Re: logos and other topics
Jul 07, 1995 06:34 AM
by Brenda S. Tucker
> Pardon my delay in response to your note of 6-19. I concur
with your analysis that the soul, the spirit, and the body are
adversaries. If I follow my hormones, I may violate some moral
principle I have adopted; if I follow my spirit, I may deny my
body physical sustenance; etc. I become complete when my soul,
my spirit, and my body are one wtih the unmanifest logos- - - (at
that point, I doubt very much that I will be in this world of
Fred (and also Ann)
The logos which is described by Ann in her dictionary post as
"the rational" "the word", etc. is according to THE SECRET
DOCTRINE, the lowest aspect of a "nature" that is seven-fold,
just like everything else. The logos is a life, whose lowest
nature is thought. Since the logos is seven-fold, when it is
spoken of as three-fold, we are speaking of the three primary
Unfortunately (and I don't want to disappoint you), but a
seven-fold light does not make it any easier to produce
completeness in your sense of the word. In Vol I. SD, p.
24-25, the First, Second, and Third Logos are discussed.
Now, I don't pretend to completely understand "logos," but the
definition we received, though beautiful, didn't ever stand in
agreement with my immediate reaction to "What is logos?" which is
to answer, "The Sun." Solar Logos is frequently found in the
teachings. Since so many archaic systems have used either logos
or something similar to logos, HPB tries to present them in
agreement or at least in the form which they existed so we may
know their differences.
First Logos - highest aspect of what was written in Ann's post.
Second Logos - Universe
Third Logos - Man
Now, it should seem that since the universe is seven-fold and man
is sevenfold, how can man or one of man's aspects be part also of
the Logos. Just because man is sevenfold it doesn't necessarily
follow that one or more of his aspects are not necessary in any
other sevenfold being. This is where "parallel universes" and
mirror universes come into being. Isn't it interesting how the
earth planetary scheme includes seven spheres, but also the earth
has planets which are sacred to it and whose schemes influence
our planetary logos and these are also sevenfold, I think.
> In SD pg 14-15 fn we read "The "first" presupposes necessarily
something which is the "first brought forth," "the first in time,
space, and rank"- and therefore finite and conditioned. The
"first" cannot be the absolute, for it is a manifestation.
Therefore, Eastern Occultism calls Abstract All the "causless one
cause," "the Rootless Root," and limits the "first cause" to the
logos, in the sense that Plato gives the term."
Your idea here is very close to linear mathematics, where
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7, How can one be one when zero exists? I prefer
-7,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Now is any number first?
What does this speak of to you?
> Unmanifest logos (causeless cause) gives rise to the
manifestation of logos (cause). Manifestation of logos (cause)
gives rise to expression of opposites (Jehovah-Satan; Good, Bad;
Light, Darkness; Energy, Matter; etc...) When I choose to seek
unmanifest logos, I seek to bring all opposites into balance by
unification. ( In my personal life, I suppose I do this by
dominating the expression of the oppposites in my actions... )
(This all sounds very Platonic to me, and regardless of the
thoughts of others in the past and present, it makes some
intuitive and logical sense to me.)
Again on p. 24-25 "Put more metaphysically, the classification
given here of Cosmic Ultimates, is more one of convenience than
of absolute philosophical accuracy. " Your term "unmanifest
logos" doesn't mean anything to me, because who is unmanifest? Is
man unmanifest? Do you mean "unconscious"? Unconscious Universal
Mind is the equivalent of Logos to the Western Pantheists. This
is the "subject-side" says HPB, of "manifested Being." Just
because something is the subject side of an object, doesn't make
it "unmanifest." HPB uses the term to mean the spirit side of an
object, too, but it is confusing, because then people start
talking about the absolute, which is the only thing that I think
is unmanifest, or perhaps a pralayic state is the real state of
Force = the transformation into energy of the thought of the
Logos. Force doesn't spring out of matter, third in order to
matter and spirit originating. Force is not synchronous with
something that first came forth from Mulaprakriti. Only
Mulaprakriti is helpless and motionless without it. Force comes
after Mulaprakriti, but Mulaprakriti may as well be a flat-bed
without the action of Force upon it.
> Just a note of clarification, I would add that I have a baad
habit of using the word perfection and completeness as synonyms.
I do not mean to use the term perfection to imply any moral
system or sense of judgement. I hope I did not cause you some
confusion in my previous writing.
I'm repeating your words here, because I want to make a second
> Manifestation of logos (cause) gives rise to expression of
opposites (Jehovah-Satan; Good, Bad; Light, Darkness; Energy,
Matter; etc...) When I choose to seek unmanifest logos, I seek to
bring all opposites into balance by unification. ( In my
personal life, I suppose I do this by dominating the expression
of the oppposites in my actions... )
It doesn't seem right to me that "man" should be the third logos
(or body of the logos).
P. 25: "Moreover, Man was regarded in several systems as the
THIRD LOGOS." "The LOGOS is the mirror reflecting Divine Mind,
and the Universe is the mirror of the Logos, though the latter is
the esse of that Universe. As the Logos reflects ALL in the
Universe of Pleroma, so man reflects in himself all that he sees
and finds in HIS Universe, the Earth. It is the three Heads of
"The Sun was always called by the Egyptians "the eye of Osiris,"
and was himself the Logos, the first-begotten, or light made
manifest to the world, "which is the Mind and divine intellect of
the Concealed." It is only by the sevenfold Ray of this light
that we can become cognizant of the Logos through the Demiurge,
regarding the later as the creator of our planet and everything
pertaining to it, and the former as the guiding Force of that
"Creator" - good and bad at the same time, the origin of good and
the origin of evil."
My problem with what you are saying is this. While I agree with
you that man can reach the realm of Universe and Logos just as if
man journeys through the spirit and soul of "logos", I would not
presuppose that this means a balancing of opposites in the sense
that the opposites cease to exist as such. My understanding at
this time points toward Man being necessary in an effort to
assume the position of "soul" within the logos so that we may
judge the activities of the universe as "right and wrong."
In a sense maybe things happen on earth because of forces beyond
our control, for instance like the Holocaust or an earthquake,
but if we don't become channels for these forces and judge them
so they may be directed or redirected, we are missing our calling
as an integral part of the "logos."
The first and second logos are so easy to mix up, because of
things like "order," "soul," etc.
HPB says, "The reader must bear in mind that there is a great
difference between the LOGOS and the Demiourgos, for one is
Spirit and the other is Soul;" I, myself, prefer to see man as
the soul of the logos because we can judge right and wrong in a
way that "universe" cannot. Universe almost seems more material
than earth at times.
One last quote from Vol II, p. 449 "Since our doctrines differ
so widely from the current ideas of both Materialism and
Theology, the Occultists must be ever prepared to repel the
attacks of either or of both."
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application