Aryasangha

The name "Aryasangha" is Sanskrit, combining "arya" meaning noble or excellent, and "sangha" meaning community or multitude. It is transliterated in various Buddhist traditions, referring to a lineage or a collective of enlightened beings. The term's scholarly form typically refers to the historical or legendary figure.

The Founder of the firi^t Yogacharya School. This Arhat, a direct disciple of Gautama, the Buddha, is most unaccountably mixed up and confounded witli a personage of the same name, who is said to have lived in Ayodhya (Oude) about the fifth or sixth century of our era, and taught Tantrika worsliip in addition to the Yogjieharya system. Those who sought to make it popular, claimed that he was the same Aryasangha, that had been a follower of Sakyamuni. and that he was 1,000 years old. Internal evidence alone is sutlicient to show that the works written by him and translated about the year 600 of our era, works full of Tantra worship, ritualism, and tenets followed now considerably by the "red-cap" sects in Sikhim, Bhutan, and Little Tibet, cannot be the same as the lofty system of the early Yogacharya .school of pure Buddhism, which is neither northerji nor southern, but absolutely esoteric. Though none of the genuine Yogacharya books (the Narjol chodpa) have ever been made public or marketable, yet one finds in the Yogdcharjfa Bhumi Shdstra of the pscuc/o-Aryasangha a great deal from the older system, into tlie tenets of which he may liave been initiated. It is, however, so mixed uj) with Sivaism and Tantrika magic and superstitions, that the work defeats its own end, notwithstanding its remarkable dialectical subtilty. How unreliable arc the conclusions at which our Orientalists arrive, and how contradictory the dates assigned by them, may be seen in the case in hand. While Csoma de Koriis (who, by-the-bye, never became acquainted with the Gelukpa (yellow-caps), but got all his information from "red-cap" lamas of tlie Borderland), places the psc udoAryasdu^ha in the seventh century of our era; Wassiljow, who passed most of his life in Cliina, proves liiin to liave lived much earlier; and Wilson (see Roy. Ah. Hoc, Vol. VI.. p. 240), speaking of the period when Ar.vasangha's works, which are .still extant in Sanskrit, were written, believes it now "established, that t

The figure of Aryasangha, as presented in Blavatsky's era and debated by scholars, embodies a fascinating historical and philosophical puzzle. The Yogacara school, often attributed to him, posits that reality is fundamentally mind-dependent, a notion that resonates deeply with modern explorations of consciousness and perception. Mircea Eliade, in his studies of comparative religion, often highlighted how foundational figures in spiritual traditions become repositories for evolving doctrines, their biographies sometimes becoming allegorical narratives for the development of a school of thought. The confusion Blavatsky notes between the original Yogacara founder and later figures, particularly those associated with Tantric practices, speaks to the fluid nature of spiritual authority and transmission. It suggests that the "Aryasangha" might represent not just an individual but a lineage, a succession of minds dedicated to a particular path of awakening. This idea of a collective or lineage-based transmission is echoed in various esoteric traditions, where the wisdom is seen as flowing through a community rather than being solely the product of one isolated intellect. The emphasis on the mind's constructive power, central to Yogacara, offers a profound lens through which to examine our own subjective experience of the world, suggesting that the "external" is, in large part, a projection of our internal states. This perspective invites a practice of mindful introspection, a turning inward to understand the roots of our perception and, perhaps, to reshape it. The enduring relevance of such ideas lies in their potential to empower individuals, demonstrating that the transformation of one's world begins with the transformation of one's mind. The very act of questioning the singular origin of such a potent philosophy encourages a more nuanced appreciation of how wisdom evolves and endures.