Fellowship of Cosmic Fire: Meeting of May 22-24, 1995
This three-day intensive was composed of five earnest students of A Treatise on Cosmic Fire. Their names are now substituted. This version is an edit from the verbatim transcript, with goal of maintaining essence and flow of concept; some liberties have thus been taken. Respectfully created, June 2004. VSK.
Alpha: We have before us a number of questions to discuss particularly in relation to Cosmic Fire, and as Cosmic Fire relates to the other Bailey books and other theosophical writings. We have a few procedures to review, and then we can get into the first considerations immediately.
Point #1: We are going to attempt to utilise triadally-inspired and soul-infused group mind. All group members should have the main test of our inquiry open before them, which we do, and ancillary helpful texts handy. We should be ready to exchange well chosen words and to access the books relatively quickly for the purposes of citing supportive or contradictory references. All this sounds very formal but I know how it goes once we start.
Point #2: As we address ourselves to questions it may frequently be necessary to stop to define our terms. Let us do so carefully, as carefully as we possibly can, seeking some degree of consensus on these questions even though exceptions can always be found. Throughout our enquiry there should be an attempt to gather and note the important references necessary for clarity upon the question or subject under consideration.
Point #3: The group members are committed to an intuitively-inspired manasic quest, what we may refer to as shamelessly manasic! Successful group work will contribute to the opening of the synthesis petal for manas in the egoic lotus. That is what we are hoping ... some opening the synthesis petal for love as inclusive reason may be expected if the group achieves the necessary depth. The group is principally manasic and functions along the lines of the third and fifth rays, the second ray considered as pervading and substanding, for it is the ray of DK who authored our principle texts including (in no small measure) the Secret Doctrine.
Point #4: And finally, the group’s purpose is, initially, to create within ourselves and within the group as close an approximation to the comprehensive knowledge, understanding and vision which made the writing of the Treatise on Cosmic Fire and Esoteric Astrology possible. To the degree that it is possible and permitted to us, the intent to arduous study at as high a point of tension as we can sustain ...to enter into the master mind of Master DK (a humble statement).
Those are the ideas that launch our effort. And as we speak we should speak as clearly as possible as our work is being tape recorded for our own reference and for the reference of those few who may join us at future sessions. We are all pretty much in agreement with this approach.
We are here because we love the study of Cosmic Fire and want as complete a point of view, or multiple points of view, as possible. We are interested in entering in depth into the great science of relations, which, in my opinion, includes all the other sciences: astrology, numerology, and any others … it is all ‘how it fits together’.
Let us simply look at the first question which is a background question and has to do with creating the large map. Now we are not going to draw that map out now; one day we will attempt to draw out the map. But right now we are simply filling in the items that will be found upon the map.
The first point that can engage us is: “What is the nature of the large map which we must create to orient ourselves to cosmos as A Treatise on Cosmic Fire describes cosmos? (This is not meant to be exclusive; there are many other points that can be brought in.)
· Which planes and subplanes should be included in this map?
· What is a dimension, and what is a plane?
· How many dimensions of cosmos are there? Shall we use a system of seven or of ten? Why?
· Are there any such things as super-cosmic planes?
· Are there any geometrical symbols which will help us find the nature and relationship of the planes ...for instance: the sphere, the ovoid, the tetraktys, tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, dodecahedron, isosahedron, triangle, point-within-a-triangle, square, pentagram, seal of Solomon, seven pointed star, four-triangles-in-one, etc.
· Can we say anything about the keys, notes, key measures, colours, symbology, etc. of the various planes and subplanes upon which we are focusing.
I suggest we just begin with some thoughts about ‘the map’, and if I may just ask us to give our impressions on “what is a plane”? What do we actually think a plane is?
Beta: The spirilla in one of the permanent atoms in the solar permanent atom, or planetary permanent atom. Probably the solar.
Alpha: Yes, right, from Cosmic Fire a plane is a spirilla, one or the seven (or possibly ten) spirillae in the permanent atom of the solar logos.
Delta: A dimension of consciousness, if I understand the spirillae correctly during each round until the spirillae is developed. So there is probably a correspondence between the focus on a specific plane and the specific round we are in.
Beta: I have a major question between solar and planetary logoi on the systemic level, on the physical body level, in terms of the planes that we call the solar planes, the cosmic planes. … What you said, if it unfolds in a round, it is either a collapsed solar system unfolding in just a minuscule planetary round or the spirillae (as far as we are concerned) are really planetary. …
Alpha: … We have to define the nature of the beings and their habitats upon the various planes. And then that question will naturally unfold. A plane has sometimes been called a state of consciousness. The question is should a plane be considered a condition of Prakriti? Should it be considered a vibratory condition of prakriti?
Delta: Well, if we are going to be discussing the cosmic physical plane, certainly, everything on the cosmic physical plane should be by definition Prakriti ...
Beta: I think actually that Bailey’s cosmic planes are the prakritic, Blavatsky’s prakritic ...
Alpha: Are you saying Bailey’s cosmic planes are above the solar systemic planes? In other words, the cosmic physical plane has above it a number of other cosmic planes. Are you saying that those are Bailey’s cosmic planes?
Beta: Yeah. Those are Bailey’s cosmic planes. All seven planes.
Alpha: All seven cosmic planes?
Beta: Physical (the seven cosmic physical subplanes underneath) are identical with Blavatsky’s prakritic planes.
Gamma: This is the this problem that prakritic is a third principle, isn’t it? And it has been equalled to consciousness. The planes are consciousness, Blavatsky says so.
Alpha: Is a plane really consciousness, or is consciousness operative with respect to the condition of the plane?
Beta: The planes are related to the permanent atom in the causal body.
Gamma: So this is a ‘third’ principle.
Alpha: Yes, it is a third principle; we are dealing with three principles. But it seems to me that the universal soul is One, and the condition of prakriti determines the extent of sensitivity of the universal soul. In other words, you can have an aspect of universal soul captured (as it were) by a certain level of prakriti, and it is less extensive in its sensitivity than the next higher level that is less confined, and what determined the extent of the confinement is the vibratory level of the prakriti. Does that seem reasonable?
Beta: Well, it makes consciousness either able to manifest or not according to the karma which operates on that third plane.
