Oculus VR Jam entry promises a "personalized afterlife experience."

How far is too far when it comes to pushing the boundaries of virtual reality? As VR devices grow ever more sophisticated—and the tools to create software for them ever more accessible—where do we draw the line between what’s ethically acceptable in the real world and what’s ethically acceptable in the virtual world?
One of the developers putting this question to the test is Australia-based Paranormal Games. Project Elysium, its entry into the upcoming Oculus VR Jam 2015, treads some shaky moral ground by promising to create a "personalized afterlife experience," reuniting people with loved ones who have passed on. Exactly how the developer hopes to do this isn’t clear at this point (it will be required to showcase screenshots by April 27, followed by video footage the week after to be eligible for the jam’s grand prize), although a screenshot from Project Elysium’s development does show a friend of the studio being transformed into a 3D model.
Naturally, this raises more questions. Would potential users of Project Elysium have to send pictures and video of the deceased to the developer in order to have him or her mapped into the game? And what about that person’s personality? How much data would the developer need in order to create a realistic representation of that person rather than just a robotic and potentially distressing facsimile? Perhaps you'll be able to do it yourself, using a character editor a la Skyrim. 
Most importantly of all, though, what effect would seeing the deceased in a virtual world have on the mental health of the user?

Perhaps there will be a subset of people for whom Project Elysium provides real comfort and support in times of grief. We’d hope that if Paranormal Games is truly serious about its "personalized afterlife experience" of helping people, it makes a real effort to study the potential mental health effects of its software. For now, it seems VR remains a wild west of unregulated innovation, where things like Project Elysium can push the applications of VR without necessarily following real world rules.
Undoubtedly things will change in the future, for better or worse, if we see VR used more frequently in this way. At the very least, Project Elysium will add to the growing discussion of what is and isn’t appropriate in VR, whether that’s violent gameplay, reviving the dead or otherwise, and whether we’re all at risk of losing our grip on reality.

From the Kheper website/Blogger Ref Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science
   

Home Topics Kabbalah Esotericism New/Updates		Max Théon	Alma Théon	Mirra Alfassa	Teresa	Louis Themanyls	Pascal Themanyls
		The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor	Tlemcen	La Tradition Cosmique	Glossary	Books	Links

Pascal Themanlys

Louis Themanlys' son Pascal came to Israel in 1953 and founded the Argaman circle in Jerusalem. He also in France created a Cosmic group (actually more Kabbalistic) in Paris and Lyon. There are two other groups that link with Pascal.
Pascal actually met Théon during the latter's last visit abroad. He said:

"I saw him during one of his sojourns in Paris in 1920. Subsequently he returned to Tlemcen and lived there in company with his devoted secretary, Miss Teresa, up to 1926."

Pascal at the time must have been only a young boy. Théon was well into his seventies
Currently the new-age mood is sweeping Israel: not only the secular jews but also the traditional religious jews (e.g. Chassidim doing Tai-Chi, Kippa-wearing homeopaths and other healers, etc). Even so there is a great antagonism in traditional circles to any mention of Christian or Hermetic Kabbalah. So for example, on their Geocities website, the Argaman authors give Theon a very traditional jewish name: Eliezer Mordechai Theon Ben-Rivka, and speak of him as a traditional Chassid, who died in Algiers just when he was about to move and settle in Jerusalem. Pascal's father Louis is called David Moshe Themanelys. And the books they publish in Hebrew are given names that are have a very traditional Rabbinic sound.
The manuscript that Théons left behind him in Tlemenc was recovered by Pascal. There are more than 10,000 pages, some edited and some not. Almost all of the material is in French. Pascal wrote a short book in English and French giving a summary of Théon's teachings. For an extract of Pascal's writing, see introduction to Visions of the Eternal Present, which was published about nine years before his death.
Pascal, who only died very recently (in August 2000) was worried about the material falling into the wrong hands. He was afraid that people might change it or distort the meaning by translating the text while not understanding fully the teachings of the Théons. It is the old argument between those who want things kept secret and those who want to divulge. I think the time has come for this information to divulged. For those organisations that stay secretive the knowledge will be lost with them, and Théon's material is too precious to deserve such a fate. For that reason I am putting up those few extracts of it I have, together with observations and comments.

 Argaman Circle (in hebrew)
 Revue Cosmique - CONSACRÉE A LA RESTITUTION DE LA TRADITION ORIGINELLE SOURCE COMMUNE DES TRADITIONS RELIGIEUSES ET PHILOSOPHIQUES In French. Contents:

Kheper Home | Theon index page | Hermetica | Kabbalah | Topics | New or updated | Search

 

Interview with Parapsychology researcher Dr. Caroline Watt explains why, despite criticism, she maintains, “there is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences.”

Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with University of Edinburgh professor Dr. Caroline Watt, co-author of, There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them. During the interview Watt discusses her research into near-death experiences:

Alex Tsakiris: The other thing that upset me about the paper was the way it was picked up by so many science publications; Scientific America, NPR, BBC, Discovery, Discovery News. It’s not a strong paper. Yet, it gets echoed back through the mainstream science media as some kind of breakthrough about near-death experiences. Even though it directly contradicts all the leading researchers in the NDE field.

Dr. Caroline Watt: The leading researchers in the NDE field may publish their papers and have them reported as well. It’s an open forum. If it says something interesting, then it will be reported.  Everybody can have a say. It’s not like I have some kind of privileged access.

Alex Tsakiris: I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying that what gets picked up and perpetuated through the science media is reflective of the current position, even if that position isn’t supported by the best data.

