Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
you may be expelled. Paradigms determine belief-systems and behaviour in esotericist groups just
as much as in science - if not more so! And most of all in exoteric religions, which at their worst are
hidebound to the most literal interpretations of an old book, which, worthy as it may be in its
message, becomes twisted and distorted when every word is taken as "gospel truth" (literally!).
So each branch of human endeavour - science or esotericism - follows a broadly similar path.
Novice who joins specialised or specialist or even eccentric group, where he/she can pursue ones
interests, is encouraged and guided, and eventually becomes a master or teacher or elder in his/her
own right. this is just part of the cycle of human existence and interrelationships.
But science and esotericism also differ. Science is about discovering things - pure knowledge - for
their own sake. The joy of learning is reward enough. Esotericism, being more pragmatic, is not
only about knowledge, it is also about attainment. Of course, this varies too, with some forms of
esotericism, like Theosophy, being almost totally theoretical (and hence like science), while others,
like various schools of Buddhist or Yogic practice, being almost completely practical, with only
minimal theory (just enough to provide a framework for the practice).
The greatest denial of knowledge however is found in some hidebound exoteric Religions and
Cults, where learning of anything other than one's own faith or the teachings of the cult leader is
actually depreciated or condemned as a distraction, or the work of the devil.
So an esoteric science, as suggested here, is not about the path to enlightenment or self-realisation,
which is the true goal of mystical and esotericist practice, but about understanding the "intermediate
realities" between the objective physical and the transcendent. In no way do I think this a bad thing.
In fact, I consider this a worthy extension of human knowledge, and one that may even be
necessary, if we are to broaden our understanding of the universe about us, and our own psyches.
For me, the practical and theoretical should go together; each is unbalanced without the other.
to here is not an ego or finite conscious self, but a boundless consciousness. It is proposed here that
this is all that is.
This can be proved by a simple thought experiment. Try to imagine another bare awareness. You
can't, because to do so would mean you include it in your awareness. Other than Being (which in
this thought experiment is your being, your consciousness, although technically speaking the
limited "I" is a reflection of the infinite awareness - see below) there is not even nothing. There is
only That Being.
It is true that dualists, pluralists, physicalists and the like do assume the duality of subject and
object, and say that there is an objective or other subjective reality, or non-being, beyond the All-
Encompassing Awareness. But of course, to postulate such a reality, they have to imagine /visualise
it. So they have still not gone beyond their awareness
Of course, solipsism is absurd too, but only because solipsism makes the mistake of identifying the
Absolute Awareness (Parasamvit, Atman-Brahman or nirguna brahman, etc). with the limited
sphere of the individual ego-consciousness and its sphere of awareness. So I emphasise, when
referring to Absolute Awareness, I mean the Supreme, of which your subjective awareness is simply
a reflection (good analogy here is the hall of mirrors and golden line described by Chinese Hwa Yen
philosophy Fa-tsang. The infinite reflections in the mirror are not the actual golden lion)
So we have proposition number one - all that exists, all that is, is Infinite Non-dual
Consciousness.
This is the basic monistic insight, the mystical experience of Unity, the premise of most (but not all
- there are dualists as well) esoteric teachings, from Plotinus to Shankara to Ibn Arabi to Theon. At
the beginning, and in essence now, there is only The One.
This of course has a corollary - everything is nothing else but Transformations of that One. Even
inanimate matter is Consciousness, is nothing but Consciousness.
But if there is only the Supreme, why are we limited finite beings. Proposition two, there must be a
progression from Infinite Absolute to Finite Relative. And hence, Reality has a structure, a gradient,
and can be mapped. This is the field of study of esoteric science, mapping this structure, the "Body
of God" as the Kabbalists so evocatively say. This also takes us to Emanationism, regarding which I
have already provided an overview. See also Professor Huston Smith's book Forgotten Truth : The
Common Vision of the World's Religions which presents human knowledge and experience in terms
of a gradation of several metaphysical levels, in keeping with the teachings of mystics and spiritual
traditions of all times and cultures. (Professor Smith's thesis is that an over-emphasis on
experimental science since the time of Galileo has led to the loss of this sacred insight in the
Western world)
But the Map of Reality - the Body of God - is not something static. That is where the Theosophists
and Kabbalists and others go wrong, in trying to formulate a rigid set of planes, perhaps by analogy
with physical characteristics. Rather, it is a dynamic process. Esoteric science is a study of
processes, not of "things"
We now have the Ground of Reality, and the Body of the Godhead. But what about the Method to
be used?