Delta: So to recapitulate, if I understand this, we are saying that planes are more the third aspect of deity and deal with more ‘prakriti’ and consciousness ‘plays’ upon this?
Gamma: Although Blavatsky said that she [vsk sic?] made this equality that plays with the consciousness.
Beta: It depends on the Entity concerned. It has to be qualified by an Entity on some plane. Planes and entities are inter-related and entities have three principles: the life, consciousness, and form.
Delta: Because hopefully later on we will be discussing which signs of the Zodiac rule which planes, and which rays rule which planes, so that could change over time and imply that a plane is a certain matrix or prakriti, in that there are different ...
Gamma: Yeah, I think we are going too far. We should try to see the relation between the consciousness and the plane. They don’t seem to be the same; however, can one exist without the other?
Alpha: I think that the minute you have any form of relationship, which means a cosmos, that at every point within it you have what is equivalent to the plane, the consciousness and the life. You have the triangle no matter what. At any point from the lowest unit of life to the greatest, those three have to co-exist and the only time they cease to co-exist is in the universal pralaya. See, the very moment that you have a subject and an object you have the relationship between. So basically you have the archetypes of the plane of consciousness and of life.
Now, one point almost escaped us, or we should emphasise it. That prakriti, which would be like a specialisation of mulaprakriti for the universe, exists on all the cosmic planes. In other words, we have a way of thinking only of the cosmic physical plane in terms of matter. But this might be a mistake.
Delta: Something ‘substands’ each plane.
Beta: Bailey says there were a couple of solar systems that came before the third, and Blavatsky, that there were elemental kingdoms below our seven kingdoms, or ‘her’ four kingdoms, or five.
Alpha: Yes.
Epsilon: Do you make a difference between matter and substance?
Alpha: I think there is in a way, to me, anyway. I’ll say that substance is usually considered to be that which ‘substands’. So usually substance is a kind of matter, but in context one refers to it as ‘that which underlies and gives form and organisation’ to what we are considering matter. So in a way the etheric body ‘substands’ matter, what we normally call dense physical matter, but there has to be that which ‘substands’ the etheric body and to which it itself would be substance. So as you go deeper and deeper the thing that substands the material level on any level is called ‘substance’.
Epsilon: I think in Cosmic Fire it is said that space and substance are synonymous. And I would like to relate that sentence with prakriti and matter.
Alpha: Space is mulaprakriti (when specialised); universal prakriti is matter. Space and matter are the same thing in a way. You don’t even have space until Parabrahman had made its first change. What I am saying is that space requires consciousness. The nameless thing is not space, not consciousness, none of those things. Blavatsky deals with that, but the minute you have space you have the condition of objectivity. And the first object is Mulaprakriti.
Beta: Bailey says ‘space is an entity’. And she further say the entity is named Yajnan, or the great sacrifice.
Delta: There’s a footnote somewhere in Cosmic Fire ....
Alpha: See, the point is about ‘entity’, to go back to the fundamental, that if we can call The One and Only, Be-ness. We can call that an entity if we choose – because the mind cannot do anything other but to ‘posit’. You see, if the mind is active it makes an assertion and that assertion is a ‘positing’ and that ‘positing’ is a limitation upon whatever IT really is. Nevertheless, there is one universal entity which is a derivative of the no-name. And that could be called space, if you want to call it space.
Beta: The first logos.
Alpha: Yeah, the universal logos I sometimes call IT. If we call it the first logos then we get into a problem with the unmanifested logos compared with the first, the second, the third … we get into logo-mania, because there are several different systems of deriving the functions of the logoi. Let’s put it like this, that there are several different meanings of the word space, and one of the meanings that fits with prakriti is to consider it the universal object as observed by the universal subject. In other words, somehow the subject—object distinction appears in Parabrahman and we don’t know how it appears but it appears (because it didn’t exist during the universal pralaya). And when it appears you have an infinite subject perceiving an infinite object. And that infinite object is ‘space’. Then you get a localisation of that infinite object, and it turns out to be ‘universal’ space. Not, infinite space anymore, but ‘universal’ space, and that is ‘bounded prakriti’.
Beta: It becomes the circle ... or the circle with the dot .... but that is another topic.
Alpha: It becomes the circle, yes, in a way, but the ‘dot’ within it has to do somehow with the interaction of the infinite subject with the infinite object and ‘then’ comes the circle, and then ‘the dot’ is the potency within this bounded prakriti which is going to create a universe.
Delta: Does anyone want any quotes on Yagna from Cosmic Fire … pages 81 and 880. … Basically he says everything is Vishnu, and the creation of a Solar System, the evolution, preservation, and destruction is therefore one vast process called Yagna which takes place in the body of Yagna Purusha or the physical body of nature.
Beta: That’s ‘space’ subject.
Delta: “Humanity taken collectively is the heart and brain of this Purusha and therefore all the karma generated by humanity, physical, mental, or spiritual, determines mainly the character of this Yagnic process. Sri Krishna therefore calls the process the Yagnic life that he has been giving out to Arjuna as Yoga (1st Sloka 4th Chr). ). In fact, Yoga and Yagna are very closely allied and even inseparable, though at the present day people seem to disconnect the two. Yoga derived from the root Yuj to join means an act of joining. Now as the heart is the great centre in man, likewise the Yogi of the heart keeps his central position in the universe and hence his individuality. The individuality or the Higher Manas being the pivot of the human constitution or the centre on which two hemispheres of higher and lower existence turn as I have already said, the Yogi of the heart has a heavenly dome above and earthly abyss below and his yoga becomes twofold as a consequence. He joins himself on to the thing above in dhyana and the thing below in action. The word yagna derived from the root Yaj–to serve also means a twofold service, service done to the thing above through service done unto its expression the thing below.” –Some Thoughts on the Gita, pp. 18, 134.
And then on 880 is a mention of the four noble truths and one is Yajna Vidya. The performance of religious rites in order to produce certain results. Ceremonial magic. It is concerned with Sound, therefore with the Akasha or the ether of space. The “yajna” is the invisible Deity who pervades space.”
Alpha: OK.
