Day Two Begins
Alpha: Today is the 23 of May. We are ahead of schedule. It is only 8:49 and we are beginning by addressing today the first two questions on page 2, and the questions would be of this nature:
· What kind of entities should we consider as inhabiting the various planes in our map? At first let us just name them as they come to mind. We should consult at least page 844, page 533-534, page 566 of Cosmic Fire, and any other tabulations which lists important entities. If they have alternative names, let us state what they are and why these names are appropriate (that is if they have alternative important names, because The Divine Plan probably gives thirty different names for the Agnishvattas, so we don’t necessarily need to do all of that.
... and then that would be followed by this question:
· Let us, for heuristic purposes, create a hierarchy of entities justifying why any should be higher or lower than another by stating its function. Such beings as Kumaras (planetary and systemic), Buddha’s of Activity (three kinds), Planetary Logoi, Solar Logoi, Plane Lords, Lipika Lords, Lords of Karma, Constellation Lords, whatever, etc. Let us also seek to come to some understanding of the scope of expression of the various entities. In general, through what kind of vehicles do they manifest? In doing this let us also attempt to understand somewhat the function of the members of the army of the voice. Though completeness is impossible, let us attempt to place a number of them on the map.
Epsilon: Maybe we should have a map first.
Alpha: Well, we do. We had a map yesterday. So I suggest that the map on page 344, or are there any others that show all of the cosmic planes and/or what Beta was calling the prakritic planes? And I suggest that we also use a blackboard. Would that be possible? Who would like to volunteer to write down the names of the entities as we just throw them in no particular order? We can hierarchicalize them when we finish. If we attempt to hierarchicalize and generate the names, then we have a problem, or, at least I have a problem with my, you know, pea brain, as Epsilon would say.
Beta: We could just count them off from these page numbers too.
Alpha: We can, so lets do that. Lets begin on page 533. Might as well, it is a good place to start. … Are you happy to do the board Delta?
Delta: I’ll do it.
Alpha: Oh, you’re not happy to do it. I am happy.
Delta: OK.
Alpha: If I am happy you would be happy.
Delta: Yes.
Alpha: OK. I am happy. Listen when it comes to listing entities I find fewer things of more pleasure.
Delta: Where is the eraser ... in case any of them go into pralaya?
Alpha: … OK, the first one’s we put done are the Delta’s, the Beta’s, the Epsilon’s, … OK, are we ready? Are we happy yet? Where is the eraser?
Beta: We don’t need Solar Logos, right?
Alpha: Are you kidding. We do need Solar Logos. … We are studying the great science of relations here.
Delta: Solar Logos ...
Alpha: Three major rays or Lords of Aspect. Can we just call them Lords of Aspect?
Beta: ... umm, why not? Or, Ray Lords.
Alpha: Yeah, but there are three. Well whatever this thing is, three lords of aspect, because the question is are they the same as the seven Heavenly Men? … Are the seven ray lords the seven Heavenly Men?
Delta: No.
Beta: Yes, in a sense.
Delta: ... (inaudible) represent them in the solar system, but they are not the Ray Lords.
Alpha: OK. Well we are off to a good start. That is the idea. Let’s call them the seven Heavenly Men. However, lets also put down Ray Lords ... in general. … 49 Regents. Then, seven Lords of Globes in every chain. So what will we call these ... Lords of Globes?
Delta: How about Buddha’s of Activity?
Alpha: OK. We will put them too.
Delta: Are they the same?
Alpha: Ah. ... not necessarily. Or, we don’t know yet.
Delta: ... speak for yourself.
Alpha: OK … Buddha’s of Activity ... Ok … 49 Root Manus … And what about Seed Manus. How many Seed Manus, how many Root Manus. Well, I put these down, 49 root Manus and then seed Manus. I think we can only go so far here. Seventy-seven embodier’s of form, a group of Solar Lords who are concerned with form building working primarily on first ray. This is probably the only hint we have of what these beings are …
See, actually this is all right here on page 533. So all we are doing is getting it up on the board. Now, lets put down Avatars, let’s put down Lords of the Third Kingdom. …
(tape paused) … [admin discussion of how to proceed has been deleted, although the original is amusing.]