Since Consciousness is the sole reality, we should not depreciate consciousness in seeking to
understand the universe. This gives us a Method, again shown to me by Moshe Kroy almost a
quarter of a century ago.
Everything that appears in Consciousness is a valid datum of inquiry
This is the completely opposite approach to physical science, which seeks to screen out the effect of
5
subjectivity (although it cannot deny the reality of the Observer - and hence of Consciousness). This
is why science works best with inanimate objects, still adequately with living beings (although there
is no conception of ch'i and little of the dynamics of the whole organism), not so good with
societies and anthropology, and worst of all with psychology, leading to such absurdities as
Behaviourism (which in its extreme form (Watson, Skinner, etc) even denies the existence of
subjectivity!!!) and statistics-driven so-called experimental psychology. The more "inward" (the
"within" to use Teilhard de Chardin's term) you go, the less that science works.
Science therefore is a methodology that works supremely well on the gross physical plane, when
dealing with purely physical; objects, and less well with more subtle things.
Conversely subjectivism becomes absurd when applied to purely physical processes, this is where
"magic" becomes "superstition", and the reason that the physically advanced but metaphysically
impoverished Western and Western-inspired nations were able to conquer and enslave the
technologically more primitive but metaphysically more advanced Asian, Tribal, etc societies
(everything from the 16th to 19th century European colonisation of the rest of the world to the 20th
century Chinese conquest of and on-going genocide in Tibet)
Therefore Objective Physical Science and Subjective Esoteric Science thus complement each other
perfectly. Which brings us to the next proposition.
On matters of physical reality, Esotericism should defer to Science.
Why? Because this way we can avoid absurdities like Steiner's cosmological cycles, in which the
whole Solar System comes into and moves out of manifestation within the time of a single
Procession of the Equinoxes. Examined in the hard light of scientific analysis, the Anthroposophical
science of Steiner and his followers has all the persuasiveness of the Young Earth theory of
fundamentalist Christian Creationism
Which brings us to our next point.
If we are to use as a foundation of inquiry the basic framework already established by the various
esoteric teachings, we have to be very careful of one thing. Fixed opinions, which freeze the
original fleeting inspiration or process into something stultifying. We need to get away from
dogmas. Dogmas in esotericism are as bad as dogmas in science. In science, dogmas become old
paradigms that obstruct new ideas, and have to be overthrown, and are only with difficulty. In
esotericism, dogmas are far worse, they become fundamentalist and literalist fixations, and blind
one to other truths and other possibilities, and destroy even the original truth that was in that
teaching in the beginning. This is why dogmatism in esotericism, in religion, and everywhere
else, should be completely avoided. Even the ideas presented here should only be taken as
hypotheses and suggestions, never as dogmas, and only accepted if one feels in one's own heart that
they have value.
Finally, we need to ask what teachings and experiences we will use and take as authoritative, in
formulating our new Esoteric Science. Let us say (for sake of example) you like Osho and I like
Aurobindo. Now, if Osho says the Absolute Reality and the Self (Atman) are the same, and if
Aurobindo says that too, well, that is fine, there is no problem. But if Osho says once you attain
Enlightenment that is the highest state, but Aurobindo says, no, there is a higher state beyond
Enlightenment, you have to draw the Divine Consciousness down and transform your body and
matter, there is a problem. (I am mentioning this because I once many years ago had a
discussion/argument with a friend who was a devotee of Osho; I took (and still take) the
Aurobindoan position, and he did not feel comfortable with that, because it referred to states beyond
what Osho taught. One could say the same using Adi Da instead of Osho as an example). So, where
there is a conflict, we need to decide which teacher is the most authoritative.
6
Everyone will have different ways of doing this, but my method regarding this is simple. The most
Inclusive Teaching is the one that should be chosen. This is something the Buddha said once, his
teaching is like the footprint of the elephant which can hold the other teachings in itself. So the
more all encompassing the teaching, the more preferable it is.