Gamma: Can I make my little scientific thing here. I am writing … on what he calls etherous space. And I think that it is similar to the space we are talking about. And here let me read you something here about how clairvoyantly it is seen. These are notes which are taken in the Occult History by Leadbeater (a chapter on the ethers of space, in the appendix pages 1 and 2). He calls the substance healing space ‘coilon’. What Mulaprakriti or mother matter is to all universes ‘coilon’ is to our particular universe. This is what you call universal space. … there exists a … spiritual fluid … the first foundation of the solar system. Since this substance is different than ours one believes that it is empty space. HPB says that there is not one’s finger breadth of void space in the whole boundless universe. To the clairvoyant this ‘coilon’ appears to be homogeneous. It is out of proportion denser than any other substance known. Infinitely denser. So much denser that it seems to belong to another type, another order, of density. We might expect matter to be densification of this ‘coilon’. It is nothing of its kind; matter is the absence of ‘coilon’. And this is the story of the Fohat digging holes in space.
Alpha: ... digging holes in space ... the bubbles in the ‘coilon’ ... yes.
Gamma: And this is very interesting to see. This is some of the theories of quantum mechanics in that space. ... It is filled with energy. Energy which is amazing. He would say that a cubic centimetre of this space would contain more energy than the whole universe. ... that is the substance side of the universe.
Beta: We are speaking on the universal plane and I’m not sure I am bringing this down into a circumscribed universe but there is a question of the distinction between matter and substance. Matter being ‘refuse’ from a previous cycle.
Alpha: What do you do with ... That is fine intra-universe. But what do you do after universal pralaya?
Beta: This is a big question. I don’t understand that because it ties in with the idea of Fohat digging holes through space. What is the ... I think it is intra-universe.
Alpha: ... “intra-universal” ...
Gamma: In one of those Sloka he says that matter is not destroyed. She says so. In what sense does she say so?
Alpha: It must be between lesser systems, such as a solar system, or maybe even galactic systems. There is always a refuse after the completion of the project of a particular system, like a solar system. And that refuse is regathered by the next entity, which may be the reincarnation of the one that left the refuse to re-work and subject it to a new principle. But that takes place only inside of our universe.
Beta: If you see the subject—object dichotomy as being reabsorbed in some absorptive samadhi. But that would be pralaya that resulted from consciousness only. It wouldn’t necessarily involve the physical plane. You still have the entities in this, perhaps, in the sense I think I am approaching it from the intra universal.
Alpha: Let me just share a thought on the universal pralaya. If all subject—object dichotomy has to be destroyed within the universal pralaya, as witness the kind of condition that HPB talks about in the beginning of the Secret Doctrine. It is impossible to have any ‘thing’, whatever, left over. In other words, we have to approach the state of complete homogeneity in the universal pralaya, which is an argument for universal salvation, in a way. You know, its an argument for the idea that no matter how much amiss an entity may go during the universe that they have to be reduced to homogeneity by the end of it.
Gamma: … Infinite absorption.
Alpha: Infinite absorption with nothing remaining. And you know not to give too much into this because it is a little bit off the subject of the planes, but it becomes impossible even to consider a succession of universes karmically related. The succession of universes cannot be considered to be improving, evolutionary, for the reason that an infinite series of universes implies an infinitely evolved universe at present, which clearly is a contradiction to the fact. So what I am trying to say is that each universe relates to itself alone and is one particular in the fount of all possibility. And that fount will endlessly express and has been endlessly expressing. It seems to me that there is no direct relation from one universe to the next unlike our situation right in the middle, where there is refuse from the uncompleted task of the present logos. And he goes onto his next reincarnation and recaptures the refuse and attempts to rework it.
Beta: Even if you have universal pralaya we can only use metaphors for universal pralaya if we are talking in terms of ultimates. But if we use the idea of the solar system, or the seven chakras of the solar system burning up and it consuming its systemic nature, well that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is done that astrally or mentally, as a solar system.
Alpha: In the hundred years of Brahma it probably does.
Beta: Exactly, in larger cycles. So in all of these pralayas there are always, even a universal pralaya sometimes seems to me to be ‘local’.
Alpha: Yeah, by definition it would have to be. In other words you define it as that which is non local.
Beta: It’s true, as far as we are concerned it is the limit.
Alpha: In other words. If we forget about our solar system and we try to wrap our minds around all that could ever possibly happen anywhere, we define that as the universe. And people say ‘but there are other universes’. Then you have to say but that is a subset of the main one. But not to get too far off the subject ...
Beta: That should be bringing it back a bit. It is the idea of consciousness and the question of whether the planes of prakriti are consciousness. Well they are in that – the entity above incarnating through the entity below – the systemic entity below is always consciousness, is given the name of entity. It is always a subjective life incarnating through the lower vehicle, and that can happen on a plane; through seven planes; or cosmically, it can happen in any number of ways. The entity incarnating through the vehicle which goes into pralaya is always the consciousness principle. So in a sense it is like devas and pitris. They’re round of the core energy in force, and force is always the shell of energy in form. Force in each form are always the shell energy, which is that which is contained by the form or which mobilises the form. So I think the same must be true for consciousness.
Alpha: OK, so we are trying to clarify the relationship between the second aspect and the third aspect. What we are asking in the first question is how extensive is the third aspect? ... Blavatsky dealt only, as far as I can see in most of her work, with the cosmic physical plane, or with prakriti at a certain vibratory level. There are certain charts here that are theosophical charts from the late nineteenth century which include other cosmic planes. But as far as I remember he said very little about the cosmic astral, hardly at all about the cosmic mental plane. But one thing she did do is in the Secret Doctrine she began at a point which was above any of these cosmic planes. She began at the point of the origin of the universe which was sort of pre-cosmic and then she leapt all the way down to the cosmic physical plane and DK with his psychological version of the Secret Doctrine came and filled in the spaces in between. More so. Like a second ray presentation.
Beta: It’s true. This is (having a vested interest here, in bridging Blavatsky and Bailey) the prakritic planes Blavatsky dealt with to a certain extent in their esoteric schools. And she did in the Secret Doctrine by calling the cosmic planes above Bailey’s cosmic planes, or the prakritic planes, the kosmic planes (with a K). But she uses kosmic planes with ‘k’ and cosmic with ‘c’ as well. So I am sure that Bailey took that clue and started using the cosmic planes as a substitute for prakritic planes. If somehow we could maintain that continuity of continuing with terminology it would be immensely useful I think in merging the groups.