Alpha: You know what we should actually do. Let us just simply read these. Let’s make the map and then lets read them. Ok? … if we make the map, and then we go through the different kinds and we just try to put them on a map. I am concerned though about trying to put them on the map because controversy is going to rise as to where they are. …
Gamma: … First, I have to define what kind of entity. Because it doesn’t seem to be clear if this is the entity, what aspect of the entity, is it the body, is it the soul ... ?
Alpha: That is the secondary step ... First you put them down and then you decide whether they are bodies, souls, monads or reflections. That is the science of relations. First you have to have the names.
Beta: They also do have multiple locations for other reasons.
Alpha: That is the problem.
Beta: The map can be used either for a Solar Logos or a Planetary Logos. So in a way we should have two maps.
Alpha: OK. But, first, lets follow through exactly as I planned. OK, some people look on the other sheets. What are the other pages I gave you?
Beta: Well, there are Manasadevas, there are sons of Fohat, and brothers of Fohat.
Alpha: Lets just put them down. And then we are going to discuss them before we put them on the map.
Beta: Deva Raja Lords ...
Epsilon: Solar entities and Solar Logos ... are they the same? … he says eight groups of solar entities.
Alpha: No they are not the same.
Beta: Sons and brothers of Fohat?
Alpha: Ok, sons of Fohat and brothers of Fohat, are they different?
Beta: I have a question about that. Yeah, I think they are in a sense, they can be made different there.
Alpha: How many more blackboards do you have? We have another one over here. Let’s get this too ...
(noise ensues)
Alpha: OK. blackboard in place, let’s continue. Pisces energy is very good for synthesis so maybe we can just sort of wrap up: for ten or twenty or twenty-five years we have been talking about all these entities and reading all about them ...
Delta: _______ Dhyanis
Alpha: OK, and Dhyani Buddhas … the major ones is what we need...
Beta: Manus.
Alpha: We have Root Manus and Seed Manus, a number of varieties. We have Heavenly Men. We have seven Spirits before the Throne. And seven Spirits of Darkness.
Beta: We have Planetary Spirits and Spirits before the Throne. Two.
Alpha: OK.
Beta: And then there is Spirit of the Planet.
Beta: Planetary entity.
Beta: Divine Manasaputras.
Alpha: ... there are Divine Manasaputras and there are Manasaputras. … So there is a difference and there is … there is Divine Kumaras and there is Kumaras. We are not really getting into all the elementals and all the rest of it yet. Actually, what I want you to do .....
Delta: How about the Silent Watcher?
Alpha: Yeah. OK. Well, and what about avatars .... What about the Spirit of Peace ....where would such a being go?
Beta: Avatars.
Alpha: ... under Avatars do you think? Avatars are of three or four varieties. So we will talk about Avatars. He has a whole section on Avatars.
Epsilon: Do you want the Nirmanakayas.
Delta: Dharmakayas.
Delta: Sambhogakaya.
Beta: But that is more Blavatsky, right? … Bailey doesn’t mention Dharmakakya or Sambhogakaya too often.
Alpha: No. But, you know we don’t want to get too hung up on it, let’s just take it ...
Alpha: Well, sure … We have the Raja Lords of the Planes, the Lesser Heavenly Man (that is too obscure). ... Good. OK. Now what is on 844. Anything that we need?
Beta: Well you don’t have the Lipika’s ...
Delta: Did we put down Solar Lives?
Alpha: OK, what about the Kingdoms, you know, we have the Solar Kingdom, the Planetary Kingdom, the fifth Kingdom. Are these (inaudible) lives?
Beta: Yeah ... the Sixth and Seventh Kingdoms
Alpha: These are the Ray Lords, Kshiti, Varuna, these are the Plane Lords.
Beta: Right. Deva Raja Lords. Yeah, it is under Manasadevas.
Alpha: They are not Manasadevas. … OK, have we got 844 ... anybody looking at that?
Gamma: You said 844?
