Dear Brother,

Please study this absolutely vital reference. From it, you will see the Tibetan’s method of blinding the “cosmic group” to which our solar logos belongs. This cosmic group is really a “cosmic Logos” (referenced below). It also shows that our solar Logos alone cannot be a major center within the OAWNMBS, but can only be a major center within a Cosmic Logos (and a Cosmic Logos is a center within the OAWNMBS).

I believe these paragraphs and the tabulation are absolutely essential in decoding the many blinds in which our solar system is called a constellation, or is said to be a center within the OAWNMBS. Indeed, our solar system is a center within the OAWNMBS, but it is a center within a center—the major center in the OAWNMBS being a cosmic Logos and not a solar Logos, such as our own.

An Absolutely Vital Reference:
“Third:  The work of a solar logos is again of a corresponding nature:

[Page 292] a. He has to attain to the full consciousness of His entire ring-pass-not, or of the seven planes of the solar system.  This covers a period wherein five of the Heavenly Men, or five of His centres, and therefore, five schemes, reach a stage of accurate response to contact and stimulation.

b. He has to attain to the consciousness of the cosmic Logos within Whose body He is a centre.  He must find by experience His place within the cosmic group of which He is a part, in much the same way as a planetary Logos pursues a similar course.  This is achieved when all the Heavenly Men or each of the seven centres are awakened and functioning consciously and freely, with their systemic inter-relation adjusted and controlled by the Law of Action and Reaction.  It brings within His control not only the seven subplanes of the cosmic physical plane (our seven major planes) but necessarily also the cosmic astral plane.

c. To attain to the consciousness of the centre in the body of the ONE ABOUT WHOM NOUGHT MAY BE SAID.  This centre is formed by the sphere of influence of a cosmic Logos.  In the body of a cosmic Logos, a solar Logos is a centre.

Commentary: Here we definitely understand that cosmic logoi form the centers in the OAWNMBS, but that our solar logos form a center in a cosmic logos. Note that a solar logos must “attain to the consciousness of the centre in the body of the ONE ABOUT WHOM NOUGHT MAY BE SAID”, and that this centre is formed by the sphere of influence of a cosmic Logos. A solar Logos cannot be a major center in the OAWNMBS but can only be a major center in a cosmic Logos.

We must bear in mind that this enumeration is given from the standpoint of the present, and from the angle of vision (relatively limited) of the Heavenly Man of our particular scheme, and that it is therefore circumscribed by His peculiar conditions, which govern the intelligence of the cells in His body; it is given from the point of view of differentiation and not of synthesis.  A synthetic absorption proceeds eventually in connection with all these Entities, and each undergoes a process, paralleling on His Own level that undergone by the Microcosm; in the case of the Microcosm the causal body or the body of the Ego acts as the synthesiser of the energy of the Quaternary or lower Self, and the spiritual

[Page 293]

TABULATlON II

EVOLUTION IN THE UNIVERSE
Entity                            Vehicle                         Centre                          Space                           Time

The Unknown               7 constellations.            cosmic Logos               5 cosmic planes.

A cosmic Logos           7 solar systems solar Logos                 4 cosmic planes.

A solar Logos               7 planetary schemes      Heavenly Man              3 cosmic planes.           Period of three solar systems.

A Heavenly Man          7 planetary chains         Chohans and groups     2 cosmic planes.           Period of one solar system.

A Man                         7 etheric centrcs           a Principle                    1 cosmic plane
Period of one planetary scheme.

 

Dear Brother SP,

 

It is Christmas morning, 2000, here in Finland. Our intensifying exchange has meant a lot to me, stimulating me to think in ways which (for long) I have not forced myself to do. I tried to give you a call yesterday evening, to wish you a merry Christmas, and to talk to you personally for a few minutes, but my phone card did not work properly from Finland, and so I was stopped. Still, I am thinking of you and our dialogue for the sake of Truth. It come at an important time in my life, and I hope it is potentially as valuable for you as I think it is for me.

