Yin, Father-Mother, Fire and Water, Bright Space and Dark Space?

A. Everyone must work this out for himself, "Kwan-ShaiYin marks the places for the shining ones, the stars, and turns the upper space into a shoreless sea of fire, and the one manifested into the great Waters." Think well over this. Fire here stands for the concealed Spirit, Water is its progeny, or moisture, or the creative elements here on earth, the outer crust, and the evolving or creative principles within, or the innermost principles. Illusionists would probably say "above."

Q. What is the veil which Ocaohoo, the youngest, lifts from East to West?

A. The veil of reality. It is the curtain which disappears in order to show the spectator the illusions on the stage of Being, the scenery and actors, in short, the universe of MAYA.

Q. What is the "upper space" and "shoreless sea of fire?" A. The "upper space" is the space "within," however paradoxical it may seem, for there is no above as no below in the infinitude; but the planes follow each other and solidify from within without. It is in fact, the universe as it first appears from its laya or "zero" state, a shoreless expanse of spirit, or "sea of fire."

Q. Are the "Great Waters" the same as those on which the Darkness moved?

A. It is incorrect in this case, to speak of Darkness "moving." Absolute Darkness, or the Eternal Unknown, cannot be active, and moving is action. Even in Genesis it is stated that Darkness was upon the face of the deep, but that which moved upon the face of the waters, was the "Spirit of God." This means esoterically that in the beginning, when the Infinitude was without form, and Chaos, or the outer Space, was still void, Darkness (ie., Kalahansa Parabrahm) alone was Then, at the first radiation of Dawn, the "Spirit of God" (after the First and Second Logos were radiated, the Third Logos, or Narayan) began to move on the face of the Great Waters of the "Deep." Therefore the question to be correct, if not clear, should be, "Are the Great Waters the same as the Darkness spoken of?" The answer would then be in the affirmative. Kalahansa has a dual meaning. Exoterically it is Brahmâ who is the Swan, the "Great Bird," the vehicle in which Darkness manifests itself to human comprehension as light, and this Universe. But esoterically, it is Darkness itself, the unknowable Absolute which is the Source, firstly of the radiation. called the First Logos, then of its reflection, the Dawn, or the Second Logos, and finally of Brahmâ, the manifested Light, or the Third Logos. Let us remember, that under this illusion of manifestation, which we see and feel, and which, as we imagine, comes under our sensuous perceptions, is simply and in sober reality, that which we neither hear, see, feel, taste nor touch at all. It is a gross illusion and nothing else.

Q. To return to an early question, in what sense can electricity be called an "entity"?

A. Only when we refer to it as Fohat, its primordial Force. In reality there is only one force, which on the manifested plane appears to us in millions and millions of forms. As said, all proceeds from the one universal primordial fire, and electricity is on our plane one of the most comprehensive aspects of this fire. All contains, and is, electricity, from the nettle which stings to the lightning which kills, from the spark in the pebble to the blood in the body. But the electricity which is seen, for instance, in an electric lamp, is quite another thing from Fohat. Electricity is the cause of the molecular motion in the physical universe, and hence also here, on earth. It is one of the "principles" of matter; for generated as it is in every disturbance of equilibrium, it becomes, so to say, the Kamic element of the object in which this disturbance takes place. Thus Fohat, the primeval cause of this force in its millions of aspects, and as the sum total of universal cosmic electricity, is an "entity."

Q. But what do you mean by this term? Is not electricity an entity also?

A. I would not call it so. The word Entity comes from the Latin root ent, "being," of esse, "to be"; therefore everything independent of any other thing, is an entity, from a grain of sand up to God. But in our case Fohat is alone an entity, electricity having only a relative significance, if taken in the usual, scientific

sense.

