HPB in SD mentions 7 Shaktis, i.e. goddesses, energies, or forces, and she or another Theosophist says the Dhyan-Chohans are 'at the head of forces.'

the 7 Shaktis:

Devi Prakriti
Mantrika Shakti
Jnana "
Para "
Ichchha "
Kriya "
Kundalini "

Despite that these are supposed to be impersonal, there is a head of each force. There may be a feminine and masculine self of the head of each force. Then what are the '7 Shivas' so for example the first and Devi Prakriti are Shakta as Fohat? (though Fohat may be masculine. If so, I suppose he has a feminine self, but Fohat is a slightly different topic.)

Would the '7 Shivas' be part of the Astamurti of Shiva, which has 8 Shivas, one or two of which are impersonal, or do you think they are other versions of Shiva? I suspect it at least uses the Astamurti, because it has Mahan (Mahadeva,) which is similar to Devi Prakriti, but the article I read about the Astamurti says Rohini is the Shakti corresponding to Mahadeva.

I was just associating Devi Prakriti with Kundalini-Shabdhabrahm and so then Mulaprakriti... but I think Kundalini-Mulaprakriti also exists... I am unsure. Some of this may be wrong in some Shaivism.

Actually, Devi (as the feminine self with Shiva) as Kali is quite like Devi Prakriti.

It is an interesting internal spiritual physics topic.

Although subtle differences exist, I think Mulaprakriti, Akasha, and Aether are the same.

You mentioned Fohat in association with the below, but tentatively. You suggest that fohat may be masculine. This right here, is the most complicated for me to comprehend. Possibly due to a perceived proximity to understanding fohat, pranas and jiva. I'm beginning to believe or rather come close to the postulation that all the Esoteric Tradition is mostly concerning science. Philosophy is about learning how to conduct yourself, and religion is about telling people who are too lazy to establish a proper philosophical basis upon which to lead their lives, just what to do and say, and when to do or say.

Fohat in my unsupported opinion or assertion, might be closely tied to nuclear strong force. That point where there be gluons, upon which are the little tiny quarks which display the properties of a particle. Nicholas Tesla did not agree with Einstein, especially upon the "gravity bends space" postulation. His logic being, "then where is the duality which engages upon returning bent space to its original condition before being bent?" (quotes not verbatim). Electromagnetic force supplies the entropy dispersing energy back to aether, it also manifests mostly as repulsion, yet electromagnetic forces can interact toward the creation of ponderable bodies, which latter, along with the aether, possess some measure of dialectric properties. Gravity is a pushing force, not a pulling force. Hetrodyning is a word which sort of fits into all this as well. I've seen old letters from Sir Isaac Newton to a coleague stating his dismay that he is accredited with establishing gravity and how it works. He could not provide illustration of the force at work, or the force and the medium in which it is working one body upon another. We see bodies interact, but we do not see the force per se, in action. Of course everyone is aware that the laws of gravity are the same as the laws of electromagnetism.

the 7 Shaktis:

Devi Prakriti
Mantrika Shakti
Jnana "
Para "
Ichcha "
Kriya "
Kundalini

Devi-Durga (Sanskrit) Spiritual and inaccessible goddess; also called Kali (the black one), she is a warlike, bloodthirsty goddess who destroys and devours her enemies without pity. She is "raw power, energy untamed by discipline or direction" (Classical Hindu Mythology 226). Sometimes considered an independent deity, at others an aspect of Siva's consort, whose benign aspect is named Parvati.

The feminine consorts of the various divinities of ancient peoples represent the vehicular or encompassing substances and powers surrounding the emanating monad itself; and because these powers and substances are in incessant action, they are often grouped under the name sakti, active universal energy, which is septenary, denary, or duodenary in hierarchical construction, according to the manner of counting. Thus these spiritual or divine consorts are equivalent to the theosophical elements or principle-elements, whether of the cosmos or of any individual, which surround the individual monad and furnish the field of action through which it expresses itself.