I’m saying your paper got traction even though there’s not a lot behind it. I’m saying you cited references incorrectly.  And you referenced skeptics like Dr. Susan Blackmore who admits to not being current in the field.

Dr. Caroline Watt: As I said, it was intended to be a provocative piece. It’s not claiming to be balanced. The paper, if it wasn’t limited to two or three pages, I could have dealt more thoroughly with many different aspects because there’s more to near-death experiences then the dying brain hypothesis. It would have been a longer and more in-depth paper, but that wasn’t the paper that we wrote.

Dr. Caroline Watt

Play It:
Download MP3 (64:00 min.)

Read It:

Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome Dr. Caroline Watt to Skeptiko. Dr. Watt is a founding member of the Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and has taught and researched parapsychology for 25 years. She is well published in the field, many peer review journals, and is also the author of the most popular textbook in parapsychology, An Introduction to Parapsychology. If we can add to all that, we can also mention that she has also served as a president and board member of the Parapsychological Association.

Dr. Watt, it’s a great pleasure to have you on Skeptiko. Thanks for joining me today.

Dr. Caroline Watt: Thanks, very much, for inviting me Alex.

Alex Tsakiris: Caroline, you are well known within the parapsychology community. For those folks who don’t know much about your background, can you tell us a little about how you got started in the field, and maybe some of the highlights of your research, if you will?

Dr. Caroline Watt: Sure. I did my undergraduate degree in psychology at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. There we had no teaching at all in parapsychology, but we had a final exam called Contemporary Issues where in the degree exam, we were supposed to answer questions about new developments in the field of psychology. That was way back in 1984, just when the Koestler Chair was starting up in Edinburgh.

Because there had been a lot of press interest in the Koestler Chair, one of my teachers set a question in the exam about the Koestler Chair, and I answered it. That was my first formal contact with parapsychology.

The question was: You are applying to be the new professor at the Koestler Chair of Parapsychology at Edinburgh University. Outline what research program you might follow.

Alex Tsakiris: There’s some foreshadowing.

Dr. Caroline Watt: Yes, indeed. That was really the first contact I had, although I’d always had an interest in the subject. I’d always been a fan of, for example, Lyall Watson and his Super Nature books. It really had captured my imagination from my younger years.

After that I graduated. Because the Koestler Chair had started, and I was curious; I actually wrote to Bob Morris, who was the Koestler professor back then. I said to him, “I’m interested in your subject. I have a psychology degree. If I can be of any use to you, I’d love to get involved.” Bob said, “Why don’t you apply? We’re looking for some researchers.” I had the basic qualifications that he was looking for, which was curiosity and some scientific training in psychology, so I was very fortunate to get the job.

Alex Tsakiris: Let’s talk a little bit about the current state of the field of parapsychology. On one hand, this should have been somewhat of a banner year for the field with Daryl Bem from Cornell publishing a major study on precognition that received a lot of publicity, at least over here in the United States. I’m not sure that that really got much traction in terms of the overall field of parapsychology. How would you sum up what the state of the field is?

Dr. Caroline Watt: I’ve been in the field for a long time, and I think I’ve seen a bit of a shift in the center of gravity. When I started in 1985, I felt then that North American parapsychology was stronger then it was in Europe. For example, the Parapsychological Association conventions used to happen nearly every year in the USA, and only occasionally in Europe.

I feel there’s been a bit of a shift, partly as a result of the activities of the Koestler Chair and Bob Morris, in supervising PhD students who then went out to get jobs and to study and research parapsychology further.

There’s been a little bit of a shift towards Europe. I feel that in Europe parapsychology feels stronger. We have a bit more of a foothold in academia and higher education institutions, compared to what I feel is going on in the states.

Alex Tsakiris: That’s interesting. That’s one way to look at the divide, is this geographic divide. There also seems to be this major divide in the field that no one seems to talk much about, and that’s the divide between skeptics and believers, to put it crudely.



There seem to be a group of parapsychology researchers like Chris French, yourself, we might even throw Dr. Richard Wiseman in there, who fit very comfortably into this camp we would call skeptics. In fact, they’re even popular presenters at these skeptical conferences.



Then there’s this other group of parapsychology researchers, like Daryl Bem who I just mentioned, Dean Radin, or Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, that are the polar opposite of that. They’re really scorned and harassed by these same skeptical groups. What do you think is going on with that divide, and how do we explain it?



It seems extremely strange to me that in a field, you could have two such seemingly diametrically opposed groups who really couldn’t more or less sit in the same room together.



Dr. Caroline Watt: That’s not my experience. I wouldn’t, first of all, classify myself as a skeptic in terms of a counter advocate. I am a skeptic in the dictionary sense of the word, which is questioning; I hope we all are. That’s the scientific approach. I don’t think I take a dogmatic stance in that the research and teaching that I do, and the contents, for example, of our [inaudible 06:03] which you mentioned very kindly in the introduction. It depends what your understanding is of the term skeptics.



Bob Morris, who I greatly respected as my mentor, was regarded in the field as someone who was quite balanced in his approach. He always took a lot of care whenever he made his presentations to first of all deal with what’s not psychic, but looks like it. He really spent quite a lot of time talking about illusions that may cause people to believe that they’ve had a psychic experience, which may on the face of it sound rather skeptical. What he’s doing there is showing that we have to be aware of the different sides of argument in order to be able to draw any conclusions.



I think it’s perhaps an oversimplification to say there are these two camps. Of course there are some people who have very extreme views, but I wouldn’t regard myself as being at the extreme end of that spectrum.