Alpha: Let’s get our terminology straight. There are two kinds of planes that are ... Three is what we call the solar planes, equivalent to the systemic planes, which could be considered to be prakritic planes?
Beta: ... no, those are below. Those are the seven differentiations, or the pranic differentiations of the first prakritic plane. Bailey’s seven cosmic planes, distinct, her top-most planes are Blavatsky’s prakritic planes. Blavatsky has seven more kosmic planes (with a k) above that. … but she only enumerated five though ... interestingly ... (third volume …)
Alpha: Now wait a minute, this is a huge jump. We are talking about super cosmic planes.
Gamma: What is this difference between ‘k’ and ‘c’?
Alpha: OK, let’s see if we can define this. We have solar planes. (Maybe you can find a reference.) We have solar planes or systemic planes which consist of our normal physical, astral, mental, buddhic, atmic, monadic logoic. Those are systemic or solar planes. And that is the first level of cosmic plane. Then we have seven cosmic planes. …
Gamma: No, this is the secret to the physical cosmic plane.
Beta: The problem understanding this is that Bailey and Blavatsky enumerate the principles differently. Blavatsky only went up as far as atma. And she considered ... She didn’t have a monadic or a logoic plane.
Alpha: So there is just five here; there are just five principles. This is page 435 of the Esoteric Writings of Blavatsky. Now this is interesting: “These prakritic planes are in fact what is called the first cosmic plane.” Goodness! This means in fact that there are super cosmic planes. OK. This is our normal solar system and it is seven solar, or seven systemic planes, two of which, or three of which, are not listed. Is that correct?
Beta: Right.
Alpha: In other words, normally above us we would have atmic and the logoic levels and this would be called the cosmic physical plane, with a ‘c’.
Beta: Blavatsky collapsed the monadic and logoic into the atmic and she made the atmic the auric on below. The seventh is always depicted as a circle around six planes. …
Gamma: Because she took these five planes, because this is where the solar system is supposed to …
Beta: Exactly. Solar, planetary, and the Shiva aspect are formed.
Alpha: OK, now let’s get the terminology straight.
Ř The first prakritic plane is Bailey’s cosmic physical plane.
Ř Second prakritic is Bailey’s cosmic astral.
Ř Third prakritic is cosmic mental.
Ř Then fourth prakritic is cosmic buddhic.
Ř Fifth prakritic is cosmic atmic.
Ř Sixth prakritic is cosmic monadic.
Ř And the auric envelope here is considered the seventh, or the highest prakritic plane. That is the cosmic logoic plane.
And now, let’s turn for a second to page 344, Cosmic Fire, for the corresponding map. This is the cosmic adic plane, which is the same as the cosmic logoic plane, and simply is the highest of the prakritic planes of Blavatsky. Now, going beyond that, I ask, are there such things as super cosmic planes? And by that I meant super—‘c’—cosmic. And our assumption here, then, is that Blavatsky’s kosmic—‘k’ planes are the super cosmic planes.
Beta: Right.
Alpha: And that the first, or the lowest, of the kosmic planes includes all of Bailey’s cosmic planes. And I assume we would go on above that to the, we could call it the super cosmic astral ... We better call it ... because of what language is with a ‘k’ and a ‘c’, we better call it the supercosmic planes. Because otherwise we are always going to have to be differentiating cosmic with a ‘c’ ...cosmic with a ‘k’. So this is the lowest of the super cosmic planes ....
Delta: ... or we would number there. Put roman numerals for the cosmic planes.
Gamma: It’s right there.
Alpha: And she only goes up to the supercosmic buddhic planes.
Beta: That’s right. And if in writing we used the ‘k’ that unifies Blavatsky’s and Bailey’s terminology. But in speech we say supercosmic with a qualifier at the beginning of the talk.
Alpha: OK Now, is it assumed that this would also become seven fold. That the supercosmic planes would be seven fold.
Beta: I think it must. With maybe the reason that we are entering only five rounds, a profoundly high level, there is the question. This ties in with the mystery of Venus, and why supposedly, according to Blavatsky, all planets have seven rounds, but Bailey says Venus is in its fifth and last [chain].
Alpha: OK And one other planet too.
Beta: This is very important question. And it is one of the things (... Blavatsky said?) no one will ever talk about. This is an interesting point that, when DK in his books mentions schemes, and gives references in the Secret Doctrine there is no mention at all to the word planetary scheme. All there are references to is something of which the masters will never speak; you will never get an initiate to speak about this. (I remember The emperor Julian revealed the secrets of the Greek initiatory school and had problems because of it.)
Delta: Venus is in the fifth chain by the way. I don’t know if that is just a tangential fact, Page 373, fifth chain, fifth globe … And on page 368 it states the Secret Doctrine saying that Venus is in its fifth and last round.
Alpha: It is a very important statement, Venus is in the fifth chain, the fifth round of the fifth chain. … The question will come up a bit later whether we are talking about chains—rounds, or scheme—rounds. And there is one factor that has to be considered ... that Venus received a gift from Earth ... from the Heavenly Man of Earth in its sixth chain as I understand it. So this touches on the question of the simultaneity of chains.
Beta: You see, some people who only want to limit themselves to space will not take themselves outside of time and space to speculate, when actually the three solar systems exist in the eternal ‘now’ as far as the consciousness of the solar logos goes. Presumable humans can take part in planetary or solar consciousness to some extent. And so we have certainly a philosophical or a metaphysical justification for stepping outside of time and space in our thought.
Alpha: This is actually a question that really comes up a bit later in this thing because it is getting pretty practical about relationship of different chains and schemes with each other and whether they are sequential, simultaneous or a combination of sequential and simultaneous (all existing at the same time but emphasised sequentially).
Beta: As far as I can tell, when you leave time and space it’s like talking abut the inner round. ... metaphor in a way of speaking.
Alpha: OK. Let me relate the whole idea of the inner round. I don’t want to get onto the inner round for a second, but let me just relate this to our issue here. Now we are talking about (and it is very interesting) three orders of planes. We are talking about a systemic order, cosmic order and a super cosmic order of planes. And so far they are seven fold. So far. However, it’s very interesting that DK says there are ten schemes and that some point he says there are ten chains (you recall the reference? … he says there are ten chains).
