Okay. But I've got some questions in question, so to say NtP>"Would you say Light more correctly refers to Purusha than Mahat?" As I understand (and it can be wrong, of cause), this words are taken from the different systems of thought. And the Vedic (or correctly, Vedantic) word "Purusha" 's more deep than the Brahmanic "Mahat". Purusha is larger than Mahat (excuse me for my English). In Vedantic viewpoint, there is Purusha and Prakriti - the matter and the spirit. Dualistic division. But among Brahmans and in The Secret Doctrine by Blavatsky the Universe's divided into three instead of the Vedantic two. There, there is the First Logos - the unmanifested and non-differentiated Absolute, then after the Manifestation process we get Mahat where as Plato says, all the archetypes are created, and only after all these we can see the Physical world. So, I think it's correct to call "manifested" everything that is not unmanifested. As you call manifested only the lower level, right? Ntp>"I see Light not standing for spirit, but rather for Prakriti/Son/the universe." If the Universe is Light, what's then the Matter, Nick?