Alex Tsakiris: You can, of course, put yourself anywhere in that spectrum and I wouldn’t object to it. I do feel like there’s a certain papering over of it when we talk about it in these nice academic terms. When you really get down to the nuts and bolts of who’s talking, who’s being invited to conferences; again, I point out these skeptical conferences that do at least try and be somewhat scientific in the way they approach things.



These groups couldn’t be further apart. The Chris French’s and Richard Wiseman’s are really heroes among these skeptical groups, and the people like Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin couldn’t be more of the villain to these groups.



I think in the general public, there is this divide between skeptics and believers. I just want to make sure we’re not papering that over, number one. Number two, I’d ask again, how does that really play itself out within the formal academic parapsychology community?



Dr. Caroline Watt: I’m still stuck at the very start of your question there, because you gave Richard Wiseman as an example of a skeptic and Dean Radin as an example of a believer. In one of the more recent published studies that Richard was involved in was a piece of research co-authored with Dean Radin, Marilyn Schlitz, and myself. There were four of us working together. This is the [inaudible 08:42] studies, the staring studies looking at experimental effects.



That was a good example of where there was collaboration and cooperation. Ultimately, a publication arose out of it. I’m not sure how helpful it is to try to characterize the field as polarized like that.



A really interesting thing that happened in the history of parapsychology occurred in the Ganzfeld debate, where there was a polarization. There was a published debate between Ray Hyman, the skeptic, and Chuck Honorton, the “believer” or proponent.



They had this distant disagreement about how to interpret the Ganzfeld database, and then met at a conference and talked face-to-face for the first time. When they met and talked face-to-face, they discovered they actually agreed on quite a few things.



That was very productive and led to the publication of the Joint Communique; it was published in the Journal of Parapsychology. It was a statement on what they agreed on, and then on what they agreed needed to be done to move the field forward.



I think that’s a really good example where if you take people who have differing viewpoints, and you actually get them to talk to each other, that can move the field forward. That led to the development of the autoganzfeld.



Alex Tsakiris: Okay, I’ll let that go. I just have to tell you, I’ve interviewed, for example, Richard, multiple times on this show and actually hosted a debate with him and Rupert Sheldrake. I think the divide is much deeper than that. That’s my view of it. Likewise with Dr. Dean Radin, who I’ve interviewed multiple times as well.



Dr. Caroline Watt: It’s just an interesting thing to talk about. I haven’t got to that, if you like. I suppose the point I was trying to make was, if you take people who have contrasting positions and they don’t speak to each other, then their positions can drift further and further apart. It can be counter productive if you stay in your camp and don’t talk to the other side.



I think there are quite a few examples in the history of parapsychology when opposing camps have gotten together, they’ve actually discovered that (a) they don’t hate each other like they thought they did, and (b) they actually have a few things they agree on. The question would be, how can we foster that kind of collaboration?



In areas like experimenter effects, which are big questions for parapsychology and are actually quite fruitful areas for people with contrasting viewpoints to collaborate, because then the nub of the question is how does the belief of the investigator effect the outcome of the experiment?



Actually, there are some areas in parapsychology which are very fruitful for collaboration between people who have different viewpoints.



Alex Tsakiris: Perhaps. I mean that honestly; perhaps that’s right. Perhaps there’s a deeper world view difference that leads people to the same kind of divides we see in other culture, war, and political debates that are really unresolvable by getting together.



After hosting these debates, that’s my take away. My take away is, Rupert Sheldrake doesn’t trust Richard Wiseman. He doesn’t think he’s an honest investigator, and he’s said exactly that in the debates that we’ve had, and in the follow-on to it.



He’s been public about it, but others have said that privately. I think there is a deep seeded distrust among those two camps, but that’s just my read of it from my little position here.



I accept what you’re saying as your position. Certainly, what you paint as a way to possibly bridge that lack of trust and understanding of the other person’s worldview is certainly to talk more and collaborate more, so we’re in agreement on that.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Good.



Alex Tsakiris: Let’s talk a little bit about survival of consciousness. In particular, this paper that you co-authored titled, There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them. Tell us a little bit about the history behind this paper.



Dr. Caroline Watt: I’m really glad you’ve asked me this, because not very many people know the context of this paper. It’s published in a journal called, TiCS: Trends in Cognitive Sciences. It’s in a particular strand. There’s a category of articles in that journal called Forum: Science & Society.



These articles are deliberately designed to be provoking of debate. The whole idea of this group of articles, this type of articles in this journal, is not to claim that you’re making some comprehensive review. It’s not to produce any new evidence for testing a theory, for example. It’s a bit like an opinion piece, like an editorial in a newspaper, where you make an argument that is intended to stimulate discussion or provoke debate.



The history of this article is that I’m the second author on it. Dean Mobbs, who’s the first author, is a neuroscientist. Dean contacted me with the idea of writing for that audience, for the neuroscience audience. Our paper that was more popular, because it’s not a heavy research paper. It’s basically talking about the experience of near-death reports and what a neuroscientific explanation might be put forward for them.



Dean contacted me because he was a neuroscientist and I was the parapsychologist, but it was basically his idea to do it. We actually initially submitted it; it’s been around the house, as it took a while for it to get published. We initially submitted it with a much more moderate title, which was, “Can neuroscience explain NDEs?” with a question mark at the end of it.



Because it ended up being directed to this category in TiCS, this Science & Society type of article, which is meant to be provocative, the editor requested that we change the title to something which is much more bold and deliberately making a statement that would provoke a reaction.



It ended up with that changed title, which in fact I didn’t know about until I saw the published paper. I think it’s fair enough, given the Science & Society category of article.



