings of a passive nature ... youth of the cosmos who are destined to pass through all experiences in the realms of matter hence to become mortal with difficulty in order to attain active self conscious divinity ... for, where there is no struggle there is no merit. And then they say there are three ... from another point of view a man may be said to be a Kumara in his purely spiritual part, an Agnishvattas in his Buddhic-Manasic, a Manasaputra in his purely Manasic part. And in the other dictionary they equate Kumara with Agnishvattas.
Beta: And if you have Manasadeva as one of the three, if not three, the third or highest class of Agnishvattas, which I would associate as a blind for Kumaras, because Kumaras are hosts. And we know the 105 Kumaras, which are basically the fully conscious, controlling Kumaras for the planet. Yet, as humans, in our highest aspect, we as monadic etheric units form parts of the Kumaric entities, and intermediately we, through the six Kumaras, are sevenfold, which are the head centres. … Well, in that we form we form etheric units in the petal of a planetary centre.
Alpha: OK. ... we have to back track just a little bit, because when you say etheric you mean cosmic ethers? In other words, as a monad, we are cosmic etheric units?
Beta: Yeah. Well, perhaps if we are incarnated we’d have to be down here ...
Alpha: Cause we are an etheric unit. We are on the vital body of a great being. What does that mean? A monadic etheric unit?
Beta: In the planetary ethers, you are right. We as monads are cells in the body of the Planetary Logos. But as a Kumara. ... if we consciously identify ....
Gamma: What is the difference between a Kumara and a Hierarchy?
Epsilon: There is something I would like to read.
“We may represent the activities of these three classes of Dyhan Chohans, the Kumaras, Agnishvattas, and Manasaputras, which are truly names for the same beings but in different stages of evolution in the following way. At the opening of a planetary manvantara, the human monad of purely spiritual origin as yet an un-self-conscious god, or, in other words the latent divinity within, is the Kumara.
“At the end of the planetary manvantara this god spark has become, through experience in all the realms of matter, aware of its divinity, self-consciously divine, hence an Agnishvattas. At the dawn of a new manvantara these Agnishvattas then kindle the light of mind and understanding in lesser beings, the young humans of the new cycle, and are thus called Manasaputras.”
Alpha: So an Agnishvattas is called a Manasaputra if it kindles the mind in a lesser being.
Epsilon: Yeah. In a new cycle. It goes from Kumara to Agnishvattas. It is the evolution. But when he become functioning ... it becomes a Manasaputra. [from Shirley Tyberg].
Alpha: By the way ... it is in perspective to Kumaras, page 702 & 703 of Cosmic Fire:
“A final point here needs emphasising. Occultly understood, the five Kumaras or the five Mind-born Sons of Brahma are the embodiers of this manasic force on our planet; but They only reflect (in the Hierarchy of our planet) the function of the five Kumaras or Rishis who are the Lords of the five Rays manifesting through the four lesser planets and the synthesising planet.”
So, there are higher and lower Kumaras. And, it looks like the Kumaras next higher than our planetary Kumaras are the directors of the schemes, the planetary schemes. Now, I am rethinking this and I am not sure Beta whether I ever saw the word ‘Divine Kumara’, but what I did see was this higher type of Kumara and I did see Divine Manasaputra. And by Divine Manasaputra it meant, again, the lord and director of a planet just like a Kumara did.
Beta: Yeah. Well, that is the term that I use for the mental side of the causal planetary entity. … between the Heavenly Man—Divine Manasaputra. Then the planetary entity, the spirit of the planet. Here, put Planetary Logos on the top plane, then Ray Lord, Spirits before the Throne, Heavenly Man, Divine Manasaputra, Planetary Entity, Spirit of the Planet (which is a body).
Alpha: And, so basically you are saying that all of these are modes of manifestation of the Planetary Logos.
Beta: ... in the seven planes, obviously. They are really anchored higher, but, in our seven planes ...
Alpha: Starting on Adi, the logoic plane? Right? Spirits before the Throne, Heavenly Man. Heavenly Man for planet, Grand Heavenly Man for the Sun. These usually have correspondences, solar too but not as many. What different sorts of beings are each of these aspects of the logos composed?
Beta: They actually represent three types of lives, cosmic, solar, and lunar. So, for the Kumara, Manasadevas, I would say they would be called Cosmic Lords, Angels and Pitris, associated with the three tiers of the triad – emerging from the causal body. Then with Agnishvattas I call them Solar Lords, Angels and Pitris, the solar entities with the nine or twelve petals of the lotus. … [misunderstanding, clarified …]
Alpha: In other words, these are categories of incarnation of the logos on different planes?