Simple real world example (from religion rather than esotericism, but only to make a point): The
fundamentalist Christian, or fundamentalist Muslim, who says "all non-believers go to hell", does
not seem as persuasive as an ecumenical Muslim or ecumenical Christian who says "to every people
God has sent a prophet" (or Teacher, or whatever). This is because the bigot excludes all others, and
so their teaching is extremely arbitrary: why should the fundamentalist of sect x be right, but the
fundamentalist of sect y wrong? Or vice versa for that matter? The ecumenicist includes all others,
seeing them as part of a greater whole, therefore, devotee of sect x has part of the truth, devotee of
sect y also has part. Both are partly correct, (but also partly limited) no favouritism. Seems a lot
more reasonable to me.
Regarding this, see also the tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant
So we have, so far
1. All that exists is Infinite Non-dual Consciousness. (The Absolute Reality)
2. Reality has a gradient and can be mapped (the Body of the Godhead).
3. Everything that appears in Consciousness is a valid datum of inquiry (Phenomenology)
4. On matters of physical reality, Esotericism should defer to Science (Critical Thinking)
5. All dogmatism is to be avoided (receptivity to new Possibilities).
6. Where there is a conflict between two teachings, the more inclusive Teaching is preferable.
Note that this is still a provisional list; as this essay is a work in progress, not a finished manifesto.
Theosophic esotericism
and metaphysics (Sufism,
Noetic Kabbalah, Tantra, etc),
Spiritual- Divine Soul/Celestial Theistic mysticism
Noeric higher yogic experiences,
Adi Da's 5th and 6th
Stages in part
The above gives us a foundation, but what about the bricks to build the edifice? We will find there
are different approaches and methodologies, depending on the aspect of reality we are inquiring
into. For the physical, this is
There are two broad approaches we can take here - experimental/empirical method science, and the
experiential/phenomenology of mysticism. Many areas of esotericism however - for example
practical occultism, represent an overlap of these two.
"Type Experiences"
In biology, geology, and palaeontology, reference is made to the "type specimen". A type specimen
is the specimen - perhaps a new species of insect, that a scientist refers to when describing it in a
scientific journal. That way, if someone else finds a similar specimen, they can check and see if it is
11
the same as the original, or warrants its own name and description.
I would suggest here that certain esoteric experiences which are described by mystics, sages, adepts,
occultists, psychonauts, and the rest, be taken as Type Experiences, and hence referred to, in the
same way that a biological or geological sample might be.
One must however be careful in selecting an experience, so as to avoid unnecessary bias. A
contemporary educated person may be preferable to a medieval monastic ascetic, but if the ascetic
has progressed further, they would have experienced things the modern person would not. If a
person has a modern education, can think and write clearly, is aware of the pitfalls and delusions of
the spiritual path, and has progressed to great heights, their experiences will obviously be very
useful in the mapping out of the nature of reality.
The worst thing in all this are subjective distortions. e.g. a person may have a pure and profound
experience, but straight away distort it into their own mental formulation. A lot of Rudolph Steiner's
material reads like this. One senses amazing insight, a great and pure soul, but then reads the most
ridiculous medieval nonsense, that would have been fine a thousand years ago, but just seems
absurd today.
Also not too good, but not as bad as the above, is egotism and self-delusion. An individual may
attain a very elevated state, and then claim to be the only one to have attained it, or to have attained
it in its fullness. Now, in some cases, they may very well be the only one! In other cases, they are
simply caught up in an Intermediate Zone delusion of grandeur, or overpowered by the great down-
rush of light.
The only way to tell if an adept is sincere and has attained the highest state, or is just caught in the
intermediate zone, is to compare their experiences with others. If others have had the same
experience, then to claim uniqueness is a sign either of simple ignorance (which is forgivable,
especially if the individual in question has not read much, perhaps coming from a culture or society
where books or learning is limited) or self-delusion (which may or may not be forgivable,
depending on how you view these things, and which in itself does not negate the rest of the
experience), or seeking to delude others to further his or her career as guru or cult leader (which is a
sure sign that this person should be avoided, unless you are an anthropologist or sociologist and
want to study the phenomenon of cultish behaviour).
