CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SEVEN SOLAR SYSTEMS - MDR SDP

S: Please define for me SSSOWIO.  Sirian Seven Solar One Whom???

 

M: The “Seven Solar Systems of which Ours is One”. And, believe me, I do know that you may tend to interpret that which is below differently from the way I do. The big question—when He says “solar systems”, does He really mean “solar systems”, or does He mean “constellations”? I think it is a mixed bag—sometimes one and sometimes the other.

 

“The Great Word of our solar system keys in, if it might be so expressed, with other Words, and is but one Word of the sevenfold Word, known to that great Existence Who stands in the same relation to the Solar Logos as the latter does to the Planetary Logos.  The sacred Words of seven solar systems (of which ours is but one) make up this septenary sound, which vibrates at this time in the cosmic spheres.” (IHS 160)

 

“The cosmic Logos of our system works similarly through three major systems (of which ours is not one), utilising seven solar systems (of which ours is one), for the distribution of His force and having myriads of sevenfold groups as the cells of His body.” (TCF 353)

 

“The Moon chain has in itself a curious occult history, not yet to be disclosed.  This differentiates it from the other chains in the scheme and even from any other chain in any scheme.  An analogous situation or correspondence will be found in another planetary scheme within the solar system.  All this is hidden in the history of one of the solar systems which is united to ours within a cosmic ring-pass-not.  Hence the impossibility of yet enlarging upon it.  Each Heavenly Man of a scheme is a focal point for the force and power and vibratory life of seven stupendous ENTITIES in exactly the same sense [Page 416] as the seven centres in a human being are the focal points for the influence of a corresponding heavenly Prototype.  Our Heavenly Man, therefore, is esoterically allied to one of the seven solar systems, and in this mysterious alliance is hidden the mystery of the moon chain.” (TCF 415-416)

 

Here is where scale is important. Why jump to a constellation, when the sequence should be, 1) Planetary Logos—2) Solar Logos—3) Constellational Logos?

 

“Life is not what anyone has hitherto surmised.  Energy (in contradistinction to force, and using the word to express the emanating centre which differentiates into forces) is not what idle speculation has portrayed it to be.  Life is the synthesis of all activity—an activity which is a blend of many energies, for life is the sum total of the energies of the seven solar systems, of which our solar system is but one.  These, in their totality, are the expression of the activity of that Being Who is designated in our hierarchical archives as the "One About Whom Naught May Be Said."  This seven-fold cosmic energy, the fused and blended energies of seven solar systems, including ours, sweeps automatically through each of the seven, carrying the qualities of

 

1. Impulse towards activity.

2. Active impulse towards organisation.

3. Active organised impulse towards a definite purpose.” (EP I 150)

 

To me, this, and that which follows on p 150-151, indicates a OAWNMBS of the first level—a constellational Logos—the Lord of Seven Solar Systems, but not the Lord of Seven (or Ten) Constellations. Please reference TCF 293 for these distinctions.

 

“3. To develop a station of light, through the medium of the fourth kingdom in nature, which will serve not only the planet, and not only our particular solar system, but the seven systems of which ours is one.  This question of light, bound up as it is with the colours of the seven rays, is as yet an embryo science, and it would be useless for us to enlarge upon it here.” (EP II 216)

 

A kingdom in nature, such as the fourth, may well (someday, somehow) serve a solar Logos, or other solar Logoi, but it too much for me to think that our fourth kingdom in nature is meant to serve a Constellational Logos, such as the level-2 OAWNMBS (the big one). Although, I think the galaxy could be called also O A W N M B S.

 

 

“Yet all the while you remain part of a phenomenal entity to which we give the name of humanity. Now extend this idea to a greater phenomenal entity, the solar system. This entity is itself an integral part of a still greater life which is expressing Itself through seven solar systems, of which ours is one. If you can grasp this idea, a vague picture of a great underlying esoteric truth will emerge into your consciousness. It is the life and the influence, the radiations and emanations of this entity, and their united effect on our planetary life, the kingdoms in nature and the unfolding human civilizations, which we shall have briefly to consider.” (EA 8)

 

Here, I believe He is moving sequentially. I do not think He is skipping over that greater whole who functions through seven solar logoi. From the solar system, to the constellation, and only then, to that Being Whose chakras are constellations and not solar systems.

 

“The following is a list—incomplete but adequate for our purposes—of the major influences which find their way from far distant Sources into our planetary life and produce definite effects upon individual man and humanity as a whole.

 

                1. The constellation of the Great Bear.

I.              2. The Seven Sisters of the Pleiades.

                3. Sirius, the Dog Star.

 

                1. The seven solar systems of which ours is one.

II.            2. The seven sacred planets of which ours is not one.

                3. The five non-sacred planets or "hidden" planets.

[Page 15]

                1. The seven planetary centres.

III.           2. The seven centres of force in the human etheric body.

 

IV.                 1. The twelve zodiacal constellations.” (EA 14-15)

 

The list, He tells us, is incomplete. In fact, it only includes what can be found on EA p. 50 and also 467. Draco is missing, and so for that matter, Betelgeuse (Orion), both of which we know are vital—the first of these named as a chakra in the OAWNMBS.

 

“Proposition One—Every ray life is an expression of a solar life and every planet is therefore:

 

2.        Linked with every other planetary life.

2. Animated by energy pouring into it from the seven solar systems, of which ours is one.

3. Actuated by three streams of force:

 

2.        Coming from solar systems other than our own.

b. Our own solar system.

c. Our own planetary life.

 

Proposition Two—Each one of the ray lives is the recipient and the custodian of energies coming from

 

2.        The seven solar systems.

2. The twelve constellations.” (EA 26)

 

In the above, He seems to be keeping His levels consistent. I do not see why every time we read the word “solar system”, we should immediately think He means “constellation”.

 

The cruelest blind (as you say) is coming, but is it entirely a blind?