Alex Tsakiris: Do you stand by the title?



Dr. Caroline Watt: It’s suitable for that type of article. You have to see it in context.



Alex Tsakiris: Is it suitable in terms of representing your position? It’s quite a statement. It doesn’t represent you.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Yes. It’s a bold statement, which is suitable in the context of that class of article, which is something to provoke debate. However, I believe it’s an overstatement. It’s too soon to say there’s nothing paranormal, because we don’t have all of the evidence in yet.



As I said to you when you approached me about this interview, this is actually not my area of specialty. It’s probably my one foray into near-death experiences, and I probably won’t be publishing on it again. It was as a result of Dean’s approach that I collaborated on the article.



I think the title, which is deliberately provocative, is going too far because it’s too soon to say there’s nothing paranormal. The content of the article itself is not saying anything new. It shouldn’t really be controversial, although it’s an eye-catching title.



The content, you’ve all heard the arguments many times already; I’m sure you don’t agree with them. The argument is that there are NDE-like features seen in many different circumstances that do have a neurological basis. Therefore, it would seem to be a fruitful area to investigate for a possible explanation of these experiences.



Alex Tsakiris: Right. It’s really not a matter of whether I agree with it so much. It will be for this interview, but what really seems particularly odd to me, and I guess this gets back to that skeptic versus believer debate, but all the main researchers in the NDE field; Bruce Greyson, University of Virginia; Pim van Lommel, who you cite in the paper; Jeff Long; Peter Fenwick; all of them agree in saying a conventional medical explanation of NDEs doesn’t fit the data.



I don’t know where you can point to any prominent NDE researchers that would support the title like that. It’s provocative, okay, but is it representative even of the field and of the research?



Dr. Caroline Watt: I don’t know if there’s a cultural difference here, but there certainly are European researchers. There’s somebody called Klemenc-Ketis based in Slovenia, who’s published on the effects of carbon dioxide on near-death experiences. There’s Olaf Blanke, who has done quite a lot of work.



Alex Tsakiris: Can we start with that first one, because I covered it pretty extensively on the show? Are you familiar with that research?



Dr. Caroline Watt: I’ve read the paper, yes.



Alex Tsakiris: There were just 11 participants, and actually, the CO2 levels were really not that elevated, no more so than a scuba diver would be. Also, the whole CO2 issue with regard to NDEs has really been well-trotted territory in terms of Pim van Lommel and Bruce Greyson. Many, many people have covered that and have not found any corroboration for that. It was very small, not elevated, and it seems to be an outlier in terms of what they found.



Dr. Caroline Watt: The van Lommel study is a landmark. We’re talking about a [inaudible 19:24] one here. It’s a landmark study, and I think it’s a really wonderful piece of research in that it’s prospective, it’s taken across a number of different research centers, and it’s taken a lot of different measures. It’s got this longitudinal aspect to it as well, the two year and eight year follow-up. I think it’s a really helpful piece of research and does add a lot to the field.



Where I disagree with van Lommel is in his conclusion that his findings support…he doesn’t say it as strongly as this, but he’s basically saying that it raises questions about the physiological model of near-death experiences. I don’t feel that his data supports that conclusion or that interpretation.



For example, none of his studies report the level of anoxia in his patients, if you want to look at that in that particular question. I feel [inaudible 20:37] is a logical leap. He’s done a really thorough piece of work, but then he concludes because only 18 percent of his participants had a near-death experience, even though they were unconscious and their hearts had stopped, he concludes that that supports the idea that there’s a non-physical explanation.



I don’t see the connection there. The evidence is that there are great individual differences in how people respond to what’s going on in their physiology; if it’s a rate of onset of anoxia, for example.



You would expect there to be variability; that’s consistent with a physiological explanation. It’s not, to me, consistent with a kind of extended consciousness explanation.



Alex Tsakiris: There’s a lot to pull apart there. Let’s start by saying, if that’s your position, that you object to the conclusions or have a different way of interpreting the conclusions of the van Lommel paper, then I think you’re obligated then in your paper to cite van Lommel, and then cite where you disagree with him. I don’t see that in your paper.



You seem to throw in that citation, but there’s never any mention of—you get the credibility of that paper, but you never offer any kind of real explanation for why you would object. Something even harder to explain, and this is probably just an oversight on your part, but it was first pointed out to me by Dr. Jan Holden from the University of North Texas, who was the co-author with Dr. Bruce Greyson of The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences.



In the paper, your first citation for van Lommel doesn’t seem to be correct. You site this case; here’s from your paper. “Yet a handful of scientific studies on near-death experiences do exist.” We could talk about whether there’s only a handful or not, but let’s move on to say, “One example is a case study in which a patient with diabetes reports a near-death experience during an episode of hypoglycemia. There’s REM…” At the end, it’s cited as being in the Van Lommel paper.



I can’t find that in the van Lommel paper; I have it pulled up right here. Did I miss something? What is going on there?



Dr. Caroline Watt: I’m not sure exactly what’s going on there, because I’d need to track back where that came from. The fundamental point that the paper is making is that there are clues from neuroscience and other areas, like the training of fighter pilots, from what happens when people have brain pathologies and visual defects, that I believe can inform our understanding of near-death experiences.



The paper is not claiming to have a model, complete understanding. It’s not saying that; it’s basically saying, “Here are a few suggestive clues that would suggest that the most appropriate place to look for an understanding for these experiences, is in the neuroscience domain, if you like the organic model.”



