<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Several\nof the concepts central to the philosophy of H.P. Blavatsky’s (HPB’s)\nwork The\nSecret Doctrine<\/em>,\nmay be defined in terms of\n“svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t”. Some of these concepts will be listed in\nthis introduction. In the following paragraphs\nwe can have a look at some examples of the use of the term svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t\n(svabh\u0101va),\nin relevant scholarly, philosophical and religious works, to see if\nwe can find any resemblance to the concept of svabh\u0101va as it is\npresented in The\nSecret Doctrine<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the Proem to The Secret Doctrine<\/em> (SD I, 1), in the “archa\u00efc manuscript”, boundless abstract space<\/strong> is symbolised as an immaculate white disk on a dull background. In SD I, 35, abstract space is described as unconditional, and eternal (timeless or independent of time):<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n“What\nis that which was, is, and will be, whether there is a Universe or\nnot; whether there be gods or none?” asks the esoteric Senzar\nCatechism. And the answer made is — SPACE.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nthe very first \u015bloka from the Book of Dzyan as presented in The\nSecret Doctrine<\/em>,\nstanza 1 \u015bloka 1 (SD I, 35), abstract space is called the eternal\nparent<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n1.\n“THE ETERNAL PARENT (Space), WRAPPED IN HER EVER INVISIBLE\nROBES, HAD SLUMBERED ONCE AGAIN FOR SEVEN ETERNITIES (a).”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ninvisible robes in which the parent is \u201cwrapped\u201d are interpreted\nin stanza 1 \u015bloka 5 as m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/strong>,\nthe one primordial substance. In stanza 1 \u015bloka 5 (SD I, 40-41)\nthen, abstract space is called darkness<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n1.5\nDARKNESS ALONE FILLED THE BOUNDLESS ALL (a), FOR FATHER, MOTHER AND\nSON WERE ONCE MORE ONE, […]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n HPB\nexplains in SD I, 41: \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nWhen\nthe whole universe was plunged into sleep — had returned to its one\nprimordial element — there was neither centre of luminosity, nor eye\nto perceive light, and darkness necessarily filled the boundless all.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nstanza 2 \u015bloka 5 (SD I, 60), we find the same identification, and\nfurthermore, darkness is called father-mother<\/strong>,\nand\nsvabh\u00e2v\u00e2t:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n2.5\n[…] DARKNESS ALONE WAS FATHER-MOTHER, SVABHAVAT, […]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nThis\napplies only to the state of pralaya, the sleep of the universe, and\nsvabh\u00e2v\u00e2t may appear in at least two respective stages. The\nniv\u1e5bitti (also incorrectly spelled nirv\u1e5btti) stage is also called\npradh<\/strong>\u0101<\/strong>na<\/strong>,\nwhen svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t is in darkness, while the prav\u1e5btti stage is called\nprak\u1e5bti<\/strong>,\nwhen svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t has become the manifested matter which is at the\nbasis of the various planes of manifestation. Not in each case in\nHPB’s writings the term pradh\u0101na\nis used for the unmanifested root of matter, but in volumes I and II\nof the SD we find it used consistently in this manner. For example in\nSD I, 257 we find:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nthe\nformer term (pradh\u0101na) being certainly synonymous with Mulaprakriti\nand Akasa, […]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\nwe see that \u0101k\u0101\u015ba<\/strong>\nis also identified with m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/strong>,\nthe unmanifested “root of matter”. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n1.