“I would like also to emphasise—perhaps unnecessarily—that Sirius, the Great Bear and the Pleiades work through the medium of the twelve constellations, pouring their influences through nine of them in particular, but that these major constellations are not part of the zodiac with which we are concerned. They, with the seven solar systems of which ours is one, are the ten constellations connected with a still greater zodiac which is not conditioned by the numerical significance of the number twelve. Hence ten is regarded as the number of perfection. There is confusion in the minds of some of the less learned students (astrologically considered) on this point.” (EA  112)

 

I would point out that Draco is not mentioned (as it is elsewhere) showing that this listing of ten is blinded and/or incomplete. Same for Betelgeuse (Orion).

 

“1. The seven stars of the Great Bear or Ursa Major are involved in an intricate relation with Ursa Minor and the Pleiades. With this we shall not deal. This major [Page 608] triplicity of constellations has a peculiar relation to that Great Being to Whom I have at times referred as the One About Whom Naught Can Be Said. All that can be hinted at is that these three galaxies of stars are the three aspects of that Indescribable, Absolute Monad, the Ineffable Cause of the seven solar systems—of which ours is one.” (EA 607-608)

 

If here, the term “solar systems” is to be taken as “constellations”, then the word “ours” can also mean “our constellation” (the Seven Solar Systems).

 

“Another group of energies can be touched upon though any true elucidation is not possible. They concern the focussed energies of the seven solar systems of which ours is one. These energies (six in number) reach our solar system, via the constellations Taurus and Scorpio and the planet Mars.

 

(Here is to be found a chart showing the Six Systems working through Taurus and Scorpio as well as Mars)

 

Their peculiar nature, objective in evolution and basic purpose is only revealed to initiates above the fifth initiation. They are concerned with the problem of desire (which is to humanity a problem but not in its higher octaves) and with its transmutation into spiritual will and divine purpose. They are the originators of conflict, are closely connected with the fourth Ray of Harmony through Conflict and are, therefore, in a peculiar relation to the fourth Creative Hierarchy, the human, and to our Earth in this fourth round.” (EA 467) Also check out the chart on page 50 of EA

 

Immediately above the quote just referenced, Sirius/Cancer/Capricorn/Saturn; Pleiades/Gemini/Sagittarius/Mercury; and Great Bear/Aries/Libra/Sun (Vulcan) are referenced.

 

The energies coming from the three super constellations are thus distinguished from those of the seven solar systems

 

I would also like to say that the Seven Solar Systems cannot really be a blind for Seven Super Constellations, because there is no way that the Seven Super Constellations (from the Zodiac of Ten) would be working out principally through Taurus/Scorpio and Mars. I hardly think that the Seven Great Constellations in the OAWNMBS are “the originators of conflict”. They are much too big for only this. I believe that here we are dealing with a particular constellation of solar systems (including our own) in which “conflict” is a major note, and probably, later, harmony. (Is this an ajna reference?—as Mercury (ajna) is the “Star of Conflict”, and later, Harmony. But too, it is so solar plexus! Anyway, I am thinking.

 

I think we have to accept that there actually are solar systems contiguous to our Sun, which system, together, form a mysterious constellation about which not much is said!, but which is really wrestling with the problem of desire (through rays 4 and 6) and hence my assignment of this constellation to the solar plexus area of the great Being—the OAWNMBS (level 2)

 

BUT—whether Sirius, itself, is part of this constellation is a very vexed question. It appears to be so, and yet not. It is so close and appears to revolve with our Sun, and yet, the energies distributed by  Sirius are different from those distributed by the Seven Solar Systems. Hence the mystery—at least to me.

 

It is all so clear to me that our Sun is part of a constellation, and that constellation is relatively closely grouped and has stars of relatively similar magnitude. But not much is said about it. That our Sun has a polar opposite is stated.

 

“f. The solar Logos is in process of ascertaining His place within the greater system in which He holds a place analogous to that of a Heavenly Man in a solar system.  He seeks first to find the secret of His own existence, and to achieve full Self-Consciousness; secondly to ascertain the position and place of His polar opposite; thirdly to [Page 258] merge and blend with that polar opposite.  This is the cosmic marriage of the Logos.” (TCF 257-258)

 

I tend not to think that Sirius is the polar opposite of our Sun, though, of course, it could be. It just seems too stupendous compared with our Sun. Alpha Centauri seems a better prospect. This is all speculation

 

S: Yes, I really do want to try to understand your thinking and logoic so please patiently bear with my relative inadequacy of knowledge as I attempt to do so!

 

M: Of course. My terminology and logic are just to keep my mind clear. There may be nothing especially revelatory about it, but I am willing to explain why I have chosen to express myself in this way.

 

M (from before)>I would like to say something about Sirius. Some points below will be controversial, an d will have to be explored with patience, as I have arrived at them through considered thought, and not by sudden whim.

 

1.         I believe that when Sirius is referred to, sometimes the star itself is meant (including, perhaps, Sirius B); and sometimes a sevenfold solar system is meant. This is one of the great mysteries. It is occurring to me, more convincingly all that time that-

2.         Sirius and our Sun may well form a dual system: two stars which are connected with a twofold solar plexus center in the OAWNMBS (level 2). I am following the principle of analogy here, as such a solar plexus center definitely exists in man (a new piece of information given by the Tibetan in DINA II)

 

"There are two points of vital light within the solar plexus centre, which makes this centre of dominant importance and a clearing house for the centres below the diaphragm to those above it. One of these points of light is connected with the lower psychic and astral life, and the other is brought into livingness by the inflow from the head centre. [A Neptunian, Venusian connection to this higher center would be most reasonable.] I would here remind you that the centres above the diaphragm have only one vital point of energy, whilst the centres below the solar plexus also have only one, but that the solar plexus itself has two points of dynamic energy-one most ancient and awakened, being expressive of the life of the astral or lower psychic body, and the other waiting to be brought into conscious activity by the soul. When this has happened, the awakening to the higher issues of life makes the disciple sensitive to the higher "psychic gift waves" (as the Tibetan occultists call them) of the spiritual world." (DINA II 114)

 

S> As you may recall this is my  thinking on the subject.