Alpha: Yeah. We need to consult various places ...
Epsilon: Solar Pitris … Angels and Lords.
Alpha: OK, if there are distinctions. See, my hope is that once we get the idea of the major players we can determine their relationships and their relationships to man.
Epsilon: We don’t have the Lunar Pitris.
Alpha: Well, we can put them in. But, are we going to say Lunar Pitris, Angels and Lords. Would you also divide them in that way?
Beta: Oh yeah.
Alpha: That would be interesting.
Beta: Because they are used .....those terms are used in different situations.
Delta: Barishads [?] …
Alpha: … And now we also do not have the Creative Hierarchies. Now some of these of course are members of Creative Hierarchies …
Epsilon: We have the builders, the Lesser Builders ...
Alpha: The Lesser Builders could be, well, those are the elementals, right? ... I think we need, in general the Creative Hierarchies and, how far can we go with Creative Hierarchies? We are only given twelve, correct?
Alpha: Seven and five.
Gamma: Yes ... seven and five ... the liberated kumaras.
Alpha: OK. Well then we are going to have to see what is the connection here between the kumaras and the hierarchies.
We also should have constellational Lords, the Lords of the greater centres, for instance, the Lord of the aggregation that we call the Pleiades … and so forth. … also we need a cosmic ... We need the omnibus, the varieties of onnibuses. What about OAWNMBS? We need that in at least three varieties, on the level of constellation, on the level of the being that includes seven constellations, and on the level of the galaxy. There is a statement that our Solar Logos is an atom in the OAWNMBS. He can’t be a centre and an atom in the same OAWNMBS. So that is probably as far as we should go upward.
Then the Secret Doctrine … what about the laws and the Ah-hi.
Beta: The Ah-hi might be useful. …
Delta: And Adi Buddhas
Alpha: Adi Buddhas, well, maybe Buddhas is sort of a generic term. (over here) I’ll put just Buddhas.
Beta: Do we need Blavatsky? I mean ... that is going to be hundreds more ...
Alpha: Well, we don’t need all of the different cultural terminology, just the main entity, OK, what else? Is there another page that I suggested or have we gotten it all? … we should put down the atom …
Gamma: How about man, also.
Alpha: Man. Did we forget man? Ooops! We forgot man ... ! So, what have we got here? I mean, are these the names of the entities with which we most often deal?
Beta: Well there is a Grand Heavenly Man, too.
Delta: Well aren’t the Manasadevas the same as man?
Alpha: Well, this is the kind of question we are going to ask ourselves. Now some of you are experts in names, the Conferrer of Names. Any others that we may need here? You know, this big chart, 534 – I’m not sure that we need all of this. Oh, we have forgotten the whole deva evolution, well not all of it but … what about the violet devas, the Agnichaitans, the Agnisuryans ...
Beta: They are also under the Deva Lords ....
Alpha: They come under Deva Lords but they are subdivisions. … So, Agnishvattas, Agnisuryans, and Agnichaitans. Let’s just say elementals: fairies, gnomes, sylphs, salamanders – just elementals.
See, the point is that every being in cosmos is composite, like a human being is composite. So here we were talking about how this is relevant to a human being. Well, what hierarchies make up the human being? That is what we have to figure out. I mean I have never myself, personally done a round-up of all entities, like corralling all the steers.
Beta: I have made an attempt quite a few times.
Alpha: Have you made an attempt along this line?
Beta: Um-hmm
Alpha: So what are we leaving out?
Beta: Well, this is enough to deal with … unless we go into Blavatsky, and that is just too painful …
Alpha: That is true that Blavatsky is problematic. There are so many different names for different …
Beta: Yeah. And I want to correlate them with Bailey so there is a common terminology.
Alpha: Un-ha, so, let’s think now. We have ten dimensions of cosmos.
Delta: How about Sephiroth.
Alpha: Oh. Sephiroth ... And there is a whole bunch of the ‘yuckies’ who, even though we are holding this in ‘Yucka” (This is ‘Yucka-hall’), we don’t need to get into the [sounds likeà] clipoff you know, which are all the lower demons, and rock [sounds likeà] chasas, and things of that nature.