Beta: Yeah. You see … the three I associated with the humans would all be between the Heavenly Man and the Divine Manasaputra. They would be threes, there would be an intermediary stage in there.
Alpha: OK. Divine Manasaputra. Planetary Entity. Planetary Spirit.
Gamma: What do you put in the Planetary Entity.
Beta: Astral.
Alpha: See, this is a new concept to me, I am trying to understand what it is in man that would help me see what it is in the Logos. In other words, you have seven planes here. And you have the logos disguised or appearing as something on each plane, probably with the help of an aggregate of certain types of lives on each plane that are not him.
Beta: Right. I don’t know. … it would be helpful to co-ordinate these names, or plane names, with those entities, but I haven’t looked into it deeply enough to sort that out at all.
Alpha: But, do you really think (on the basis of the context in which you read these) that the Tibetan has differentiated these terms to this extent?
Beta: Yeah.
Alpha: You really do. See this is a whole different key to understanding Cosmic Fire, because maybe one of the methods of blinding is simply to use many terms for the same thing. But, what if those many terms are only related to the same thing, and each one a description of a differentiation on the different level?
Epsilon: On a different plane, yeah.
Beta: In some cases I think there are probably a few statements that are general. But, I think in almost all cases these special names give you a completely different quality of the reading. And sometimes they actually provide crucial information.
Alpha: Then let’s do the same, just for a second, with the Agnishvattas evolution, or whatever you want to call it, from a point where you would start. …
Gamma: Here we have a key of all those denizens of the planes now; this is very important in this account.
Alpha: Well, what you have is an aspect of the logos with whom the denizens of the planes could be correlated. We don’t yet know which denizen with which, which denizen provides which aspect.
Gamma: These seven things he mentioned are by the Hierarchies.
Beta: But they are more local. … they might be the Hierarchies, that’s the next question.
Alpha: We have to make sure, because by differentiating to this degree you create many slots which have to be filled with orders of lives.
Beta: Exactly. I think this is back to my intuitive intention, if I can get this clarified I can also get the human constitution clarified, then I can go that section on page 533 and look at the permanent atom, the beings on the planes, and clarify them.
Gamma: How about this one here?
Beta: Yeah that is necessary. But it is very difficult. I think there are some keys from the things we have mentioned, actually the last three days, I think it will all become apparent over a period of time, but I don’t have a clear picture of this …
Alpha: Well, let’s just look at it a little bit. I remember you talking about Solar Lords, Solar Angels and, did you say Solar Pitris?
Beta: Yeah. I can frame it now. It is on Cosmic Fire 147. It talks about the Mahadeva aspect, the first logos. But when you use the term Mahadeva, from my point of view, again he is talking about a Deva Raja Lord of plane on the logoic level. It’s Shiva Mahadeva, not Shiva per se, but it just means Great Deva. And that means, basically, Deva Raja of a plane, a Deva Lord.
Alpha: Connected with the first ray somehow.
Beta: Yeah. On the first plane. So in connection with this: [Cosmic Fire, page 148]
a. “His goal is the synthesis of the Spirits who are gaining consciousness through manifestation, and who, by means of experience in matter, are gaining in quality.
b. His function is, by means of will, to hold them in manifestation for the desired period, and later to abstract them, and blend them again with their spiritual source. Hence the necessity of remembering that fundamentally ...”
... here it goes ...
c. “... the first Logos controls the cosmic entities or extra-systemic beings; the second Logos controls the solar entities; the third Logos controls the lunar entities and their correspondences elsewhere in the system.”
So, I think this is the framing sentence.
Alpha: Mahadeva aspect of the first logos, it starts there, actually on page 148 … hence the necessity of remembering that the first logos controls the cosmic entities or extra systemic beings. See, the first logos of what? Usually are we talking about logos in relation to the Solar Logos or are we talking about some sort of Cosmic Logos?
Beta: Well there are the triple Logoi.
Alpha: How can they control extra-systemic beings?
Beta: Because they have the second form of Lipika’s, they control everything outside the ring-pass-not. The first set of them, because everything inside the ring-pass-not …
Alpha: But it says our logos controls those that are extra-systemic. And our logoi are intra-systemic.