(I found too much information on Devi Prakriti: Durga is associated with Lakshmi, Saraswati, Savitri or Gayatri, and Radhika. I'm not familiar with the forms after Saraswati)

Mantrika-sakti (Sanskrit) The power or occult potency of mystic words, sounds, numbers, or letters -- the power of the mantras. The vibrational, formative, or creative power inherent in sound -- every sound being a vibration, and every vibration having its own numerical keynote. "The whole of the ancient Mantra Shastra has this force or power in all its manifestation for its subject-matter. The power of The Word which Jesus Christ speaks of is a manifestation of this Sakti. The influence of its music is one of its ordinary manifestations. The power of the mirific ineffable name is the crown of this Sakti" (Five Years of Theosophy 111).

Jnana(m) (Sanskrit) [from the verbal root jna to know, have knowledge, understand] Intelligence, understanding, knowledge; the old philosophers said that parabrahman is not jnata (known), not jnana (knowledge), and not jneya (that which may be known), nevertheless parabrahman is the one source of which these three modes of understanding are manifestations.

Jnana and vidya are closely similar, with perhaps the suggestion of intuitive intellectual cognizance expressed in jnana, and a more active and individualized activity expressed by vidya. Either word can stand for knowledge or wisdom; in theosophy jnana is often translated as innate or intuitive knowledge, and vidya as reflective or stored-up cognizance of intellectual and other values, or wisdom, though these distinctions are somewhat arbitrary. See also JHANA

Jhana (Pali) Meditation in wisdom, equivalent to Sanskrit jnana and dhyana. This experience was originally divided into four states: the mystic, with his mind free from sensuous and worldly ideas, concentrates his thoughts on some special subject such as the impermanence or mayavi character of all exterior things; uplifted above attention to externals and ordinary reasoning he experiences keen joy and quiet ease both of body and mind; the bliss passes away and he becomes suffused with a sense of inner completeness, in its higher stages approaching cosmic ranges; he becomes aware permanently of purest lucidity of intellect and perfect equanimity, while his consciousness realizes wisdom.
Para (Sanskrit) In philosophy, infinite, supreme; the final limit.

Para parâ (Sanskrit) Supreme, the ultimate bound or limit, applied to Vach (mystic speech). Vach is of four kinds: para, pasyanti, madhyama, and vaikhari. Para-vach is the heart and origin of every vaikhari or uttered speech. Para-vach corresponds to Brahman in the cosmos, for the cosmological and cosmogonical significance of Vach very closely approximates the Greek cosmic Logos (cosmic Word).

Ichchha iccha (Sanskrit) [from the verbal root ish to desire] Wish, desire, intention; derivatively, will.

Kriyasakti (Sanskrit) [from kriya action + sakti power] The power of action; mystically the power of active thought or spiritual will power,

"that mysterious and divine power latent in the will of every man, and which, if not called to life, quickened and developed by Yogi-training, remains dormant in 999,999 men out of a million, and gets atrophied. . . .
" 'Kriyasakti -- the mysterious power of thought which enables it to produce external, perceptible, phenomenal results by its own inherent energy. The ancients held that any idea will manifest itself externally if one's attention (and Will) is deeply concentrated upon it; similarly, an intense volition will be followed by the desired result' " (SD 2:173).
In the early part of the third root-race before the complete separation of the sexes, certain holy sages who were the most intellectually evolved of the then humanity, produced the first nagas, called the Sons of Will and Yoga, by the power of kriyasakti. In the distant future, human reproduction will be through this spiritual will power and imagination.

Kundalini, Kundalini-sakti [from kundalini circular, spiral + sakti power, force] The circular power; one of the mystic, recondite powers in the human constitution. It "is called the 'Serpentine' or the annular power on account of its spiral-like working or progress in the body of the ascetic developing the power in himself. It is an electric fiery occult or Fohatic power, the great pristine force, which underlies all organic and inorganic matter"; "it is Buddhi considered as an active instead of a passive principle (which it is generally, when regarded only as the vehicle, or casket of the Supreme Spirit Atma). It is an electro-spiritual force, a creative power which when aroused into action can as easily kill as it can create" (VS 77-8, 76-7). Kundalini works in and through the human auric egg on all levels: "In its higher aspect Kundalini is a power or force following winding or circular pathways carrying or conveying thought and force originating in the Higher Triad. Abstractly, in the case of man it is of course one of the fundamental energies or qualities of the Pranas. Unskilled or unwise attempts to interfere with its normal working in the human body may readily result in insanity or malignant or enfeebling disease" (OG 83).