 

Orion is the Grand Heavenly Man whose all-embracing vitality holds six other heavenly Ray Regents within the sphere of His consciousness. He is the source of conscious sensation to His six brothers and synthesizes the reactions and essential virtues of the lower three Logoic centres. When considering the activities and influence of Orion, this fact should continually be borne in mind. The principle of sentiency is seated in the solar plexus and its outstanding quality is consciousness as response to knowledge. In the Brahmanical portion of the Vedas, the constellation of Orion is personified as one of the seven primitive Rishi-Prajapati. Orion, in the Hindu Brahmanas, is seen under the form of a stag in pursuit of his own daughter, the beautiful roe, Rohini, the star Aldebaran. In this chase Orion is transfixed by the three jointed arrow - the belt stars shot by the avenging hunter Sirius. In the ancient astronomical Treatise Surya Siddhanta, Orion is figured as a running antelope. The name antelope hunter is given to neighboring Sirius. Here, the Deer Slayer stands for the cosmic Soul. The three-jointed arrow, symbolic of the Logoic Triad, transfixes the animal nature of the lower cosmic personality. The intervention of Sirius is due to Orion's desire for the roe, Rohini, or Aldebaran in Taurus. Aldebaran and Taurus symbolise the attractive lure of the feminine or lower aspect of manifestation. Orion, that is, the expression of the Logoic solar plexus centre is located between the higher and lower aspects of the Logos between Sirius on the one hand and the Pleiades on the other. Orion is entirely south of the ecliptic and so is visible from every part of the globe. A line through the belt of Orion extends westwards and reaches the Bull's eye and in the opposite direction the brightest star in the sky, Sirius. The celestial equator passes through the three belt stars, thus dividing the celestial sphere into its upper and lower regions. Betelgeuse, the red supergiant is located above the celestial equator while the brilliant extremely hot Rigel is found below the equator. The star Mintaka, the westernmost, lies on the celestial equator dividing the Great Warrior Giant between the two hemispheres. Astronomy inform us the centre star, Alnilam is one of the hottest stars known. The Solar Plexus Centre is a dual centre and contains within two points of light, one in the upper region and one in the lower region. The lower point of light is concerned with attracting and centralising of the lower energies. The upper centre is connected with transmuting the energies and refining them to the point where transference to the Heart Centre becomes possible. These two points of vital life within the solar plexus centre make this centre of major importance, as it is the clearing house for the centres below the diaphragm to those above it. The lower point is connected with the lower psychic and astral life, while the upper point is brought into conscious activity by the soul. The other centres above the diaphragm have one vital point of energy as do the other centres below the diaphragm. What is unique about the solar Plexus is that it has two points of dynamic interset. Betelgeuse, corresponding to the upper point of light transfers the refined and transmuted energies into the Logoic Heart Centre, our solar system.

 

M: All the above is well-said, and of course, causes me to pause and ponder carefully.

 

I certainly see the animality (on one level) of Orion, and its rightful association with Sagittarius. I also see that Orion was transformed and became more like the second ray.

 

The arrow, though according to one myth, shot by the Deer Slayer Sirius, changes Sirius into the hunter and Orion in to the Stag. Other mythos make Sirius the dog and Orion the hunter, with bow and arrow. Very different points of view.

 

I am ‘staggered’ by scale in this matter. I see how powerful Sirius looks and seems—locally. I see how relatively insignificant it is, magnitudinally, compared with most if not all the stars in Orion, and even with the three other stars in its own constellation. Am I supposed to ignore this? It is problematic to me.

 

The Three Kings, are, after all, a part of Orion, and not Sirius, even if they represent an arrow shot by Sirius. How do you account for the immense difference in magnitude between each of the Three Kings and little Sirius (the dwarf star?). Does this not cause in you what might be called ‘magnitudinal dissonance’? It does for me.

 

I gave you my arguments about the second ray and the oblong square—a great second ray symbol (taken as the basis of all music). Of course, I realize that such arguments may seem obscure, but I consider them significant.

 

I am remembering that desire on the cosmic astral plane is love on the cosmic physical plane. I am thinking that Betelgeuse is the solar plexus of Orion (upper perhaps, as you say, I don’t know) and that it transfers this desire to a lower order system, our own (and a heart center at that) where this desire is received as love. Somehow, I am seeing a heart/solar plexus relationship between these two great constellations—Orion and the SSSOWOIO.

 

Now, the really controversial part, is that I have thought that if Sirius is not really an aspect of the SSSOWOIO, it could, itself, represent the higher point in the solar plexus of the OAWNMBS. The SSSOWOIO would then represent the lower part of the plexus where the problem of conflict and desire was being wrestled out—as DK said on EA 467.

 

Thus the line-up would be SSSOWOIO—Sirius—Orion. Forgive me for this hypothesis. I am serious! Just as Venus seems to be a heart, but is probably a solar plexus, I think that Sirius can seem to be really highly placed, but is really a solar plexus (or at least part of a solar plexus—certainly, the higher part if any part.)

 

 

M> (from Before)In relation to the ten petals within the solar plexus, I am working with the idea that they may be divided into an '8' and a '2'. The '8', I think, is related to Mars, "objective and full of blood'; the '2', possibly to Neptune ("subjective and full of life"). I also have reason to believe that Venus can be connected with the higher solar plexus center (mirroring a function which I think it serves within the manifestation of the solar system).

 

S>First,  please kindly check out this contradictory quote from TCF on Venus on page 182.

 

"Venus corresponds to the heart center in the body logoic, and has an interrelationship therefore with all the other centers in the solar system wherein the heart aspect is the one of greater prominence".