Beta: Oh. I think that I’m on that logoic plane through, there you have both. Because they are systemic entities on a solar level. … They have to be intermediaries. The first set is esoteric, but the second is outside the ring-pass-not. …. [painful, as described by Beta in an unanswerable response, but inaudible question from Gamma.]
Alpha: OK, but I would like the list of Solar Lords, Solar Angels, Solar Pitris. Could you give that to us? What did you call them? But I want the lists of where you assign them. Solar Lords you said were highest?
Beta: No. The Cosmic Lords, they were associated with the three tiers of the triad, associated with the Kumaras, Manasadevas … look at page five.
Alpha: In the compilation that Beta handed out. Here is where it really starts to stack up. Agnishvattas, Manasaputras, is that it?
Beta: Yeah. It is on page five, actually, that is supposed to be Ah-hi flames, Manasadevas, Agnishvattas.
Alpha: Oh. Ah-hi. Agnishvattas.
Beta: That is on the right hand side of the top title. … It switched lines …
Alpha: OK. I see, so cosmic entities, solar entities, lunar entities; this is what you put together and it is not given, is it?
Beta: Right. (This I should put the table in brackets too you are right), I have the top paragraph in brackets which are my comments, Anything I say is written in brackets and the rest of the paper, that is at the top, I think I say that at the top of the page.
Alpha: I see.
(end of side 12 b)
Tape Thirteen Begins
Alpha: With respect to Lords, Angels and Pitris you compared the Angels to the petal substance? Yes, and Pitris to the third aspect substance like permanent atoms for instance? And Lords to what, jewel substance?
Beta: Well, to the three tiers of the triad, maybe the three buds, bud petals, perhaps to the jewel.
Alpha: Well ‘Lords’ is a first aspect term, right?
Beta: I know but I think it is below the jewel because the jewel itself is Buddhi.
Alpha: What justification is there for saying that the jewel is Buddhi? What would this mean?
Beta: The causal body is the shrine of Buddhi, the jewel in the lotus is Cosmic Buddhi.
Alpha: OK. But it is still made of manasic substance.
Beta: No. Not the jewel … That is the whole point. It’s a fragment, a spark of Buddhi, which actually can penetrate the mental plane and by reason of its penetration in the causal body … clasps it, in a sense.
Alpha: The question is how can any greater plane penetrate a lesser plane without an envelope of expression?
Beta: Because it is part of the planetary body. … These are cells in the body ... of the planetary logos.
Alpha: No, when you say ‘these’, what is the antecedent.
Beta: Of the monads. That’s the jewel. They are associated with the jewel.
Alpha: OK. The monads are cells within a Heavenly Man we are told. … and the jewel is?
Beta: The jewel is Buddhic substance; Buddhi unites with the manasic plane. You basically have the union of the etheric, the four ethers, with gaseous substance and the dense physical body of the Planetary Logos. You have the flashing forth of the egoic lotus on the mental plane, which is basically the Planetary Logos taking incarnation. It is the merging of the dense physical with the etheric body.
Alpha: Is there any lower correspondence to a higher principle appearing in a lower, without some envelope of the lower?
Beta: Well, this is probably why Blavatsky talked about the atmic envelope, and Bailey talks about the monadic auric egg, and the triad and the threefold envelope ... (This is something. This is new to me.) I wish I could find the quote at the end of Cosmic Fire that talks about the spark of Cosmic Buddhi. [vsk: it’s at the last page of section II.]
Gamma: Because at someplace else it says that the solar angel comes from a spark of the cosmic mental.
Alpha: But, my only question is kind of a general question about penetration.
Beta: Right. I know.
Alpha: With higher principles or focusses penetrating lower we have the shrine situation. And the question is, is there any way for any unit of a higher nature to appear in a lower nature without a vehicle of the lower nature? In other words, can it appear as itself or is it always enshrouded? Because we are told that the causal body is the shroud of Buddhi or the shroud of the soul. And the question is, is there any aspect of the causal body which is not shrouding the soul?
Gamma: When you have an act of creation, you know all those mental permanent atoms are appropriation of the monad. What does it mean? ... appropriated?
Alpha: Well it means they are kept in constant contact with the sustaining life and directing will of the monadic source.
Gamma: What is the difference from what you are talking about?
Beta: There is a sort of a clarification on 1129 but it only clarifies between the buddhic and the manasic plane. … She is dealing with a number of things but she is making distinctions near the bottom of page, between the jewel and the lotus and the third eye.