Delta: How about Gandarvas?
Alpha: Well, that’s it you see. Don’t forget we’ve 33 [sounds likeà] crura we have got to go through here.
Beta: OK. Yeah. They are associated with the prana’s at a certain level. …
Alpha: ... the [sounds likeà] Gandarvas ...?
Delta: ... and also in terms of astrology, too, I think.
(Multiple voices)
Alpha: OK. Now Gosh! There is a lot going on. There is a lot of entities in cosmos, really.
Delta: We become the cosmic sociologists ....!
Alpha: Oh ... the Kama Cosmics? OK, are we overwhelmed yet? This shouldn’t be too bad, of course every one of these sort of breaks down into quite a few, don’t they? OK, just for the sake of simplicity ... (laughter) we won’t add any more right now.
Now, let’s solicit each other’s advice on this matter. What kind of planar map shall we draw in order to best place these beings. Or, would you prefer to give some brief, encapsulated definitions of the various entities (without going into all the complexifications), and then place them on the map? Or, would you prefer to try to placing them on the map first before defining them?
Gamma: You know I have a vague .... defining what an entity is...
Alpha: OK. Let’s do that … let’s define what an entity is...
Gamma: ... because you have the consciousness and the body they use. Is there any difference between the body they use and the place where they dwell? Yeah.
Alpha: Yeah. Of course. So let’s define an entity. In this book I am writing at the moment I spent a number of pages defining entity.
[Funny part about defining ID deleted.]
Alpha: OK. ... No, but seriously. What is an entity?
Beta: As far as I am concerned the entity is the subjective part, and its very much a generic term. It has some specific qualifications. I think it’s usually associated with astral in that it is the subjective side of the being that incarnates. But, I would associate it with astral because it is almost always mentioned by Blavatsky and Bailey in context where you’re talking about a subjective entity incarnating through an exterior system. This is very clear with the sun. When she enumerates the three suns: the head or central spiritual sun, the heart of the sun, and the physical sun. She adds another one between the physical and the heart of the sun which is the subjective sun. And that is the entity aspect as far as I can tell.
Alpha: Subjective sun ... might relate to the cosmic astral manifestation of the solar logos?
Beta: ... astrally polarised … it is kama manasic, and entities always take on that kama manasic quality I think in our local universe.
Alpha: So you are talking about use rather than the generic [?] meaning of the word.
Beta: Correct.
Gamma: You are talking about the solar system now?
Beta: Yeah. Planetary, and solar system and humans, everything. I think that it is used just basically as the subjective entity, no matter how advanced or little advanced, regardless of how much consciousness or how little is incarnating through a system.
Alpha: The word ‘Being’ is sometime used. The word Being, as I understand it, is sometimes used interchangeably with entity. These great existences, great beings, these entities … there is a commonality between them regardless of life’s specific use. Maybe the word being is used a bit on a higher level than entity, would you say?
Beta: Yeah. Definitely.
Alpha: When I think, however, about entity I am using it in a totally generic manner, and in the sense of being. And as every being, as I see it, is essentially a ray of the absolute, I ‘being’ would mean One of the differentiated rays of the absolute manifesting through a different vibratory frequency of prakriti, cosmically considered. In other words, there is no difference, every being is identical. ‘I’-dentical. Every being is essentially identical. What do you think?
Gamma: I would take another tack and say a being, an entity, is an energy.
Alpha: Well, what is an energy?
Gamma: They are (inaudible) veiled (inaudible).
Alpha: Is an identity an energy?
Epsilon: ... a specified energy; a specific type of energy.
Beta: Identity has much more to do with the core. And being does too. Entity usually can be totally unconscious. An entity could be disembodied as well as embodied. But it always has to have form to be differentiated. … you have to be able to say that it is differentiated, or qualify its differentiation …
Alpha: The differentiation has only to do with the variety of prakriti that corresponds to its consciousness.
Beta: So you could use it, express it as a quality.
Delta: So there is a link between the expression, the body of the expression, or the vibration of the expression, or the type of expression. …
Beta: They all have the three aspects: life, form and appearance.
