This\nis part of an ongoing glossary of terms relating to the Book of Dzyan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The term parabrahman<\/em> is used in The\nSecret Doctrine<\/em> to refer to one of the two aspects under which the\n\u201comnipresent, eternal, boundless, and immutable principle\u201d is symbolized, the\nother aspect then being referred to as m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em>.\nThese two terms were adopted from the writings of T. Subba Row as the Advaita\nVed\u0101nta terms for the two aspects that H. P. Blavatsky had called \u201cabsolute\nabstract motion\u201d or \u201cpre-cosmic ideation,\u201d and \u201cabsolute abstract space\u201d or\n\u201cpre-cosmic substance,\u201d respectively. However, the one reality (the\n\u201comnipresent, eternal, boundless, and immutable principle\u201d of The Secret Doctrine<\/em>) is referred to in\nAdvaita Ved\u0101nta as brahman<\/em> or parabrahman<\/em> only. The term m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em> is rarely used in Advaita\nVed\u0101nta; and when it is, it is equated with m\u0101y\u0101<\/em>,\nthe illusion of an ever-changing universe that is superimposed on the one\nchangeless brahman<\/em>. Blavatsky used\nthese two terms because, following Subba Row\u2019s earlier writings (not his later\nlectures on the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em>), she\nthought that this was the Advaita Ved\u0101nta teaching: \u201c. . . viewed in the same dual\nlight as the Vedantin views his Parabrahm and Mulaprakriti, the one under two\naspects\u201d (The Secret Doctrine<\/em>, vol. 1,\np. 46). This is not the Advaita Ved\u0101nta teaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The term brahman<\/em> is the normal and usual word for the absolute in the Hindu\nUpani\u1e63ads, and therefore in Ved\u0101nta of whatever school. In the Advaita school\nof Ved\u0101nta, brahman<\/em> is non-dual (advaita<\/em>), the one only, without a second\n(\u201cekam ev\u0101dvit\u012byam,\u201d Ch\u0101ndogya\nUpani\u1e63ad<\/em> 6.2.1-2), and without qualities (nirgu\u1e47a<\/em>). When some passages of the Upani\u1e63ads seem to speak of brahman<\/em> as having qualities (sagu\u1e47a<\/em>), there may arise a need to\ndistinguish brahman<\/em> as it really is\naccording to Advaita Ved\u0101nta, without qualities, from brahman<\/em> as seeming to have qualities. Therefore we occasionally\nfind the term param brahman<\/em>, or parabrahman<\/em>, used in contrast to aparam brahman<\/em>, or aparabrahman<\/em> (e.g., Pra\u015bna\nUpani\u1e63ad<\/em> 5.2). This is not common, since the term brahman<\/em> is the normal and usual word for the absolute, requiring no\nqualifier such as param<\/em>, \u201chigher,\nhighest, supreme,\u201d in contrast to aparam<\/em>,\n\u201clower.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As explained by \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya in his Brahma-s\u016btra<\/em> commentary on 4.3.14, brahman<\/em> is only referred to as higher (param<\/em>) and lower (aparam<\/em>) brahman<\/em> when we\nattribute to it upadhi<\/em>-s,\n“limiting adjuncts,” of name and form, due to wrong knowing (avidy\u0101<\/em>). The Upani\u1e63ads themselves may\nand do attribute such names and forms to brahman<\/em>\nfor the sake of imparting kinds of meditation on brahman<\/em>. Because of this, the Hindu writings sometimes distinguish brahman<\/em> as parabrahman<\/em>, the “higher\u201d brahman<\/em>,\nfrom aparabrahman<\/em>, the \u201clower\u201d brahman<\/em>, to which names and forms are figuratively\nattributed. The lower brahman<\/em> is then\nregarded as \u012b\u015bvara<\/em>, \u201cGod,\u201d or sometimes\nas Brahm\u0101, the creator god, but not as m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Theosophical writings we\nsometimes see parabrahman<\/em> defined as\n\u201cbeyond Brahm\u0101,\u201d where Brahm\u0101 is the masculine creator deity (H. P. Blavatsky, Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge<\/em>, p.\n4). This meaning of parabrahman<\/em> is\nnot grammatically possible. When the word param<\/em>\nis taken as \u201cbeyond,\u201d it is preceded by some word declined in the ablative\ncase, meaning \u201cthan\u201d that something; literally \u201chigher than,\u201d or less literally\n\u201cbeyond,\u201d that something. We do not have that here. Nor is the word parabrahman<\/em> understood as \u201cbeyond Brahm\u0101\u201d\nin the Hindu texts. It means simply the \u201chigher brahman<\/em>,\u201d even though the lower brahman<\/em>,\naparabrahman<\/em>, can be understood as\nthe masculine Brahm\u0101. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Sanskrit word that we write as brahman<\/em> is the undeclined form. It may\nbe declined in the neuter gender or in the masculine gender. When declined in\nthe neuter nominative singular it is brahma<\/em>,\nthe absolute. When declined in the masculine nominative singular it is brahm\u0101<\/em>, the masculine creator god.\nWithout the diacritic mark on the final \u201ca\u201d these words cannot be\ndistinguished. Since English does not use diacritics, there arose the\nconvention of writing the undeclined form brahman<\/em>\nto mean the neuter form, the absolute, leaving brahma<\/em> (without diacritics) to mean the masculine form, the creator\ngod, often capitalized as Brahma. In publications that use diacritics, it would\nbe written as Brahm\u0101. In English language books written before this convention\nbecame established, the neuter declined form brahma<\/em> was often used for the absolute, like it is in the Sanskrit\ntexts themselves. This potentially confusing situation must always be taken\ninto account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Theosophical writings we\nsometimes even see parabrahman<\/em>\ndefined as \u201cbeyond brahman<\/em>,\u201d the\nneuter absolute (G. de Purucker, Studies\nin Occult Philosophy<\/em>, p. 521), saying that this is \u201cwhat the Oriental means\nwhen he says Parabrahman.