I just think it’s complicated. I don’t think you can have a single factor. I don’t think anoxia would explain everything; it might not be the main factor at all. I think there are psychological dimensions, both in terms of disassociation, personality, and expectancy factors. Memory comes into it, and a lot of things our paper didn’t look at, at all. We didn’t look at the veridicality question.



We’re taking one area, which is the organic side, and saying that we think there’s a good reason to take these ND-like experiences, I grant that they’re not the same, as being suggestive of an alternative explanation in terms of organic factors.



The thing that I noticed van Lommel does do in his paper, and I would agree with him, is to question the paranormal thing, and what do we mean by paranormal. I think where you have to get to is, can you validate visions or objects that have been seen. Veridicality claims that have been seen when someone believes that they’ve had an out-of-body experience as part of their NDE.



van Lommel is saying that that’s where you should be looking. If we’re trying to get evidence for a non-physical component, we’re going to have to start to ask, “Can we demonstrate that consciousness has gone somewhere where the physical body can’t go?” I think that’s a really interesting question, but I don’t think it’s been answered yet.



Alex Tsakiris: That is an interesting question, but I have to pull you back to the van Lommel paper on a couple of counts here. Number one, you seemed to suggest a while ago that the intriguing thing for you about the van Lommel paper…you were not convinced by his conclusion about the percentage of people that did experience an NDE versus the number of his cardiac arrest patients who didn’t.



Let’s go back and retrace this for folks who maybe aren’t familiar with it; we’re talking a lot of inside baseball here. As you mentioned, he did a prospective study of NDE patients. He’s a cardiologist in the Netherlands, and he has people who have heart problems come in. He asks them before hand, “We’re going to do this study and ask you some questions after your treatment, and see about this near-death experience.” It’s prospective; it’s before it even happens.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Hang on a sec. I’m not sure he actually does that, because he’s collecting data from a number of different research centers or hospitals in this case. It ended up, I think, 10 hospitals contributed data. There certainly were more than that, because he said in his paper that some of them violated the protocols, so they didn’t include them.



I think it’s prospective in the sense that they were taking consecutive cases from hospitals that have agreed to take part in the trial. I’m not sure he reports anything about saying to the patients before hand, “If you fall unconscious, we will ask you questions afterwards.”



I don’t think it’s prospective in that sense, but I think it’s prospective in the sense of agreeing with these centers, collect cases for us. Alert us when someone has a cardiac arrest. We will come out and interview within hopefully a few days. That’s the sense in which it was prospective, which I think is a good thing and very useful. Sorry, carry on.



Alex Tsakiris: As opposed to retrospective of someone who says, “I had a near-death experience two years ago.” “Oh, really? Sit down and tell me about it. Let me do a survey,” which also has some value, but is different and has some problems associated with it. That’s why many researchers really like this prospective approach that van Lommel took in a medical center, particularly in a cardiac ward, because psychologically we know so clearly what happens to brain function after cardiac arrest.



We should also mention that; that that’s the other reason, as opposed to a near-death experience from someone who’s jumping off of a building, or drowning. There are all sorts of different psychological events that can be happening, versus when we limit it and say we’re just looking at cardiac arrest patients. We have a much more controlled set of physical parameters that we’re looking at, right?



Dr. Caroline Watt: Yes, right.



Alex Tsakiris: Here’s the point, I guess. What I read, I’m going to read directly from his paper on his findings, and this is the most important point. Occurrences of the experience, the near-death experience, were not associated with duration of cardiac arrest—that’s very important, or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death before cardiac arrest.



This directly contradicts what your inclination or theory about what some of the causes would be. That’s why this was such a landmark study, because they looked for these things on the physiological or psychological front, and they didn’t find it. I guess I’d come back to saying, if we’re really going to push against this, then I think it behooves you to put forward some data.



The second point…



Dr. Caroline Watt: Hang on, you haven’t let me answer that point.



Alex Tsakiris: All right, yes. Go ahead.



Dr. Caroline Watt: I disagree with you on that, because I don’t think van Lommel or anybody else has yet provided the evidence that the experience occurred during the time when the patient was clinically dead. All we have is the report that the patient makes when they’re fit enough to speak after they’ve regained consciousness. We don’t know—I know this is an old argument, but I don’t think van Lommel has provided the evidence against it.



All we know is that the patient has reported a memory. We believe the memory, it might not be, but we believe it’s a memory; let’s take it at face value after they’ve regained consciousness. We don’t know at what time in that whole interval, whether it was as they were falling unconscious or as they were resuscitated, even in the days before the interview took place. We don’t know what time this experience forms for the individual.



I think the only way that we can know that, and no other researchers have said this; I don’t know if it’s possible to do it, but it would be to stick someone in a brain scanner and be watching their brain activity at the time at which they are clinically dead. Otherwise, how do we get around the problem of it always being a retrospective report? Even in a prospective study, it’s always a report that’s made upon regaining consciousness.



Alex Tsakiris: At least we’re now down to the central question. This is the central question, which is another complaint I have about your paper; it never talks about this.



The reason we’re interested in near-death experiences is because it suggests that these people are having hyperconscious, hyper-lucid experiences, during a time when they have no brain electrical activity, or at least a severely impaired brain. That is really the central issue.



We can get away from talking about fear of death or all these psychological factors, that’s really the central point. To that, I’d ask you to respond to—I’m going to play a clip for you from Dr. Pim van Lommel when he was on the Skeptiko show. Let’s listen to what he has to say, because he is really quite clear on this point, and I think his position is directly the opposite of yours.



