This\nis part of an ongoing glossary of terms relating to the Book of Dzyan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The term m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti <\/em>is used in The\nSecret Doctrine<\/em> to refer to one of the two aspects under which the \u201comnipresent,\neternal, boundless, and immutable principle\u201d is symbolized, the other aspect then\nbeing referred to as parabrahman<\/em>. These\ntwo terms were adopted from the writings of T. Subba Row as the Advaita Ved\u0101nta\nterms for the two aspects that H. P. Blavatsky had called \u201cabsolute abstract\nspace\u201d or \u201cpre-cosmic substance\u201d and \u201cabsolute abstract motion\u201d or \u201cpre-cosmic\nideation,\u201d respectively. However, this is not exactly what these two terms\nrefer to in Hinduism, and m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti <\/em>is\nnot really an Advaita Ved\u0101nta term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The term m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> is defined in The\nSecret Doctrine<\/em> as \u201cthe root of Nature\u201d (vol. 1, pp. 62, 136), \u201cthe Root of\nall\u201d (vol. 1, pp. 147, 256, 340), \u201cthe \u2018root<\/em>-Principle\u2019\nof the world stuff and of all in the world\u201d (vol. 1, p. 522), and \u201cthe root of\nPrakriti\u201d (vol. 2, p. 65). The entry in the Theosophical\nGlossary<\/em> shows that this is what Blavatsky thought was the literal meaning\nof the term: \u201cM\u00fblaprakriti (Sk<\/em>.). . .\n. undifferentiated substance . . . Literally, \u2018the root of Nature\u2019 (Prakriti<\/em>) or Matter\u201d (p. 218). This is\nnot the literal meaning of the term, nor can it be. The term is a Sanskrit\ncompound, consisting of m\u016bla<\/em>, \u201croot,\u201d\nand prak\u1e5bti<\/em>, \u201csubstance, matter,\nnature.\u201d In order to mean \u201cthe root of nature,\u201d the compound would have to be prak\u1e5bti-m\u016bla<\/em>, not m\u016bla-prak\u1e5bti<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The term m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> is a S\u0101\u1e43khya term, despite the fact that Subba Row used\nit as an Advaita Ved\u0101nta term, and Blavatsky adopted it as such from him. It\noccurs in the third verse of the authoritative S\u0101\u1e43khya-k\u0101rik\u0101<\/em>. The standard commentary by V\u0101caspati-mi\u015bra, the S\u0101\u1e43khya-tattva-kaumud\u012b<\/em>, glosses it there\nas: m\u016bla\u1e43 c\u0101sau prak\u1e5bti\u015b ceti m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti\u1e25, which Ganganatha Jha translates as:\n\u201cit is that \u2018Matter\u2019 which is the \u2018Root\u2019.\u201d Grammatically it is, and can only\nbe, a karmadh\u0101raya<\/em> compound, not a tatpuru\u1e63a<\/em> compound. This is why it\ncannot mean \u201cthe root of substance,\u201d but can only mean \u201cthat substance which is\nthe root,\u201d or simply, \u201croot-substance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The term m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> is found only rarely in Advaita Ved\u0101nta texts; and when\nit is, it is used as a synonym of m\u0101y\u0101<\/em>,\n\u201cillusion,\u201d or avidy\u0101<\/em>, \u201cwrong knowing.\u201d\nThe term parabrahman<\/em> that it is paired\nwith in The Secret Doctrine<\/em> is not\nmuch used in Advaita Ved\u0101nta texts, since they almost always simply use brahman<\/em> for the absolute, the one\nreality, with no need for any qualifying adjective like para<\/em>, \u201csupreme\u201d or \u201chighest.\u201d Thus, m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> is paired with parabrahman<\/em>\nor brahman<\/em> only like m\u0101y\u0101<\/em> is paired with brahman<\/em>, as an illusory something that is not ultimately real\nbecause it goes away when brahman<\/em> is\nrealized through right knowing. It is without beginning, an\u0101di<\/em>, but not without end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea that root-substance or m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> is eternal, and therefore\ncould be an aspect of the absolute, is a Theosophical idea and a S\u0101\u1e43khya idea,\nbut not an Advaita Ved\u0101nta idea. Subba Row strongly advocated that matter or\nsubstance is eternal in his articles written in response to the Almora Swami,\nthus giving an esoteric teaching as if it was the standard Advaita Ved\u0101nta\nteaching. Later, however, in his lectures on the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> he reverted to the standard Advaita Ved\u0101nta teaching,\nstrongly distinguishing m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em>\nfrom parabrahman<\/em> as being only the\nveil of parabrahman<\/em>. This was copied\nin The Secret Doctrine<\/em> several times\n(vol. 1, pp. 10, 130, 274, 351, 426, 428, 429, 430, 432, 536) as being the true\nesoteric teaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Subba Row had stated clearly in his\nfirst lecture on the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> that\nm\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> is not parabrahman<\/em>, and this was quoted\napprovingly in The Secret Doctrine<\/em> (vol.