 

I thought, perhaps to list the questions which I have scattered throughout our exchanges, in the interests of being more focused. If we can define the areas in which we have different points of view, we have a better chance of clarifying and eliminating (where possible) those difference.

 

Some questions below are of a general nature and some specific. To some of these questions, I have proposed answers. To others I have only “directions of thought” and no really satisfactory answers.

 

1.      To what extent do the outer configuration of star systems reflect their inner, subtle configuration? For example, there are seven major energies connected with the Great Bear and also seven major observable stars; there are seven major energies connected with the Little Bear (but it is not so easy to decide upon seven major stars through which the Great Bear energies are transmitted); there are two basic energies coming from Sirius and there are two stars generally to be observed when one looks at Sirius as usually considered—Sirius A and Sirius B; there are three basic energies from the Pleiades (but no such obvious three stars are to be seen amidst the seven or nine)

All star systems are really lotuses, internally; do their out configurations (number of stars etc.) somehow reveal numbers within the inner lotuses or qualities within the inner lotuses?

This is the great inner and outer question. Sometimes you say it is important (as when thinking of Sirius as a twofold ajna center within the OAWNMBS; sometimes you discount it as insignificant (as in your letter on the SSSOWOIO, when you spoke of the great Hexagon with a point in the center).

So a rephrasing of the question is: to what extent does outer astronomical structure and dynamics reveal inner occult/esoteric structure and dynamics? Is there a principle here?

2.      To what extent are the magnitude of stars and star system an indication of the spiritual development of the logoi Who inform them?  What, for instance, would you say about the relative spiritual development or status of the logoi of our system (Sol), Sirius, Betelgeuse, and Alnilam—having as they do such differing “absolute magnitudes” and solar-luminosities? (For the purposes of definition, if a star has “one solar luminosity” (SL), it is exactly as radiant as our Sun, (Sol). Solar luminosities are used to determine “absolute magnitude”

3.      How does the principle of relativism help us define the true nature of the relations between stars and star systems? Let us think, in this regard, of “visual magnitude” and “absolute magnitude” and how these two modes of measurement reveal different kinds of relationships between stars and constellations. For instance, Sirius (so close to us) and so bright, visually, to us, is very important to our solar system, and probably to our local constellations consisting of seven major solar logoi; but Sirius (whose “absolute magnitude” is far weaker than its “visual magnitude” {as that visual magnitude seems to us to us}. may be far less important within the OAWNMBS, than it is to our immediate solar system and the members of our immediate constellation (the SSSOWOIO).

4.      Within chakra systems, are chakras (though different in relative intensity and unfoldment) comparable in hierarchical structure? Is there a principle which states that within any chakra system, all chakras must be similar kinds of entities—i.e., all globes, all chains, all planetary schemes, all solar logoi, all constellational logoi, etc., etc., even all galaxies and beyond?

5.      How important is “chakric magnitudinal consistency” within any chakra system?

a.       For instance, within the chakra system of a solar logos, certain planetary schemes are considered to be major chakras. Are there any instances in which beings of lesser or greater ‘ontological status’ (i.e., ‘status-in-being’) than a planetary logos are also found representing the major chakras of a solar logos?

b.      For instance, the major chakras within a planetary scheme are represented by planetary chains. Are there any instances in which beings of lesser or greater ‘ontological status’ than a planetary chain lord are also found representing the major chakras of a planetary logos?

c.       A constellation is composed of solar logoi and their representative suns. According to the tabulation on TCF 293, these solar logoi represent the chakras within a “cosmic Logos”. On this page, a “cosmic logos” is one which expresses through a constellation—hence my term, “constellational logos”.

Entity                            Vehicle             Center              Space
 “A cosmic Logos         7 solar systems solar Logos     4 cosmic planes.

