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.