\n1, p. 428): \u201cParabrahmam appears to it as Mulaprakriti. . . . This Mulaprakriti\nis material to it (the Logos), as any material object is material to us. This\nMulaprakriti is no more Parabrahmam than the bundle of attributes of a pillar is\nthe pillar itself; Parabrahmam is an unconditioned and absolute reality, and\nMulaprakriti is a sort of veil thrown over it.\u201d Following upon this in The Secret Doctrine<\/em> (vol. 1, p. 629),\nBlavatsky tells us to draw a deep line in our thought between the one reality\nand m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> (vol. 1, p. 629): \u201c.\n. . the One Reality . . . a true spirit of esoteric philosophy . . . the\nimpersonal, attributeless, absolute divine essence which is no \u2018Being,\u2019 but the\nroot of all being. Draw a deep line in your thought between that\never-incognizable essence, and the, as invisible, yet comprehensible Presence\n(Mulaprakriti), . . .\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet, as one of the two aspects under\nwhich the one reality is symbolized, The\nSecret Doctrine<\/em> makes it clear that no such distinction can be made: \u201c. . .\nthe ONE Immutable\u2014Parabrahm = Mulaprakriti, the eternal one-root\u201d (1.340). \u201c. .\n. eternal (Nitya<\/em>) unconditioned\nreality or SAT (Satya<\/em>), whether we\ncall it Parabrahmam or Mulaprakriti, for these are the two aspects of the ONE\u201d\n(1.69). \u201cAbsolute, Divine Spirit is one with absolute Divine Substance: Parabrahm\nand Mulaprakriti are one in essence. Therefore, Cosmic Ideation and Cosmic\nSubstance in their primal character are one also\u201d (1.337 fn.). \u201cIn its\nabsoluteness, the One Principle under its two aspects (of Parabrahmam and\nMulaprakriti) is sexless, unconditioned and eternal\u201d (1.18). Blavatsky used\nthese two terms because, following Subba Row\u2019s earlier writings, she thought\nthat this was the Advaita Ved\u0101nta teaching: \u201c. . . viewed in the same light as\nthe Vedantin views his Parabrahm and Mulaprakriti, the one under two aspects.\u201d\n(1.46). This is not the Advaita Ved\u0101nta teaching, but it is the Theosophical\nteaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The term m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> is not used in Theosophy like in Advaita Ved\u0101nta, where\nit is synonymous with m\u0101y\u0101<\/em>, \u201cillusion,\u201d\nthe few times it occurs there. In Theosophy it is used much more like in S\u0101\u1e43khya,\nwhere it is one of the two eternal cosmic principles, m\u016bla-prak\u1e5bti<\/em>, \u201croot-substance,\u201d and puru\u1e63a<\/em>, \u201cspirit,\u201d with one fundamental difference. Theosophy\nteaches a single, non-dual reality, while S\u0101\u1e43khya as now known is a dualistic\nsystem, although it may not have always been dualistic. S\u0101\u1e43khya is regarded as\nthe oldest philosophical system or worldview (dar\u015bana<\/em>) in India, and its founder, Kapila is traditionally known\nas the \u201cfirst knower,\u201d \u0101di-vidv\u0101n<\/em>.\nThere are references to an old S\u0101\u1e43khya in which the absolute is brahman<\/em>, and puru\u1e63a<\/em> and prak\u1e5bti <\/em>are\nmerely its two aspects, just like in Theosophy. As such, it makes no difference\nwhether one refers to the absolute as spirit or as substance, since they are\nonly two ways of looking at the same one reality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus we can have the rather\nsurprising statement in the Mahatma letter (#10, chronological #88): \u201cIn other words\nwe believe in MATTER alone, in matter as visible nature and matter in its\ninvisibility as the invisible omnipresent omnipotent Proteus with its unceasing\nmotion which is its life, and which nature draws from herself since she is the\ngreat whole outside of which nothing can exist.\u201d This does not at all rule out\nspirit, since the letter is speaking of living substance. It is matter or\nsubstance endowed with life or motion, motion which never ceases even during\npralaya when the cosmos is out of manifestation. It is this living substance\nthat was referred to in another Mahatma letter as m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> (#59, chronological #111):<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe\nOne reality is Mulaprakriti (undifferentiated Substance)\u2014the \u2018Rootless root,\u2019\nthe . . . But we have to stop, lest there should remain but little to tell for\nyour own intuitions.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is part of an ongoing glossary of terms relating to the Book of Dzyan. The term m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti is used in The Secret Doctrine to refer to one of the two aspects under which the \u201comnipresent, eternal, boundless, and immutable principle\u201d is symbolized, the other aspect then being referred to as parabrahman. These two […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[37,34,45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-of-dzyan","category-cosmogenesis","category-mulaprakriti"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1879"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1879\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1880,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1879\/revisions\/1880"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}