Are there any instances in which beings of lesser or greater ‘ontological status’ than a solar logos are also found representing the major chakras of a cosmic logos (as defined on TCF 293)?

d.      What I call a ‘super-constellational logos’, and what, on TCF 293 are called the “Unknown” and elsewhere the OAWNMBS, has major chakras which are represented by constellations or by cosmic logoi. Are there any instances in which beings of lesser or greater ‘ontological status’ than cosmic logoi are also found representing the major chakras of super-constellational logoi?

e.       It is precisely here, that you may say, “Yes”. Without excessive concern, you mix constellations and solar logoi as major centers of the OAWNMBS. True, you say the Sirius (because there is a Sirius B) is a constellation. And your refer to the Secret Doctrine, remembering that the planets are “brothers” of our Sun, and hence imply that the planets are, as if, stars, and that, therefore, our solar system is really a constellation. Re Antares, I am not sure how you handle the problem.

But I say that Sirius B may be the cosmic moon of Sirius A. And that our solar system is really a solar system (and not a constellation), otherwise every solar system would probably have to be called a constellation, as probably every solar system was started among qualitatively similar “brothers”.

So this question must be answered. One of the principles I hold to as I attempt to understand cosmology and cosmogony, is what I call ‘magnitudinal consistency’ within any chakra system, and I believe all observable chakra systems (from which we may upwardly analogize) bear me out in my affirmation of the importance of preserving this kind of consistency.

 

6.      Are the constellations which have been classified and named, really  only convenient pictures to be used a mnemonic devices, or (in many instances) do they reflect the associations of star-entities who are actually cooperating, physically and metaphysically?

“Humanity is on its way to a right understanding of services; it is becoming responsive to this new law and is learning to react to the steadily imposing will of that great Life who informs the constellation Aquarius, just as our solar Logos informs our solar system and our planetary Logos informs our earth planet.” (EP 122)

We see that there is a Life which informs the constellation of Aquarius. Even if Aquarius (as a constellation is named for convenience or as a mnemonic device), a Life informs these stars as a whole.

“They function, in a peculiar sense, as linking intermediaries between the Logos of our solar system and the informing Life of the constellation Libra.” (R&I 267)

Thus as well for, Libra.

“Creation—Being—Activity—Strife—Synthesis, these are the nature of the Lord of the first constellation and enable Him to influence our planet to these results.” (EA 94)

“Aries begins the process and is the "initiator of the process which leads to progress" and—at the end of the age (as it is now at the final or seventh initiation)—the Initiator of the Mysteries will work under instructions and with energies which emanate from the Lord of the Constellation Aries.” (EA 304)

Here we are speaking of the Lord of the constellation Aries. So it (and many other star groupings) must be more than arbitrary mnemonic devices.

“A steady recollection of the twelve basic energies [Page 85] (five major and seven minor which are in reality, and apart from astral reversion due to the Great Illusion, seven major and five minor) will be of value. These work out into human expression via the Lords of the twelve signs and the twelve planetary Rulers.” (EA 84-85)

Probably, when you speak of constellations as being arbitrary divisions, categorizations or pictures, you do not mean the agreed-upon constellations which are included in the Zodiac of Twelve. Nevertheless, it is important to include the above reference to show that the constellations are entified. Of course we could argue here that DK means exactly “signs” and not “constellations”, but you and are I are both so familiar with the interchangeability of these terms, that I think we can accept their equivalence in this case.

7.      Does the contiguity (relative nearness) of stars in space suggest their physical and metaphysical association and group-cooperation? Five of the seven major stars of the Great Bear are apparently moving in the same direction. The Pleiadian cluster has stars which exist in very close proximity. Are these time-space relations significant as indicators of metaphysical and cooperation?

8.      What are the implications to the fact that our Sun belongs to a constellation of seven solar systems? (cf. EA p. 50 and 467) In this question I am not conceiving of the Sun belonging to a group of seven constellations.  I do mean solar systems.

9.      What are the star members of this constellation, which I call the SSSOWOIO? With which chakras can they be reasonably associated? Thus far (excluding the possible membership of Sirius), I include Alpha and Beta Centauri, and Procyon. There is a star in Eridanus and maybe on in Ceti (all very close to our Sun—I have to get my books to check). There are, of course, a number of smaller brown and red stars quite close to our Sun, but I do not count these stars as likely to be major or likely to represent the seven principles (even though they may, technically, be members of the constellation of which our Sun is a member).