Delta: It is hinted at on page 369.
Alpha: OK. But it’s even been more than ‘hint at’. There is an actual statement that there ten chains and ten schemes.
Gamma: ... in which he said we made life here in a very good scheme as a basis for our further work. And he elaborates them.
Delta: What is bothering me in Esoteric Astrology, talking about Sirius and the Great Bear and the Pleiades: “... they, with the seven solar systems of which ours is one, are the ten constellations connected with a still greater zodiac which is not conditioned by the numerical significance of the number twelve. Hence ten is regarded as the number of perfection.” And on 231 in Esoteric Astrology he says . “… in the future there will be only ten signs of the zodiac again ... Aries and Pisces will form one sign ... the ending, the beginning.”
Alpha: Well ...there are a lot of hints about the ten-foldness of things, and … some things are definite and blunt statements about our ten. Maybe we can find that ... now what we should do? We should make a list of things we have to search for? … the ten chains of our scheme is one of them ...very, very definitely. So lets put that down somewhere that we are going to search for that.
Let me make my point without having to justify that there ten. OK, just for the moment. The point is simply this. Seven-foldness or ten foldness: in terms of entities we are always going to find ten foldness. We are going to find the seven sacred planets and then we are going to find Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva surrounding the Solar Logos.
Beta: ... synthesising centres ... of synthesising schemes.
Alpha: Yes, exactly. And some of these involve more than one planet, maybe involve three planets. But this is on the level of entities. When we look at the cabala and we see the tree of life we always see the seven manifested and the three subjective. Now, right here in the Secret Doctrine, Volume One, page 90, it is right here all about the seven manifest and the three subjective.
Beta: Interesting thing about the tree of the cabala is that it puts the three with the one. So you have the tetraktys, the fourth, the higher quaternary. … It is part of the tetraktys. Its the four-fold, the higher quaternary … And the tetraktys is basically a three dimensional triangle, a tetrahedron. Right? The interesting thing is that you have, in the cabala, it graphically illustrated: the three below and the one above. But you also have the number ten, which is a bit different when it is printed out in Bailey. Of, course it is discussed in detail in Blavatsky.
Alpha: ... let’s not let that point escape. Three subjective units in the Tree of Life are Kether, Chockmah and Binah. And they are considered to be the three subjective Sephiroth. Now what are you saying about those?
Beta: Well they are synthesised into the entire entity beyond. Well, Kether, I guess, doubles as the entity incarnating.
Alpha: Kether sometimes doubles as the monad. … Let me try to make the point. Always in terms of entities you have got three plus seven, and the three are great, and they are hidden. It seems to happen on the level of schemes. It seems to happen on the level of chains. And I wonder if it happens on the level of globes? Now what I am suggesting is that for every scheme, or chain, or globe system of seven you may actually have a system of ten. And now what I want it ask is whether this does not exist for the planes themselves and whether you have seven objective planes and three subjective planes?
Beta: There are always the personality aspect of the entity incarnating: the consciousness incarnating from the higher set of planes.
Alpha: OK, now which are always the personality aspect, the seven subjective or seven ‘objective’?
Beta: The subjective are usually the [three] cosmic mental, astral and physical incarnating through the [objective] seven fold lower planes.
Alpha: OK. Yes. That is usually on the simplest level what it would be. Let’s just take a look at the systemic planes. Our normal systemic planes end with what is called the logoic plane.
Beta: This is depicted in Hindu mythology when the Brahmanda or the egg of Brahma, the universal illusion takes place, he goes up the fifth plane, the Brahmic plane, and sometimes to the plane above that, the sixth. Actually they usually say the four, he goes up to the fourth, or the Buddhic level, while the world dissolves, but generally up to the fifth, which is atmic and which is Ruba, the Deva Lord Brahma
Alpha: But going even further than that ... here is what I am asking ... Three above ...
Beta: ... that are left in universal dissolution. And so the seven have to be … included in the five. That explains Blavatsky’s use of atma as the top most, the seven are below atma. Whereas Bailey was taking a few steps, including a much larger picture, psychologically maybe not universally, but psychologically.
Delta: I have a proposition to make which I don’t know whether this fully ties in with this but I think it does. After looking at looking at Gamma’s things on triangles ... he has some quotes from Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle with the lotuses of the chakras pictured as eight fold here ... but seven fold ... and there was a triangle at the centre. So perhaps ... the triangle corresponds to spirit, soul, matter: the upper triad. And maybe the ... personality part of the triangle corresponds to globes; the soul part corresponds to globes chains; and the spirit corresponds to schemes. … In other words all three are operating simultaneously within the field, within this septenate. So in other words, maybe the three are operating in and beyond the seven. …
Beta: Exactly
Alpha: I think almost always that is the case.
Delta: So rather than picturing as seven levels and three more levels stacked up on top of that, it might be better to picture the seven levels as a lotus of seven petals with a triangle, different focuses.
Beta: Maybe looking at it more locally, if you are in the fourth round, four or three planes get annihilated; if you are in the fifth round, four or five planes get annihilated below during dissolution. And this is the question a lot of people have when fundamentalist theosophists want to look through the chain or planetary scheme, a planetary manvantara of seven chains. And then around through the chains can only go sequentially, can only be linear, time and space and all of universal life and consciousness follow this linear path is to me ‘outrageous’, outrageously incorrect. It is only in time and space from a pitiful human perspective that you could ever say that.
Alpha: Yeah. Yeah.
Beta: So, in this case, you have, if three planes dissolved, or four, or five, you’d have, two, three, four, five anchors on the higher planes of the higher entity. So would have the three plus the lower seven. That would be the ten. …
Alpha: But even with what you said, Delta. We don’t have to visualise them in some sort of stacked manner but these three are operative simultaneously with the seven and they are the higher order of magnitude.
Delta: Yes
Beta: ... and involve a separate set of cycles.
Alpha: Yes. Which could be the inner round. You see this is another definition of the inner round. Not to get to that immediately, but the point is simply this: the number 100 is very important in occultism. You know, it is not arbitrary there should be a hundred years of Brahma. You know how it is for human beings. Human beings are supposed to live to be seventy years old, but everybody wants to live to be a hundred. You know, right there in that funny little human statement it tells it something about cosmic structure. So from the obvious level we have got all these sevens. But is you have systemic, cosmic and supercosmic planes, and you have a system of ‘higher three’ and ‘lower seven’, the total number of planes in the universe is one hundred. Can that make sense?