Alpha: And life is identical, that is the important thing. The life is ‘I’-dentical. There is not one shread of difference between the lives; its all monad in a way.
Delta: Even though its being silly, I didn’t mean it in a silly way, about the Id … literally id. Whatever the prefix ‘id’ means.
Alpha: ID, I die. ‘I’ into ‘form’.
Delta: It is ‘id’ entity.
Beta: So, Freud’s id. The collective unconscious
Delta: Yeah … well we don’t have to define all these Freudian terms.
Beta: Well ... from a Buddhist point of view it is important, in Theosophy I find people want to reach absolutes rather than ultimates, and relate ultimates with the relative. Because in terms of identity, obviously something is preserved in cycles when things move out of cycles something is put into a laya state. … We don’t know, Blavatsky doesn’t know how to qualify or discuss this, how to elucidate it. It probably can’t be expressed in words, but identity seems to be the core of the life principle and identity is unique in every case because of the infinitude of space and time and the manifestation. If it is out of manifestation its either in a laya state, pre-manifestation, or it could be what theosophy calls a Parabrahman state. But, if you say everything is absolutely the same, it is nothing at all.
Alpha: It is nothing.
Beta: Exactly.
Alpha: But it is essentially true, from a first ray perspective. … From the Shiva perspective it is so, I mean Blavatsky’s labours her whole initial presentation to explain that that is so. But that is not identity in the intra-universal sense; identity in the intra-universal sense is unique.
Beta: But then again, these [Jungian] metaphors are still used for identifying Shiva and the nature of Shiva, by all the schools. ... you know the yogi’s believe that ...
Alpha: I am not sure I do, but we don’t have to hang out in the absoluteness. That is not the point. But she does say that every being is essentially a ray of the absolute. That is the core identity. But I would say that any kind of identity that is occurring within universe is partial, intra-universal, qualitatively specific, and it is just a small representation of the core identity. Yet it is the one we have to deal with. See basically, don’t you have the one life moving through all dimensions of cosmos and differently identified depending upon the dimension through which it is moving?
Beta: Um-hmm. That is not the only qualification that is true though because you have the consciousness qualification and that is the identity.
Alpha: Yeah. But what I am trying to say is that the consciousness is dependent upon the dimension in which ...
Beta: ... then you just go up another set of seven planes....
Alpha: Yeah. And on and on ... until it has to end … given what I would call the ‘finitude’ of universe.
Beta: I wonder it that exists ever ...
Alpha: Well, I think the Law of Periodicity would be violated unless you had a finite universe.
Beta: Periodicity is only within a system.
Gamma: That is what he said.
Alpha: What about the in breathing and the out breathing, and the absolute principle. In other words, everything has to disappear into nothingness as HPB says, so that would violate it if you had an infinite universe.
Beta: But it is only invisible or it becomes nothingness on the plane from which it dissolves.
Alpha: OK. Well this is the deep philosophical question, this is a big, big question, because actually what we are doing here is talking about the contrast between the Vedanta and Buddhist system. Morya says, how shall we reconcile Vedanta and buddhism in one of his Slokas, he says, I see no problem between them. You know and basically Buddhism is dealing with all of the vehicles and all of the modifications, and it is the world within universe, and Vedanta is trying to annihilate universe. And the two, he says, go hand in hand. And we are taking those two different positions right now. But that is all right, but we don’t have to hang there; let’s just get ourselves right down into the universe.
Gamma: … We are just examining functions in our consciousness here because ... we are taking about life.
Alpha: We are saying that life exists in all of them and we are saying that they are differentiated particularly because of their form and their consciousness ...
Epsilon: And their function ...
Alpha: Well, function is a function of form and consciousness, isn’t it? In other words, function depends upon location, and upon relationship relative to other beings.
Beta: Another qualification I put on entity … is that of sentience; I get that impression from her usage of entity as well ...
Alpha: OK And the question is there any point in cosmos where sentiency doesn’t exist?
Beta: Right. And is it different from consciousness? Is it distinct?