10.  Is Sirius a member of this constellation? Why or why not? If, yes, then why is it listed separately on p. 50 of EA? If no, why is it so close to our solar system, and to the stars within which our star is presently associated.? This is a great question, and cannot lightly be dismissed, even though functions for Sirius within a greater Logos are understood to be quite different from those of our Sun, Sol.

11.  Is it possible for Sirius to be a member of our local constellation, the SSSOWOIO, and yet have a distinct function from the rest of the stars which are also members? I ask this of us for many reasons, but also, in the back of my mind, is the memory that the solar plexus center (of man at least) has two points of light within it—one higher and one lover.

12.  Why, in your enumeration of constellational centers within the OAWNMBS, do you ignore, overlook or discount the importance constellation to which our Sun belongs? It is my contention that our Sun surely belongs to a constellation. Thus far, it is my contention, that “stand-alone-solar logoi” are very rare, and virtually an impossibility. Ever wheel is a chakra, and every chakra (if it is a major chakra) demands six others to be associated with.

13.  What is your reason for assigning our Sun as the destination of the Ray Path? Do not all Cosmic Paths lead out of our solar system except for one—the Path of Earth Service?

In IH S 188, we read the following, suggesting that though the sun is involved in this Path, so are other destinations beyond our Sun (yet, apparently, still on the same Path).

“Later again as his evolution progresses, he will pass to the sun; then having mastered all connected with vibration in this system he will pass to the cosmic system, going off his own ray (which is but a subsidiary ray of one cosmic ray), on to the corresponding cosmic ray.”

“I may not here even indicate the type or quality of the intentions of the ray Lords which the Master of the sixth initiation has to learn to comprehend.  The training given Him ends in another tremendous decision which will place Him in a group of Lives on some sacred planet or in some solar system which will be a correspondence to Shamballa on our little planet.  Shamballa embodies the will or purpose of our planetary Logos.  The goal which these initiates (trained on the ray Path) eventually reach is some sphere of activity wherein sublime purposes and divine intentions are worked out.” (R&I 421)

Apparently, upon the Ray Path, development is eventually pursued in solar systems other than our own. (Of course, if for some reason, the SSSOWOIO is involved in this Ray Path, then our Sun, of course, could, along with six other solar logoi, be the recipient of those who travel this Path).

14.  On the Chart (TCF 344), does the dotted line from the “causal body of our solar logos” to one of the stars in the Great Bear, signify the prototype relationship of this Great Bear star to our star? I note it is the fourth star (the fourth triangle among seven triangles which represent the Great Bear in this diagram).

15.  Astronomically, can you really place the Pleiades at the center of all zodiacal constellations (the Zodiac of Twelve) and also at the center of the of ten of the Zodiac of Ten?

a.       Astronomically, are not the Pleiades really “outside” the zodiacal circle of 12? Are they not really beyond in light years the major stars in Aries, Taurus, Gemini, (maybe also Cancer) and Leo?—which are constellations which are seen when one looks in the general direction of the Pleiades?  And also, still farther beyond  Sagittarius, Scorpius, Libra (which are “in back” of the observer, as he looks towards the Pleiades [thus, looking through Taurus and Gemini} in order to see them)?

b.      Does the Zodiac of Ten revolve vertically to the Zodiac of Twelve? This would seem to make sense, and I cannot see that it could be any other way, as there are three circumpolar constellations (Great Bear, Little Bear {which I include} and Dragon) and at least one and maybe more southern constellations (Antares-Centaur, and Sirius {which is quite southern})—and thus, their extension seems a North/South extension rather than an East/West extension.

c.       The Rays revolve vertical to the planes. 10 and 5 are related to man and manas; 12 and 6 are related to the devas; planes are devic; rays are more man-related; I think it could fit. But if this cross (or two circles revolving like a  cross with respect to each other) defines the motions of the two zodiacs with respect to each other, then in what ways could it be said that any of the members of the Zodiac of Ten are in the signs or constellations of the Zodiac of 12?

