download as text document

Fellowship of Cosmic Fire
First Semester - Section 2
NM 9 April 2005 – FM 24 April 2005

A Treatise on Cosmic Fire  pp. 35-45
FCF S1S2: VSK 7 April 2005

Trust that as you read further ‘the detailed whole’ will become clear to you. The intention of these questions and hints is to prepare the mental field for intuitive insight.

a.        By simply reading, understanding, and composing questions, understanding of the range of foundationally basic, intricately detailed, and integral concepts may emerge more quickly. By sharing in this way we have benefit of deep inquiry by many minds’ already familiar with the subject.  By participating in the investigation, we are building the breadth and depth of human literature to this path of inquiry.

b.        Those new to the study will be contributing vastly by sharing their ‘first’ or introductory questions – as often the ‘new mind’ questioning is most refreshing and able to shed new light on topics that to some can become fixed. Hint is to allow youself to be simply fascinated that there is so much ahead to learn and enjoy; do not berate yourself for not yet having familiarity with a subject. This is the fun part.

c.        Those whose life work has been rejoicing in the beauty of the wisdom while agonizing over perplexing phrases, are able to here unitedly share, in the spirit of scientific investigation, their best assumptions, on our agreements and points of most challenging inquiry. In this way, may we refine, make more potent, and thereby useful, our Group Work.

NOTE:  To retain the numbering of TCF questions originally formulated by MDR for the 5-year course on Esoteric Philosophy (1994-1999), are bolded and followed by an A.  [Bracketed are references to MDR new class commentary (2005-2010), an evolving document! See the FCF website pages on, or via the egroup.]  Any problems, write Vicktorya:

1.       Review the Contents given for Section One on Fire by Friction, the Fire of Matter. Pp. xviii, xix, xx, and the contents just prior to the text, page 35. Especially read the explanation on p. xviii about the contents. Then ask, What patterns stand out the most to you? How could this be useful to draw meaning in the structure? Read the first paragraph on page 37. Do you note a structure in that paragraph? How could it be important for us to register underlying patterns in the form of the text under study?

2.       p. 37: Note the beginning phrase: “We purpose …”.  In what sense do you take that particular word use to mean here?

3.       p. 37: In the first sentence, why would it be that the solar system is the macrocosm, and a human being the microcosm? In what possible ways does man correspond to what we know of the ‘solar system’. How do you describe ‘solar system’? How do you describe “human being”? Is this different from the term “man”, as perhaps more generically used in these texts? What would be the correspondence to our physical sun, Sol, in a human being? What do we see as similarly brilliant? (Why, if it isn’t!, is the human ‘sun’ not manifest in visible light?)

4.       p. 37: see into the second of the three sentences in the first paragraph, and offer your best illuminated synopsis of a fire; i.e., a “logical hypothesis concerning the nature and origin of energy.” [See MDR class commentary points 5-53.]

5.       p. 37: In the third sentence, To what “earlier book” did “We” touch somewhat upon this matter of the nature and origin of fire or energy?

6.       How is The Secret Doctrine, by H. P. Blavatsky, and a Treatise on Cosmic Fire, by A. A. Bailey related?

7.       p. 37: I.  FIRE IN THE MACROCOSM:  What symbol would portray to you best the threefold essential nature of fire and its fivefold demonstration? And, why why why might something that is threefold, appear as fivefold. What is the relation of the 3 and the 5 in this regard? [See MDR commentary points 55 and 56.]

8.       p. 38: Why or how would friction – fire by friction, vitalize? Why is there friction ‘internally’? What does “animate and vitalize” mean? How is kundalini related to friction?  Does this mean we, at this stage of logoic evolution, are not (yet?) fully experiencing fire by friction in the system? How is this so, if this aspect was developed and the product of the first solar system? [MDR points 57-62.]

9.       p. 38: What is the more commonly used name for Cosmic Mental Fire? What is the difference between mental body and mental unit, the animating principle? How are the mental body of the Logos and the mental body of humans related? Technically or metaphorically. [Points 63-71.]

10.   p. 38: How could Electric Fire be a distinguishing mark of our Logos? Is it not more … universal? Do the other logoi have different ‘types’ of electric fire, or something completely different? Why would it be that Electric Fire then, is what differentiates him from his Brothers? If it is His “dominant characteristic”, then why are we emphasizing Solar Fire, as humans at this time? [84-90]

4A p. 38: In your own words, define Fire by Friction, Solar Fire and Electric Fire.  How, specifically are they different from each other? Judging from your own experience, what do they mean to you as an individual?