Alpha: “The jewel in the lotus is the director of energy from the monad, whilst the third eye directs the energy of the Ego on the physical plane.” You see, in a certain sense the jewel in the lotus is the monadic objection.
Beta: Right. And the third eye we know is the result of the three head centres; it is not the eye of the soul. But it is the third eye which seems to be ...
Alpha:
“The jewel in the Lotus is the centre of force which links the buddhic and mental planes. When it is to be seen and felt, the man can function consciously on the buddhic plane. The third eye links the awakened physical plane man with the astral or subjective world, and enables him to function consciously there.”
And that, analogically speaking, the third eye is etheric, so the law of analogy tells us that the ethericness of the third eye is analogous to the monasicness of the jewel in the lotus interpenetrated by buddhi. … I have no question about buddhi ... I am just questioning the question of envelope.
“The jewel, or diamond concealed by the egoic lotus, is the window of the Monad or Spirit whereby he looks outward into the three worlds. The third eye is the window of the Ego or soul functioning on the physical plane whereby he looks inward into the three worlds. The jewel in the lotus is situated between manas and buddhi...”
Whoa! “The jewel in the lotus is situated between manas and buddhi” Whoa! The jewel is situated between manas and buddhi.
Beta: That is (inaudible) ... [at least.]
Alpha: I have here (in my first reading of this fifteen years ago) a big turquoise question mark.
Gamma: Is it what you call the laya point?
Alpha: Well, it could be considered a transition point between planes.
Gamma: You have those things ... I am sure you have those things in centres; in all centres you must have a point which allows you to move from a centre which is non space, non-dimensional, which allows you to go from one centre to the other. … That is what you call a laya point. So this is an example.
Alpha: That is interesting. But laya points unless I am mistaken are considered to be passive and homogeneous, and not directive.
Beta: That is because it is passive to the world of the Planetary Logos I think. Humanly it would be completely passive, but from the point of view of the Planetary Logos it is a control point.
Alpha: Somehow the jewel is a power house.
Delta: I agree. The jewel is directed whereas the laya points and the chakras are sort of neutral.
Beta: I see what you mean.
Alpha: (inaudible) ... yeah. That is a point to consider. But it is a fascinating consideration there ... this idea of between manas and buddhi. I mean, that is a real ...
Gamma: You have the confirmation of that theory, here, he says “The jewel, or diamond concealed ... is the window ...” So a window is a point where you can go from something to another.
Alpha: Yes. But a window is interesting because a window does not … you see, a window has material by which it is closed. A window is a something. It can be opened; it can be closed. If the window is closed there is a pane of glass separating you from the free space behind it. If it is open, then the free space flows through.
Gamma: One of the questions we had is what is a dimension?
Epsilon: You speak of laya, they are like doors (didn’t say windows) ... [reading] “which lead in two directions, downwards and upwards, or rather, outwards and inwards, but some deal only with matter …” and so on ... “The heart or centre of any being is a laya centre through which lives of many grades constantly flow back and forth”’
Beta: That is like Hierarchy having Shamballa and Humanity flow two ways. … I have a key for something we were looking at before, the table of the seven hierarchies on 1224. And actually I have answer to you that may clarify the buddhi. … I will read the section on the bottom of 1225, first noting in the table on 1224 that it is the second hierarchy that is called The Burning Sons of Desire. The Lords of Sacrifice, of Compassion, the Lords of Knowledge … all are subsidiary to the Burning Sons of Desire.
Alpha: Yes. (By the way there has been a problem using that term Burning Sons of Desire because if I remember correctly he applies it to the first hierarchy as well as the second hierarchy. I will show you when I read it.)
Beta: So, 1225:
“The symbols of the seven Creative Hierarchies now in manifestation are all enclosed in a circle denoting limitation and the circumscribing of the Life. All these hierarchies are Sons of Desire, and are paramountly an expression of the desire for manifested life of the solar Logos. They receive their primary impulse from the cosmic astral plane.”
So these are shaktis. The shaktis must, well, could be cosmic astral.
“They are also the expression of a vibration emanating from the second row of petals in the logoic Lotus on the cosmic mental plane.”
So they are carrying down the energy of the Rishis, from the buddhic I guess. It doesn’t quite go down to buddhi.
“They are, therefore, one and all an expression of His love nature, and it is for this reason that buddhi is found at the heart of the tiniest atom, or what we call in this system, electric fire. For the positive central life of every form is but an expression of cosmic buddhi.”