Epsilon: Sentiency is different from consciousness ...?
Beta: Is it? ... yeah.
Alpha: Well, the point we have here, yesterday we began with the discussion of the planes and we went up to super cosmic planes, but … can we keep everything on the lowest of the supra-cosmic planes here, for the moment?
Beta: Right. I think we should start with planetary, then go up to the solar, because I think the solar will emerge out of this. …
Alpha: Now, this is a mind boggling task. And there is a whole lot within a person that resists doing it. But, I think we should do it. I think we should try to find one or two sentences without great elaboration to define what is on the board. In other words, without going to a big discussion we should try to run down these things and say what are one or two sentences that would nail these beings down conceptually, as an initial statement, without going into the elaboration of them.
Gamma: What is available in this thing here is that he defines those beings by the permanent atoms it uses.
Alpha: Would you say he defines them by the permanent atoms, or he lists them according to the permanent atoms used.
Gamma: He lists them.
Beta: That’s as far as our seven solar planes go. System planes.
Alpha: Seven systemic planes. ... because really, obviously, the Solar Logos has permanent atoms but they are on another level. … whatever those permanent atoms ... Oh ...
Beta: ... that is a big interval ...
Alpha: Oh, you know we forgot to put down Egoic groups, ashrams, things of that nature.
Gamma: ... and triads ...
Alpha: Because these are actually entities, or Beings, whatever.
Epsilon: If we want to be a bit more complete, we could go through the Theosophical Glossary, it goes to the name, then we find quite a number of entities there.
Alpha: Yeah. We do. But, I have never done this before, maybe Beta has, but in our discussion with our students and group members we are constantly discussing beings and their relationships to each other. I have never seen all the beings that I discuss under my eye at the same time.
Beta: I would say, looking at all these, that some of them form parts of the constitution of larger entities. Some of these are more relevant to human entities, in the evolution of humanity in a large sense, in its position in this planetary constitution. Others are more distinctly related to planetary constitution. Others are more related to Solar constitution. But they are always interpenetrating.
Alpha: Right. … Yeah. As a matter of fact that’s a little further down the list, that whole question of the nesting factor of entities.
Beta: Right. Another category, a way of nesting these, particularly through the three periodical vehicles. Because within the planetary constitution some are going to be related to the monadic aspect, some to the egoic part and then some to the personality, or lower.
Alpha: We need categories as to how to approach these.
Delta: I think the first categories are those on the upward arc in evolution and those who are involution. That would drop out the lunar lords, you know almost the whole thing is on the upward arc.
Alpha: Most of it is on the upward arc. Right over here ...
Delta: I don’t think we should spend much time on the downward arc (unless we have time for it).
Alpha: No. The downward arc is significant to man in terms of the sixth and seventh creative hierarchies. And even the fifth from that point of view. As a matter of fact we really need to study the hierarchies, there is a tremendous obscurity about that in the minds of most.
Delta: I think that would be worthwhile but perhaps separate from this. But then we are doing the upper arc. We could have a major category of schemes, chains and globes, and the beings associated with those.
Beta: That is much more daunting. That is profoundly technical. That could be done …
Delta: Because not all these are occupied on the level of the full scheme, or chain or a globe.
Beta: Right. But the downward arc and upward arc, when we mention that we’re basically being anthropocentric because the lunar monads are involving as far as humans are concerned. They have their own evolution. And the same with the devas, they are an evolutionary group.
Alpha: Yeah. They are.
[several speak] …
Beta: I think that is why we left out the elementals to a certain extent.
Alpha: Well we actually included them ... there they are on the board.
Beta: Yeah. There is almost nothing there on the downward arc that it says ...
Delta: Specious species ...
Alpha: OK. Well what we have got to do is find a way to extract. Let’s do what I said and see if it is as difficult as it is and as limited as it is, Can we can come up with one or two sentences without arguing over it that will say what these beings are.
Gamma: ... stop the tape now and list their function.
Alpha: Yeah. Their function.
Beta: That would be one by one?
Alpha: Its one by one, or, you were looking at it globally, weren’t you?