11.   p. 38: Why are the fires listed in ‘reverse order’, the 3rd being first, the 1st third? Does friction come ‘before’ electric fire? How might the reverse be true? How does the phenomenon of outgoing and ingoing energy, manifesting or abstracting, relate here?

12.   p. 38-39 footnote: What are the “four activities of cognition”, as symbolized in Ishvara? (Note this reference is from the Pranava Vada, available in the reference section on

13.     p. 38-39:  In looking at the various names and sources given for the three fires, how could we word it otherwise? Do we find new questions emerge by doing so? [94-101]

5A  p. 39 – 40 footnote: After studying the Hindu Chronology, what insights have come to you regarding the patterns of the great planetary, systemic and cosmic cycles? [Review points 115-135;  What cycle are we in now? For those interested in the study of cycles, see the yahoogroups]

14.   p. 40: What do we know from physical science physics about the economy of the sphere?

15.   p. 40: What may be the tracks of the movement “from the centre to the periphery”? Is there anything in sacred geometry, chaos dynamics, biology, eurythmy, or computer programming, e.g. etc!, to suggest to us how something moves from the centre to the periphery of a sphere? [If we can do this movement imaginatively, can we also do it literally with our consciousness, consciously? What is the difference here between our imagination and reality?]

16.   p. 40: When we think of the sphere, do we not more normally think of the 2nd ray and inclusiveness, and not the 3rd fire and friction? [Points 136-142]

17.   p. 40: When will intelligent love be at its peak in the life of our solar Deity? What level of development or initiation is the Solar Logos currently? [See MDR points 144-149; 318-349.]

18.   p. 40: How does the repulsion part of the dual 2nd law, the Law of Attraction and Repulsion, manifest constructively – on the levels of the objective solar system, and correspondingly on the level of the human being?  How may ‘attraction’ manifest destructively? What is the equilibrising point that ensures a balance between, i.e., is there a third point, or center, around which the centripetal and centrifugal aspects must orbit? What hints can we again find in our physics?

19.   p. 40: We read that the “Ray of Intelligent Will” or Cosmic Mind “parallels that of cosmic love.”  Does not the primordial ray of Intelligent Activity ‘parallel’ the others? Does this suggest that the 1st and 2nd Ray are more ‘of a kind’ than the 3rd? Yet wouldn’t they each three be uniquely manifesting, a trinity rather than an combination of one and two (i.e., 1+1+1 rather than this 1 + 2 dynamic)? [See 102-107; 154-160.]

6A p. 41. How is it that the Law of Synthesis is the basis of that systemic movement described as driving forward through space?  What has synthesis to do with this motion?

7A p. 40-42: Please consider the three types of cosmic motion: rotary motion, spiral cyclic motion and forward progression. How are these three related to each other? Why are they related respectively to the third, second and first rays? What is the justification for this relationship?

8A p. 40-42: What relationship does spiral cyclic motion bear to rotary motion and forward progression?

20.   p. 41: What is the “cosmic centre” of the First Ray? Is that not what is implied here? How would it, if it is, different (in terms of ‘a centre’) from other rays?   [166-173]

21.   p. 41: How is “subjective worlds” and “form” equivalent? Is that what is implied here? What does ‘form’ mean in relation to the aspect of Love-Wisdom? Why isn’t form associated with matter and the third aspect?

22.   p. 41: How is spirit, connected to the father or will aspect, related to the “heart of all”? Would it not be more sensible to relate this to the head, and the heart to Love? Is there a “head of all” in this regard? If so, what ray might be related to it? If ‘heart of all’ refers here more to the ‘center of things’, would this not imply relation to the internal fires, of the base, and kundalini? How are the head, the heart, and the base related to these three fires or rays? 

23.   p. 41 footnote 8: Draw from this tabulation a different kind of chart, that shows to you most clearly “the Sacred Four and their emanations”. Is a Tetractys of the Decad useful? Why is this footnote referenced where it is in the text?