A a fantastic quote.
“... and the downpouring of a love which has its source in the Heart of the Solar Logos; this is itself an emanating principle from the ONE ABOVE OUR LOGOS, HE OF WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID.”
Alpha: “... For the positive central life of every form is but an expression of cosmic buddhi, and the downpouring of a love which has its source in the Heart of the Solar Logos...” Are they equating the two, “the downpouring of the love” is what? Is that cosmic buddhi?
Beta: It must be, because, even though the Solar Logos is astrally polarised, its personality is soul infused.
Alpha: Well we have to ask, is the personality completely soul infused yet? ... because there is a certain struggle going on in the Logos ....
Beta: It could be completely soul infused, it is taking the fourth initiation ...
Alpha: Taking fourth initiation ... but not yet the third. … “this is itself an emanating principle from the ONE ABOVE OUR LOGOS, HE OF WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID.” It is quite interesting that the one above our Logos may not have ... (well, here we go, I hesitate to get into this, but) it may be the Sirian Lord and not the one above that. In other words it may be a constellational lord rather than a super constellational lord.
Beta: Right. ... associated with the Solar Logos’s causal body?
Alpha: Yeah. Exactly. The Sirian logos would have a whole lot to say about the causal body of our Solar Logos. Well, where are we? We were talking about hierarchies, you know?
Gamma: This is a can of worms.
Alpha: Yeah. I’ll tell you, string theory! Cosmic Lords, Solar Lords, Lunar Lords, monads, egos, personalities, cosmic entities, solar entities, lunar entities … OK. Now what?
I had a question earlier. And I think it is a question that is practical. What can we say about the human being which makes its correspond to Planetary Logos, Ray Lords, Spirits before the Throne, Heavenly Man ... etc? When we look at the human constitution and the entities which comprise it which are often hierarchies, what can we say to make a parallel between the human being and the Planetary Logos?
Beta: Maybe, these are names for the planetary principles. … We would just use our principles because we are monadic, we are [made up of?] seven centres.
Alpha: So is the Spirits before the Throne on the third plane a bit like the holy spirit of man or manas …?
Beta: Spirits before the Throne I would associate that with atma.
Alpha: Well, that is what I mean. You see it is atma, but in another place the holy spirit is put on the plane of atma. … The ray lords … is a term which is so much larger than the Planetary Logos that it is so often referred to the Planetary Logos in a limiting sense. See, Spirits before the Throne, I always thought of them as the seven ray lives within any system. I always equated them, always said, within Shamballa are the Spirits before the Throne, each one of them carries a ray. … They are embodied rays. So what are Ray Lords? Are they unembodied rays?
Beta: Oh so they must be like either monadic or a causal principles, probably a monadic. The Ray Lords would be monadic.
Alpha: They seem to be monadic, yeah. In other words, if we are taking Beta’s definition of the differentiations of the Planetary Logos, and starting (interestingly) from the logoic plane (where the Planetary Logos does not start) ...
Beta: Right. I think these correspond to the cosmic plane, or the prakritic plane as well.
Alpha: But, then, it shouldn’t be a Planetary Logos, should it? … Wouldn’t you say that it is taking the Planetary Logos too high to put its monad on the logoic prakritic plane? What are you going to do with the Solar Logos?
Beta: I have my big question. I am not too concerned about it yet because I need to clarify a lot of other things, but one thing that bothers me is that on the third, the cosmic mental plane, is the Planetary Logoic causal body, on the third subplane. … and the Solar Logoic causal body is on the fist subplane.
Alpha: Yeah. There is nothing in between.
Beta: Right. And I keep on thinking, if it is on the first subplane, it must be a jewel. If it is a jewel then it is up in seven higher planes.
Alpha: Wait a second, let me get that. If it is a jewel, if on the first subplane of the cosmic mental plane, it is a jewel … well, wait is there not always a jewel no matter where the causal body is located?
Beta: Ah ... yeah. That is true, but the jewel essence would have to be at least atomic because it is a combination, so it is (now we know) between the manasic and buddhic, and, oh my gosh. Well if it is between the manasic and buddhic planes conceivably it could be cosmic buddhi somehow dragged down into this lower level. … Through the constitution of some great entity, the physical constitution of a great entity.
Alpha: Yeah. It is all dawning, but it is about destroying my mind.
(Many Voices: Laughter.)