There are three fundamental propositions that we are told
must be comprehended before we can understand the Secret
Doctrine, the once universal Wisdom Tradition, now called
Theosophy. They are given in the Proem of H. P. Blavatsky’s
book, The Secret Doctrine. I first read these in December of 1973.
I could not understand them. Some time later I read the advice
that Blavatsky gave shortly before her death, to Robert Bowen,
on how to study The Secret Doctrine:
The first thing to do, even if it takes years, is to get some grasp of
the “Three Fundamental Principles” given in the PROEM.
1
I took this advice to heart, and continued to struggle with them
year after year; but it was to little avail. Yesterday, March 17,
2001, more than twenty-seven years later, the light finally came
on. I do not know how typical my experience was, yet I cannot
help but feel I should write down the results.
The necessity of understanding these fundamental propositions is made clear by Blavatsky when introducing them:
Before the reader proceeds to the consideration of the Stanzas
from the Book of Dzyan which form the basis of the present
work, it is absolutely necessary that he should be made
acquainted with the few fundamental conceptions which underlie and pervade the entire system of thought to which his
attention is invited. These basic ideas are few in number, and on
their clear apprehension depends the understanding of all that
follows; therefore no apology is required for asking the reader to
make himself familiar with them first, before entering on the
perusal of the work itself.2
2 The First Fundamental Proposition
The first of the three fundamental propositions established by the Secret Doctrine is stated as:
An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE
on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the
power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by
any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range
and reach of thought—in the words of Måñ∂ükya Upanishad,
“unthinkable and unspeakable.”3
Then follow three pages of explanations of this first
fundamental proposition. At the end of these explanations is
a summary with four numbered items. This is the crux of the
problem. The summary is introduced with these words: “The
following summary will afford a clearer idea to the reader.” In
fact, up to this point, and despite some questions, I thought I
could follow the explanations well enough; but this summary,
rather than affording me a clearer idea, caused me to doubt my
understanding almost entirely.
The problem for me in these explanations of the first
fundamental proposition was with the numbers involved. The
explanations begin with the one reality. This is symbolized
under two aspects. The two aspects of the one reality then make
a trinity or metaphysical triad. Then another (fourth?) thing is
added to the explanations, Fohat. But the four numbered items
in the summary are not the same as the four concepts that were
just explained.
Assuming that I was merely getting caught up in the words,
I asked my wife Nancy, who is far more intuitive than I am, if she
could see how these explanations and the four item summary
correlate. When she could not either (and I kept asking her
year after year), I knew there was a problem here.
The explanations start by attempting to clarify the above
cited statement of the first fundamental proposition.
To render these ideas clearer to the general reader, let him set
out with the postulate that there is one absolute Reality which
antecedes all manifested, conditioned, being.4
The First Fundamental Proposition 3
The one absolute reality is there also referred to as the “Infinite
and Eternal Cause” (which is, as later clarified, not the “First
Cause”), as the “rootless root of ‘all that was, is, or ever shall
be,’” and as “‘Be-ness’ rather than Being.” So far, so good.
This one reality is then said to be symbolized under two
aspects: “absolute abstract Space,” and “absolute abstract
Motion.” The latter of the two aspects represents “Unconditioned Consciousness.” This latter aspect is also symbolized
as “The Great Breath.” The paragraph explaining these two
aspects concludes:
Thus, then, the first fundamental axiom of the Secret Doctrine is
this metaphysical ONE ABSOLUTE—BE-NESS—symbolized by finite
intelligence as the theological Trinity.5
My intelligence may be more finite than that of others, but I did
not follow how the two aspects of one thing became a trinity,
when this one thing is unmanifested. I can guess that if a person
counts the one reality separately, then along with its two aspects
there is a trinity. But this is not stated.
Then follows further explanations given to assist the
student. Herbert Spencer’s “First Cause,” we are told, cannot
apply to the absolute, because “first” means something “first
brought forth,” a manifestation, being therefore finite and
conditioned. The absolute, then, is not the “First Cause,” but
rather is the “Causeless Cause.”
We next find some Vedånta views and terminology used to
explain the first fundamental proposition. The Vedånta term
“Parabrahman” is used for “the One Reality, the Absolute.” It is
described as “the field of Absolute Consciousness, i.e., that
Essence which is out of all relation to conditioned existence,
and of which conscious existence is a conditioned symbol.”