\nThe Orthography of Svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nConcerning\nsvabh\u00e2v\u00e2t, Friedrich Max M\u00fcller reported the following in 1876 in\nhis Chips\nfrom a German Workshop<\/em>\nVol. I. p 278:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nThe\nSv\u00e2bh\u00e2vikas maintain that nothing exists but nature, or rather\nsubstance, and that this substance exists by itself (\u201csvabh\u00e2v\u00e2t),\nwithout a Creator or a Ruler. It exists, however, under two forms :\nin the state of Prav<\/em>ritti,\nas active, or in the state of Nirv<\/em>ritti,\nas passive.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nDaniel\nCaldwell\nhas suggested<\/a>\nthat\nthis passage might have been HPB\u2019s source for the term svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t,\nand that the ending in -\u00e2t would indicate the ablative case of\nsvabh\u0101va,\nmeaning \u201cby itself\u201d. If this is true, these two terms would be\ntwo forms of the same base word, which is spelled in the current IAST\northography\nas svabh\u0101va<\/strong>.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n2.\nSvabh\u0101va: Nature or Substance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nBased\non this identification of svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t as svabh\u0101va, we can look up\nthis term in common dictionaries and start reviewing what was written\nin the time of HPB in sources she has consulted or might have\nconsulted, which is not always clear.\nIn this\nlast quotation from M\u00fcller, he distinguishes two senses of the word\nsvabh\u0101va: \u201cnature\u201d and \u201csubstance\u201d. Perhaps he is echoing\nBrian Houghton Hodgson at this point. In the standard\nMonier-Williams\u2019 A\nSanskrit-English Dictionary<\/em>\n(MW),\n<\/em>this\nsecond sense is not mentioned in the main lemmata for svabh\u0101va and\nsvabh\u0101v\u0101t:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nm.\nown condition or state of being, natural state or constitution,\ninnate or inherent disposition, nature, impulse, spontaneity<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nm.\n(…v\u0101t or …vena or …va-tas or ibc.), (from natural disposition,\nby nature, naturally, by one’s self, spontaneously) \u015avetUp. Mn. MBh.\n&c.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nA\nspecific use of svabh\u0101va or svabh\u0101v\u0101t as a philosophical term in\nMah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhist literature as mentioned\nby HPB is not included in MW. In HPB’s time there were also the\ndictionaries\nby\nHorace Hayman Wilson (whom she held in high regard as a researcher),\nand\nlater\nthe great Sanskrit-German dictionary by Rudolf Roth and Otto von\nB\u00f6htlingk, which also do not mention svabh\u0101va as “substance”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIf\nwe look at the \u015avet\u0101\u015bvatara Upanishad (\u015avUp, ca. 400 BCE \u00b1100),\nthe oldest extant work where the term svabh\u0101va is mentioned, in \u015avUp\n1.2 we find in the discussion on the first cause of things, svabh\u0101va\nas a possible first cause (tr. Robert Ernest Hume, 1921) :<\/p>\n\n\n\n k\u0101la\u1e25 svabh\u0101vo niyatir yad\u1e5bcch\u0101 bh\u016bt\u0101ni yoni\u1e25 puru\u1e63eti cintyam \/<\/em> Time (k\u0101la), or inherent nature (sva-bh\u0101va), or necessity (niyati) or chance (yad\u1e5bcch\u0101),<\/em> or the elements (bh\u016bta), or a [female] womb (yoni), or a [male] person (puru\u1e63a) are to be considered [as the cause]; […]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nThis\nverse answers the question “kuta\u1e25 sma j\u0101t\u0101”, “whence\nare we born?”, from the previous verse. Again we find svabh\u0101va\nas “inherent nature” and not as “substance”.\nMoreover, from the translation it is not clear if svabh\u0101va is\nintended here as 1. inherent nature of individual entitites\n(pluralistic) or 2. of entities in general or the universe as a\nwhole. (monistic) In the Book of Dzyan, svabh\u0101va is in principle a\nmonistic concept, as we have seen in the introduction to this\narticle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n3.