 

M: Yes, brother, I know this quote. It seems bold and irrefutable, unless one reads some other references.

 

In the cosmic Logoic system the Heart centre our Sun is part of the Lower Quaternary, as well  not the Higher Triad,  which is Great Bear, Sirius and the Pleiades - hence its {the Heart centres} Ray IV association and not Ray II on the Monadic level, hence, also the fact that it is not - in the cosmic system -  a major centre, and the smallest of the seven!

 

M: Well, I follow you to a point—agreeing and disagreeing.

 

There are so many quaternary and lower quaternary references—mostly not talking about chakras: For instance—

 

“Quaternary.  The fourfold lower self, or man, in the three worlds.  There are various divisions of this, but perhaps for our purpose the best is to enumerate the four as follows:

 

1. Lower mind.

2. Emotional or kamic body.

3.        Prana, or the Life Principle.

4.        The etheric body, or the highest division of the twofold physical body.” (LOM 358)

 

(By the way, not to lose the following: “The seven stars in the constellation of the Great Bear are the correspondences to the seven head centres in the body of that Being, greater than our Logos.” (TCF 182) The seven head centers are not the 1000-petalled lotus or the higher 12. This is important for macrocosmic anatomy!)

 

In the following, Venus is seen as part of the Logoic Quaternary:

“The Lord of Venus holds place in the logoic quaternary, as does the Lord of Earth.” (TCF 300)

 

In the following it seems Venus is not part of the Logoic Quaternary:

“The four schemes which form the logoic Quaternary [Page 406] will merge into their synthesising scheme, that of Saturn, while Venus and Mercury will merge into Uranus and Neptune.  No importance need be attached to the sequence of these names.  The dual fact is all that is necessary to grasp.” (TCF  405-406)

 

It becomes clear that there is a mystery in the relationship of Venus to Jupiter. Jupiter certainly should be the heart center, as far as I can see. Within a lower quaternary, I can see Venus as a heart center.

 

I see Mercury—Ajna; Venus—Solar Plexus; Mars—Sacral; Earth—Spleen; Pluto—Base.

What are we going to do with Jupiter. We have already reasoned that the second ray nature of our solar system (soul and personality) is reflected in the size and prominence of Jupiter.

 

Venus, on the other hand, contains the numbers 5, 6, and, I would say, 2. The solar plexus is the fifth center, and distributes ray six. It is also, within the centers below the diaphragm, the representative of the second aspect.

 

There is no way I can see Venus as a Being as lofty as Jupiter, though I do see that Venus is far more unfolded that Jupiter, as one would expect in a system where solar plexus was burning bright, but where heart unfoldment had not yet seen its full day of expression.

 

I reserve the heart within the head for ‘higher’ Neptune (a R2 Monad, to my estimation), though I know that Vulcan can have something to do with it. Really, I think Vulcan is much more to be seen in relation to the seven head centers, just as, on a higher turn of the spiral, the Great Bear relates to the seven head centers (see above). Vulcan (Sun) distributes the energies of the Great Bear, so their functions may be analogous.

 

Of course, I am not happy with the contradiction that won’t go away. Jupiter is almost a star, a greater god than Venus—I have to think this. And Jupiter is always related to the heart as well.

 

Look at this line of relationship:

“The line of relationship then extends from these onward and outward, and upward (spherically considered) to the Life at the very centre of our Earth's "alter ego," the planet Venus, to Jupiter and thence to the solar Lord Himself and on to a point in the Sun, Sirius.” (DINA I  768)

 

Jupiter is ‘above’ Venus, and more powerful, and more heart, if you will. It is a perfect alignment of solar plexus, to heart, to heart in head to soul.

 

Do you suppose that Venus, ultimately, has 6 petals? I know I am forgetting something here, but the ajna center is 96=15=6 and ajna is so Venus. Or are they all twelve-petalled lotuses on some level. I need to refresh myself here.

 

Also—

“2. The Lord of Love-Wisdom, Who is the embodiment of pure love, is regarded by esotericists as being as close to the heart of the Solar Logos as was the beloved disciple close to the heart of the Christ of Galilee.  This Life instills into all forms the quality of love, with its more material manifestation of desire, and is the attractive principle in nature and the custodian of the Law of Attraction, which is the life-demonstration of pure Being.  This Lord of Love is the most potent of the seven rays, because He is on the same cosmic ray as the solar Deity.  He expresses Himself primarily through the planet Jupiter, which is His body of manifestation.” (EP I 23)

 

Also—

“b. At the second initiation, the candidate comes under the influence of three planets—Neptune, Venus and Jupiter. The three centres—solar plexus, heart and throat—are actively involved.” (EA 70)

 

In this line-up, Neptune is the solar plexus, Jupiter the heart and Venus the throat—or do you read it otherwise?

 

Also—

“He touched the truth of the inner subjective reversal upon the wheel which brings in other energies and influences when he substituted Venus for Jupiter. Mind and heart must be coordinated and brought into play when the great reversal takes place.” (EA 106)

 

Heart and mind?!

 

And, of course, the chakric assignments on EA 517, with Jupiter as heart and Venus as ajna.

 

So, I cannot yet resolve this, but I think that there are some blinds around Venus—solar systemically considered. There is no question that Venus is heart-related, and rules the Creative Hierarchy called the “Hearts of Fiery Love” Also, Venus has much connection to the “Heart of the Sun”

 

M> (from Before) 3.     On a higher turn of the spiral, I believe that Venus, "home of the planetary logos of the sixth Ray" (TCF 595), is also connected with this higher solar plexus center within our solar system. I am hypothesizing the monadic ray of Venus to be ray 6, which is the reason why Venus is found within the "logoic quaternary".

 

S>Yes, I agree with the Monadic ray assignment of Venus as ray VI. I have also always associated Venus with the solar plexus centre but we must reconcile the above quote from DK as to its place as heart centre!

