III.

STANZA I. (continued).

Verse (5).—DARKNESS ALONE FILLED THE BOUNDLESS ALL, FOR FATHER, MOTHER, AND SON WERE ONCE MORE ONE, AND THE SON HAD NOT AWAKENED YET FOR THE NEW WHEEL AND HIS PILGRIMAGE THEREON.

Q. Is "Darkness" the same as the "Eternal Parent Space" spoken of in Verse (1)?

A. Not at all. Here "the boundless all" is the "Parent Space," and Cosmic Space is something that already possesses attributes, at least potentially. "Darkness," on the other hand, in this instance, is that of which no attributes can be claimed: it is the Unknown Principle filling Cosmic Space.

Q. Is Darkness, then, used in the sense of the opposite pole to Light?

A. Yes, in the sense of the Unmanifested and the Unknown as the opposite pole to manifestation, and to that which can be speculated upon.

Q. Then Darkness is not opposed to Light, but to differentiation; or rather, may it not be taken as a symbol of Negativity?

A. The "Darkness" meant here can be opposed to neither Light nor Differentiation, as both are the legitimate effects of the Manvantaric relating to a Manvantara, a long period of cosmic activity or manifestation evolution—the cycle of Activity. It is the "Darkness upon the face of the Deep" mentioned in Genesis; "Deep" being here the "bright son of the Dark Father"—Space.

Q. Is it that there is no Light, or simply nothing to manifest and no one to perceive it?

A. Both. In the sense of objective reality, both light and darkness are illusions—maya. In this case, it is not Darkness as the absence of Light, but

as one incomprehensible primordial Principle. Being Absoluteness itself, it has, for our intellectual perceptions, neither form, color, substance, nor anything that could be expressed by words.

Q. When does Light proceed from that Darkness?

A. Later, when the first hour for manifestation strikes.

Q. Light, then, is the first manifestation?

A. It is—but only after differentiation has begun and at the third stage of evolution. Bear in mind that in philosophy we use the word "light" in a dual sense: one to signify eternal, absolute light, original: "in potentia" in potential, ever present in the heart of the unknown Darkness, existing together with it in Eternity—or in other words, identical with it. The other sense is as a manifestation of heterogeneity diversity or variety in parts and a contrast to the darkness. For example, one who reads the Vishnu Purana with understanding will find the difference between the two terms well expressed in Vishnu: he is one with Brahma, yet distinct from him. In that text, Vishnu is the eternal x, and at the same time every term of the equation. He is Brahma (the impersonal absolute), essentially both matter and Spirit, which are Brahma's two primordial aspects—Spirit being the abstract light.In the second chapter of the Vishnu Purana (Wilson's translation) we read—"Parasara said: Glory to the unchangeable, holy, eternal, supreme Vishnu, of one universal nature, the mighty over all: to him who is Hiranyagarbha (the Golden Egg/Womb), Hari, and Sankara—the creator, preserver, and destroyer of the world; to Vasudeva, the liberator of his worshippers: to him whose essence is both single and manifold; who is both subtle and physical, unmanifested and manifested; to Vishnu the cause of final liberation. Glory to the Supreme Vishnu, the cause of the creation, existence, and end of this world; who is the root of the world, and who consists of the world."

And again: "Who can describe him who is not to be perceived by the senses: who is the best of all things; the supreme soul, self-existent: who is devoid of all the distinguishing characteristics of complexion, caste, or the like; and is exempt from birth, change, death, or decay: who is always and alone: who exists everywhere, and in whom all things here exist; and who is therefore named Vasudeva? He is Brahma (impersonal), supreme, lord, eternal, unborn, imperishable, undecaying; of one essence; ever pure, as free from defects. He, that Brahma, was (is) all things; encompassing in his own nature the unmanifested and the manifested." In the Vedas, however, we find Vishnu held in low regard, and no mention is made at all of Brahma as a male deity.

Q. What is the meaning of the sentence, "Father, Mother, and Son were once more one"?

A. It means that the three Logoi plural of Logos; the creative principles or "Words"—the unmanifested "Father," the semi-manifested "Mother," and the Universe (which is the third Logos of our philosophy, or Brahma)—were once more one during the periodical pralaya a period of cosmic rest or dissolution.