Q. Is not cosmic electricity a son of Fohat, and are not his "Seven Sons" Entities?

A. I am afraid not. Speaking of the Sun, we may call it an Entity but we would hardly call a sunbeam that dazzles our eyes, also an Entity. The "Sons of Fohat" are the various Forces having fohatic, or cosmic electric life in their essence or being, and in their various effects. An example: rub amber-a Fohatic Entity-and it will give birth to a "Son" who will attract straws: an apparently inanimate and inorganic object thus manifesting life! But rub a nettle between your thumb and finger and you will also generate a Son of Fohat, in the shape of a blister. In these cases, the blister is an Entity, but the attraction which draws the straw, is hardly one.

Q. Then Fohat is cosmic electricity and the "Son" is also electricity?

A. Electricity is the work of Fohat, but as I have just said, Fohat is not electricity. From an occult standpoint, electric phenomena are very often produced by the abnormal state of the molecules of an object or of bodies in space: electricity is life and it is death the first being produced by harmony, the second by disharmony. Vital electricity is under the same laws as Cosmic electricity. The combination of molecules into new forms, and the bringing about of new correlations and disturbance of molecular

equilibrium is, in general, the work of, and generates, Fohat. The synthesized principle, or the emanation of the seven cosmic Logoi is beneficent only there where harmony prevails.

Sloka (8). WHERE WAS THE GERM, AND WHERE WAS NOW DARKNESS? WHERE IS THE SPIRIT OF THE FLAME THAT BURNS IN THY LAMP, O LANOO? THE GERM IS THAT, AND THAT IS LIGHT; THE WHITE BRILLIANT SON OF THE DARK HIDDEN FATHER.

Q. Is the spirit of the flame that burns in the lamp of every one of us, our Heavenly Father, or Higher Self?

A. Neither one nor the other; the sentence quoted is merely an analogy and refers to a real lamp which the disciple may be supposed to be using.

Q. Are the elements the bodies of the Dhyan-Chohans, and are Hydrogen, Oxygen, Ozone and Nitrogen, the primordial elements on this plane of matter?

A. The answer to the first part of this question will be found by studying the symbolism of the Secret Doctrine.

With regard to the four elements named it is the case; but bear in mind that on a higher plane even volatile ether would appear to be as gross as mud. Every plane has its own denseness of substance or matter, its own colours, sounds, dimensions of space, etc., which are quite unknown to us on this plane; and as we have on earth intermediary beings, the ant for instance, a kind of transitional entity between two planes, so on the plane above us there are creatures endowed with senses and faculties unknown to the inhabitants of that plane.

There is a remarkable illustration of Elihu Vedder to the Quatrains of Omar Khayyam, which suggests the idea of the Knots of Fohat. It is the ordinary Japanese representation of clouds, single lines running into knots both in drawings and carvings. It is Fohat the "knot-tier," and from one point of view it is the "world-stuff."

Q. If the Milky Way is a manifestation of this “world-stuff” how is it that it is not seen over the whole sky?

A. Why should it not be the more contracted, and therefore, its condensed part which alone is seen. This forms into "knots" and passes through the sun-stage, the cometary and planetary stages, until finally it becomes a dead body, or a moon. There are also various kinds of suns. The sun of the solar system is a reflection. At the end of the solar manvantara, it will begin to get less and less radiant, giving less and less heat, owing to a change in the real sun, of which the visible sun is the reflection. After the solar Pralaya, the present sun will, in a future Manvantara, become a cometary body, but certainly not during the life of our little planetary chain. The argument drawn from spectrum star-analysis is not solid, because no account is taken

of the passage of light through cosmic dust. This does not mean to say that there is no real difference in the spectra of stars, but that the proclaimed presence of iron or sodium in any particular star may be owing to the modification of the rays of such a star by the cosmic dust with which the earth is surrounded.

Q. Does not the perceptive power of the ant—for instance, the way in which its perceptive faculties differ from our perceptive powers of colour-simply depend upon physiological conditions?