 

M> (from Before) "The Lord of Venus holds place in the logoic quaternary, as does the Lord of Earth." (TCF 300) If Venus were the heart center of the Solar Logos (which I believe should be reserved for Jupiter), the "logoic quaternary" would be a strange place to find it!

4.         Also, on a still higher turn of the spiral Sirius, the "brilliant star of sensitivity" (the Path to which leads to the cosmic astral plane), would be also connected with the higher solar plexus center in the OAWNMBS (level 2). Our Sun (Sol, the Blue Logos) may also be connected with this higher solar plexus center. Other suns within the SSSOWOIO would be connected with the lower solar plexus center.

 

As to the position of our Sun within Solar Logoic solar plexus, I cannot yet say whether it should be placed in the higher or the lower solar plexus. I do, however, hypothesize that the upper solar plexus is two-petalled possibly requiring two Entities to inform it. My numbers here do not yet add up satisfactorily. The numbers of petals in centers continuously change. In the next round, I believe, the base of the spine will have 5 petals (a strange thought), so I do not think that we can necessarily extrapolate the numbers of chakric petals found in man to all aspects of the higher systems.

 

S>I understand the general gist of your thinking on this subject and the very close inter-relationship between the two systems. But according to your "Model" I think that our sun would have to be the lower not the higher because Sirius is so superior and corresponds to both the Soul and/or the Monad as regards our Sun. (as the recent compilation on Sirius I sent you shows) (Yes, I remember)

 

M: Yes, this is a possibility and I have also entertained the idea—but I think it would be the Sun along with some other stars. Sirius might have unique function of transference. I know you have good reason for placing it as the ajna—but also remember Polaris in the Little Bear—a great star of Direction.

 

 

5.         I believe that Sirius and our Sun are both aspects of the Seven Solar Systems of Which Ours is One. The very proximity in lyrs (light years) of Sirius to our Sun makes this a strong possibility. We should also check the direction in space in which both Sirius and our Sun are moving.

 

S> This brings to my mind the following question. What level of the OAWNMBS do the seven cosmic Paths relate to? I have to say I am still somewhat confused. according to my knowledge based on the TCF chart on page 344 a cosmic Parabrahman contains seven OAWNMBS of which our cosmic Logos is ONE.

 

M: If I understand you correctly, I agree. These Paths are for the most part leading to the cosmic astral and cosmic mental planes (at first) and only in one case (Solar Logoi) to the cosmic buddhic plane.

 

"One hint may here be given. Each of these Paths eventually leads to one or other of the six constellations which (with ours) form the seven centers in the body of the ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID".

 

M: Yes, as I read it—with our constellation, a star system with seven stars of which our star is one.

 

S>It is my understanding that the seven cosmic Paths lead to HIS seven centres - whatever they are composed of constellations or trans -solar systems. Each cosmic Logos contains seven solar Logoi encircled on the cosmic Monadic Plane according to the diagram. What is complicated about the fact that the seven cosmic paths lead to the seven centres of our cosmic Logos. Sirius and our Sun are both sources of the cosmic  Paths, i.e., our Sun, the source of the fifth path, the ray Path.

 

M: About Sirius this is certain. But DK tells us of the Paths, that they lead out of the solar system altogether, except for the Path of Earth Service—or am I missing a vital reference?

 

Re the diagram on 344, I think that encirclings on the cosmic monadic plane each contain seven constellations. Notice how one of the triangles is broken-out to indicate that seven stars are within the triangle. I think this is true for each little triangle, so that all seven triangles indicate 49 major stars. One circle, seven constellations, forty-nine stars.

 

M: Yes, complicated, and we must proceed carefully here. I again need your reasoning on why the Fifth Path leads to our Sun, or why any path leads to our Sun. Maybe I am simply missing the reference, but the Pole Star and Aquarius seem to be involved in the Fifth Path.

 

S> I regard the UNKNOWN LIFE as composed of seven constellations or cosmic Logoi to be the Cosmic Parabrahman. Does not the chart make this simple and clear. Why all the different levels of OAWNMBS . A Cosmic Parabrahman is not to be confused with a OAWNMBS - is it?

 

M: Wait, wait. There is so much blinding going on. On this chart, a solar logos means really a constellational logos, otherwise the seven stars in the Great Bear could not be the seven centers in a “solar logos”!

 

For me, the Cosmic Parabrahm (did you call it the Unknown?) contains 49 major constellations (and many many more, which are not major).

 

The sequence is as follows:

 

Solar Logos—Constellational Logos (as the Logos of the Seven Solar Systems, or the Logos of the Great Bear (your Cosmic Manu)—Super Constellational Logos (the OAWNMBS Who has constellations for chakras—THEN, the Cosmic Parabrahm Who is a Supreme Super-Constellational Logos (having OAWNMBSs as His chakras).

 

I think all this is straightforward. We just have to agree about how many stars and constellations is contained in each encircling. If one triangle yields seven stars, and there are seven triangles, then there must be 49 stars per encircling, and, of course, seven major constellations.  Have I missed something?

 

 

6.         Sirius (as a star) would therefore be part of the SSSOWOIO, as would our Sun. This sevenfold star system is composed of stars which have a relatively 'high' (hence, weak) absolute magnitude (as opposed to visual magnitude). The visual magnitude of Sirius is very 'low' (hence, strong), but its absolute magnitude is not. Its absolute magnitude is 'high', hence weak. It is only 23 to 27 times greater than our Sun. Alpha and Beta Centauri, Procyon, Sirius, our Sun and two others (which I could identify if I had my books) would comprise the seven major stars in the SSSOWOIO (but as in any constellation, there could easily be more stars, just as there are about 144 stars in the Great Bear, even though seven are major, and 115 plus planets in our solar system, though seven are major). Within the SSSOWOIO (as I see it) all major stars are relatively comparable in magnitude, with Sirius as the brightest (i.e., lowest absolute magnitude star). I will get the details from astronomy books when I return to Rancho.