Evolution
Exploration of interactions of "cosmic devic forces" with the terrestrial evolution;
hypotheses of planetary and biological evolution, human society, etc [see e.g. Steven
Guth and my work on "Astrognosis" Considering Islam, Cosmogenic Evolution, as
well as Eco-Gnosis in general - see also Adendndum A for more (below))
What effect will future technologies have upon the body and psyche - cyborgization,
nanotechnology, colonization of space, etc?
Possibility of new (different? higher?) kingdoms and/or grades of sentience
emerging? e.g. AI and Vingean-Transhumanist Posthuman Singularity through
technological evolution or augmentation, or Aurobindoan "Superman" through
spiritual-divine transformation
Cosmology
Formulating a map or diagram of the "Body of the Godhead" as a dynamic
unfolding-enfolding process (not static planes) - concepts from Taoism,
Neoconfucianism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Suhrawardi, Ibn Arabi, Kashmir
Shaivism, pre-Lurianic, Lurianic and Hassidic Kabbalah, Max and Alma Theon,
Theosophy, Anthroposphy, Teilhard de Chardin, Sri Aurobindo and Mirra, Meher
Baba, and others.
No doubt many more fields of exploration could be added.
like the Abramelin with its divisions into, Kings, Dukes etc - following the sociological thought
patterns of the 14th Century. So it is not surprising that in our current attempts to forge a bit of
"scientific" logic into the huge complexity of what surrounds us that we should be using the
sociological thought patterns of our time - which come from the benefits that science has placed
into our lives.
But, and it's a big but, many of the premises that modern science rests on are weak if not faulty. One
of my favourite criticisms is our intrinsic belief that there is a "cause" for everything. I have come
to the conclusion that "Causation is just a special case of association". Adopt my idea that
association is the rule and "causation" is just a special case and you end up with the involvement of
the spiritual world in everything in some form or another. What we do in the physical effects the
Spiritual worlds and vice versa - and it is an ongoing interaction slightly out of time and place ...
incidentally this is what the Australian Aboriginal concept of the "Dreaming" is all about.
And that's just one of the premises.
Now, the largest revolution in modern science has been the discovery of deep space, deep time and
the huge complexity of the out there. As one astronomer said in a lecture I attended as she showed
us the image of the radio energy coming out of a galaxy, "It is better not to think about such things".
I wonder if Kepler had similar qualms?
And another major revolution in the making is the concept of randomness and variability. All our
scientific modelling to date still runs on the concept of averaging - its part of our sociological
democratic thought pattern. But it is a very poor premise to work from. So much cannot be usefully
explored by averaging ... from the weather to the effectiveness of medicines ... and how do you
average spiritual phenomena? (What is the average ghost or crop circle? ... randomness is inherent
in the systems around us).
Now, both deep space and variability/randomness have not been added to our thinking patterns.
New patterns are necessary to accommodate the new base line insights science has presented to us.
We need to add our new insights to our understandings of esoteric experiences. And that is what
astrognosis is trying to do. Which places this developing concept [Cosmogenic Evolution] into a
potentially revolutionary position.
It is interesting that in our new formulations about the development of life forms on our planet we
end up with Devas as the link between our new ideas and concepts of the past. You see, Devas are
just consciousness in a place. Remove the idea of place and leave consciousness and you have a
"God or Goddess" ... And of course that is what we are too ... the "prima medica" is consciousness.
As an afterthought ...
I am working on a lecture series on the Doppleganger, the Double, at the moment and am exploring
the multiple facets of human consciousness and the very nature of consciousness itself. Interestingly
it is leading me to the conclusion that "consciousness" intrusions from deep space play an important
part in our need to go to war. Yes, perhaps our leaders and the people that surround them are
schizophrenic. Their minds and decisions being influenced by other consciousnesses "out there"
which like to playing games with events on this planet ... So if we can stop the games we could
have peace and if we don't, or can't, we will never have peace ... this is an interesting thought but
only possible if one accepts some of the new premises suggested in this essay. It also makes one
wonder if the images presented by Science Fiction and the beliefs of the UFO people are not
coming from a consciousness "out there" identical to what is presenting me with these insights!
Material on the Doppleganger and its role in human consciousness will soon be on this web site -
stay tuned for further inputs!
