7 thoughts on “Understanding The Logos”

1. Hello, after reading Geoffrey Barborka’s book “The divine Plan,” I was curious about what he terms “The Solar Lha” or Solar Logos. Also reading in the “Secret Doctrine” vol.II, pp.29-9 “The Globe propelled onward by the Spirit of earth and his six assistants, gets all its vital forces, life and powers through the medium of the seven planetary Dhyanis from the Spirit of the Sun. They are his messengers of Light and Life. Barborka says the “Spirit of the Sun” stands for the Solar Logos. So my question is, does original Theosophy recognize a Dhyani or Lha that could be called the Solar Logos? Appreciate any thoughts, and the efforts of Blavatsky Theosophy Group UK for making more accessible Pure Theosophy.

   1. Hello and thank you for your question and comments.

      It’s plausible that “the Spirit of the Sun” could be termed the “Solar Logos” if one really wanted to do so but this isn’t done anywhere in the original Theosophical teachings and literature, with the exception – as mentioned in the above article – of one very brief reference in Vol. 2 of “The Secret Doctrine.”

      There’s nowhere in the writings of H.P. Blavatsky or the Masters in which a Dhyani or any entity is described as the “Solar Logos.” One of the reasons for this is because a Logos is never a Being or Entity but a Principle…an impersonal Energy or Force.

      Having never read “The Divine Plan,” I can’t comment on it although I’ve heard some good things about it. But it’s possible, from what you say, that Geoffrey Barborka may have been a bit gratuitous with his use of certain terms.

2. I believe you’ve confused the subjective and objective here. Should not the Absolute be the Objective, with the Logos being the Subjective? I do believe the Absolute would be all encompassing both subject and object, however, in my humble opinion I do not see how the Absolute can be subjective while the Logos is objective.

   1. Thank you for your comment but with all due respect, just as you “do not see how the Absolute can be subjective while the Logos is objective” we do not see how the opposite could be the case.

      The descriptions and choice of phrases used in the article are the same as those given in the teachings of Theosophy, as one can see by referring in particular to “The Secret Doctrine” by H.P. Blavatsky, which talks at quite some length about the Logos and the Absolute.

      It’s true of course that most uses of the terms “subjective” and “objective” are relative. For example, the next highest plane above the physical plane – call it the astral – is subjective for those whose consciousness is currently operating only on the physical plane. For the latter, the physical plane is the one which is objective and all the higher planes are subjective.

      If one functions consciously on the astral plane, however, then the astral plane has now become objective for them, whilst the next higher plane is still subjective for them but not for those whose consciousness is awake and active in it…and so on and so on.

      So as regards the various planes of being, we could say that “one man’s subjective is another man’s objective.”

      But as regards the Absolute and the Logos – or, as we could say, the Absolute and ITS Logos – the very fact of the Absolute being ABSOLUTE means that It is always subjective and that in relation to It the Logos can only ever be viewed as objective. How could it be otherwise?

      As was said in the article:
      – – –
      The key to the understanding of this concept is found in the word “Logos” itself, which is a Greek word equating to “Speech,” “Word,” “Verbum,” and “Voice.” It is actually a Platonic term, although the concept itself predates Plato by long ages. The whole idea behind the literal meaning of the word “Logos” is that It is the EXPRESSION in manifestation of the subjective, silent, and ever concealed Absolute. …

      The Logos, then, is the objective expression of the subjective and abstract Absolute or the Word coming forth out of the Silence. And this has to happen in order to bring the Universe into being, since the Absolute – due to the very fact of Its absoluteness – cannot bring anything into being by Itself.
      – – –

      If we agree on the basic definitions and explanations expressed here about what the Logos is, then I’m not sure how we can disagree on the use of the terms “subjective” and “objective” in relation to it.

      If we take a microcosmic illustration of the macrocosmic reality, the words that we speak out of our own mouth could be called our own logos, using the term in its literal rather than philosophical and metaphysical sense. And who would not agree that verbally spoken and audible words are something objective? For one thing, they can be perceived and heard by others and have a direct effect on the physical plane.