Here we must proceed carefully. Blavatsky is now explaining the
one reality as such, not its aspect of “absolute abstract Motion
representing Unconditioned Consciousness” described earlier.
The potential confusion with the word “Consciousness,” used
for both, is due to the fact that she is here giving the “esoteric
and Vedåntin tenet” from “T. Subba Row’s four able lectures on
4 The First Fundamental Proposition
the Bhagavad-Gîtå.” We must know that Advaita Vedånta holds
Parabrahman to be absolute consciousness, while Blavatsky
and her Mahatma teachers regularly describe the absolute as
unconscious. See, for example, Stanza I.8 of the Book of Dzyan:
“Alone the one form of existence stretched boundless, infinite,
causeless, in dreamless sleep; and life pulsated unconscious in
universal space, . . .”
Two more terms are here given for the two aspects
described earlier of the one reality: “Spirit (or Consciousness)”
and “Matter.” “Spirit (or Consciousness)” must correspond to
the earlier described “absolute abstract Motion,” since this
latter was said to represent “Unconditioned Consciousness.”
This is confirmed in the following paragraphs, but only by
putting together the statements that “the Great Breath assumes
the character of pre-cosmic Ideation,” and that “pre-cosmic
Ideation is the root of all individual consciousness,” while
remembering that absolute abstract motion was earlier said to
be symbolized by “the Great Breath.” In other words, absolute
abstract motion = unconditioned consciousness = the great
breath = spirit (or consciousness) = pre-cosmic ideation.
As for “Matter,” the other of the two aspects of the one
reality, we must assume by default that this corresponds to the
earlier described “absolute abstract Space,” although this is
not stated. Similarly, we must assume that this corresponds to
“pre-cosmic root-substance (Mülaprak®iti),” and “pre-cosmic
Substance,” used in the following paragraphs. Again, we must
know that the term mülaprak®ti, brought in from Subba Row as
a Vedånta term, is here used in its Såµkhya sense as something
real and eternal. It does not have this meaning in standard
Advaita Vedånta.6
Subba Row used it esoterically as a Vedånta
term having this meaning. The terms used for this aspect, then,
are absolute abstract space = matter = pre-cosmic root-substance
(mülaprak®ti) = pre-cosmic substance.
We are cautioned that these two, here called spirit (or
consciousness) and matter, are “to be regarded, not as
independent realities, but as the two facets or aspects of the
Absolute (Parabrahman), . . .” We then read: “Considering
this metaphysical triad as the Root from which proceeds all
The First Fundamental Proposition 5
manifestation, . . . ” As before, I can only assume that “this
metaphysical triad” is the one absolute reality with its two
aspects, though we have just been warned not to regard these
as independent realities.
At the time of manifestation, she continues, “the Great
Breath [or absolute abstract motion] assumes the character of
pre-cosmic Ideation,” being the “fons et origo,” source and origin,
of all individual consciousness. Likewise the other aspect of
the absolute, “pre-cosmic root-substance (Mülaprak®iti),” is the
substratum of all matter in its various grades of differentiation.
After explaining that “the contrast of these two aspects of
the Absolute is essential to the existence of the ‘Manifested
Universe,’” the one being unable to manifest without the other,
Blavatsky introduces the idea of Fohat:
But just as the opposite poles of subject and object, spirit and
matter, are but aspects of the One Unity in which they are synthesized, so, in the manifested Universe, there is “that” which
links spirit to matter, subject to object.7
This is Fohat. The explanation of Fohat concludes with:
Thus from Spirit, or Cosmic Ideation, comes our consciousness;
from Cosmic Substance the several vehicles in which that consciousness is individualized and attains to self—or reflective—
consciousness; while Fohat, in its various manifestations, is
the mysterious link between Mind and Matter, the animating
principle electrifying every atom into life.8
Finally, we have the summary that is meant to afford a
clearer idea to the reader:
(1). The ABSOLUTE; the Parabrahman of the Vedåntins, or the
one Reality, SAT, which is, as Hegel says, both Absolute Being
and Non-Being.
(2). The first manifestation, the impersonal, and, in philosophy, unmanifested Logos, the precursor of the “manifested.” This
is the “First Cause,” the “Unconscious” of European Pantheists.
6 The First Fundamental Proposition
(3). Spirit-matter, LIFE; the “Spirit of the Universe,” the
Purusha and Prak®iti, or the second Logos.