7.         If one compares this association of stars (the SSSOWOIO) with Orion, for instance, or even with the Great Bear, the results are impressive. There is a great contrast in what I would call constellational magnitude (i.e., the composite magnitudinal intensity of the majority of stars in a constellation).

 

S>The apparent groupings of stars into constellations that we see on the celestial sphere are not physical groupings. In most cases the stars in constellations and asterisms are each very different distances from us, and only appear to be grouped because they lie in approximately the same direction. This is best illustrated by  the stars of the Big Dipper which is not a constellation but an asterism. the seven principle stars distances from earth as measure in light years are as follows:

 

the Triad or handle stars

 

star one     93 light years

star II         69 light years

star III       360 light years

 

The cup or Quaternary stars

 

star IV       53 light years

star V       116 light years

star VI       62 light years

star VII      86 light years

 

M: Let’s check this, brother. Even astronomers seem to disagree. I have entirely different figures for star I and star III, and I am not sure, but star V may be discrepant. In any case, except for star III (with which I disagree, I think) these are all quite close—at least I would call them quite close—certainly compared to Orion, where 300 ly and 900 ly are to be found, and maybe 1200 lys (I have to check)

 

We have to define what makes a real grouping. They do not have to be on top of each other. But when they are relatively close and moving in the same direction, as are, apparently, five of the stars in the Great Bear, then we are justified in thinking them as associated.

 

Many of the Pleiades are very close indeed.

 

I think that an observer from space seeing Sirius, our Sun and Alpha and Beta Centauri, and Procyon (and two others, on in Eridani) would see them as all very close. From us Alpha and Beta Centauri are about 4 ly, Sirius 8 ly, and Procyon 11 ly. I think we are in the middle of a constellation and we have to see whether Sirius is as well.

 

The pros and cons of Sirius being in this local constellation have already been partially discussed. Much more thought needs to be given. There are astronomical appearances (which are not without significance) and also occult reasons to be marshaled—for and against.

 

 

8.         The SSSOWOIO are listed on EA p. 50 as suspended between Taurus and Scorpio and distributed through the planet Mars-hence the solar plexus association, and the association with the sixth ray. They also would have a tremendous fourth ray association, due to the (almost exclusive) distribution of the fourth ray through Taurus and Scorpio.

 

 

9.         My present theorizing departs from yours in the following, though I appreciate the reason why you have associated Orion with the solar plexus of the OAWNMBS (level 2), and respect the reasoning which lead you this conclusion. I am theorizing that the SSSOWOIO, composed of relatively modest stars, forms the solar plexus of the OAWNMBS. You will consider this controversial and probably inaccurate, but I see the function of these Seven Solar Systems as a solar plexus function, and I believe Sirius and our Sun to be part of them (though, perhaps, associated with the higher point or higher petals of the solar plexus).

 

S> I sent a compilation of references concerning Betelgeuse to  you. There is definite communication between our Sun, the logic Heart centre of our cosmic Logos, and Betelgeuse -  the given  solar plexus centre, by DK ( that is, the SP centre, according to the instructions concerning the source of the 3rd cosmic Path in TCF).

 

M: OK, we discussed this, and in this paper, I have added some further thoughts. I do not think that the communication between Betelgeuse and our Sun determines what their function is in the larger scheme—only that they have a kind of solar plexus and heart resonance. In fact, even though I think Betelgeuse cannot be the heart of Orion, there is a lot that is R2 about it—or is it simply a blind for the raytwoness of Orion (which we have partially discussed).

 

I do admit that the inferences re Orion and the solar plexus are strong, and I will re-read the material on the solar plexus in relation to the third Path.

 

Additionally, I do think it is possible that Betelgeuse represents a kind of solar plexus center, but that Orion, as a whole, may or may not. My thinking on this is by no means concluded. I do see the strength of your arguments. They do not, however, resolve all my reservations. Even the head dress of the Pharaohess has me thinking!

 

 

10.       Within the SSSOWOIO (a OAWNMBS level 1-cf. EP I 150) the star Sirius would be the head center and our solar logos the heart center. Hence the statement that our Sun is the heart center within the OAWNMBS. Here again, I am at this time, departing from your theory that our Solar Logos forms the heart center of the OAWNMBS (level 2). This is one of the most critical areas of discussion for us. I trust we can remain cool as we pursue it.

 

S> At present, I only recognise one level of cosmic Logoi, that is, precisely the seven cosmic Logoi contained within the body of a Cosmic Parabrahman and clearly defined on Chart V pg. 344 TCF. It all seems delineated in a straight forward and simple manner, to me, quite clearly.

 

M: Here we interpret differently. I recognize two levels of Cosmic Logoi (which are clearly articulated on TCF 293. Further, is there not a kind of Cosmic Logos which informs and expresses through the seven stars of the Great Bear (taken as a group)? I think the chart on 344 shows that there is such a group of seven and that they come out of one of the triangles in the encirclement and not out of the whole circle.

 

The second level of Cosmic Logos (which we usually call the OAWNMBS), would be formed by all seven triangles together, and would have constellations as His chakras. To me, this is quite straightforward. I am just looking at the chart on 344 and this is what I conclude.

 

 S: As I said beyond that I can not venture or transgress. And, further I see no references or evidence to anything other than the seven cosmic Logoi contained therein. I believe your different levels of cosmic Logoi simply refer to the other six Logoi within the body of the cosmic Parabrahman.

 

M: I acknowledge that there are six other encirclements on the cosmic monadic plane, but I don’t know anything about them. Our OAWNMBS is, in my opinion, the central encirclement, and has as its centers, seven constellations, one of which is the Great Bear which is explicitly diagrammed on p 344.