In short, the picture of the revolutions of the two circles with respect to each other must be clarified. (I have conceived that a second type of movement is also possible for each circle (one in which the whole circle spins on is East-West axis as well as spins on its North-South axis {the more normal movement}).

 

13.  Will a study of orbital mechanics and dynamics reveal rotational periods for the Greater Seven according to the numbers presented in your theorization.

a.       A study of orbital mechanics in our solar system reveals, obviously, that, with respect to the planets, the larger the orbit, the greater the orbital period.

b.      Using the Law of Analogy, can we say that such orbital mechanics would apply to solar systems revolving around their center and to constellations revolving around their center. I tend to think so, but the numbers are so great by comparison to planetary periods, and so little subject even to the most modern observation.

c.       In the usual rotational scheme, those bodies which are closer to the center revolve faster, or at least, complete their periods faster.

d.      I have discussed the problem that the Pleiades does not seem to be the center of the wheel of the Zodiac of Twelve (which I explained in general). Even, however, if it were the center, a special study of the rotational movement of stars within constellations would have to be undertaken so that we could find the speeds required of associated stars in order for them to preserve their “relative distances”, or what I call, “constellational integrity.

e.       Those stars in the Zodiac of Twelve which were closer to the center would have to revolve faster than those stars which were further (even if the closer and further stars were in the same constellation). This might present certain problems which I can only hint at, but so far am unable to discuss with real intelligence. Our studies should make such discussion possible.

f.        Whereas you do no (as far as I know) specify a rotational period for the entire Zodiacal Wheel of Twelve, you do propose orbital periods for seven constellations which are part of the Zodiac of Ten (and presumably) the major parts.

g.       As I am remembering these numbers: 1) 90,000 years for the seven Pleiades; 2) 150,000 years for Antares; 3)  250,000 years for our solar system; 4) 350,000 years for Orion; 5)  500,000 years for Sirius; 6) 700,000 years for Draco; and, I think, 1,000,000 for the Great Bear.

h.       I believe that the attempt to preserve these figures will violate almost all that we know about orbital mechanics and dynamics. I say this because stars relatively father from the center will have to travel faster than stars relatively closer. Antares (very far from the Pleiades—perhaps 800 lys) will have to travel faster than Sirius or our Sun, both of which are at a distance of about 400 lys.

i.         I am trying to think about how this (and many other similar problems) can be overcome. I am thinking about vertical rotation—a wheel of stars which are rotating on a ‘circle’ (loosely a circle) which is perpendicular to the plane of the Zodiac of Twelve. I am thinking, “Could the entire wheel revolved at the same speed, thus preserving relative distances and constellational integrity. BUT, if this were the case, some ‘outer’ stars of constellations would have to travel very fast—faster, I think, than even possible. (All this must be carefully studied)

j.        Our problem is this: 1) if stars travel around their center at speeds which are commensurate with what we understand about orbital mechanics, it would not be long before the constellations as we know them would fall apart, and the now-associated stars would lose their present “relative distances” and constellational integrity would be violated; 2) IF, however, we sought to see the proposed circle of constellations in the Zodiac of Ten revolving as if they were a wheel, all together, then the speeds required by the outer stars (in order to keep the constellations together) would be, I think, greater than allowable. At one point I checked this, and determined that speeds pushing the speed of light were to be found. I cannot confirm this; I must check it again.

k.      When we are dealing with single bodies like planets, revolving around their center, we have no problem. The body is, as it were, alone, and does not have to keep in any configuration with other bodies. The many changes within our solar system (and which astrology studies) are based upon such independent revolution.

l.         However, we several bodies must stay together in their revolution, we have a real problem, for reasons stated above. The only solution to this problem is to say that the Lord of a Constellation can work through groupings of stars irrespective of where they are relative to each other. While this might seem possible, the stars we identify as related are all contiguous (more or less) in space.

m.     Maybe star groupings are very temporal, with stars entering and leaving groups just as people do—over time. Perhaps the distances are so vast compared to speeds of stars, that the associations which will one day dissociate, remain associated long enough to be considered “qualitatively cooperative” as a constellation for many years in the life of man or humanity.

n.       Well, these are all problems of perspective. From the geocentric perspective of our little turning Earth, these problems do not appear, because the great wheels are considered (from the Earthly perspective) relatively stationary or “fixed”. But when we start talking about the turning of Great Wheels (like the Zodiac of Twelve or the Zodiac of Ten) then new problems arise which must be solved.

o.      Am, I being clear in at least delineating these problems? I hope so. Even though my grasp of astronomy is still to inadequate too move very far in their solution.