Well, mensagitat, you seem to have gotten farther into physics than me this time. I did not know some of that about Tesla, etc..

I had just read Fohat is a god. Maybe it was generic and meant goddess, since it is about the same as Shakti.

I think the esoteric tradition has to do with Philosophy, because a field of it (though past Plato) is epistemology. 'Episteme' is science. 'Pure science' is one term for the highest field of Philosophy or Philosophy itself. I do not see how you get the idea Philosophy is just something about oneself (besides the universal self) rather than something about all that is (I avoided the word 'everything,' because it has 'thing' in it.) Religion is just another field of Philosophy and it has a pure scientific part that means the same as pure science and Philosophy. One could call this theology, pneumatology, monadology, logic. That was in one of a few orders from my most to least favourite focused more on the Divine Monad as 'the all' (infinite unity of Parabrahm) than 'the first cause' (triadic Brahm.) Of course logic has to do with causes besides Logos. Chaos (Parabrahm) is still a cause but denoted by its own term for 'cause' besides 'Logos.'

I think the four fields are basically synonyms and the same as 'Philaletheia,' which is a prerequisite to pure Philosophy. First one loves the truth--then wisdom: including acting upon the truth. But, I have gone on another Philosophy tangent.

I liked that you investigated what the SD says about Shaktis, but we have not gotten very far answering the question. Another idea I have is the Shaktis may not just correspond to Shiva. My guess is the first three would correspond to the Trimurti. However there are three trimurtis. I would be inclined to start with the 2nd or 3rd because in their time (or just the 3rd) Shakti was defined. However, Shakti is synonmous with 'Devi' ('goddess,') which is why I changed my mind about only Shiva being involved. From that point of view Lakshmi and Sarasvati are Shaktis but they have to do with Vishnu and Brahma, not Shiva.

I suppose what corresponds to the seven Shaktis is the seven Prajapatis. But I still like the term 'Shiva' and 'Deva' and want to find a more divine definition than something that was also called the incarnated Rishis. It depends on which root race they incarnated in though. Still, the 'Shivas' should really be beyond incarnation maybe, since these Shaktis are abstract like the Shekhinah implying Elohim or Ain-Soph in Quabalah, and they are more like an eternal nature of Adi-Buddha, '1st Buddha' being equivalent to Mahadeva Shiva, the so-called 1st Logos counterpart of 1st emanated Logos Devi Shakti.

If Kali means 'Devi' then Lakshmi and Sarasvati are like her, but if Kali means 'Parvati' this is not so much so. Kali is also an Earth Mother Goddess which is why I said she is like Devi Prakriti ('Goddess Earth.')

I would say the seven in the Astamurti except the one called 'being' which I consider more like 'Parashiva,' 'Parabrahm,' would be the Shivas like these Shaktis. However they are a little different, so I suppose I should look for seven Vishnus and Brahms to get the whole picture.

I guess there are seven incarnations of Vishnu--major ones--or ten, though there are more, but it would be better if there were seven abstract Vishnus.

I do not really know about Brahm. I suppose I will have to look into him and Sarasvati. I am not sure he is the same as in the 1st Trimurti if he has to do with her, because in that he may be identified with Nara or Nari (see Isis Unveiled.) If that is another Brahm that is two out of seven though. That is not enough so I would tend to think of him in the Trimurti as the first three 'Shivas.' Then it is hard to see what four to seven are.

I would almost just conclude four to seven are the physics forces, but I am trying to analyze the religious symbolism before I get into that, because we do not know all about physics and ther could be seven or infinite forces (or six and infinite in Shakta.) I assume most of the Trimurti with Tridevi had children, but Parvati had two. Maybe that takes care of the rest of the heptad, or maybe it is not as well-defined a symbol as the Prajapatis, because then you have to start considering the rest of the pantheon.

I guess I should also take a look at that heptad that has things like 'Mahat' and is considered divine consciousness. I think Fohat is also in there, but Fohat is a god so the rest must be. Maybe those are the Prajapatis I am looking for! (as long as Fohat is first or it would confuse ideas.)