 

 S: Ontologically speaking, within the confines of the Anagostic Schema as propounded by DK, the next level down, as clearly defined on the chart,  is a solar Logos, and then a planetary Logos. I can not "invent" other levels where I can not see them elaborated on that all important chart! Of course there are seven Cosmic Parabrahmans in a greater Galactic Parabrahman but I am not even going to venture there, being content to reside within the confines of our cosmic Parabrahman!!

 

I am OK with that—no need to start multiplying Parabrahmans and I don’t wish us to do that.

 

Although it is not explicitly on the chart, I believe the Monad of our solar logos (and His six accompanying Logoi) is to be found within another one of those little triangles in the fourth encirclement which defines our OAWNMBS. The dotted line is also interesting, showing, I think, something of the status of our little Logos compared to His prototype within the Great Bear. Of course, the number 4 is involved, so this may be another (graphic) hint about the monadic ray of our Logos.

 

S> You maintain that our Sun is the heart centre of the solar plexus centre of an Entity which you term the SSSOWIO and, that Sirius is the other upper or lower portion of the twofold chakra right.  And, further that six other constellational  entities composed of two or more solar systems revolve around in concert, retaining constellational integrity,  around a cosmic centre , perhaps, the Pleiades in a combined or joint 250,000 year orbit.  Is that right?

 

M: Let’s see. Yes about the heart center in the SSSOWOIO. That is my present theory. I only theorize about Sirius in relation to the higher solar plexus point. I would say (agreeing with you farther above) that if Sirius is connected with the solar plexus of the OAWNMBS, it would have to be the upper point.

 

Now, there may be some misunderstanding in the rest. I certainly say that seven entities (our Sun included) revolve around the Pleiades and retain their constellational integrity. What I do not know is whether or how other constellational entities revolve around the Pleiades as a center! My astronomy my develop before I can confirm or deny. Only one of the constellations (the SSSOWOIO) would have an approximately 250,000 orbital period.

 

Yes, so these ideas are really different, right? But they are not ill-considered, even though they deviate from your well-conceived formulation. If I am in error here, I will have to see where the error lies.

 

In essence I simply think there are constellational logoi (one order down from the ‘big’ OAWNMBS). I think our Sun is part of one such constellational logos, and that there are many mysteries  produced (some possibly involving Sirius) because this is the case. I am reasoning carefully, I think.

 

Seven solar systems are sometimes, I think, just seven solar systems, and not a mixture of solar systems and constellations.

 

11.       There is a great problem with occult blinds. So often the word "constellation" may simply mean a solar system, and on occasion the word "solar system" can represent an entire constellation. The following, though elementary, is at least stated by the Tibetan, and so, when possible, we should follow it-when the recognition of blinds do not compel otherwise:

 

"I should like at this point to make clear the distinction between a constellation and a solar system, according to the esoteric teaching, even though the modern scientist may not agree.

 

A solar system consists of a sun as the central focal point, with its series of attendant planets, which are held in magnetic rapport in their orbits around that sun.

 

A constellation consists of two or more solar systems or series of suns with their attendant planets.  These systems are held together as a coherent whole by the powerful interrelation of the suns, whose magnetic rapport is so balanced that occultly "they tread the Path together within the radius of each other's power;" they preserve their relative distances, and vitalise their planets, but at the same time they preserve an equality of balance and of influence.  In a few rare cases this balance is disturbed, and there is a waxing or a waning of influence and of magnetic power." (EP I  152)

 

Note this preservation of "relative distances", because it is important in the matter of "constellational integrity", which would be disrupted by widely discrepant rotational speeds among the various members of a constellation.

 

S> The Tibetan refers to the Seven sacred planets of our solar system as the "brothers of the Sun not the sons of the Sun", so occultly speaking ,it is definitely considered a constellation!

 

M: This is a good point, but the planets are not yet real stars. And further, perhaps all planets, connected with any obvious star, are really brothers of that star. If brother function as planets, then I think I am justified in thinking of them as planets, no matter how they may have originate.

 

S: Its series of cosmic triangles with the seven stars of Ursa major and the seven Pleiades totally support  this notion.

 

M: But this could be happening in any solar system. Planets could be the third point in a triangle with two other stellar points.

 

S: Also it forms an aspect of the cosmic Logoic quaternary of the Cosmic Logos with Sirius and those two other Asterisms. "These compose major triangles of force and all are held within the radius of the Life of that Great Being Whose expressed, manifested intention is brought into being through the medium of these three related groups and our solar system. As hinted by me in A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, these four groups of stars (here referring to our solar system as a group of stars in context with the greater three!)  constitute the manifested aspect or personality of a great and unknown Life."

 

“Behind these concepts of the relation existing in time and space between the constellations of the Great Bear, the Pleiades and the sun, Sirius, and our solar system, there exists, it must be remembered, an immense series of interlocking triangles between the stars which compose these constellations interiorly and our solar system.” (EA  419)

 

Note here, the distinction between the word “constellations” and “our solar system”. Again, it is the way we read this. As I read this paragraph, I find him distinguishing the constellations from our solar system. I think this is a fair reading.

 

So while I do understand how we can think of our solar system as a constellation (as I too have read the Secret Doctrine on these matters), I do think that most often, He makes a distinction between the two levels. And further, why not simply say that every solar system is really a constellation (as probably the planets of such solar systems began in much the same way as our planets did)?

 

S: Trying to explain or verify esoteric astronomy with exoteric astronomy is like trying to validate esoteric astrology with exoteric astrology, it is just not going to happen. (no matter what incremental results we might glean or fathom) to me, the Seven Stars of the Great Bear and the Seven Rishis of its  seven leading stars concern me, not the name. As I said, I see only cosmic Laya Centres, not imaginary constellations which exist for mnemonics, or memory aids only.

