\nIn the state of pralaya, which we could think of as the state before the beginning of the evolution of a human entity, the vij\u00f1\u0101na\u2019s are absorbed in \u0101layavij\u00f1\u0101na, which is then in its j\u0101ti state, its \u201coriginal nature\u201d. (cp. Suzuki, The La\u1e45k\u0101vat\u0101ra S\u016btra<\/i>, p. xvii-xviii) When the human entity starts to evolve, the vij\u00f1\u0101nas arise from \u0101layavij\u00f1\u0101na, which is then at the same time in another state, called prav\u1e5btti, i.e. evolving. In yoga philosophy, the terms prav\u1e5btti and nirv\u1e5btti (or niv\u1e5btti) are connected with evolution and involution, prav\u1e5bttim\u0101rga and nirv\u1e5bttim\u0101rga being the outward and inward arc of an evolutionary cycle. They indicate cyclic development, first directed outward, where the entity expresses itself through form, and then inward, where the entity gradually becomes a master of its form, and eventually becomes independent of it. The cycle has a turning point in the middle, where development starts turning inward, which in the La\u1e45k\u0101vat\u0101ra is called par\u0101v\u1e5btti, which is litterally \u201cturning back\u201d. (cp. The La\u1e45k\u0101vat\u0101ra S\u016btra<\/i>, p. xvii) At this point of revolution, there is an opportunity for the deep mystical realisation of the relation of the entity with its form. This realisation takes place, according to the La\u1e45k\u0101vat\u0101ra, \u201cin the \u0100laya, which is the basis of all things\u201d, as Suzuki formulates it. (Studies<\/i> p. 184) \nTo make sure that we understand correctly, the La\u1e45k\u0101vat\u0101ra firmly underlines its standpoint concerning \u0101laya on p. 34-35:<\/p>\n If we translate the first sentence of this fragment more in the light of our understanding of the cyclic process, the result could be something like:<\/p>\n \nThe term used here for self-origination is svaj\u0101ti, own-birth or self-birth, not j\u0101ti, birth, indicating the idea of auto-creation and auto-re-creation, showing a quite profound universal philosophical concept. Interestingly, that which is said to \u201ccease\u201d is the karman aspect and not the prav\u1e5btti aspect. In the Book of Dzyan it is stated that evolution never ceases, and that pralaya and the birth of the new universe are just phases of the ever moving evolutionary process. (Note, that in this case the term prav\u1e5btti would have a slightly different meaning than when it is seen as the complement of niv\u1e5btti.)<\/p>\n In SD I, 49 we see that HPB recognized different aspects to the term \u0101laya:<\/p>\n What are the doctrines taught on this subject by the Esoteric “Buddhists”? With them “Alaya” has a double and even a triple meaning.<\/i><\/p>\n In SD I, 48, at least two aspects (our j\u0101ti and prav\u1e5btti) are spoken of:<\/p>\n Again in SD I, 48, following Emil Schlagintweit (Buddhism in Tibet<\/i>, p. 39), we have the j\u0101ti and prav\u1e5btti aspects (or perhaps even the j\u0101ti and karman aspects):<\/p>\n \nThese paradoxes show \u0101laya remaining in its original nature, and at the same time evolving. This principle explains the phrase in the Book of Dzyan, why in the cosmic night \u201cthe alaya of the universe was in paramartha\u201d, in SD I, 47 (stanza 1 \u015bloka 9):<\/p>\n \nIn HPB\u2019s commentary between brackets, we see that she defines \u0101laya as the \u201cSoul\u201d, \u201cthe basis of all\u201d (Tibetan: kun gzhi), which she identifies with the Anima Mundi. This term refers to Hellenistic philosophy, and connects our investigation into \u0101laya directly to the third \u201cfundamental proposition\u201d of The Secret Doctrine. Again in SD I, 48, we find:<\/p>\n \nThe third fundamental proposition, in the Proem, SD I, 17 under (c), states:<\/p>\n \nHere we also have the other two aspects, prav\u1e5btti and karman, as Cyclic and Karmic Law. In the case of the universal over-soul, being \u201can aspect\u201d of the unknown root, we can ask ourselves which aspect of the unknown root (SPACE) it is. Is it a manifested or unmanifested, or even a manifesting or unmanifesting aspect of the Logos? This is not sufficiently clear from this fragment. In the Theosophical Glossary<\/i> under Alaya, we find the following definition:<\/p>\n Alaya (Sk.) The Universal Soul (See Secret Doctrine Vol. I. pp. 47 et seq.). The name belongs to the Tibetan system of the contemplative Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na School. Identical with \u00c2k\u00e2sa in its mystic sense, and with Mul\u00e2pr\u00e2kriti, in its essence, as it is the basis or root of all things.<\/p>\n Here we see that \u0101laya is identified with the First Logos (m\u016blaprak\u1e5bti) in its essence<\/i>, \u201cas it is the basis or root of all things\u201d (Tibetan: kun gzhi).<\/p>\n In CW XII, 635 (ES Instruction III), we read:<\/p>\n and in CW XII, 607:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n![\"eandinvolution](\"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/eandinvolution-5.jpg\")
<\/a>
In Suzuki\u2019s Studies<\/i> (p. 186-187) we find:<\/p>\n
<\/i><\/div>\n
\n[…] sa ca na bhavati svaj\u0101tilak\u1e63a\u1e47anirodha\u1e25 | tasm\u0101nmah\u0101mate na svaj\u0101tilak\u1e63a\u1e47anirodho vij\u00f1\u0101n\u0101n\u0101\u1e43 ki\u1e43 tu karmalak\u1e63a\u1e47anirodha\u1e25 |<\/i><\/div>\n
<\/i><\/div>\n