Beta: Yes, that is right.
Delta: That is what I was stipulating ...
Alpha: Yeah. OK. So let’s begin simply with a Solar Logos, from all we have read. Next will be the ...
Epsilon: What did you say for Solar Logos?
Alpha: We didn’t. We went on ... just put down ‘sigh’. OK, so the Solar Logos is the informing life of a solar system ... but more?
Delta: It depends on (inaudible) schemes ...
Alpha: Yes. Are all solar Logoi beings of the fourth order? No. See, matter of fact one day we should discuss the meanings of order, fourth order, fifth order, second order and so forth. A Solar Logos is a being in cosmos manifesting physically through a star and its attendant planets and psychically through ...
Delta: ... one second, if you say manifesting through a star, are we implying there are seven dimensions of that star?
Alpha: Well, let’s see ... manifesting physically through a star ... and its attendant planets, and psychically ...
Beta: ... through the subjective sun ... it is at least denoted by the subjective sun.
Alpha: OK. Ah ... what are the lunar vehicles of the Solar Logos?
Beta: The astral ... well it must be the animal nature, so to speak. I think it is depicted in the three levels of the mind and the two astral qualities, the five qualities that come through, that incarnate through seven pranas.
Alpha: OK. Well that is another ...
Beta: You have the astral recorders. Then you have the astral devas.
Alpha: OK. And we are talking here on cosmic astral levels.
Beta: Yeah. Cosmic astral and cosmic mental, you have the three.
Alpha: But suppose we were trying to be simple about this, we have in cosmos in the physical plane, certain kinds of visible structures …
Beta: But then you talk about the Solar Logos’s astral nature ...
Alpha: We don’t want to get stuck on it. The whole idea is just to consider the Solar Logos as a being. Now we can call him the Grand Heavenly Man, or that could be called the personality aspect of the Solar Logos, but sometimes it seems there is an inexact usage and he is called the Grand Heavenly Man.
Beta: I think of it as the soul …
Alpha: I see. I see. … In other words, just as the Heavenly Man is considered the egoic aspect of the planetary logos, so the Grand Heavenly Man could be considered the egoic aspect of the Solar Logos. But can we nail it down? …
Beta: So the sons of Fohat would operate through schemes, the seven sons of Fohat could be associated with seven pranas on the systemic, just on the systemic plane.
Delta: Isn’t Fohat the third aspect?
Alpha: Yeah. It is. I think we better ...we better start...
Beta: I am trying to be procedural. I slipped.
Gamma: I would like to know also if the planets are in ... necessarily in a manifestation of a solar logos?
Delta: Well, they are chakras within it.
Gamma: OK. So, in the definition, physically manifesting through our solar system, attended by ...
Alpha: Yeah, and its attendant planets.
Beta: So if we deem to talk about a solar logos you would probably talk about a planetary logos just to a certain extent in the sense of, what is the logos? We have the three logoi in terms of the Solar Logos. … The solar system is usually considered only the the third logos.
Alpha: Yeah. And sometimes (it is very interesting), he talks about going onto the cosmic plane, cosmic astral plane, and moving beyond the solar system. This is a peculiar statement. So the solar system seems to be confined to the cosmic physical plane.
Delta: I don’t necessarily agree that it should be through only three logoi. There could be seven, you know if you do the seven locas ...
Beta: Oh no, of course, but this is within the context of one entity incarnating, one solar logos ... It incarnates through three, and the Parabrahman through three logoi in a sense.
Alpha: He says basically there is Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva aspect surrounding the Solar Logos. And, by the way, what those entities are, three lords of aspect … we are almost getting into that. OK, the point is let’s not go for elegance and perfection, let’s just go for rough understanding.
Beta: Shall we say that a logos has to have seven principles or something corresponding to seven principles, something corresponding to the permanent atoms? ... egoic body?
Gamma: (inaudible) principles, has ten principles.