Delta: Let me try to understand what you are saying, reiterate that.
Alpha: I am going to try to. And hopefully I don’t trip over myself in doing so. Or maybe ...No, actually, maybe I’ve just tripped myself ... and maybe the total number of planes is really one thousand.
Gamma: Right. Yeah.
Alpha: So, basically, what I am trying to say is that because there are ten chains and ten schemes and, I assume, ten globes (although ________ is twelve. Well, I just want to collapse his top three into one. That is how I will deal with that.) But, you know ... Laurency gives us forty-nine planes. I am trying to say that of those forth-nine, instead of forty-nine planes what you should really have is ten times ten. …
Delta: I see. You should have seven times seven and ten times ten. Or twelve times twelve if you want to work on twelves.
Beta: That picture you just showed us was a twelve with actually implicit thirteen. Cause eight plus three ... eleven ... the circle on the outside—twelve, point in the middle—thirteen.
Alpha: OK Well maybe for practical purposes he tells us that ten is the number of perfection. And we know that it exists with entities, but does it exist with their objective playground? That is all I am asking. Do we have a seven fold objective playground or a ten fold? And even if we had a ten fold objective playground maybe it wouldn’t make any difference to us except in the conception of it.
Gamma: There would be three esoteric beings then.
Alpha: Well, then, where are they? You see this really means that beyond any normal sense of prakriti that we know about, they still have to be prakritic. In other words, lets just look at our cosmic physical plane. If we go by the system of ten, and there is prakriti way above the cosmic physical plane, then, any super three have still to be prakritic. But it must be of such a subjective nature that we can’t deal with it.
Delta: I guess the implications of what I was proposing would be that there are seven prakritic planes and that the supernal three are the synthesising three, which couldn’t properly be called the planes – perhaps a ‘triad of being’, or something like that. And this triad of being migrates through the various seven. … This triad also exists multidimensional-like.
Alpha: Well, wait a sec, we already know that from the consciousness aspect there are those kind of triads you talk about. The question is do they have any objective playground which corresponds to their transcendent nature? …
Delta: In so far as I understand the cabala, in a sense the upper three can’t – the Kether is totally invisible, Chockmah is like the whole field of galaxies and universes, and then Binah is the first manifestation. In other words it has implicit manifestation which becomes sort of explicit and it is, to me, the same as the diagram on Cosmic Fire on page 373. Those are the ten Sephiroth in the different form.
Alpha: Let me ask you about the tree of life. Is it not possible to stick a tree of life on the systemic planes? Then a tree of life on the cosmic planes, and then a tree of life on what we are now calling super cosmic plane? Would it not operate on each level?
Delta: What I am proposing, to make a counter point here, is that it is really false to think of the upper three as existing on planes. And the third one, in sense is where there is a laya point. It changes from visible to invisible. That is shown on 373 with the double circle around Saturn, which is Binah. I am just saying this to establish a counter point. I am not necessarily fully advocating what I said.
Alpha: What you are saying ... use the board for just a second. Suppose, you know, here is a point, here is the cosmic physical plane with everything that we normally know of life. And let’s just assume that this line .... this is the beginning of the cosmic astral plane on which our Planetary Logos is polarised. And normally these two lines are together, at least that is the way we are normally considering them. This is prakritic. And according to Beta in reference to Blavatsky, the cosmic astral plane is also prakritic, which means that somehow it is ‘atomic’, because we live in a quantum universe in which you cannot have a continuum, so you have to have energy events in all these places. Now, but what you are saying is that IF this lower cosmic physical plane is extended, the three that are here should not be considered prakritic. The three planes above the cosmic physical which are not yet cosmic astral should not be considered in the normal way that cosmic physical and cosmic astral are being considered. These two are being considered prakritic, right? But you are saying that this interlude in here should be like a laya point or some other .....
Delta: Yes. But that is with other laya points on higher levels. Sort of like a migrating laya point.
Alpha: So this is interesting. He talks about the atomic planes in ______. You can go from atomic plane, to atomic plane, to atomic plane without … So you are saying that, in a way, this is kind of like a super channel that could connect to this same thing up here and so forth. From here ... to here ... to here.
Gamma: Please tell me what is a laya point?
Delta: Where spirit and matter meet. One becomes the other.
Gamma: Does it mean at the centre of a centre, for example?
Alpha: It is a point of complete … stillness, a point of homogeneity, of complete potential for all differentiation which follows it, a point of absorption, a neutral point, a zero point, a non-action point which is filled with potential.
Delta: He said if he were at ‘zero point’, so would it be part of the numbers, the three are a sort of fancy ‘zero’. That is what I am proposing.
Alpha: OK We need her definition.
Gamma: I am not familiar with laya point, because I have always thought that at the centre of a chakra is where we have a laya centre.
Alpha: Pra-laya ... the two things are going together.
Gamma: Oh is that what we have. You take the centre in the, say the throat centre, there is an astral, physical-astral, etheric-physical, astral and mental throat centre. And how are they linked? Where do they go from one to the other, through a point at the centre of the centre?
Beta: Right … the laya centre.
Gamma: At the centre. That is what I thought the laya centre is.
Beta: That what I think of it.
Delta: And that is how I am proposing the three are.
Gamma: This is a non-dimensional centre.
Beta: Or it is an atomic centre. Because it is made of the highest ether. … And you are right in the zero point, it is where you can choose to manifest or not.
Alpha: Un-ha. But you see it has still got to be substantial, that is the point, we have to get at the definition here. My question to Delta is, how can we look above and say that there is similar advantages below and yet look at a transition here and say that it has nothing to do with either of these? You know that it’s of a completely different nature.
Let me just read her three lines on the point. OK? Laya, lyam, from the root lee ...to dissolve, to disintegrate. A point of equilibrium, zero point in physics and chemistry. In occultism, that point where substance becomes homogeneous and is unable to act or differentiate. (Theosophical Glossary, page 187).
I am not sure we are going to solve this particular issue; we have a couple of different ideas here.