14.  Just as planets have more than one ray, as do zodiacal constellations, do the members of the Zodiac of Ten have more than one ray? Almost certainly, this is the case. Then, if so, and we can identify these rays (a big IF)  what do these identifications tell us about the function of these constellations? Some constellations) by analogy are “sacred” (have taken the constellational equivalent to the fifth degree—or whatever degree makes them sacred) and some are not sacred. Presumably, there may be three synthesizing constellations (like Uranus, Neptune and Saturn in the world of planets) the most advanced. Then sacred constellations (corresponding to Vulcan, Mercury, Venus, and to a degree, Jupiter), and some non-sacred. Sometimes I think that Orion is to OAWNMBS what Jupiter is to our solar logos (and you will know why). The Sagittarian connection supports it, and even Betelgeuse (so big and transmitting, apparently R2 energy) can be related to this idea.

15.  Is Venus the heart center within the solar logos or is Jupiter? OR, in some way, are they both representatives of this heart center? It may not be out of place to refer here to EP II 99, wherein thee great Entities Who each express themselves through three planets are mentioned. But the connections are enigmatical (in some cases) and the possible application of this information is obscure.

16.  Does a planet’s chakric function within our present solar system really relate to the monadic ray, or does it rather relate to the soul ray. Or do planets have differing chakric functions, some according to the monadic ray, some according to the soul ray, and even some according to the personality ray? For instance, the Earth—P3, S2, M1. Is its present function really relating to its R1 monad, or is that type of functioning reserved for its next incarnation in the next (third/sixth solar system)? Perhaps its present function is more splenic (relating to the third ray and a little to its second ray soul—for the spleen specializes solar vitality? Or could Earth and Venus form a pair, with Venus definitely related to the solar solar plexus, and astrally polarized Earth also be somehow involved in that solar plexus interplay (which is at least dual) I think of Pollux (a single and a giant) and Castor (which, as I understand it) consists of six stars in three pairs!

17.  In what way do the seven head centers (which are not the three—crown, ajna and alta major) relate to larger chakra system, and especially to the seven for which they are the control centers. How also do these seven head centers particularly relate to the crown center?

18.  In what ways is a cluster of stars different, hierarchically, in scope and power from a constellation of stars—if they are different? Because I believe in preserving magnitudinal consistency when ascending in any hierarchical system, I believe the clusters are more important than normal constellations, just as, I presume “globular clusters” are important within the physical and metaphysical hierarchy of the galaxy.

19.  In what way is Alcyone “the central spiritual sun”? In what way are the Pleiades to be considered the “central spiritual sun”?

20.  Is the fact that the Pleiades are a cluster relate it to the fact that it can be considered the “central spiritual sun”? Alcyone is such a Sun for our Sol, but I believe the Pleiades (as a whole) are such a ‘Sun’ for the larger system.

21.  Given that (in man at least) the thousand petalled lotus is thousand petalled, whereas all other chakras have nowhere near this number of petals, should there be an astronomical structure of sufficient size and intensity (greater than that of other related astronomical structures) to represent this greatest lotus? Behind my question is the question of whether a star cluster is perhaps necessary to represent this 1000 petalled lotus within the anatomical structure of the OAWNMBS.

22.  When considering the “orders” of solar logoi (ours being of the fourth order and Betelgeuse being of the second order), what to these order numbers really mean? Are they to be related to hierarchical development; to monadic ray? Externally, are their correlations with color (spectral type), with size and temperature?