As a long-time cardiologist, well respected, having worked with these patients, he feels very confident as I think you’ll hear him say that he can pinpoint the moment of these experiences, and it is at a time when they had a severely disabled or really completely disabled brain. Can I play that clip for you?



Dr. Caroline Watt: Sure, go ahead.



Dr. Pim van Lommel: …an out-of-body experience, where they have [inaudible 32:57] perception. These aspects can be corroborated by doctors, nurses, and family members. It’s important, because it not only can tell us what they perceived, but also the moment that it happened can be corroborated. That what they perceived from a position out of the body really happened at a time that they were unconscious. In other words, no cardiac function; there was no brain function at all.



Alex Tsakiris: If I can, I’d just add this. He goes on in that quote, then, to cite the paper by Dr. Jan Holden, who I told you we just had on in the previous episode to talk about this paper. She did a peer reviewed published paper that did exactly that; it followed up with people, and found that their perceptions were significantly more accurate than the control group. We’ve also had Dr. Penny Sartori from the UK who’s done a similar study, and had similar findings. I think we can pinpoint and say that these conscious experiences are happening during the time when there is no brain activity.



Dr. Caroline Watt: The reason why researchers like Sam Parnia are calling for a prospective study of this nature, and why some studies have been done, is that the feeling is that it is not enough to have—these are spontaneous cases of paranormal experiences which one has a lot of difficulty in validating, because how does one control for what a patient will already know or have inferred about in a particular area.



One can and does hear accounts of…there’s a famous Pam Reynolds case, for example. Most researchers I believe, have tried to move towards, which I think is a good move, towards the model where you have the target information. For example, on a monitor at the top of the rim, pointing towards the ceiling where nobody can see it, which is randomly changing, therefore nobody else knows.



If you had an ESP experiment where the experimenter knew the answer, then it would be regarded as an invalid experiment, because it would feel that there’s a possibility of information leakage. Unfortunately, everybody in the operating theater knows the answer and what’s happening in the area.



I’m not saying it’s not possible. I know you’ve got me down as a skeptic, but I do do research testing the psi hypothesis, and I do think it’s worthwhile to test this idea that the consciousness can leave the body and see information that couldn’t be observed or known by anybody, not just the person who’s unconscious; it could not be known by anybody in the theater, or inferred by anybody.



I think it’s worth testing that, and I don’t think the data is in yet. That’s why I said the title of the paper overstates the case, but it could be tested. More work needs to be done, and that’s why Sam Parnia keeps calling for this.



As far as I know, he’s not been able to get the funding. You may know more than I; I think you have interviewed him. He hasn’t got funding for what he wishes, which is a multicenter test where you do place hidden targets.



These out-of-body experiences are actually quite rare when you tabulate their frequency. Even when people have a near-death experience, they don’t always have an out-of-body experience as part of it, so it takes a lot of time to gather the data.



As you probably know, there have been five studies that have attempted to do this, and none of them have found any evidence of the symbols or hidden information being seen. The reason for that is that hardly anybody had an out-of-body experience, so it’s not been properly tested yet. I’m not saying there’s no evidence for it; I’m saying the evidence hasn’t come in yet for this.



I think that would be the place to look. I think it’s easier to make the case that there’s something paranormal going on there, because I don’t know how you can get inside a person’s head during the period that they’re actually having the near-death experience.



That’s going to be very tricky to ever be sure that when the physiological consciousness was gone, there was still some awareness taking place. I think that’s going to be difficult to pin down. I think the question is more in terms of remote viewing kind of research; can we get evidence that the consciousness has obtained information that nobody else knew at the time. For me, that’s the place to go.



Our paper didn’t deal with this question of veridicality at all.



Alex Tsakiris: Why not?



Dr. Caroline Watt: Why not? Because it wasn’t actually as one of the core features. Kenneth Ring doesn’t list that as a core feature of a near-death experience; out-of-body experience, yes, but the veridical experiences don’t happen that often. They’re actually relatively rare.



In van Lommel’s categorization, and he had large numbers of cases so we’ve got reasonable percentages, but he didn’t have a major category for veridical perceptions. He did have out-of-body experiences. It was regarded as a relatively minor aspect of the near-death experience. That may be the one that’s theoretically really exciting for some people, but it’s not the major characteristic.



For people who have a near-death experience, it’s not the veridicality question that they find convincing, it’s the totality of the experience. I feel it’s theoretically interesting if you’re a parapsychologist or a consciousness researcher, but there’s more to it than that. There’s the question of what’s the rest of the experience got to tell us about the brain. That’s why our research and our paper focused on that, because it’s aimed at a cognitive neuroscience audience.



Alex Tsakiris: Right. I don’t know how many times I can keep coming back to this, but I do keep coming back to the paper itself. So you want to talk about Sam Parnia? Yes, we have had him on the show. The last I heard, he has collected quite a few of these trials where they’re trying to see this hidden object. They’re also collecting a bunch of other data along the same lines that Dr. Penny Sartori and Peter Fenwick, who are colleagues of his, have collected in the past.



I think that’s ongoing. That’s great if somebody sees the card; we can get into that. Those are also questions that I asked Dr. van Lommel, and he was not too favorably inclined to think that that research had much chance of success. Part of the reason was because people report consistently when they’re outside of their body, but that isn’t the kind of data they might be likely to bring back.



I guess I’m going down that path; let me go down it a little bit further.



