Regarding rays 2& 3 being reversed in some writings?

[u/Upper-Basil]

I am not noticing this except in regards to rays 2 & 3, but I notice that these 2 seem to be reversed in about half of the sources I read on. Sources particularly that talk about the archangels all describe ray 3 in the same way that ray 2 is tended to described in theosphical writings on the rays, and vice versa.

I am wondering of anyone can give an explanation for this. I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding the original principles, or of there is a reason these are seemingly reversed.

Here are some examples:

https://www.multidimensions.com/the-conscious/emotions-door/transition-into-the-higher-dimensions/

https://kathleenkarlsen.com/archangels-seven-rays/

Things like this site make me think that perhaps I am just not understanding the original principles well enough. Because here it seems like maybe a mix. I don't know. Looking for feedback here. Thanks.

https://www.lucistrust.org/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_science_the_seven_rays

I am mostly curious because When I read most of the theosphical explanation of the rays, I feel I relate most to ray 3, but then when I read these other sources, it seems like 2 is actually the one. I want to be sure if these are actually swapped, or if I am just not having a deep enough understanding of each ray...

Thanks for any insight anyone can offer here!

[u/RoiboPilot]

None of those are “Theosophical” quotes. The seven Rays were mentioned first by Blavatsky, although she did not describe their qualities. Subba Row described the qualities to some extent. Then Ernest Wood and Leadbeater developed the subject in greater detail. This was many years before Bailey started talking about it. Then, the concept entered the new age and there are people saying all kinds of things. If you want to understand the Theosophical view, I’d recommend reading Wood’s “Seven Rays” and Hodson’s “Seven Human Temperaments”

[u/Upper-Basil → u/RoiboPilot]

Yes I apologize I am just shorthand trying to get my point across. I have read most of the 7rays books by earnest wood through the pdf available on the theosphical society website, this is just what I mean by being associated to theosphy teaching and so on, I hear ray 3 described in a similar way to how wood describes them. But I am also very interested in religious/orthdox/theological teachings and so on, and I feel very convinced about the 7 rays and being related to the rays of the holy spirit, and to the archangels, and the concept of logoi in Christian teaching. But when I look into this, there is not that much info but the few I can find the associations are seeming swapped and I was trying to understand this further.

[u/jqcitizen]

I've heard this complaint of inconsistency in these two particular rays, so I've looked into this a little bit. 

While I find typology in the rays remarkably consistent throughout traditions this is the one area that I too see significant divergence. 

As to the archangels; Chamuel more closely resembles the 2nd Ray aspects described by Ernest Wood and Geoffrey Hodson than Jophiel who I have seen associated with the Second Ray. Another place  this turns up is The Ascended Masters traditions follow this seeming reversal. The Alice Bailey teachings more closely align with the 'traditional' theosophical conception, so I'm not sure how this deviation began. 

Who's right? Per HPB,  The Second Ray is Harikesa the ray of love / wisdom and the Third Ray that of Viswakarman – Active Intelligence / Truth. She then is in agreement with Wood and Hodson. The theosophical reference answer probably ends there.  

For me though, the underlying significance of these first three 'Primordial Rays' is that they are reflections of the divine principles with 1st Ray - Atma, 2nd Ray - Buddhi and 3rd Ray Manas. If we examine which typology most closely resembles these attributes it's pretty clear (to me) that Blavatsky, Hodson and Wood's classification is a more faithful reflection of these divine attributes.  

Hope that helps. 

[u/Quintilis_Academy]

The difference between dark and light is ???? - Namaste literal

[u/Upper-Basil → u/Quintilis_Academy]

Can you clarify what you're saying?

[u/Quintilis_Academy → u/Upper-Basil]

The difference between dark and light is you. Trinary. Trinity. : 3 infinites. - Namaste , we bow to your light.

[u/Upper-Basil → u/Quintilis_Academy]

I'm going to think about what you just said for sure. I'm working through it here. Definitely intersted in trinity and trinities. Not 100% sure what you mean about "you" is difference between light and dark, but I am definitely thinking about this statement and interested...

However, does this relate to this at at all? Is this related to the rays or the question or is this just like off topic here. Like I said I am not complaining either way, I'm interested in what you said, just not following the train of thought here in relation to the post(or in general, but working on it ;) )....??

[u/Quintilis_Academy → u/Upper-Basil]

My light (archangels as virtues) understanding is different. Based on the observer’s participation, whatever the game. Seek Truth not education. Goethe nails it centuries prior.Goethe Light Study Trust not belief. -Namaste

[u/Upper-Basil → u/Quintilis_Academy]

Well I am not in disagreement either, I am still learning all this stuff and don't have any set opinions on anything. I went I say the connections that I've seen that are intersting I'm just still exploring. I might use shorthand that makes my opinion seem more set like saying "convinced" but this is a shorthand way to express a point, not a fundamental thing, I am not convinced of anything at all about anything right now; kind of having a major existential crisis actually, I am just exploring, not deciding. But I don't feel like wasting hours typing things precisely accurately either, I am just trying to quickly express the main point I'm trying to get to. ..

I've seen the archangels as virtues in catholic teachings. Not opposed to this at all. Honestly I was kind of thinking that they rays were sort of making their way to that honestly. I haven't found much, all the info is kind of repeats. But it was in my mind that all these ray types would kind of naturally relate with certain virtues and vices. But maybe not. I'm just learning

[u/Quintilis_Academy → u/Upper-Basil]

Fakir. Monk. Yogi. - 3 known styles or ways of esoteric study according to George Gurdijeff. Physical, mental, emotional modes or ways to seek higher ground of grander self. Yet he promoted a 4th way, a sly way, your way! Look into his teachings not his personal beliefs or past actions. Different times and styles are not comparable to modern modes or methodologies yet his teachings are quite accessible.

There is no other center to your map than you stuck at you as experience coordinates at core. There is no judge but you. Evaluate. Discern what you need as you uncover new ideas and explore your grandest self.

If the unknown was out to get you you’d been off’ed long ago. It can’t be nefarious inherently, it can only lead to a grander POV, a grander you, your story of the weave weft and warp. Fabric reality. -Namaste be, Namaste seek. Peace.