Theos-Talk Archives (September 1997 Message tl00147)

At 01:08 PM 9/8/97 -0400, Jaqi wrote:

<friendly snip>
>
>It resides in HPB's explanation of ST 1, VS 1.  It goes a little something
>like this:
>
>"The sun was the chief, exoterically, of the twelve great gods, or
>zodiacal constellations;"[this part is pretty easy, its the next that lost
>me]..."and, esoterically, the Messiah, the Christos (the subject anointed
>by the Great Breath, or the One) surrounded by his twelve subordinate
>powers, also subordinate, in turn, to each of the seven "Mystery-gods" of
>the planets."
>
>What don't I understand?  Almost all of it.  Here is what I "think" I
>understand.  The mystery-gods are the seven planetary Spirits.  That's it.  

Jaqi,

According to astrology, the 12 signs are ruled by the seven planets. (OK,
as more planets were discovered and entered human consciousness so that
their qualities could be more overtly expressed, some signs were assigned
co-rulerships with the more recently discovered planets.) So, on one level,
this could explain the subordination of the 12 to the seven.
>
>What or who does she mean by the Messiah/Christos?  Surely not the
>Christ(in the flesh).  But maybe.  I figured that because she stated
>"esoterically" first, she meant the spiritual aspect of the Christos.

Perhaps she was referring to the Christ Principle or the Principle of
Consciousness resulting from the union of Spirit with Matter. In some
traditions this would represent the union of the First Aspect, which has
also been referred to the Will or Father Aspect with the Third Aspect
(Matter or Mother Aspect). This also parallels the Soul or Causal Body
which has also been said to result from the union of Spirit with Matter.
There are also other trinitarian parallels, for example where the Christ
Principle parallels Vishnu, the second aspect of the Brahman godhead.
Though I said Christ "Principle", I don't mean to imply that Principles are
not entities.

But I think if we rely too heavily on an astrological interpretation we may
miss HPB's main point, not that I've found it either. ;-D I say this
because the chain of correspondences tends to fall apart, at least for me,
if we consider the Sun, astrologically, it represents individuality which
isn't quite the same thing for me as consciousness. But then again, perhaps
it is. Also, we're missing those glossaries accompanying the stanzas which
she said on page 23 (the same page containing your passage) which have "The
astronomical and astrological keys opening the gate leading to the
mysteries of Theogony..."

Further down on the page, she sheds a bit of light on this where she says
"In the ancient Cosmogonies, the visible and invisible worlds are the
double links of one and the same chain. As the invisible Logos, with its
seven hierarchies (represented or personified each by its chief angel or
rector), form one POWER, the inner and the invisible; so, in the world of
Forms, the Sun and the seven chief Planets constitute the visible and
active potency; the latter "Hierarchy" being, so to speak, the visible and
objective Logos of the invisible and (except in the lowest grades)
ever-subjective angels."

If the invisible Logos represents Will or Spirit or the First Cause, then
the Sun could represent its consciousness (Christ) resulting from its
manifestation into matter or that Breath she mentioned. I don't feel that
my conjecture here is all that accurate, but is my feeble attempt to
interpret this passage somewhat. Very feeble, so folks please hold the
rotten tomatoes. ;-D

>Then comes the twelve subordinate powers.  The apostles?  Still I think
>not.  I think the biggest thing that throws me here is the "in turn".  I
>feel extremely ignorant.  It almost seems astrological, and unfortunately,
>Astrology isn't something I am very familiar with.

Your intriguing question led me to dig in SD Anthropogenesis. You may find
some tantalizing lines of inquiry if you follow references to Siva (the
equivalent of the First Aspect), Vishnu (the Christ Principle), and Trinity
from the index. I'm still digging because I haven't found the one reference
that would definitively apply. (If I find it, I'll let you know.) I don't
think that the 12 subordinate powers are the apostles in this regard. I
suspect, but am not sure that they and the seven have to do with Emanations
from the First Cause. I also suspect that Cosmogenesis may shed more light
on all of this, but my head hurts right now from all this effort. ;-D

Lynn