I stopped by here a lot earlier and logged in. My internet connection became degraded or weak, so I closed down everything and did a restart. So now, as I stop by here to take a look, I see that I never logged out.

Sometimes I think I understand the description of the Monad and Jiva. If I decide to avoid jiva for the moment and focus on the monad, I remember something about the indivisible property, characteristic or attribute which it is ascribed as possessing. Fohat is Pranas and both are integral to the Monad. They are rays from the monad. The Monad being indivisible does not preclude the idea that manas, buddhi, and atman have existence within.

When you look at the description of the Shaktis in my previous post, you may note that they seem to be described as being utilized by a Monad. At this point, I only view male and female as descriptions of the former being predominantly a force, and the latter predominantly a substance. People seem to immediately disagree with this because they tend toward the image of force as pure force, and substance as pure substance, i.e., they seem to require extremes for imaging or duality, where synthesis may give better results than black or white opposites type of thought.

For instance, skandha's are not limited to providing one with individuality, but determine quality as well. I don't think I would give a specific gender to a Monad. If I return the focus back to a Monad, and use the macrocosm as analogy for the microcosm, consider the Divine Monad, it possesses an entire Galaxy as its Field. The Spiritual Monad, an entire Solar System. Higher Mind Monad, a Planetary Chain. I suppose we are to focus upon only the Globe Monad (lower mind), in that, the manas of kama (mind of desire) is the only part of our aggragative being that we are to be evolving at this period. --at least, this is what I've been told more than one occasion-- Of course, if this is indeed so, I might remember that each part of the septenary aggragative individual, is in itself septenary. You know one thing I would hate to be? a Fifth Rounder. The very fact that I just wrote that last, indicates what mood I'm in right now. I must be getting sleepy.

I wonder, if we have Monads, Fohat, and Shaktis, the first could be electromagnetic force, which by the time we reach the second, it is approaching proximity to possibly being described as gluons, while the third is the venue of aethers. No, I feel like I might have hit upon something, but missed the target instead. Perhaps Monads are akin to the DNA for every manifestation, or blueprint, and Fohat which has several other names is like the RNA, while the Shaktis are the aethers, and the ponderable bodies. I see I can simply go on like this without hitting the mark.

interesting post. Following is something I looked up from the esoteric papers (I think it is also in SD.)

1. Atma or Hiranyagharba, or Prakriti
2. Alaya
3. Mahat
4. Fohat
5. Kama or (?) Jiva
6. Prana?
7. Prakriti, or 'physical.'

I guess this is the closest correspondence to the Shaktis that I can think of now. Since there are Shaktis described as Brahmas I suppose Prakriti could be masculine from another viewpoint.

I must also look at some Yoga books that talk about Devis & Devas of the chakras, and another possibility is the Kumaras.

Another possibility I looked up now are seven of three and five forms of Vishnu. One of the eight is Mahavishnu, which is like Parabrahm. I think the Kumaras or the realities listed above are the best options though.

I like your avatar. I read something concerning the Kumaras because I noticed the name mentioned in the Matrix movie. It was the name of the man's wife in the scene where Neo is trapped in a train station.

They are relatively perfect beings, that really did not want to come here where we are. They are arupa, and coming here was difficult for them as they must deal with material form. They are a class of Dhyani-Chohans. I think reference to them concerns entering the second and third Root-Races. They are akin to the Agnishvattas. Actually, there is a lot to read concerning the Kumaras.

I'm glad I hardly ever drive, a Yukon is a big gas guzzler. In the past month, I haven't even put 200 miles on it. I'm going to r u n n o f t for some stuff at the store.

I looked at your chart one more time before running off. Prakriti associated with Atma was sort of a shock. You know the first thought evoked? Octaves, and the idea that this Globe is one rather than seperate tala and loka, the two are together as one, but the main point toward what I immediately gained as an insight, was the bottom Globe of the next octave is also one Globe. I remember that you guys, or Nick at least, do not utilize loka and tala line of thought. How do you get the V shape incorporated into your various charts? I remember now, I have never seen a chart utilized by Nick incorporating a V. This makes me wonder how you illustrate 7 Root-Races 7 times around 7 Globes. The 777. To me this is the upright V which illustrates seven globes upon four heavens. An inverted /\ sits atop and consists of seven globes upon four heavens with another unseparated Globe at its Acme.