Beta: Could I make an observation here which is, in dealing with any threefold system ... you could have seven planes down here, might put the three up here as implicit as seven plus the three. If you are looking at from the point of view of a monad incarnating, at initial stage, to start incarnation process, then the three would be a shadow. If you are talking about it for the second stage, the second stage of the soul incarnating through it, then this would be your reflection for the soul. For the monad in the first stage of incarnating or from the lowest or from the animal man being stuck in the lower planes, the implicit three would be a shadow. Or, also this whole thing would be the shadow of the monad. It would be the reflection of the Ego. But then when the evolution of the Ego of consciousness is finished and it is beginning to merge again with the life principle then these would not only be direct reflections but they would be highly active synthesising centres.
Alpha: We better get our antecedents straight. What do we mean by ‘these’? … What you are pointing to now is the Logoic, Monadic and Atmic planes?
Beta: Well, actually no … you could use the triad planes. Certainly that is more important. I am just thinking of the general periodical vehicles here. If you made this the, say cosmic astral here, cosmic mental, and this would be the incarnation of the Solar Logos, then in its first life impulse it would create the world’s first solar system, the second solar system where evolution takes place. You wouldn’t just have a shadow monad reflected in the waters. You would actually have a reflection in the substance of the soul, the One. The third solar system takes place, the first aspect, anchored on the lowest plane. And when the true soul consciousness is merged with the monadic consciousness again, you have the mayavarupa, you have full demonstration.
Alpha: So we are dealing with three ideas: shadow, reflection and full demonstration.
Beta: Right. A threefold system, but then it can be fivefold.
Gamma: May I ask … esoteric are not manifested ... are non manifested.
Beta: ... at first they would be really latent, in the second it would be interactive. It would be there to a lesser extent. But because the second phase is conscious ... consciousness ...
Gamma: ... they would be reflected ... like they are reflected in the (inaudible) aspect, for example, in respect to the other one.
Beta: Right. It would be like the personality relating to the soul on cosmic levels as well as local ones.
Gamma: What you are saying is that they are not manifested but they first have a shadow in the first three planes of the cosmic physical ...
Beta: Right. The first would be latent and just a shadow. But in the consciousness system, the second, its interactive, increasingly interactive until it is fully conscious. Then you enter the third phase and then they would become highly active on their own level ... the three, the implicit three. …
Delta: Let me repeat it. And then tell me simply whether this is wrong or correct. That the supernal three are reflected into the initial three and the first is the shadow and the initial three, then the initial, and then in the second solar system there is a clear reflection, and then there is a third solar system that is fully operative.
Beta: And then the three develop a life of their own and somehow the higher entity incarnating through them, through the lower sevenfold system, has developed a threefold outpost which he can then abstract or use ... … if they are involved with the planes above something is abstracted up into the places. Because the planet is emotionally polarised … and we are tested on the third subplane of the cosmic astral. So that suggests to me five planes up, the third coming down. So right now we are at that phase where ... the substance of our sevenfold system has moved up into the cosmic astral and planetary levels because we are in the second solar system .... or the fourth round or fifth round, because of our stage right now. And we are in the second....
Alpha: Are we being tested on the third or the fourth subplane? …
Beta: The Heavenly Man is with the Earth school, and all the units of the Earth school are tested on the third.
Alpha: But we’re not on the third, as units of the earth school ...
Beta: ... we are attached to Venus, perhaps.
Alpha: We may be, but we are nowhere near the possibility of being tested on the cosmic astral plane as ...
Beta: Oh, but I feel with individual initiation we move onto the cosmic astral plane.
Alpha: ... after the fifth initiation?
Beta: Yeah. We have access ...
Alpha: Well, OK. We have to check that out.
Gamma: OK ... because DK says he doesn’t know anything about the astral plane.
Alpha: He does say that. He says, “You know, I have not been there.” He says. And he is not an initiate yet of the sixth degree.
Beta: Well maybe that is fifth initiation with a capital “I”.
Alpha: OK, well then we can talk about the difference between. ... Obviously, you know what can happen....
Beta: I have always taken it as the lower fifth though, as an adept initiate has contact with the cosmic astral ... and is building that into their vehicles.
Alpha: OK. Maybe we can get a reference to substantiate that because there are several references to initiation where cosmic initiations have between them a graded series of others, which are not human at all. For instance, our Planetary Logos is working towards the achievement of the second cosmic initiation now, and working on the fourth initiation. So between cosmic initiations there are a whole series of initiations and ...
Beta: But we are no longer human once we enter the fifth kingdom.
Alpha: Right. And the question is do we enter the fifth kingdom at the first cosmic initiation, which is the fifth initiation. …
You know, what can happen is the mind can split of in ramifications here. Let me just try to summarise this for just a second. Let’s see where we’ve gone. We have identified three different kinds of planes: … We have identified systemic planes, cosmic planes, and super-cosmic planes. (… Solar systemic, systemic and solar are the same thing.) The Tibetan tells us that our highest life, or anything that we ordinary human beings can know is still very much on the upper levels of our systemic plane. And he says that he himself does not know what goes on on the cosmic astral plane. He says ... ‘for I have not been there’.
OK. So therefore we find the Christ and certain other entities capable of penetrating the cosmic astral plane. We find the Sirius and the Solar Logos involved in ways that we will go into in greater detail with the cosmic mental plane and we find some sort of focus of the seven Lords of the Great Bear. ... at least on the chart on page 344 they are focused on the cosmic buddhic plane. They have a place there. We’ll have to define what that is. And that is still on the very lowest of super cosmic planes. …
Gamma: In the physical
Alpha: Yeah. It is in the physical part of the super cosmic plane. Note that the very highest entities of which we can conceive are somehow located on the lowest of the super cosmic planes.
Beta: The higher that entity (the more systemic), the more dense the access; we only have denser and denser access to the higher, the higher and higher we go. [I mean], all we can see of the highest entities are their most dense aspects. When it is planetary, we see a bit farther when it is more local. Or solar, we see it a little less than planetary.