      But those words are only the outer expression and manifestation of something which is WITHIN, i.e. our concealed and invisible inner thought, will, ideation, and consciousness.

      Is not this therefore subjective and the speech objective? It’s in this sense that the terms are used in the article and in Theosophy when discussing the Absolute and the Logos.

      1. Thanks for the reply! I’ve read your reply and I believe we are using these terms in similar but very different ways.

         I see the terms Absolute and Relative as synonymous with Objective and Subjective, respectively. For me, objective implies the quality of being true regardless of one’s individual subjective biases or opinions. I realize this scrutiny is trivial and pales in comparison to the significance of understanding the Absolute vs. the Logos, but I see the term objective very differently. I use the term objective reality as meaning the ultimate reality. In my view, the Logos is the expression and subjective manifestation of the objective Absolute.

         For me, subjective means influenced by personal feelings, biases, or opinions; objective means NOT influenced by personal feelings biases, or opinions; impartial; unbiased; neutral.

         I see our thought as well as our speech as being subjective. For your thoughts are different than my thoughts, and I see them as two subjective views rather than objective views.

         If the Absolute is forever and eternally unchanged, how can it be considered subjective?

         However, I do understand your use of the term. I can understand what you’re saying about how those on the Astral Plane would view the Physical Plane as objective, or perhaps how those on the Mental Plane would view the Astral Plane as objective, I’m simply using the term in a different way then you are.

         I see all reality as only being subjective, with the exception of the infinite macrocosmic Absolute. For all reality requires thinker and object, Shiva and Shakti, if you will. The only reality where thinker and object are truly One would be within the Absolute, the ultimate reality!

         My head is about to explode, but I figured I would attempt to rectify the situation. We are both right. Adonai!

3. Can’t Maitreya-Kalki come earlier, with all this evil, wars, sexual perversions and crimes and for the sake of to destroy all this evil demons and satanists?

   1. Hello Sananda, we are not clear as to what connection the subject of Maitreya/Kalki has with this particular article, as this is not mentioned or referred to in it.

      But in another article on this site – namely “Maitreya in the Light of Real Theosophy” – it has been said that it is unreasonable to think that our personal wishes and view of the matter can overpower the great Cyclic Law and alter its destined course. None of us wish to prolong the Kali Yuga but we have no say in the matter. The Law always works and proceeds exactly as it should and doesn’t stop in its tracks just because we little human beings are fed up with the course it’s taking. The Kali Yuga will end at its appointed time and not before . . . and that appointed time is still thousands of years off. Only at the end of Kali Yuga will the next Buddha – known as Maitreya and the Kalki Avatar, amongst other names – appear in this world…and, Theosophy says, this will *not* be in the form of one particular being or entity or Avatar, even though this is what many might be inclined to expect.

      We noticed from the link you tried to include with your comment that you are endeavouring to promote and draw attention to the work of Benjamin Creme and his “Share International” organisation. As Creme’s work and claims were built primarily on the work of Alice Bailey and C. W. Leadbeater (it was Leadbeater who started the now popular notion of an imminent “Second Coming” of the so-called “Lord Christ-Maitreya”) and have nothing in common with the work and teachings of H. P. Blavatsky and the *actual* Masters of Wisdom, we’d like to suggest, if you are interested in the real facts of the matter, that you read carefully through the following articles, which are particularly relevant for all followers/students of Creme, Bailey, Leadbeater/Besant, Saraydarian, etc:

      “Maitreya in the Light of Real Theosophy” (https://blavatskytheosophy.com/maitreya-in-the-light-of-real-theosophy/), “Christos – The Christ Principle” (https://blavatskytheosophy.com/christos-the-christ-principle/), “Original Theosophy and Later Versions” (https://blavatskytheosophy.com/original-theosophy-and-later-versions/), “14 Good Reasons to reject the Alice Bailey Teachings” (https://blavatskytheosophy.com/14-good-reasons-to-reject-the-alice-bailey-teachings/) and the lengthy but important “Tibetan Master or Christian Priest? (Uncovering the real inspiration behind the Alice Bailey Books)” (https://blavatskytheosophy.com/tibetan-master-or-christian-priest/).

Comments are closed.