\nHPB’s quote from the Anug\u012bt\u0101<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIn\nthe SD, HPB refers to one extant work from the context of Hinduism\nwhere svabh\u0101va is used in the sense of \u201csubstance\u201d. In SD I, 571\nshe quotes the Anug\u012bt\u0101<\/em>:\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n\u201c[…]\nGods, Men, Gandharvas, Pis\u00e2chas, Asuras, R\u00e2kshasas, all have been\ncreated by Svabh\u00e2va (Prakriti, or plastic nature), not by actions,\nnor by a cause\u201d — i.e., not by any physical cause.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIn\nthe 1882 translation of the Anug\u012bt\u0101<\/em>\nby K.T. Telang, a work HPB has consulted on other occasions, on p.\n387 we find what is presumably the source of this quotation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nGods,\nmen, Gandharvas, Pis\u00e2kas, Asuras, R\u00e2kshasas, all have been created\nby nature<\/em>5<\/em><\/sup>,\nnot by actions, nor by a cause.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nwhere\nnote 5<\/em><\/sup>\nrefers to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n5.\nThe original is svabh\u00e2va, which Arguna Misra renders by Prakriti.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nFrom\nher substitution of \u201cnature\u201d by \u201cSvabh\u00e2va (Prakriti, or\nplastic nature)\u201d we may derive that HPB interprets svabh\u00e2va here\nas\nthe term svabh\u00e2v\u00e2t appearing in the Book of Dzyan, which is\ndescribed as \u201cplastic essence\u201d (SD I, 61), the plastic root of\nphysical Nature (SD I, 98), which in its \u201cactive condition\u201d is\ncalled prak\u1e5bti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nNote\n5 refers to the commentary to the Mah\u0101<\/em>bh\u0101rata<\/em>\nby Arjuna Mi\u015bra (16th c.), who, according to the note, renders\nsvabh\u0101va as prak\u1e5bti. We can read the original verse in book 14,\nchapter 50 (Bombay ed. 51), verse 11 of the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata<\/em>,\nthe Anug\u012bt\u0101<\/em>\nbeing part of its A\u015bvamedha parvan: \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n dev\u0101 manu\u1e63y\u0101 gandharv\u0101\u1e25 pi\u015b\u0101c\u0101surar\u0101k\u1e63as\u0101\u1e25<\/em> \nIndeed\nin this verse, \u201cby nature\u201d seems to be an inadequate translation\nfor svabh\u0101va. Although\nArjuna Mi\u015bra, and HPB, have thought that in this verse svabh\u0101va\nshould be identified with prak\u1e5bti, it is still possible that the\nauthor has intended “inherent nature” and not “substance”.\nJust\nas in the quotation from the\n\u015avUp,\nit is not exactly clear here if svabh\u0101va\nis intended as an individual (pluralistic) or a collective “cause”.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n4.\nT<\/strong>he\n<\/strong>Mah\u0101vyutpatti<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIn\nthe Mah\u0101vyutpatti\n<\/em>(Mv,\nToh.\n4346),\nthe famous Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionary, a work from a Buddhist\ncontext dating back to the first half of the 9th century, the\nSanskrit entry for prak\u1e5bti (no. 7497) is linked to Tibetan “rang\nbzhin”, “rang bzhin ngo bo nyid”, and “rang bzhin\nngo bo nyid\ndam\nrang bzhin.” These three terms are expressions for\nsvabh\u0101va as the \u201cinherent nature\u201d of Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhism. The\ntwo terms rang bzhin and ngo bo nyid are derived from rang (own,\nself) and ngo or ngo bo (face), and therefore their\nprimary meaning will be closer to svabh\u0101va as “nature”\nthan to “substance”. The\nnext entry in the Mv, no. 7498, is indeed svabh\u0101va, to which are\nlinked the same three expressions. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
sa\u1e43yoga e\u1e63\u0101\u1e43 na tv \u0101tmabh\u0101v\u0101d \u0101tm\u0101 hy an\u012b\u015ba\u1e25 sukhadu\u1e25khaheto\u1e25 \/\/<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nsarve svabh\u0101vata\u1e25 s\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101 na kriy\u0101bhyo na k\u0101ra\u1e47\u0101t || 14.50.11 ||<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n