Alpha: OK. .... We are merging into entities which is good, because this is sort of our next question. We have the Solar Logos to deal with; we have Sirius to deal with; and we have the ‘second’ of the OAWNMBS. In other words, we have this ‘being’ that is called … on the chart on page 344 it is simply the big circle on plane number two. That to me is one of the OAWNMBS’s, and perhaps our particular OAWNMBS. But to make a long story short, our supercosmic logos is still located on the cosmic monadic plane, it looks like his monadic location is on the cosmic monadic plane. … the point is that we in no way can yet conceive of an entity ... although, of the ones we have been told about, that go off the ...
Beta: Well, what about this one ... this entity ... that includes these as his chakras.
Alpha: Well ... we are not even to the point of the cosmic Parabrahman here. You see, the OAWNMBS ... lets forget the higher one ...
Beta: Well no, but the higher one always reflects its chakras, or ray lords, into the second place. They first make their impact there and the ray lords individualise on the third plane. … The higher entity always incarnates through the seven lower planes. It makes its first impact through the second ether.
Alpha: OK. So you are saying that … these are seven chakras of something ...
Beta: Of another entity, yes, … cosmic Parabrahman. … Because that for one incarnation it only uses one of these ... probably ... or as the soul it may use all seven … as a monad it may use seven of these.
Alpha: Well, let the point is simply this, I have just made a presumptions statement that we don’t know of any entities that exist on even the supercosmic astral plane. We don’t. But now what Beta is saying is the fact that we have (on page 344) these seven great entities on the second cosmic plane is a guarantee that something is going on on the supercosmic planes of which they are a chakric reflection. In other words we have these seven here. Of what are they the chakras? …
Beta: … What is needed for an incanate of this Parabrahman entity on the first plane? What sets are needed for one physical dense incarnation, because that is generally all we can see.
Alpha: OK. Well, so basically this is inference. In other words, we have just been informed of a new series of planes that not too many of us have taken into consideration before. These are called Kosmic planes (with a ‘k’) and now Beta is saying that by looking at the chart on page 344, implications of activity on the super cosmic planes is shown there. And what I want to say is that DK says that the limit of entities about which we can know anything is the OAWNMBS. He says that is the limit. Now, I’m not including the Sirian Logos because that might be one of the OAWNMBS’s, at least I began to think that. In other words, the Lord of the Seven Solar Systems. But this particular being in whom Draco and the Great Bear and the Seven Pleiades are chakras is called ‘an’ OAWNMBS. And he is saying that beyond that we can’t know anything psychologically. We can know about their existence but we do not know about their energy system.
Beta: That is the higher one. And the lower one would be only the seven suns.
Alpha: Yeah. Exactly. … Let’s look at this term OAWNMBS. The Sirian Logos, who has the seven suns as his chakras is the first of the OAWNMBS’s. And so little is said that you don’t even know that there is a system there. And you develop these ideas in your articles [Beta]. Now, the normal OAWNMBS that the Tibetan speaks of has for its chakras the Great Bear, Draco .... the Seven Constellation ... but he calls then Solar Systems even though they are constellations. He calls them solar systems. But there are seven of which the seven solar systems are one. Now, he says that is the only being about which we can know psychologically. …
Delta: Say that again. There are seven constellations of which the seven solar systems are representatives of these seven constellations?
Alpha: Let me try to say it in another way. That in this being called OAWNMBS which is located at the central circle on page 344, on plane number two, the centres there are constellations. You see those seven triangles? Each one of those triangles, to me, stands for a system of at least seven stars: the Great Bear, Pleiades, Draco, whatever ...
Beta: ... unless these seven circles stand for the seven systems of seven stars. And then this is one of those systems of seven stars which is most locally related to the incarnation process. … [Specifically], unless each of these circles contain seven triangles, each of the triangles may be threefold incarnating entities through one solar system ... So this one circle in the middle, because it is the fourth in number, could be an explanation of our sun being of the fourth order. But if these seven circles with seven triangles on the second plane are considered seven solar systems, then you could make it even more complex by saying one of these circles and these triangles are actually seven constellations.
But I think that these – if you give them names of Draco, Orion, etc., for all of these seven going across, then those would just be the names, just like the planetary names are used for chains, and globes and rounds. You would use the Draco name for the actual constellation; and use the Draco name for one of these triangles in this central circle of seven triangles; and use a Draco name perhaps down here on the fourth plane for one of the triangles associated with the Rishis, or the wives of the Rishis which ever it is. [... It is the same] for all three levels: like the Venus name would be used for the Venus scheme, and the Venus chain, and the Venus globe and round.
Alpha: So you are saying that one possibility for interpreting the chart on page 344, is to look at these seven circles as the seven great constellations. For instance, one of them would stand for Draco, and then the seven triangles within would be sub-Draco elements, would be the seven sections of the Draco constellation?
Beta: But each one of these seven circles or seven constellations would have one sun in each one that would be called Draco.
Alpha: Yeah. OK. I get it ... it is just a bit like schemes, chains, and rounds, and globes. But let me ask you a question. It looks to me like the seven Rishis of the Great Bear being the seven centres in ‘a’ Solar Logos, is a tremendous blind ... isn’t it?
Beta: Exactly.
Alpha: Because the word Solar Logos ... you could never have the Rishis, which are maximally superior to our Solar Logos, being the centre in THAT Solar Logos, could you? No? No. So my question is: If, from this little triangle here it expands to include what look like seven Rishis, is that not a direct hint that the little triangle itself is the totality of those seven Rishis?
Beta: Exactly, that is possible.
Alpha: Now if that triangle is the totality of the seven Rishis the other triangles must be ... a seven fold system. Does it not stand to reason that the other little triangles in that same circle should be comparable and all of them should be sevenfold systems?
Beta: Constellations, right?
Alpha: ... therefore constellations. Therefore Pleiadian, Sirian, Draconian etc., etc. So this seems to me to be, for that reason I deduce that the large circle on plane two is the OAWNMBS ... our particular OAWNMBS, whose centres are constellations, and
Gamma: ... for example, the Great Bear. The seven are the seven around the head centre. ...the constellation of the Great Bear is the head centre and those seven stars are the seven centres which are around the head centre.
Alpha: OK. They are the seven head centres. The seven small head centres ... Yeah, within the head.
Beta: But Blavatsky says the entity of which the Rishis are seven head centres has for its head centre the Little Bear. The Dragon, she calls the dragon of wisdom ....
Alpha: Lets repeat that.