 

M: OK, I follow your thinking, but it cannot be denied that external appearances are so often the symbols of internal realities. I think this point needs emphasizing. It is so for a man. The quality of his body, etheric body and causal body (all substantial) reflect his development. Through “spiritual reading” (urged on us by Patanjali) we are advised to read the symbol correctly and thus find the reality behind it. So I cannot close my eyes to evidence (even while realizing that the limited concrete mind of man has imposed much upon the sky)

 

S: Strictly scientifically speaking, the real purpose for the constellations is to help us tell which stars are which, nothing more being, as just said, completely imaginary.

 

M: Some may be imaginary, but some may be real groups of great Entities who are working in cooperation. We have to find out which are which. I think there is much wisdom in the ancient practice of identifying some stars as being together. Probably the initiates knew which were which, and passed down the knowledge (even making the identificatory pictures) to stabilize and yet blind their knowledge of real star associations.

 

There are gods of constellations—DK talks about this. Lords of constellations. So even if pictures have been made by ignorant men, some real association between stellar beings is occurring, and these associations are out-pictured for us in legends (which according to Morya, are always true)

 

S: As well, the constellations have changed over time so that in modern exoteric astronomy , many of the constellations have been redefined so now every star in the sky is in exactly one constellation. As you know, in 1929, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) adopted official constellation boundaries that defined the 88 official constellations that exist today. Completely arbitrary and convenient but conveying absolutely nothing of any esoteric importance by groupings or classifications.

 

M: Well, some of the ancient knowledge was behind them, at least setting conventional boundaries. They may have made some mistakes, and there may be much exotericism imposed on the sky, but the age-old identification of certain figures was, I think, somewhat inspired by those who knew the association of those figures.

 

S>Take the Pleiades as well, it is also not defined as a constellation but is defined as an asterism or  star cluster. A star cluster is defined as a group of neighboring stars that resemble each other in certain characteristics that suggest a common origin. Galactic, or open, clusters typically contain from a few dozen to about a thousand loosely scattered stars and exist in regions rich in gas and dust, such as the spiral arms of the galaxy. More than 1,000 galactic clusters, including the Hyades and Pleiades in the constellation Taurus, have been catalogued in the Milky Way. So....in other words I only occultly recognise and worship  Alcyone, Electra, Celaeno, Maia, Sterope, Merope and Taygete. Forgive me, my brother but I see only the Seven Virgin Sisters,  the Seven Ranees, the Seven Wives of the Seven Rishis, the bosom of the Great Mother, and the 16 petals of the cosmic Logoic throat centre.

 

M: OK, the differing points of view are becoming clearer. Star clusters can be esoterically very important. Those galactic clusters would be really significant if we knew their lore. In time we will.

 

It is all about what we see and what is real. In terms of magnitude, visual magnitude is misleading and absolute magnitude is revealing. Visual magnitude may hint at local and relative importance, but it does not give true co-measurement.

 

Similarly, we have to know which stars just seem to be associated (because of a “line of sight”) and which stars actually are associated (whether or not there is a line of sight grouping them)> Often, however, there is, and neighbors in space do have something to do with each other.

 

Maybe the pictures seen from our planet tell our certain relationships between stellar entities which are relevant for our planet. Seen from another perspective, the picture would change, and a different kind of cooperative influence perhaps emerge. There is a tremendous relativism which needs careful handling—it cannot be worshipped and it cannot be dismissed.

 

S: As a matter of fact, my view of the entire cosmic system on the OAWNMBS is a six pointed star or hexagon with point at centre; the six Pleiades circling the seventh and the six solar Logoi circling the seventh. Yes, I reduce the whole Cosmic system to the chief symbol of all in occultism! Profound but simple!

 

M: This can be very useful. You are an ‘archetypalist” and in this respect, a Platonist. I do not dispute the value of this approach. This is a very attractive symbol and may be profoundly true on the inner planes. I try to look for the outer correspondences which I think should be there is there is inner truth. Of course, this depends on how well I can read.

 

12.       Now the point: I believe our Solar Logos and His Sun is indeed the heart center within a OAWNMBS, but that this OAWNMBS is a Constellational Logos (cf. TCF 293), and is not the OAWNMBS (level 2)-a Being Who has for His chakras entire constellations.

 

S> I currently maintain that the Unknown Life as I just stated is the Cosmic Parabrahman as defined by DK on page 344 Chart V, Who contains seven cosmic Logoi, and,  Who further, each contain seven solar Logoi to which the seven cosmic Paths, the seven aspects of the cosmic antahkarana emanate from, are composed of and are the source.  It seems ever so simple and self-evident. I can not read into that chart what I can not see.

 

M: And I cannot stop seeing what I think I see. So much depends upon how you define “seven solar Logoi”. For me, these are not just stars, but star groups, i.e., constellations. But I think in this letter I have said enough about how I see the structure of that chart on 344.

 

S: I will deal with the remaining points beginning with the 13th in my next email as I am running out of characters.

 

 

S.

M: So, brother, our different points of view are clarifying. You think I am overly complex and reading into things—almost refusing to see the obvious. I think you may be overlooking levels, and also mixing levels. You don’t worry about the difference between a single star and a constellation, because you think about the internality behind—judging that the outer form may not have too much to do with revealing the inner reality. I, on the other hand, look for quite a clear correspondence between the outer form and the inner reality.

 

But I do now think that I am learning more about your thought and thought tendencies than ever before, and this should help avoid misunderstanding.

 

Very shortly we will have a few thoughts which simply must be clarified, and in our attempt to clarify we will be tested. Already we are being tested.

 

I have so much trouble mixing hierarchical levels. For me solar systems are solar systems and constellations are constellations (two or more stars). Does this include Sirius, because of Sirius B, or is Sirius B a cosmic moon? Time will tell. I don’t know.

 

But, my brother, I am grateful for the opportunity to think deeply about this things and to be challenged by the firm way in which you persist in seeing cosmic structure as you do.

 

I know our dialogue will bring the truth close.

 

With gratitude and respect for your thought—

 

Bro. M.