Dr. Caroline Watt: But, hang on. Can I just answer that point there? The Kimberly Clark case; that was an odd [inaudible 40:10] and, “I saw the tennis shoe on the ledge of the window.” That’s not the sort of thing that you would expect someone to say either, so I don’t understand van Lommel’s point there. What does he mean by that? That’s quite a curious thing to say, and it does seem to undermine that kind of effort that is going on to test the veridicality of these experiences. It’s a difficult thing to test.



Alex Tsakiris: There are many problems with the way that Parnia has framed up the experiment. Number one, I’m kind of concerned that there’s so little research done in this field, that they’re ramping up this rather large for this field area of research, and they haven’t done any preliminary work, as you mentioned, that yields successful results of this.



“We’ve run the trial a few times. No one’s found the target, so let’s scale it up.” Moreover, if you just look at the practical part—I was going to mention this before, but a researcher that we’ve had on that you don’t mention is Dr. Jeff Long. He’s another MD. MDs seem to have a really different kind of perspective on this ND research, because they’re just much more pragmatic. It comes up in their practice, and they need to deal with it.



He’s compiled probably the largest database of NDE accounts, and has done some very insightful analysis that I think would contradict a couple of things that you’re saying. One, the veridicality of the evidence and the number of percentage of people who have had an out of body experience is much larger. Hundreds and hundreds in her survey have experienced that, and have reported that.



Dr. Caroline Watt: How would you explain that discrepency? There have been a number of hospital-based studies now that have really tried to characterize what these experiences are and what their frequency is. It does seem that the NDE, itself, is relatively rare and the OBE is not a reliable component. It does happen, but it’s not a reliable component. Sometimes it’s the feelings of joy and euphoria, sometimes it’s the bright light; it’s not necessarily the whole suite of experiences.



How would you explain the fact that he has a completely different frequency occurring in his research?



Alex Tsakiris: I don’t think he does have a completely different frequency.



Dr. Caroline Watt: I thought you just said he did. Maybe I misunderstood.



Alex Tsakiris: We’d have to pull out the different research that you’re referring to, but I think what he establishes in his book is that the percentages that he found are consistent with most of the other research that’s been done out there on just those kind of things; the number of people that have out-of-body experiences, the number of percentages overall that have a near-death experience versus had that brush with death and didn’t.



All that data is out there. I think it’s going to take us a little bit outside of the focus of what we’re talking about here.



Dr. Caroline Watt: I look forward to reading it. I’m not familiar with his work, but if you can tell me where it’s published, then I shall have a look at it. I do know that on the self-target question, the hidden target thing; it’s not that people haven’t been trying.



If you count the number of years of research that have gone into that, it’s 10 years worth of studies. It’s just that they haven’t had sufficient numbers of people—these are hospital-based studies, haven’t had sufficient numbers of people arresting, and then reporting an OBE in order to answer the question.



I feel that is a place to look, because I think that answers some of the problems that are associated with the more spontaneous, “I saw something from above when I was out of my body.” “The doctor had this kind of saw.” These are problematic to really evaluate.



Alex Tsakiris: I’m glad you got me back to that, because I lost my train of thought. I don’t think they’re as problematic as skeptics say, and you are kind of taking the skeptical position here.



This kind of first-person account immediately after some medical procedure is used all the time in medicine. All pain research is like that. A good percentage of the psychology research that you’re familiar with is first-person reporting on accounts or on different experiences that people have had.



If you just take these experiences and the continuity of the experiences; so the near-death experiencer says, “I remember being wheeled in. I looked down, and there was blood all over. I remember the white lights of the hospital above me flashing, and then suddenly, boom! I was up and outside of my body, and I was looking down. I went to heaven, and the next thing I know, I came back in a smash, and this was happening.”



There is a continuity of experience there that normally, if it wasn’t so controversial, we’d be much more accepting of and go forward with the kind of data analysis that all these people are doing like Jan Holden or Jeff Long is doing.



We’d say, “That makes sense. It seems to hold together in this way and that way.” I think we’d be much more accepting of it. I’m not sure that we have to immediately jump to discounting all those experiences because they weren’t hooked up to an FMRI, we’ll never know, and all the rest of that. I just don’t think we can go there.



Dr. Caroline Watt: It’s really interesting, Alex. It’s just like the debate that’s going on in the experimental parapsychology versus spontaneous cases throughout the history of parapsychology, which is how much can you learn from spontaneous cases.



The movement in the field of parapsychology was from the field into the lab precisely because a majority of researchers, not everybody, felt that in order to be able to draw conclusions with any confidence about whether a person can obtain information from another room, you need to conduct a controlled experiment where you’ve got, for example, decoy targets as well as the actual target that the sender saw.



I’m sorry, I don’t want to sound patronizing here, but there was a move into the lab, which is not necessarily a good thing in terms of ecological validity; it becomes an artificial situation. But the move into the lab was precisely in order to try to get away from the drawbacks of the first-person accounts. It’s not that the first-person accounts don’t have value.



Alex Tsakiris: Hold on, Caroline. Let me just jump in here for one second, because this is also the problem I have with the paper. We can go off and talk about all that, and you can talk about parapsychology, but we have to come back to the fact that these people had no brain. They have no brain.



They’re in a cardiac arrest ward after they have cardiac arrest. Within 10 to 15 seconds they have no blood flow to the brain; within a few seconds after that, they have zero brain activity. There’s some physiological stuff going on here that sends us way behind a conventional medical explanation.



To pull it back down and to talk about it in parapsychology terms, we have this huge problem to overcome; that’s the brain state.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Okay, well, you’ve changed the subject. We were talking about first-person accounts, but if you want to pull it back…



Alex Tsakiris: We are talking about first-person accounts, because if there’s any validity to the first-person account at all, then we have this huge problem, because you shouldn’t be having a conscious experience when you don’t have any brain. It defies our current understanding of how consciousness works.