(4). Cosmic Ideation, MAHAT or Intelligence, the Universal
World-Soul; the Cosmic Noumenon of Matter, the basis of the
intelligent operations in and of Nature, also called MAHÅ-BUDDHI.
The ONE REALITY; its dual aspects in the conditioned Universe.9
The concluding sentence reiterates that the first fundamental proposition being explained here is the one reality
with its two aspects. But I could find no way to correlate the
four numbered items of this summary with the one reality and
its two aspects, on the basis of the three pages of explanations
that had just been given.
Item number (1) is clearly the one reality as such. There is
no problem here.
Item number (2), of course, is not the one reality as such;
but neither is it either of the two aspects of the one reality. Just
what it is was not clear to me from the foregoing three pages.
It was not clear how this “first manifestation” could also be
the “unmanifested Logos, the precursor of the ‘manifested.’”
The “manifested” proper is apparently one of the following
numbered items. Nor was it clear how the “First Cause” comes
about from the absolute, described as the “Causeless Cause.”
Item number (3) presents another problem. The terms
spirit and matter have been used in the preceding explanations
as the two aspects of the one reality (purußa and prak®ti are
Såµkhya terms that correspond to spirit and matter). But they
have not been used there hyphenated together, “Spirit-matter.”
When we find the hyphenated term “Father-Mother” further
on, it means these as a unity before their separation into distinct
father and distinct mother. Of course, Blavatsky has explained
that the one reality is a unity that has two aspects, spirit and
matter. But if spirit-matter refers to this unity, how is it different
from item number (1), the one reality as such? If it refers to
spirit and matter as distinct in manifestation, how is it the “Spirit
of the Universe?” Where would the matter of “Spirit-matter”
then be? And what of the unexplained epithet “Life” used here?
Could this not apply equally well to any of these four items?
The First Fundamental Proposition 7
Item number (4) seems to be even more problematic.
“Cosmic Ideation” (or at least pre-cosmic ideation) has in fact
been used for one of the two aspects only, absolute abstract
motion, or spirit. But then, where is the other one, cosmic
substance, or absolute abstract space, or matter, in this list of
numbered items? And how is this one “the Cosmic Noumenon
of Matter?” Further, have we not just had the two of them
together in item number (3), spirit-matter? “Mahat” or “MahåBuddhi” are again Såµkhya terms, meaning, as stated here,
“Intelligence,” as a universal principle (tattva). But these are
not found in the explanations given on the preceding pages.
Then, what about Fohat, which has not yet been accounted for?
Are we to understand that this somehow goes here? These were
some of the questions that I had.
So I was much better off in understanding the first fundamental proposition before reading this four item summary.
Blavatsky undoubtedly had clearly in her mind what she meant
here; so that when she concluded, “The ONE REALITY, its dual
aspects in the conditioned Universe,” she thought these four
items had clarified this. But unfortunately we do not have
spelled out what she meant here; and as this summary stands,
it is more confusing than helpful, at least to me. We must now
try to make sense out of it.
The first numbered item refers to the omnipresent,
eternal, boundless, and immutable principle, the one absolute
reality, as such; and as noted above, there is no problem here.
This is not the “First Cause”; rather, it is the “Causeless Cause.”
The second numbered item refers to the “First Cause,” but
still the “unmanifested Logos.” The initial question is, how do we
understand the difference between this and the one reality as
such, requiring the “First Cause” to be distinguished from the
“Causeless Cause,” when both are unmanifested. I believe that
this is the question alluded to in Blavatsky’s explanation of the
purport of Stanza II of the Book of Dzyan:
The stage described in Stanza II is, to a Western mind, so nearly
identical with that mentioned in the first Stanza, that to express
the idea of its difference would require a treatise in itself. Hence
8 The First Fundamental Proposition
it must be left to the intuition and the higher faculties of the
reader to grasp, as far as he can, the meaning of the allegorical
phrases used.10
Here is the problem. If the one reality is in fact immutable,
as it is stated to be, it cannot change. So how can it manifest the
universe? It cannot transform or evolve into the universe, as this
would involve change in the unchangeable. How can there
be manifestation or differentiation in the unmanifested and
undifferentiated? When this question was raised in the journal
she edited, The Theosophist, Blavatsky did make an attempt to
explain this highly metaphysical conception, and thereby to
express the subtle difference between the causeless cause and
the unmanifested first cause. In doing so, she also addressed
the related question of how the first cause can come about from
the causeless cause.