23.  Whereas solar logoi apparently have orders, do constellations also have order numbers?

24.  Can it be that the truth about Orion is much blinded because of the danger of meditating upon it?

“Those who tread this second Path work with magnetic or attractive energy because they have identified themselves with it.  Eventually they will all pass on to Path VII, which is the Path of Absolute Sonship.  All that can be said here in regard to their efforts is the statement that this Path carries them (through the medium of the logoic head centre) into the Heart of the ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID.  They are swept out of systemic evolution altogether upon a great tide of attractive energy which emanates from one of the major centres of that great Existence Who is the source of the life of the solar Logos.  This centre is of course one of [Page 1250] the seven constellations.  As it is the most potent constellation as far as our system is concerned owing to the fact that this system predominantly expresses love or attractive energy and our Logos is as yet polarised in His cosmic astral body, it is not permitted to hint at the name of the constellation.  The reason is that if the name were known and if enough people could do the work of occult meditation and visualisation, accompanying the work with a vivid imagination, it might be possible to attract into our system such a downpour of attractive energy from the constellation involved as to unduly speed up the processes of evolution upon our planet, and thus upset the systemic economy most dangerously.  People do not yet realise the potency of meditation and especially of group meditation.” (TCF 1249-1250)

There is a great mystery here and I feel that Betelgeuse is indirectly involved. I know that Libra “is involved” as DK has said in R&I. But reading above, it is clear that Libra is (though importantly involved) is not the constellation which is “one of the major centres in that great Existence Who is the source of the life of the solar Logos.” Also, Libra is not the “most potent constellation as far as our system is concerned…”. I believe I remember that you theorized that this system was Antares, but my present thought on this subject leads me to other (though as yet not entirely consolidated) conclusions.

25.  Are there ten constellations in the Zodiac of Ten? Seven major constellations are always discussed and it is hard to find more than seven (of that exalted magnitude) to fill the role of chakras within the Super-Constellational Logos. But the analogy from our planetary system suggests that, though there are only seven major sacred planets (including the synthesizing planets) the major chakras in our solar Logos demand more than these seven planets, especially because some of the major chakras are in or around the head. There is also the possibility that more than one planetary scheme may participate in the manifestation of a given solar Logoic chakra.

The analogy from our solar system and its planets, tells us that non-sacred planets must be involved in the chakra system of our solar logos. Perhaps this is also true of the SSSOWOIO and also the OAWNMBS. Many are the extra planets in our solar system; many may be the extra stars (brown, red, dim, whatever) in our “own” constellation (the SSSOWOIO), and, as well, many may be the participating constellations in the OAWNMBS (level 2, as you know I call the SSSOWOIO a level-1 OAWNMBS). Probably the galaxy is a level-3 or level-4 OAWNMBS.

26.  There are 12 basic energies in all (EA 85). With which sign of the zodiac is each of these 12 energies associated? There are seven from the Great Bear (transmitted through the Little Bear); two from Sirius and three from the Pleiades. Presumably each of these twelve is associated with a particular sign of the zodiac.

“A steady recollection of the twelve basic energies [Page 85] (five major and seven minor which are in reality, and apart from astral reversion due to the Great Illusion, seven major and five minor) will be of value. These work out into human expression via the Lords of the twelve signs and the twelve planetary Rulers.” (EA 84-85)

Incidentally, again, we have the “Lords of the twelve signs” (i.e., constellations), which means to me that constellations (though named and classified as such by the feeble mind of man) have a deeper esoteric integrity behind their apparent external structure. If these stars were not relatively together in space, they would not be identified as constellations; and the “Lords” do work through these constellations.

 

I am now reaching the end of my questions (which I address, ongoingly, to both of us. Of course, there are many more. They arise like mushrooms as one goes deeper into these matters. But included in these are some of the main ones which will not leave my mind.

 

I send them to you now hoping that the next number of months will see increasing clarification on these matters.

 

I am also serious in thinking that our exchange of letters could be published one day, just as those between Freud and Jung, or between Leibniz and (who else was it?). Not that we are the great minds of the astrological century (well the century is very new!), but I think the scope of this discussion will be mind-expanding to many, and will be a service. I know from what you have said that you agree.

 

With love as always,

 

Bro. MDR