Notes on H.P. Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine
Volume 1 (page 3 of notes)Notes on H.P. Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine
Volume 1 (page 3 of notes)
Notes on "The Secret Doctrine - Pantheism - Atheism" continued
To dispel the illusion of atheism Blavatsky here points out that although Brahma (the creator element, a This in the previous discussion of This and That) will be destroyed at the end of the cycle in which he emanated, the next cycle will necessitate that he be emanated again. Therefore Brahma although technically a "This" can be considered to be eternal. Images in an animation sequence appear to be fluid moving "things". In reality they are made up of many, many frames of still images.
Notes on "'Space' in All Religions and in Occultism"
This section begins with a description of space, as being omnipresent, all things must exist within it. As discussed before space, at least in this connotation, is not a This but a That. That cannot create anything, remember the unfortunately embryonic definitions of This and That, given in the previous arguments. Something which is infinate cannot produce a finite thing, a This. If a That (infinate) produced a This then it would not be infinate, for to be infinate presuposes that That already includes the This that That just created. There for if That (infinate) produced a This (an object not included in the orginal That) then That (infinate) cannot be infinate, for it produced a This that wasn't included in the original That, there for That cannot be infinate, which is the definition in this treatese of That, That is infinate, it cannot create a This outside of itself, without invalidating it's definition.
This infinate space is refered to as Brahma (neuter), unmanifested. Brahma manifested is the Logos, and the male/female differentation exists at this level (This - manifested), but the unmanifested Brahma is neuter (That - unmanifested), manifestation includes a classification of male/female (in the context of this discussion). This entire concept as defined above creates a tautology, for That (infinate) must be Assumed (excepted on Faith). The beginning of That would in this framework make the That a This. The "breathing", the exhalation (Manwantara - evolution) and inhalation (Pralaya - dissalution). Of That, the point which is everywhere and nowhere, the circle with no circumfrance, the assumed original cause (philosophy reference, cause and effect) of all religions. There fore each great cycle, comprised of an "exhalathoin" were evolution occurs, creation, is followed eventually by an inhalation or dissalution, the universe created and evolved during the Manwantara is destroyed, and after the inhalation period (Pralaya - this is the destruction period) a new creation and evolution occurs (a new heaven and a new earth). This exhalation and inhalation comprisis one Mahamanvantara. Nothing at all can be described about That (infinate), it is by definition undefinable. To define That is to assume it is really a This.
A new (old) concept of Theosophy is presented at this point, Parabrahm - the One, the absolute reality. Unthinkable, unknowable. out of all relation to conditioned existance. Spirit or Conciousness and Matter are both modes of expression of Parabrahm. Thus these form a trinity, Parabrahm - Spirit - Matter. I refer the reader to the Quaballah- concieve of Parabrahm as a sort of Kether, and Spirit in the place of Hochmah, with Matter in place of Binah. Now I am not implying identification of these terms, but just as Hochmah and Binah are seperated from Kether by an "abyss" - not the abyss which seperates the lower seven sephiroth from the supernal triad, but an abyss at another level if you will. Linking to the above discussion, this Parabrahm, or ultimate reality, can be associated with "That". "This" can be equated with Spirit or Matter. In order to be materialized, to exist beyond the "abyss", and not be encompased by "That", by Parabrahm, where there is no distinction, in fact nothing to distinguish, it is all the ultimate reality, above this vale or abyss all is Parabrahm. To exist below this vale or abyss, a thing must take on one of two characteristics, Thelemites will instantly identify this with Crowley's formula 0=2. I say Crowey's formula to simplify this discussion, it is actually a concept inherent to Quaballah. All philosophies run together above a certain level of comprehension. To quote Crowley (again) all arguments are arguments in a circle. You are probably quite convinced at this point that I am a Thelemite. And you are right ! And wrong ! See Crowley's Book of Lies for more discussion along these lines, and I will return to The Secret Doctrine.
I must be on Blavatsky's, or the author(s) of the Book of Dyzan current, for now The Secret Doctrine falls into a perhaps clearer explanation of what I just stated. Just as the inane chatter I wrote above, this apparent digretion must be approached by one that is widely read, and understands widely, or it just comes out as gibberesh. There is nothing I can do for you at this point, it requires an evolution of thought, and perhaps soul to clearly percieve.
The unexplained Rosicrucian symbol of the pelican piercing its own breast producing blood to feed it's young is related to the concept of That, Parabrahm, the entity that cannot possibly create. This "thing" is often refered to as Brahma, or the Kalahansa, the eternal swan or goose, an equality must of course be assumed between the pelican and swan or goose. A more apt term would be Hansa-vahana, he who rides the swan as a vehicle. The Brahma that creates must be a child of Hansa-vahana, or the Parabrahm. For as discussed above the Parabrahm cannot create that which is not a part of itself, or it would not be the Parabrahm.
The Secret Doctrine continues "Such are the basic conceptions upon which the Secret Doctrine rests." Next will follow a discussion of the stanzas of the Book of Dyzan, one by one.