This Brahma [neuter, the absolute; = Parabrahman] when
viewed as the fons et origo [source and origin] of the Substance of
the Universe is, as has been repeatedly said in these columns,
Mulaprakriti—a term which, in the poverty of English metaphysical vocabulary, has been translated as “undifferentiated
cosmic matter.” It has also been said that the differentiation of
Mulaprakriti produces infinite forms of being. . . .
“Brahma”—our opponents argue,—“the Mulaprakriti, is made
to undergo a differentiation, like matter, of which we have a
physical conception, to form the visible universe. Therefore,
Brahma is subject to change . . . .”
It must not for a single moment be supposed that Mulaprakriti
or Brahma (Parabrahm) can ever undergo change of substance
(Parinama). It is the Absolute Wisdom, the Only Reality, the
Eternal Deity—to dissociate the word from its vulgar surroundings. What is meant by the differentiation of Mulaprakriti is that
the primordial essence of all forms of existence (Asat) is radiated
by it, and when radiated by it becomes the centre of energy from
which by gradual and systematic processes of emanation or
The First Fundamental Proposition 9
differentiation the universe, as perceived, springs into existence.
It is from our opponents’ incapacity to grasp this highly metaphysical conception that all the evil flows. . . .
It is manifest from this that “Mulaprakriti” never differentiates
but only emanates or radiates its first born Mahat-tattva . . . .11
What we have here, then, is the doctrine of radiance or
radiation, which does not involve change in the unchangeable.
An analogous doctrine of radiance is found in Advaita Vedånta,
and may be called åbhåsa-våda.
12 It is one explanation in Advaita
Vedånta for the appearance of diversity. Using this paradigm,
we can explain how the universe comes into manifestation as
follows. The universe is the radiance (åbhåsa) of Parabrahman,
the one reality. No change occurs in Parabrahman in order for
the universe to appear. This radiance is considered to be a false
appearance, like seeing a snake where there is only a rope. The
appearance involves only apparent change (vivarta), not actual
change (pariñåma). The doctrine of only apparent change or
false appearance (vivarta-våda) is now the basic teaching of all
Advaita Vedånta. Even though this false appearance is illusory,
it is held to take on the characteristics of a seed or germ, from
which the universe evolves in an orderly manner.13
This radiance, which is a false appearance, which takes on
the characteristics of a seed, can now be called the first cause,
because it can change or evolve into the universe, unlike the
changeless Parabrahman, the causeless cause. It is described in
Vedånta treatises both as undifferentiated (avyåk®ta), as it is
in the above quotation from Blavatsky, and as unmanifested
(avyakta), as it is in Blavatsky’s four item summary from The
Secret Doctrine.
14 According to ˛a∫karåcårya, it cannot be said to
be different from or not different from the absolute Åtman or
Brahman or Parabrahman;15 but we can now distinguish the
“First Cause” from the “Causeless Cause,” even when both are
unmanifested. In this way we can also understand the related
question of how the causeless cause can bring about the first
cause, without itself undergoing any change. The first cause is
merely its radiance.
10 The First Fundamental Proposition
This second numbered item, then, refers to something
that is neither different nor not different from the one reality as
such, the immutable causeless cause. It refers to the radiance of
the one reality, still unmanifested, as the seed or germ of the
universe, the mutable first cause.
Of the four numbered items, this second one was the most
difficult. Once it became clear, the others immediately fell into
place.
The third numbered item, “Spirit-matter,” “the Purusha
[spirit] and Prak®iti [matter],” is explained in a passage of The
Mahatma Letters:
The conception of matter and spirit as entirely distinct, and both
eternal, could certainly never have entered my head, however
little I may know of them, for it is one of the elementary and
fundamental doctrines of Occultism that the two are one, and
are distinct but in their respective manifestations, and only in
the limited perceptions of the world of senses. Far from “lacking
philosophical breadth” then, our doctrines show but one
principle in nature—spirit-matter or matter-spirit, the third the
ultimate Absolute or the quintessence of the two—if I may be
allowed to use an erroneous term in the present application—
losing itself beyond the view and spiritual perceptions of even
the “Gods” or Planetary Spirits. This third principle, say the
Vedantic Philosophers—is the only reality, everything else being
Maya, as none of the Protean manifestations of spirit-matter or
Purusha and Prakriti have ever been regarded in any other light
than that of temporary delusions of the senses.16
We may therefore conclude that “Spirit-matter” in item
number (3) does in fact refer to the unity of spirit and matter,
the two aspects of the one reality, before their (at least apparent) separation in manifestation. The difference between this
item and item number (1), the one reality as such, is that here
we have the one reality, or rather its radiance, the seed or germ
of the universe, as polarized into its two aspects, immediately
prior to manifestation. The one, while remaining a unity, has
become polarized, and therefore potentially two.