Alpha: Well, OK, that is interesting, but manifesting … you see principles have to do with consciousness particularly, don’t they? So, it seems to me that the principles of a being have to do with consciousness and the permanent atoms and their out growths have to do with the form aspect. So we could say, gee it is so hard to say, its just a being manifesting physically through a solar systems and its attendant planets, and psychically through seven principles. Are the planets themselves the principles of a solar logos, or the psychic natures of the planets, the principles?
Beta: Yes. But, more specifically, the kumaras probably ...
Alpha: Well, we have got to wait until we define that. … and this is important. You understand there is a tremendous resistance in the minds of most students against doing this, for the very reason that it is so horribly difficult, you know, to really get all this straight.
Beta: It is potentially, painfully controversial.
Alpha: Yeah. OK. So anyway we are doing a pioneering thing even though the moon is still in Pisces.
Delta: See, we are not going to focus on the dimensions, the solar system, what a solar logos operates in.
Alpha: Not yet. Right now we are just saying ... I think I can say, manifesting through three periodical vehicles, like all other atoms in cosmos. … And through seven psychic principles.
Gamma: And what is psychic principles?
Alpha: Well by psychic we mean related to consciousness aspect. See, and that is how you really distinguish ... [Tape Six Begins] … We are continuing our discussion of significant entities in cosmos and we are attempting to give forth necessarily inexact definitions of the nature and function of these entities before we attempt to hierarchicalise them and relate them.
OK. So now that we have polished off the Solar Logos ...
Beta: We didn’t discuss the permanent atoms … so we have the life aspect operating through periodical vehicles ... psychic or consciousness.
Delta: ... one permanent atom.
Alpha: ... on the physical plane, but maybe ...
Beta: ... the eternal now, the physical present for the Solar Logos is three solar systems, so its sense of time is radically different from ours. And so the seven operate through the life aspect. … through the three periodical vehicles, through egoic consciousness, psychic aspect through the principles, and then through the form or appearance aspect, to … a number of permanent atoms.
Alpha: We don’t know the number ...
Beta: We don’t know the number of principles, right.
Alpha: But you know, there seems to be an infinite [?] so that any entity which has three aspects, as all entities in cosmos must, might also have some form of correspondence to seven psychic principles. And (although the permanent atoms would be variously placed), might be considered to have the standard number of permanent atoms, but but the location of them would be most interesting. And that is one of the great variables.
Beta: And for instance, we have the cosmic egoic lotus of seven tiers of seven petals each.
Alpha: I thought it was seven tiers with three petals. … Maybe you can find a reference for me because I counted twenty-one on that. But, not to verge off, but we are talking about the egoic lotus of our Solar Logos And did he ever talk about the egoic lotus of the Sirian Sun?
Beta: Uh. No.
Delta: … not one of our immediate problems ...
Alpha: Well, for persons who think about it enough it could become an immediate problem!
Delta: Yeah.
Beta: Page 1161, the logoic solar angel. Because I have been looking at this closely I’ll be obnoxious and just say, he doesn’t say Solar Lord, Logoic Solar Lord, or Logoic Solar Pitris, he says Solar Angel – which is to me the second aspect, although it can be the first, and the Pitris the third. But, so he says: “It is interesting here to note that as the human solar Angel is a unity, manifesting through three tiers of petals, the logoic correspondence is even more interesting, for that great cosmic Entity demonstrates on the cosmic mental plane as a triple flame working through seven tiers of petals, and it is the energy from these seven circles of energy which pulsates through the medium of any scheme.”
Alpha: So he doesn’t say how many petals.
Beta: He doesn’t say how many petals, at least not here.
Alpha: I assume three per tier but that may be just an assumption. Anyway that is where I got my number twenty-one.
Beta: I was thinking because earth is a dual scheme it may have a dual jewel operating through five tiers of (inaudible) petals.
Alpha: OK, it it might, anyway, the interesting number is there. So now we have done the Solar Logos.
Gamma: The whole thing is obscure, even to the highest (inaudible) because of ...
(laughter & many voices)
Alpha: Listen, we are all in training for something you can be sure. OK, so the three lords of aspect, this is considered to be in relation to the solar logos.
Gamma: So, we have finished now the Solar Logos.
Alpha: We have. …