A. The ant can certainly appreciate the sounds that we do, and it can also appreciate sounds that we can never hear, therefore evidently, physiology has nothing whatever to do with the matter. The ant and ourselves possess different degrees of perception. We are on a higher scale of evolution than the ant, but, comparatively speaking, we are the ants to the plane above.

Q. When electricity is excited by rubbing amber, is there anything corresponding to an emanation from amber?

A. There is: the electricity which is latent in the amber, exists in everything else, and will be found there if given the appropriate conditions necessary for its liberation. There is one error which is commonly made, than which there can be no greater error in the views of an occultist. A division is made between what you call animate and inanimate objects, as if there could be such a thing as a perfectly inanimate object on earth!

In reality, even that which you call a dead man is more alive than ever. From one point of view, the distinguishing mark between what is called the organic and the inorganic is the function of nutrition, but if there were no nutrition how could those bodies which are called inorganic undergo change? Even crystals undergo a process of accretion, which for them answers the function of nutrition. In reality, as Occult philosophy teaches us, everything which changes is organic; it has the life principle in it, and it has all the potentiality of the higher lives. If, as we say, all in nature is an aspect of the one element, and life is universal, how can there be such a thing as an inorganic atom!

AUTHORITY

There lie open before me the "Holy Bible," the "Light of Asia," and the "Bhagavad-Gita." What does anyone living today know of Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna? Nothing. What need we know of such personalities? Nothing. So we are left face to face with the naked statements which reach us through such books. We read and study them and form our own judgments as to their inherent value. What is it that judges? It is the child of omniscient Spirit, our Soul, our Self in a material body; and though still a child, his birth-rights can not be usurped, or delegated, or evaded in any way.

T

"OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH"

HEOSOPHY has received a copy of a circular letter sent out under date of November 1, 1917, by The Sacramental Church of the Living Christ (Old Catholic), requesting our help and contributions "to launch this conception of the great eternal truths before the American people." To this we must reply that that we are not interested in launching our own or any one else's "conception of the great eternal truths." We are interested in launching those great eternal truths themselves. We are no whit interested in launching the conception of the Old Catholic Church, or the Campbellite church, or any other church or sect or creed or party. Why not? Simply because they are nothing but conceptions, i.e., interpretations, speculations, opinions, dogmas. What the world needs and desperately needs is the eternal truths themselves. Of "conceptions" erroneous and partial and distorted, as all renderings are, the world has, and has always had, a superabundance.

The same circular invites us to attend the "first celebration of the Mass." which will be "held in Besant Hall (Chicago) on Sunday, November 18, 1917, at 11 A.M.," and says that 60,000,000 of our people "have no church affiliations, because no religion has been presented to them allowing them intellectual freedom." Is this latter statement in any way true? We do not think so. We think the great majority of adult Americans have no church affiliations. because the churches offer them no intellectual food, rather than no "intellectual freedom." There is entire religious liberty in all the churches. Every one has "intellectual freedom" in religious matters. He may read or not read, propagate or not propagate, accept or reject, any or all the "conceptions" of eternal truths afloat. The fact that 60 millions do not accept any of the "conceptions" offered is proof of their "intellectual freedom." As to the others, the existence in every city and town of representatives of the most bizarre and antagonistic "conceptions" is certainly abundant evidence that the remainder of the population has "intellectual freedom" to do as they think fit. If they want to "join" any sect, nothing and no one prevents. If they want to transfer their allegiance, or absolve themselves entirely, nothing and no one hinders. And the statement that "no religion has been presented to them. allowing any intellectual freedom" is not only devoid of truth, but is filled with a monstrous falsehood, for THEOSOPHY and the three Objects of The original Theosophical Society have been presented to them these many years, offering the fullest measure both of intellectual freedom and of intellectual food, as any one may know who studies Theosophy or peruses the three Objects of the Society founded by H. P. B. These statements in the circular are not "conceptions" of the facts: they are misconceptions of the most glaring and indefensible kind.