I think it is necessary for me to read your posts within this thread many times. You are offering a lot of information with gaps in it.

I think Devi is feminine and Deva is masculine, mostly substance versus mostly force. And I have ambivalence about the mostly force statement I make, in that it may be more about in-form-ation.

You mentioned Prajapatis and this is where I am weak in that I have read they possess similarity to a Manu, only, Prajapati is a more exalted version of a Manu.

Siva-Rudra (Sanskrit) The name Siva occupies a very inconspicuous position in the Vedas, where that deity is referred to as Rudra, the greatest of the kumaras, considered by occultists as their special patron.

He is for this reason called Trilochana (the three-eyed) or Mahadeva (the great divinity), etc. The function of Siva-Rudra is to destroy in order to regenerate the permanent entity on a higher plane; his functions being essentially those of action, as Vishnu's functions are essentially those of continuance or preservation.

Siva-Rudra is the hierarch of the rudras, who are essentially dhyani-chohans of an active spiritually-intellectual character -- the manasaputras may be called rudras. See also RUDRA; RUDRA-SIVA

Deva (Sanskrit) [from the verbal root div to shine] A divinity, a resplendent deity. "A Deva is a celestial being -- whether good, bad, or indifferent. Devas inhabit 'the three worlds,' which are the three planes above us. There are 33 groups or 330 millions of them" enumerated in the exoteric sacred scriptures of Hindustan, although these numbers should not be taken literally (TG 98).

Deva is a very general term for various classes of celestial beings. There are classes of ethereal or spiritual beings that are behind mankind in their evolution, unself-conscious god-sparks who have yet to go through the human stage in order to bring forth more fully the glory within them. Then there are the celestial beings who have passed through the human stage and are thus evolutionally higher than we; and beings higher than these, who have developed the most divine parts of their constitution. Considered as inhabitants of the three worlds or planes above us, devas is a generalized term for those evolving life-waves or hierarchies of sentient beings evolving on the six superior globes of earth's planetary chain. See also ASURA

I am glad you like my avatar; it has a star & crescent (for Athena or Sufism,) the star of which includes the exact 6 and 9-pointed (Judaist; Bahai is 9-pointed) and a cross in a Buddha wheel within. The cross has a sun-disk or Faravahar. On the outside are a hand (top right) for Jainism and ahimsa , and an Aum (lower left) and t'ai-chi-tu. Some of it may be hard to see.

I do think the ideas of lokas and talas made sense; I just did not understand talas until you mentioned them.

The way the Prakritric planes are described in the esoteric papers does make them seem like octaves.

What is the symbol in the upper right corner, and the lower left corner?

On octaves, I've seen it noted that we are within an octave, and entering an eighth is evolving upward. Each of the seven scales within the octave we are in has seven sub octaves, and each sub octave has seven sub sub octaves, and so forth unto infinity.

I don't know how to utilize this other than to realize that each one differs by which characteristic is dominant. I don't really see vital force, as upon an octave per se, and see it is listed as one of the septenary scales within our aggragative being for purpose of acknowledging vital force or pranas. So this might disturb one's view upon our being septenary, and I would only submit that manas would compensate if one were to see manas as being dual; upper and lower. This works for me as I am comfortable with seeing manas as two, three, or even envisioning it as a wide striated scale.

To go further with information concerning octaves within octaves going lower or higher without end --or one might say, 'wheels within wheels'-- or beginning, one may choose to find within, a magnetic center based upon mind or manas. All of the seven aggragative parts of the individual finding accord with mind or manas. I suppose then, that manas must have quality as an aim or goal. Personal dignity or appropriatness of manas within the Cosmos being found and contemplation or meditation consisting of manas making itself known to all other parts of the individual.

We may be getting off-topic in this thread, but I updated the description above of my avatar.

