TCF & TCf  Discussion 1


Here is the paper starting the discussion. Some interesting points have been raised by Terry for discussion. Here is my reply. We hope to have some further opinions on these matters before moving on the TCF/TCf 4. 


Terry Says

May I take up several issues in TCf 3:


1.     Refere3nce the threefold fires which are fivefold in manifestation (foot of p 37 of the Treatise). I think the explanation in TCF 3 is correct. The five refer to: latent and active heat, the mind and mental entities, plus Electric Fire (TCF 3 p 2 top). This view is matched by the evidence of the corresponding five at the microcosmic level (Treatise p 47). I don't think the fivefold manifestation is the rays as suggested in TCf 3. The rays discussed in the Treatise p 38/39 (which have an effect at the solar system level) are cosmic. If the three rays do not derive from the solar system then the 3rd ray with its minor four rays (as present at the solar system level) isn't relevant. The para quoted from the Treatise p 44 about the logoic quaternary seems to me to relate to planes and principles, not rays.


Abraham Replies

“In its essential nature Fire is threefold, but when in manifestation it can be seen as a fivefold demonstration”. cf p 37.

Lets look at Terry’ idea, He states that the five refer to: “latent and active heat, the mind and mental entities” plus Electric Fire. What is active and latent heat?  Latent heat expresses the abstract aspect of the heat or energy; it can likewise express the abstract aspect of mind or the ray of activity and adaptation, the 3rd ray of intelligence. Active heat on the other hand expresses the latent heat in manifestation. The mind expresses the abstract aspect and the mental entities the four rays of attribute. Electric Fire permeates the whole and it is only counted as one of the three out of manifestation and not one of the five within manifestation; yet it is still permeating the whole. So we see there is no conflict here.

Fire in its essential nature is threefold before entering objective presentation but, when in manifestation it can be seen as a fivefold demonstration. Terry explains the text well but if we are to penetrate into the teaching we need to go beyond the text and seek out the meaning and if possible the significance intended. 

As to page 47 we have the same idea expressed from the angle of the microcosm and express the two aspects of mind or duality of expression. This time DK is giving us again, the expression of the third ray and the four rays of attributes respectively as they operate within the microcosm.


2. TCf 3 p 2, foot of p: the association of mind and love. Abraham suggests that each ray to a lesser extent expresses the quality of the other rays. Perhaps another approach is to recognise that all our seven rays are really subrays of the dominant second ray. Hence all the rays express love. But do we then need to associate this second ray with the Fire of Mind? Perhaps so to a point. My understanding is that the solar logos is centred on the cosmic astral but that He is intentionally focused on the cosmic mental. If this is so, then His consciousness would express love on all our social system planes (Treatise p 594).


2. Perhaps we might consider Terry’ idea ‘regarding the seven rays being the sub-rays of the second ray of love/wisdom’ as operating only in this solar system. Under different circumstances and in other periods however, the situation changes and each ray can express the qualities suitable to the occasion. This does not alter the statement that each ray has a potential at the appropriate circumstance, for expressing the energies of all the other rays.



3.     The threefold analytic criteria of objective/subjective/spiritual. Reference TCF 3, middle of p 4 and TCf 3 middle of p 3. These might usefully be considered a little more because they crop up at various points in the Tibetan's writings. Broadly I think objective stands for the lower three planes from the point of view of form. Thus for humans, one is talking about physical, astral and mental bodies. Subjectivity stands for the awareness level of these lower planes -- which may/may not transmit aspects of soul or monadic triad. Spiritual refers to the monadic triad operating through the soul. The key feature of this triad will often be buddhi (the heart of all). The reasons for stressing buddhi (rather than say atma) is that buddhi is the goal for so many disciples with the eventual achievement of buddhi-manas in place of kama-manas. I found Abraham's paper stimulating and we would all benefit from more contributions, like his, long or short. For all of us, a great deal of learning takes place when we interact with ideas in debate. That's the value of such papers.   Terry


3. The triplicity of objective/subjective/spiritual is a flexible triplicity and cannot be fixed to any plane or level of manifestation. It is for this reason that when viewing it from the angle of the three rays of aspect, it can then be adapted to any given circumstance.