The First Fundamental Proposition 11
The fourth numbered item, “Cosmic Ideation, MAHAT or
Intelligence, the Universal World-Soul,” is also explained in a
passage of The Mahatma Letters, once we know that the preceding item is a unity with two aspects, or the simple duality of
spirit-matter.
Pythagoras had a reason for never using the finite, useless
figure—2, and for altogether discarding it. The ONE, can, when
manifesting, become only 3. The unmanifested when a simple
duality remains passive and concealed.17
Two in manifestation necessarily become three, because any
time there are actually two, there is also the relationship
between them as the third. So the moment spirit becomes
distinct from matter, their interplay also comes into being.
This interplay is cosmic ideation, intelligence, the universal
world-soul.
Thus it is only here, with the fourth numbered item, that
actual manifestation occurs. The duality of spirit-matter, the
third numbered item, must become a triplicity in order to
manifest; otherwise, as the Mahatma Letters passage continues,
“the duality could never tarry as such, and would have to be
reabsorbed into the ONE.”18
Cosmic ideation becomes the basis or noumenon of all
manifestation, including manifested physical matter as we know
it; thus, “the Cosmic Noumenon of Matter.” But as in Såµkhya,
where the terms mahat and mahå-buddhi used here come from,
cosmic ideation is itself the first manifestation of unmanifested
matter, or root substance (mülaprak®ti). Manifestation takes
place when unmanifested matter comes into conjunction or
proximity with spirit; read esoterically, when the unity acquires
polarity. Here as in Såµkhya, the first-born cosmic ideation
proceeds to evolve into the entire manifested universe, going
from subtle to dense, in an orderly and systematic manner.
Here follows a re-statement of the four item summary,
incorporating the results discussed above of my rather too
protracted inquiry, and including well-attested Sanskrit equivalents whenever these are available.19
12 The First Fundamental Proposition
1. There is an omnipresent (sarvaga), eternal (nitya),
boundless (ananta), and immutable (avikåra) principle, the
one reality. This absolute, like the Parabrahman of Advaita
Vedånta, is beyond the range and reach of thought (agocara),
so is inconceivable (acintya) and inexpressible (nirabhilåpya).
It cannot properly be referred to as “being”; rather, to coin a
new term, it is “be-ness.” It is without attributes (nirguña), and is
essentially unrelated to manifested, finite being (avyavahårya).
Yet it is the rootless root (amülaµ mülam), the causeless cause,
of all that was, is, or ever shall be (bhütaµ bhavad bhavißyad iti
sarvam).
2. The radiance (åbhåsa) of the one reality becomes a
center of energy, a germ (garbha), or seed (bîja). It is neither
different nor not different (na bhinnaµ nåbhinnam) from the
one reality. Like the one reality, it is unmanifested (avyakta) or
undifferentiated (avyåk®ta); but unlike the one reality, it is the
cause of manifestation or differentiation. It may therefore be
called the first cause. This germ can now transform or evolve
(pariñåma) into the manifested universe (vyakta).
3. The germ becomes polarized, in this way becoming
what we may term “spirit-matter” or “matter-spirit.” It is a single
thing, still unmanifested, having at one pole spirit (purußa) and
at the other pole matter (prak®ti). These are the two aspects of
the one reality. The spirit aspect may also be called absolute
abstract motion, unconditioned consciousness, and the great
breath. The matter aspect may also be called absolute abstract
space, and root substance or primordial substance.
4. The interaction of the two poles of spirit and matter
produces cosmic ideation, the principle of intelligence in the
universe (mahat), the universal world-soul (ålaya-vij∆åna as the
lower aspect of the one mind, eka-citta). This is the first actual
manifestation, although it is the third stage of the manifestation
process. It is the basis of the entire manifested universe, from
spirit to matter. Like the unmanifested, the manifested also has
two poles. The interaction of the two poles of manifested spirit
and matter produces cosmic energy or vital force, called Fohat.