24.   p. 41 footnote 7: What is the internal centre of man, from which his ring-pass-not is periphery of his mental body? Can we imply that if the mental body allows us to work on the lower levels of the mental plane, something else enables us to work on the higher ones? Why is our physical body not spherical? The objective correspondence in the macrocosm appears so (the objective physical sun), doesn’t it? [MDR Points 174-177]

9A p. 43:  Please explain the difference between latent heat and active heat? [What would be some correspondences?; Why must the solar system manifest by this duality? Can you relate latent and active to time and space somehow, or to negative and positive charge? First and Second aspects, etc.?]

25.   p. 43 footnote 10: “It is the Universal soul, the Matrix of the Universe, the Mysterium Magicum from which all that exists is born by separation or differentiation.”  How is the Soul the Matrix? Does this next imply, by its opposite, that unification or synthesis is a type of death?

26.   p. 43 – see charts in Esoteric Astrology pp 34 and 35, and TCF chart V, Evolution of a Solar Logos.  Review MDR commentary points 181-283. Now, ask yourself, how are you doing? Can you say something about Fohat in one sentence? Akasha? Your Self? (Smile!)  

27.   p. 43 footnote 10 under the column “Differentiated”: What exactly could be referred to here as “The serpent of evil”? If this order were applied to the planes, what might be some ramifications? To our subplanes, to cosmic planes? What is the “Homogeneous” column’s #6, the Fiery serpent? Does this relate to the 6th Creative Hierarchy of kundalinishakti? Look at number 3 in the Homogenous column. “Primordial electric entity”. Who is the world is this? As ‘His’ Differentiated Energy works out as Electricity? Is this electricity part of the distinguishing mark or divine flame, Electric Fire. Who resides here on this third plane? (And how interesting to see the 5th as “super-astral light”.)

28.   p. 44: Consider magnetism and electricity as the effects of the divine ray and primordial ray, respectively. From what is known about electro-magnetism, or electro-magnetic waves, to perhaps a literal correspondence to the effects of the combination of divinity and primordiality. What (can we define in our human terms and of the Solar and Planetary Logos) is this blending of 3 and 2 producing? What can DK mean by suggesting we ponder on this mystery? What arises from said pondering?  [271-273]

29.   p. 44: The fires of the mental plane also demonstrate in a twofold manner. Now, we note that the first description of dual fires were the internal or primordial fires that had to do with active and latent heat, and its differentiations in matter; literally the material of atoms of the chemist. And now we refer with the Divine Ray to the Cosmic Mental plane, but did we skip the cosmic astral? Why would that plane of the Raja Lord Varuna not be suitable vehicle for the Divine Ray of love and wisdom? Why does Love come from the plane of Mind? [See MDR points 103; 274-306.]

30.   p. 44: This Solar Fire is likewise dual in manifestation. Note the similarity of the duality of the physical etheric and dense plane, and the abstract and concrete realms of mind. To which then would you correspond with the basis and relation of Fire of Mind, and the more active? Elementals of Fire? Is “active” not more evolved?  [284-289]

31.   p. 44: Re: “These dualities of expression make the four necessary factors in the logoic quaternary.” Is DK simply saying that the two physical and the two mental levels.  Is this related to the references to “4 wicks”, and does this lend hint to the lower quaternary constitution cosmically?) [See MDR points 290-306.]

32.   How does this relate to the five-pointed star out of the 3 fold fire? What are some pertinent diagrams. Sketch the relationships to solidify some understanding of this key concept. [see MDR commentary point 103.]

33.   p. 44: In this last paragraph, we learn that the eventual manifestation of the “divine spark” does not yet manifest as a duality (like the previous two do). However, it may eventually. Is this unknown? Would there not be a divine archetype to which this must apply? Is it somehow “left to evolution” to decide, if not disclose? What could these phrases possibly mean?

34.  p. 44: Does the divine spark come from the cosmic mental plane? What is the origin of the monads? [MDR Commentary Question 310; see Points 307-317]


10A p. 45: Why are the three rays called respectively, the primordial ray, the divine ray  and the cosmic ray of intelligent will?

36.   p. 45: Does the last section of this segment on Fire in the Macrocosm sound at all like the stanzas to you? To any of the 13 Stanzas of Dzyan in particular? Can you make any correlations to Stanza 1, for instance? Or 13?

37.   p. 45:  In the last sentences of this segment, what do you think the “needed functioning and the correct adaptation” may refer to? What would this look like, in the life of a man?