15
The problem is that the Aristotlean approach is not a form of science that gives results. Aristotle was
abandoned due to inefficacy. It was simplistic because he did not know "the world", he was freely
speculating, using the limited data and information available to him in the ancient Greek world.
Putting under a single umbrella concepts such as ch'i, I Ching, planes, evolution, etc is reminiscent
of the times of Aristotle when all sciences (biology, psychology, physics, political sciences,..) were
parts of philosophy. But this widely multidisciplinary approach is not the same as a holistic
esotericism of science. One thing is "sci infancy" (Aristotle), and completely another modern
multidisciplinary approach that is "mature science" (say, quantum chemistry tries to explain genetic
processes by using thermodynamics, chaos and complexity, computer science, higher algebraic
theories, ...and to connect them to the levels of electrochemisty and biochemistry).
In esoteric science you could imagine experiments (Kirlian, high voltage) combined with other high
tech photographs (computer analysis of highly sensitive detectors) and explanation, in the
beginning, with some kind fields combined with electrophysiology and biochemical processes
monitored and theorized upon.
A true holistic paradigm can emerge only after any science has passed thru various stages of
disintegration and integration. The following process or sequence could be suggested:
1. primitive science (Aristotle)
2. beginnings of empirical and mathematical science in modern sense (Galileo, Kepler)
3. new paradigm established (Newton, Laplace,...)
4. other paradigms appearing (Faraday-Maxwell, fields,...)
5. fundamental redefinition and new paradigmata (Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg,...)
6. multidisciplinary approach (chaos theory, complexity, Feigenbaum ...)
7. emergent holistic approach ( Sarfatti, Bohm's hologram universe, quantum
geometrodynamics of John Wheeler,.., also synchronicity)
Bohm is a true scientist with a holistic approach.
The crux of the matter as far as superluminality is concerned (see e.g. the Stardrive web site) is that
the universe obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics at its birth subjecting it to Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle when it was smaller than an electron. Hoyle and Sarfatti believe that it was at
this primordial moment that consciousness from the future created the universe bringing itself into
being.
Einstein's work on relativity provided a starting point for intuitive physicists such as Wheeler,
Feynman, Josephson and others. The new physics has also given rise to a new cosmology of which
Sir Fred Hoyle is a leading proponent. Hoyle compiled a massive body of evidence in his book The
Intelligent Universe that seems to strongly suggest that only a living and intelligent (superluminal)
God could have created a universe where life (us) exists. The very conditions of the birth of the
universe (the big bang) were specifically tailored to produce life. The final anthropic cosmological
principle championed by Hoyle, Sarfatti and others was first discovered in weaker form by Brandon
Carter 9 The God Phone], who in 1968 stated:
"Had the numerical values of certain fundamental constants (the speed of light, the mass
of an electron etc.) been only slightly different - the universe would not be able to
16
sustain life as we know it." Experimentalist Alain Aspect proved (at the University of
Paris in 1982), the reality of faster-than-light action-at-a-distance in an experiment on
the quantum connection between pairs of photons. Delayed choice experiments (by
Carol Alley of the University of Maryland ) and gamma photon-proton scattering
experiments (by Charles Bennett of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory ) showed that
future causes do create past effects.
Recent work by such respected physicists as David Deutsch, Kip Thorne, Yakir
Aharanov, Alcubierre and Sarfatti, involving time-travel to the past, future-causality and
other mind-boggling vistas, is invigorating superluminal physics as never before. For
example, Alcubierre has shown that a Star Trek faster-than-light warp drive is possible
within the known laws of physics. Indeed, Sarfatti, interviewed by Kim Burrafato in
UFO Magazine (Vol 9, No. 30 1994), speculates that UFO's, if real, would be time-
travelling ships from our future explaining the strange phone call(s) he got in 1952.
Sarfatti is no true believer here. He is quite willing to admit that the 1952 call(s) may
have been some sort of prank, and all the subsequent synchronicities a random
coincidence.
Sarfatti's credibility among other physicists, like the superluminal conjecture, seemed
for years to lay dormant in the barren soil of a conservative physics establishment. For
many years, talk of faster-than-light communication and time travel has been beyond
the pale of good science. It was a suitable subject for comic books and science fiction
only, 'strictly kid stuff.' "
Crazy, but...?