The one reality; its dual aspects in the conditioned
universe, and the three stages of cosmic manifestation.
The First Fundamental Proposition 13
This explanation has largely followed the Advaita Vedånta
paradigm of åbhåsa-våda, the doctrine of radiance. Blavatsky
tells us that she used Vedånta concepts to explain the teachings
of the trans-Himalayan esoteric school, since these were more
familiar.20 But her own Mahatma teachers were not Advaita
Vedåntins. Their own preferred model was given in late 1881,21
although it does not seem to have been much followed up on.
This model employs a trinity of space (or matter), motion, and
duration. Here, motion is the correspondence of the Vedånta
radiance. Motion is the svabhåva, or inherent nature, of eternal
matter, “the one element.” Their doctrine may thus be called
svabhåva-våda.
22 Speaking of the Svåbhåvikas, followers of this
doctrine, the Mahatma K.H. writes: “Their plastic, invisible,
eternal, omnipresent and unconscious Swabhavat is Force or
Motion ever generating its electricity which is life.”23 Blavatsky
shows that this svabhåva is the above discussed radiance:
Throughout the first two Parts [of vol. I of The Secret Doctrine],
it was shown that, at the first flutter of renascent life, Svabhavat,
“the mutable radiance of the Immutable Darkness unconscious
in Eternity,” passes, at every new rebirth of Kosmos, from an
inactive state into one of intense activity; that it differentiates,
and then begins its work through that differentiation.24
Using this model, where the inherent nature (svabhåva)
of eternal matter is motion, the second numbered item could
be stated, “The motion of the one element produces a center of
energy, a germ, or seed. . . ,” etc., etc.
Since the one reality is inconceivable and inexpressible,
whatever conceptual model we may use to describe it and its
periodic manifestation is still a model; a model that may “lead
towards the truth,” as Blavatsky says, but is not the truth itself.25
This does not, however, make such models any less important.
The most widespread model of the source and origin of the
universe is that of a creator God. According to the Mahatma
K.H., “belief in God and Gods” is the cause of two thirds of the
evils that pursue humanity.26 So our conceptual models do
make a difference. Such a difference, in fact, that K.H. says
14 The First Fundamental Proposition
about the God-idea, “Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of
this nightmare.”27 It is not without importance, then, to refine
our understanding of the conceptual models that Blavatsky and
her teachers gave in its place.
NOTES
1. “The ‘Secret Doctrine’ and Its Study,” by Robert Bowen, 1932;
reprinted in: An Invitation to The Secret Doctrine, by H. P. Blavatsky,
Pasadena: Theosophical University Press, 1988, p. 2.
2. The Secret Doctrine, by H. P. Blavatsky, 1st ed., 1888; H. P. Blavatsky
Collected Writings edition [edited by Boris de Zirkoff] (pagination
unchanged), Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, 1978,
vol. 1, p. 13.
3. The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 14.
4. The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 14.
5. The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 14.
6. The term mülaprak®ti is not generally used in Advaita Vedånta.
When it is, it is taken to mean simply prak®ti. In Advaita Vedånta,
prak®ti is a synonym of måyå, illusion. As such, it is temporary rather
than eternal. Thus, Subba Row’s esoteric view of mülaprak®ti as eternal
is not accepted in standard Advaita Vedånta. See, for example, the
introduction to the translation of the Vasudevamanana, “considered
by the Pandits in Southern India as the standard compendium on
Advaita philosophy,” published in Lucifer, vol. 10, 1892, p. 48:
“T. Subba Row, in his learned Bhagavad Gîtå lectures, has
postulated three eternal principles in the fourth state [Turîya]: viz.,
Mülaprakriti; the Logos, or ˆshvara, or Nåråyana; and the Light from
the Logos, or Daiviprakriti, or Fohat. He also states that Nirvåna, or
Moksha, is attained by merging into the Logos, which, as he says,
has the veil of Mülaprakriti between it and Parabrahman. But the
Bråhmans in Southern India are loth to accede to this proposition in
the light of this and other authorities, on the ground that there can
be no Måyå in Nirvåna, whereas, according to T. Subba Row, there is
Mülaprakriti in that state which they consider to be Måyå.”