A reason I thought the seven Kumaras could be 'seven Shivas' with the Shaktis is because the Shaktis are forces/energies, and if they have entities at their head they are still only ones we know. Only several of the Kumaras are known, but only several of the physics forces/energies are known, though there are names for all the Shaktis as energy/force. Maybe we just do not know the true nature of them and so we do not know what entities are at their head.

For some reason I'm feeling the need to introduce the word triune. If we are talking of manifestation, then Space/Time has to be stated in a form which breaks down the word Space, which accounts for substance and force. Thus we submit force, substance, time or time, force, substance or substance, force, time.

Einstein spoke of space as an ether which was affected by gravity through the action of being bent or curved. Einstein never mentioned any notion of space being an extension or ether within ethers, as well as without ethers. This is where Purucker had to accept Einstein contingent upon the idea that the space we are familiar with, is within other spaces, and that there are spaces within our space.

Space seems to be the source from which ponderable bodies arise and exist within as well, and both possess some degree of dialectric value. In this third paragraph, I mention only two parts of the triune, and would be interested in the direction you might take in describing the third.

Atma as Prakriti is a new concept to me. I may have already mentioned this. I want to bring it up again because I think of prakriti as denoting our base substance, which on one level might be seen as being hydrogen.

I think I could get lost trying to come to a concept possessing a thorough comprehension of Atma as Prakriti. There is an Atma for a human, a globe, a planetary chain, a sun or star, --or perhaps solar system is more accurate than saying sun or star-- and finally, galaxy. Perhaps where above I mentioned hydrogen, it may be more accurate to suggest force carriers rather than what our senses are able to perceive. Of course, we really do not see hydrogen or sense it in any way, except in cases of multiples of hydrogen, in otherwords, the elements of the periodic table. I forget, are there actually any elements we can see with our physical senses or do we only perceive the compounds of elements grouped together forming a material we can finally sense?

In this path I'm on trying to equate Atma --which I saw as more a force-- with Prakriti --which I saw as substance-- I believe that I was about to conclude that Atma/Prakriti might be explained as primordial substance, if engaging thought upon the hierarchies in an upward direction. Fohat, Kama, and Pranas, are listed on various charts as component parts when they are actually within each of the other listed aggragative component parts of any living being. Taking this into account, it leaves open some area for pondering upon the number six, when fohat, kama, and pranas are almost always, if not always thought of as integral to other designated scalar nomenclature. In otherwords, the latter three are really not pertinent for discussion in a form where they are seen as isolated from another aggragate or two or more. For instance, we can easily sit and discuss manas by itself, even if we are suggesting that it consists of two or three or of a wide striated field, we can still discuss manas per se. Fohat, kama and pranas has to be associated with something when subject for discussion.

mensagitat,

It may help you to thnk about the difference between Prakriti and Mulaprakriti. Mulaprakriti is primordial substance. It is substance in its most basic and "unactivated" state. Once Mulaprakriti differentiates and becomes energized, it becomes Prakriti.

Perhaps understanding this difference will help you.

Also I may have combined 2 to 4 different lists. Some had Prakriti at the top and some at the bottom because one list was all 'Prakritic planes.' As you can see there was some variation too.

I find it is sort of contradictory unless one sees it as paradox instead: Brahma is vessel for Brahman, which immediately draws to mind that Brahma is being equated with substance.

Brahma is Purusha (force) and Prakriti (substance), when still within initial movement form Pralaya. Brahman and Parabrahman are actually everything, and this does not eliminate the possibility of novel emanations or rather the latter are the well springs. So Brahma being equated as Prakriti, and even with Brahma also being equated with everything as well, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, can be seen as Prakriti because force and substance are never seperate. I would say that the Shaktis, being force and substance, are associated with fields which the masculine becomes directer, or the manipulater.

This is especially percieved in the above manner as the descent into manifestation becomes more pronounced or advanced. It is also necessary to have two poles in order to create a flow or current. Everything is within Brahma, and everything is within the Shaktis as well, with the latter being equated with That which anything might be brought into a manifested existence, I would say that the Rudras are initiators. The Shaktis are unlimited well-springs, perhaps a bit more like the quartermaster corp. I'm not happy with that last analogy, but I have to run along now.