<\/em>\u201d This\nmeaning, too, is not grammatically possible, and there is no warrant for it in\nthe Hindu texts. It is not what the Oriental means when he says parabrahman<\/em>. Indeed, where the phrase param brahma<\/em> occurs at the end of the Pra\u015bna Upani\u1e63ad<\/em>, it is followed by: na ata\u1e25 param asti<\/em>, translated by S. Radhakrishnan\nas \u201cThere is naught higher than that,\u201d or as translated by Charles Johnston, \u201cthere\nis naught beyond.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the Hindu Advaita Ved\u0101nta texts, brahman<\/em> (or parabrahman<\/em>) is described as \u201cpure consciousness\u201d (cin-m\u0101tra<\/em>). More fully, brahman<\/em> is described at the beginning of\n\u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya\u2019s commentary on the Brahma-s\u016btras<\/em>\nas \u201cby nature eternally pure, intelligent, and free, omniscient and endowed\nwith all powers\u201d (nitya-\u015buddha-buddha-mukta-svabh\u0101va\u1e43\nsarva-j\u00f1a\u1e43 sarva-\u015bakti-samanvitam<\/em>). This is taught in direct contrast to\nthe unconscious pradh\u0101na<\/em>, \u201cprimary\nsubstance,\u201d or m\u016bla-prak\u1e5bti<\/em>,\n\u201croot-substance,\u201d taught in the Hindu S\u0101\u1e43khya worldview, this being rejected by\n\u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya for the very reason that the absolute cannot be unconscious (acetana<\/em>). In the Theosophical model, following\nan esoteric Buddhist or Arhat model, the one reality is described as\nunconscious(ness). These two opposing views are usually taught in Theosophy as\nmerely being two ways of looking at the same thing. In the one place where\nBlavatsky clearly makes this distinction, she writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe\nhave already pointed out that, in our opinion, the whole difference between\nBuddhistic and Vedantic philosophies was that the former was a kind of rationalistic<\/em> Vedantism, while the\nlatter might be regarded as transcendental<\/em>\nBuddhism. . . . Buddhist rationalism was ever too alive to the insuperable\ndifficulty of admitting one absolute consciousness, as in the words of Flint\u2014\u2018wherever\nthere is consciousness there is relation, and wherever there is relation there\nis dualism.\u2019 The ONE LIFE is either \u2018MUKTA\u2019 (absolute and unconditioned) and\ncan have no relation to anything nor to any one; or it is \u2018BADDHA\u2019 (bound and\nconditioned), and then it cannot be called the ABSOLUTE; the limitation,\nmoreover, necessitating another deity as powerful as the first to account for\nall the evil in this world. Hence, the Arahat secret doctrine on cosmogony\nadmits but of one absolute, indestructible, eternal, and uncreated UNCONSCIOUSNESS\n(so to translate), of an element (the word being used for want of a better\nterm) absolutely independent of everything else in the universe; a something\never present or ubiquitous, a Presence which ever was, is, and will be, whether\nthere is a God, gods or none; whether there is a universe or no universe;\nexisting during the eternal cycles of Maha Yugas, during the Pralayas<\/em> as during the periods of Manvantara:<\/em> and this is SPACE, the field\nfor the operation of the eternal Forces and natural Law, the basis<\/em> (as our correspondent rightly\ncalls it) upon which take place the eternal intercorrelations of\nAk\u00e2\u015ba-Prakriti, guided by the unconscious regular pulsations of \u015aakti<\/em>\u2014the breath or power of a conscious\ndeity, the theists would say\u2014the eternal energy of an eternal, unconscious Law,\nsay the Buddhists.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n (\u201cEditorial\nAppendix\u201d by H. P. Blavatsky to \u201cThe Aryan-Arhat Esoteric Tenets on the\nSevenfold Principle in Man,\u201d by T. Subba Row, from The Theosophist<\/em>, vol. 3, no. 4, January, 1882, pp. 93-99, reprinted\nin Blavatsky Collected Writings<\/em>, vol.\n3, this quote on pp. 422-423.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is useful to be aware of this\ndistinction when studying these things, since the S\u0101\u1e43khya teaching of the\nunconscious pradh\u0101na<\/em>, \u201cprimary\nsubstance,\u201d or m\u016bla-prak\u1e5bti<\/em>,\n\u201croot-substance,\u201d is taken as the primary target for refutation by \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya\nin his Brahma-s\u016btra<\/em> commentary, the\nsingle most authoritative work on Advaita Ved\u0101nta. When Blavatsky used the term\nparabrahman<\/em> to describe the\n\u201comnipresent, eternal, boundless, and immutable principle,\u201d or one aspect under\nwhich it is symbolized, she would have been regarding pure consciousness and\nunconsciousness as merely being two ways of looking at the same thing. For,\nwhen speaking of something that is beyond the range and reach of thought, one\ndescription may be as adequate (or inadequate) as the other. Nonetheless, how brahman<\/em> or parabrahman<\/em> is understood in Advaita Ved\u0101nta does not quite match\nhow the one reality is understood in Theosophy. The term parabrahman<\/em> is a synonym of the Theosophical \u201comnipresent, eternal,\nboundless, and immutable principle\u201d only insofar as both refer to the absolute\nin their respective systems of thought.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is part of an ongoing glossary of terms relating to the Book of Dzyan. The term parabrahman 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 m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti. 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":[37,34,94],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-of-dzyan","category-cosmogenesis","category-parabrahman"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1881","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=1881"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1881\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1882,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1881\/revisions\/1882"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}