The Vasudevamanana, one of the few Advaita Vedånta texts to
use the term mülaprak®ti, specifically equates it with måyå (illusion),
avidyå (ignorance), etc. (Lucifer, vol. 10, 1892, p. 51). Måyå is said in
Advaita Vedånta to be indescribable (anirvacanîya) as to its existence.
The First Fundamental Proposition 15
This is because it is without beginning, but it ends, in the case of a
practitioner, when Brahman is realized. It is therefore not eternal.
Subba Row’s use of mülaprak®ti as the equivalent of the avyaktam
(the “unmanifested”) of the Bhagavad-Gîtå was criticized by a Hindu
Theosophist for giving a Såµkhya interpretation to a Vedånta concept
(“Criticism on the Late Mr. T. Subba Row’s Bhagavad-Gîtå,” by A.
Krishnaswamy Iyer, The Theosophist, vol. 17, April 1896, pp. 425-427).
But even Subba Row’s defender on this issue agrees with standard
Advaita Vedånta that mülaprak®ti is a temporary illusion, saying that
“Mulaprakriti is simply an illusory veil thrown over Parabrahman,”
and that Parabrahman was “existing anterior to it,” and “does not
perish during the Cosmic Pralaya” (“Subba Rao’s Avyaktam,” by C. R.
Srinivasayangar, The Theosophist, vol. 17, July 1896, pp. 615-616).
In other words, mülaprak®ti is not viewed in standard Advaita
Vedånta, or even by Hindu Theosophists, as being eternal, despite
Subba Row’s insistence to the contrary. His is an esoteric view of it.
Therefore, it can apply as an aspect of the one reality taught in the
Secret Doctrine only in its Såµkhya meaning; that is, as something
real and eternal.
Finally, we may note that the first use of mülaprak®ti by Blavatsky
was as a Såµkhya term. See “The Septenary Principle in Esotericism,”
The Theosophist, vol. 4, July 1883, pp. 253-256; H. P. Blavatsky Collected
Writings, vol. 4, 1969, pp. 574-582.
7. The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 16.
8. The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 16.
9. The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 16.
10. The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 21.
11. “Victims of Words,” H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 6, 1st
ed., 1954; 2nd ed., Wheaton, Ill.: Theosophical Publishing House,
1975, pp. 141-143. In this edition, throughout this article, the word
“Brahma” is printed incorrectly as “Brahmâ,” with a circumflex on the
last letter indicating that it is a long vowel. In the original printing in
The Theosophist, vol. 5, Feb. 1884, p. 117, the word in its first two occurrences and once again later on is printed as “Brahma˘,” with a breve on
the last letter indicating that it is a short vowel; and all other times as
“Brahma,” with no diacritical mark on the last letter, also indicating
that it is a short vowel. The neuter “Brahma” with short vowel is clearly
meant here, since its synonym is given as Parabrahman. “Brahma” is
the correct declined form of this neuter word, but it is now generally
written in its stem form “Brahman,” in order to distinguish it from the
masculine form “Brahmå” with long vowel. Brahmå or Brahmâ, with
16 The First Fundamental Proposition
either a macron (as used now) or a circumflex (as used earlier) on the
last letter, both indicating that it is a long vowel, is the creator god;
while the neuter Brahma or Brahman is the impersonal absolute.
Note that errors like this in the H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings,
edited by Boris de Zirkoff, are rare. A great many more are found in
the unedited writings of Blavatsky. So serious researchers will always
benefit from the painstaking editorial work of Boris de Zirkoff.
12. This Advaita Vedånta doctrine is more commonly known as
pratibimba-våda, the doctrine of reflection, as it was developed in the
Vivaraña school of Advaita Vedånta. I purposely refer to it here as
åbhåsa-våda in order to emphasize the radiance aspect of the teaching,
and to avoid the sectarian controversy between the pratibimba-våda
and avaccheda-våda (the doctrine of limitation) followers. On åbhåsa,
see Brahma-sütra 2.3.50, and ˛a∫karåcårya’s commentary thereon. On
this doctrine in reference to the manifestation of the universe, see
Pa∆ca-pådikå by Padmapåda, chap. 26, verses 95 ff. For a good example
of a brief text following this doctrine, see the Laghu-våkya-v®tti by
˛a∫karåcårya.
13. See, for example, Sure≈vara’s commentary on ˛a∫karåcårya’s
Pa∆cî-karaña, verse 2 and following.
