Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge of the Theosophical Society. Discussions on the stanzas of the first volume of The secret doctrine

that Brahmâ, the male aspect, is born and that Brahmâ is actually the Second Logos or even the Third, depending on the numbering system used. He is certainly not the First or highest—the point that is everywhere and nowhere. Mahat, in esoteric interpretations, is actually the Third Logos or the synthesis of the seven creative rays, the Seven Logoi. Out of the seven so-called Creations, Mahat is the third, for it is the Universal and Intelligent Soul, Divine Ideation, which combines the ideal plans and prototypes of all things in the manifested objective and subjective worlds. In the Sankhya and Purânic doctrines, Mahat is the first product of Pradhâna undifferentiated substance, imbued with Kshetrajna or "Spirit-Substance." In Esoteric philosophy, Kshetrajna is the name given to our informing Egos.

Q. Is it then the first manifestation in our objective universe?

A. It is the first Principle within it, made perceptible to divine senses, though not to human ones. But if we start from the Unknowable, we find it to be the third, corresponding to Manas the mind, or rather Buddhi-Manas the spiritual-intuitive mind.

Q. Then the First Logos is the first point within the circle?

A. It is the point within the circle which has neither limits nor boundaries, and can have no name or attribute. This first unmanifested Logos is simultaneous with the line drawn across the diameter of the Circle. The first line or diameter is the Mother-Father; from it proceeds the Second Logos, which contains within itself the Third Manifested Word. In the Purânas, for instance, it is said that the first product of Akâsa spiritual ether is Sound. In this case, Sound means the "Word"—the expression of unuttered thought—the manifested Logos described by the Greeks, Platonists, and Saint John. Dr. Wilson and other Orientalists call this Hindu conception an absurdity because they believe Akâsa and Chaos are the same thing. However, if they knew that Akâsa and Pradhâna are simply two aspects of the same reality, and remembered that Mahat—the divine ideation on our plane—is that manifested Sound or Logos, they would laugh at their own ignorance.

Q. Regarding the following passage, what is the consciousness that perceives time? Is the consciousness of time limited to our waking physical state, or does it exist on higher planes? In The Secret Doctrine (Volume I, page 37), it says: "Time is only an illusion produced by the succession of states of consciousness as we travel through eternal duration, and it does not exist where no consciousness exists."

A. This refers only to consciousness on our plane, not the eternal divine Consciousness we call the Absolute. The consciousness of time, as we currently understand the word, does not even exist in sleep; therefore, it certainly cannot exist in the essentially absolute. Can the sea be said to have a concept of time in its rhythmic crashing on the shore or in the movement of its waves? The Absolute cannot be said to have consciousness—at least, not a consciousness like ours. It has no consciousness, no desire, no wish, and no thought, because it is absolute thought, absolute desire, absolute consciousness, and the absolute "all."

Q. Is this what we refer to as BE-NESS, or SAT?

A. Our critics have found the word "Be-ness" very amusing, but there is no other way to translate the Sanskrit term Sat. It is not "existence," because existence can only apply to phenomena observable events or things, never to noumena things as they are in themselves, beyond perception. The very etymology of the Latin term contradicts such a claim: "out of" original: "ex" means "from" or "out of," and "to stand" original: "sistere" means "to stand." Therefore, existence implies something appearing in a place where it was not before. Furthermore, existence implies something with a beginning and an end. How, then, can that term be applied to that which always was, and which never originated from something else?

Q. The Hebrew Jehovah was "I am."

A. And so was Ormuzd, the Ahura-Mazda of the ancient Mazdeans. In this sense, every man as much as every God can boast of his existence, saying "I am that I am."

Q. But surely "Be-ness" has some connection with the verb "to be"?

A. Yes, but "Be-ness" is not being, for it is equally non-being. We cannot conceive of it because our intellects are finite and our language is even more limited and conditioned than our minds. How can we express something that we can only understand through a series of negatives?

Q. A German could express it more easily with the word "to be" original: "sein"; "the being" original: "das sein" would be a very good equivalent for "Be-ness." That term might sound strange to English ears, but "the being" is a perfectly familiar term and idea to a German. But we were speaking of consciousness in Space and Time.

A. This Consciousness is finite, having a beginning and an end. Yet where is the word for such a finite Consciousness which, due to Mâya illusion, still believes itself to be infinite? Not even a person in Devachan the state between death and rebirth is conscious of time. Everything is the "present" in Devachan; there is no past, otherwise the...