14. It is described as avyakta in ˛a∫karåcårya’s Viveka-cü∂åmañi,
verse 108, and as avyåk®ta in ˛a∫karåcårya’s Pa∆cî-karaña, to give just
two examples.
15. See ˛a∫karåcårya’s Pa∆cî-karaña, and also his Viveka-cü∂åmañi,
verse 109.
16. The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, transcribed and compiled by
A. T. Barker, 1st ed., 1923; 3rd rev. ed., Adyar, Madras: Theosophical
Publishing House, 1962, p. 138; chronological ed., Quezon City,
Metro Manila, Philippines: Theosophical Publishing House, 1993,
pp. 282-283.
17. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 341; chron. ed., p. 379.
18. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd. ed., p. 341; chron. ed., p. 379. On the
necessity of a triplicity for manifestation, see Blavatsky’s statement of
the three stages of cosmic manifestation found in all theogonies, in
The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 437.
19. There are, of course, many possible Sanskrit equivalents for the
terms and ideas found in this summary, from various schools of
thought. I have tried to choose the more widely used equivalents.
Some come from the Måñ∂ükya Upanißad, which Blavatsky referred to
here. From a translation of it by Archibald Edward Gough found in his
book, The Philosophy of the Upanishads and Ancient Indian Metaphysics
The First Fundamental Proposition 17
(London: Trübner, 1882, p. 71), she quoted the words, “unthinkable
and unspeakable.” Since these two words in other contexts have other
connotations, I have preferred “inconceivable” and “inexpressible.”
For the first of these, the equivalent from the Måñ∂ükya Upanißad is
acintya, and I have adopted this widely used Sanskrit term. For the
second, the Måñ∂ükya equivalent is avyapade≈ya. A much more widely
used equivalent, in both Hindu and Buddhist texts, is nirabhilåpya.
So I have adopted the latter. Note that the term agocara means only
“beyond the range,” and “of thought” must be supplied.
20. See H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 7, 1st ed., 1959; 2nd ed.,
1975, pp. 347-348; The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 20; vol. 2, p. 308 fn.
21. This model was first outlined in the “Cosmological Notes,”
given by the Mahatma Morya to A. O. Hume, copies of which were
made for A. P. Sinnett and Blavatsky. According to Daniel Caldwell,
these were given about October 1881 (not January 1882, the date of
the follow-up Mahatma letter no. 13 on the same subject). These were
first published as an appendix in The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P.
Sinnett, transcribed and compiled by A. T. Barker, 1st ed., 1925; repr.,
Pasadena, California: Theosophical University Press, 1973. Further
material on this model was given in Mahatma letters 15, 10, and 22;
and in the important article, “What Is Matter and What Is Force?,” The
Theosophist, vol. 3, Sep. 1882, pp. 319-324; reprinted in H. P. Blavatsky
Collected Writings, vol. 4, 1969, pp. 208-226.
22. Svabhåva-våda is an ancient and little-known doctrine. Svabhåva
is listed in the ˛vetå≈vatara Upanißad, 1.2, along with five other things
that had been proposed in the past as the source of the universe. All
are here rejected in favor of Brahman as the source of the universe.
There are no extant texts on svabhåva-våda, only stray references such
as this one. Svabhåva is the “inherent nature” of something; but of
what is not clear. In its doctrine as refuted here, svabhåva is commonly
explained as what makes swans white, for example. So it is understood
as the inherent nature of individual things like swans. Early Buddhism
in its teaching of individual dharmas also says that these have each
their own inherent nature or svabhåva. But in the model given by the
Mahatmas, svabhåva is the inherent nature of the one element. This
alone produces all apparent diversity.
23. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 136; chron. ed., p. 281.
24. The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1, pp. 634-635.
25. “The ‘Secret Doctrine’ and Its Study,” by Robert Bowen, p. 3.
26. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., pp. 57-58; chron. ed., p. 274.
27. The Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 53; chron. ed., p. 270.
18 The First Fundamental Proposition
[The foregoing article was written by David Reigle, and published in
Keeping the Link Unbroken: Theosophical Studies Presented to Ted G. Davy on
His Seventy-fifth Birthday, ed. Michael Gomes, [New York]: TRM, an
imprint of Theosophical Research Monographs, 2004, pp. 22-38. This
online edition is published by Eastern Tradition Research Institute,
copyright 2004. A reference was added to note 19, December 2010.]