Dr. Caroline Watt: I don’t think it has been proven yet that the experience happens when there is, as you say, no brain. By definition, these people have regained consciousness, and sometimes several days elapse before they are interviewed about their experience if it’s a prospective study.



The difficulty is how you can be sure that the experience occurred at the time, and that participant’s brain was clinically not functioning.



Alex Tsakiris: That’s the debate. You are opposed in your position then to Dr. Pim van Lommel, who we just played and said, “Yes, we can pinpoint the time.” You are opposed to Dr. Jan Holden, who we had on, who did the research and said, “We can pinpoint it.” And you’re opposed to Dr. Bruce Greyson.



I have to read this quote, because we’re going to go around and round in circles.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Hang on a sec, because you’re…



Alex Tsakiris: Let me just throw this last quote. I’ve been dying to get this quote in. Please. This is Dr. Bruce Greyson from the University of Virginia, and it’s a great response to your article.



His quote is, “If you ignore everything paranormal about NDEs, then it’s easy to conclude, there’s nothing paranormal about them.” That’s what I think I hear over and over again. Let’s ignore this, and then we can talk about how they’re not paranormal.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Do you want me to respond to that quote?



Alex Tsakiris: You can respond to that one, or Pim van Lommel…



Dr. Caroline Watt: Dr. Greyson is entitled to his view. As I said, if you take the paper out of context, you would be right to be upset about it. It is better understood within the context, which is trying to stimulate debate, which I think it has done, and making a very simple point. It’s not actually making a new point; it’s making a simple point that there are striking similarities between certain organic conditions and experiences that resemble near-death experiences.



I think that that suggests that that’s a fruitful place to look to develop an understanding of these experiences. Most near-death experiences do not—there’s no claim of veridicality, anyway. When the veridicality issue is laid on top of it, I think that becomes more interesting from the point of view that it’s testable.



I’m not saying that there’s no such thing as a known conscious component to us, but it’s how do you pin it down? I think what van Lommel is saying in his paper is, you do need to try to test it.



In the interview clip that you played me, he was talking about reports that are being made of events that are happening during the operation. I think these are problematic, as I’ve already explained. I do think that it should be possible to test the idea that consciousness is actually obtaining information that nobody else knows, not just the patient on the table. Then I think we throw an interesting question into the mix.



Alex Tsakiris: Right. I’m very glad that you’ve cleared up the origins of the paper and where you saw it positioned. I still have the problems that I’ve mentioned in the last hour about the paper, but that’s okay. We’ve hashed those out.



The other thing that upset me about the paper was the way this gets played out in, really, it’s a culture war debate. This paper, then, gets picked up by all the major science publications; Scientific America, NPR, BBC, Discovery, Discovery News. They all pick up this paper.



I don’t think it’s a super-strong paper. You’ve said, more or less, there isn’t anything new here. It’s kind of a rehash. Yet, it gets echoed back through the mainstream science media as some kind of new breakthrough in this debate about near-death experiences. Even though it doesn’t really offer anything new and directly contradicts all the leading researchers in the NDE field, it still gets positioned that way.



Dr. Caroline Watt: The leading researchers in the NDE field, they may publish their papers and have them reported as well. It’s an open forum.



Alex Tsakiris: It is.



Dr. Caroline Watt: You can submit your paper. If it says something interesting, then it will be reported.



Alex Tsakiris: Right.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Everybody can have a say. It’s not like I have some kind of privileged access.



Alex Tsakiris: No, I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that the echo chamber effect, what gets picked up and perpetuated through that channel that we have, which is the mainstream science media, is reflective of the current position, even if that current position isn’t supported by the best data.



Dr. Caroline Watt: If there was a paper that said, “Here is the evidence that there’s something paranormal,” that would be picked up pretty damn quickly and would be all over the world. It’s more newsworthy to say that you’ve got something new; you’ve got evidence of consciousness leaving the body. Don’t tell me that that would not be of interest to the press.



Alex Tsakiris: It is, but there’s the Journal of Near-Death Studies that I think is published; they have multiple articles every issue. You could pick up any one of those and say that about it, but it isn’t happening.



Jeff Long who I mentioned, his book becomes a bestseller, and Pim van Lommel sold a hundred thousand books in Europe alone, I don’t know how many he sold in the US. I can’t pretend that the other voice isn’t being heard, but it does seem disproportionate, to me, the traction that this paper got given that there isn’t any new research here or any real ground cover that hasn’t been pretty thoroughly covered before.



Dr. Caroline Watt: It may have got traction because it’s a high-impact journal; it has a wide readership. I don’t want to be critical of the Journal of Near-Death Studies, but if it doesn’t have such a large readership, it might be harder to bring it to attention, but you can submit articles to that journal. You can submit articles to higher-impact journals, and they’re more likely to be picked up.



I don’t buy the argument that a paper that says there’s nothing paranormal happening is more newsworthy than a paper that would say there is something paranormal happening. I actually think the press would be knocking down your windows to speak to you if you were publishing that.



It’s a case of getting into perhaps the right place where it will catch people’s attention, but I think there’s a hungry audience out there who would love to hear that.



Alex Tsakiris: Absolutely. We’re arguing two different things there, or putting forth two different things. I’m just saying that this kind of article gets a lot of traction, and there’s not a lot behind it.



You’ve said as much in terms of saying there’s really nothing new here, and you’re just kind of rehashing some issues. I’m going further and saying, “I’m not sure that you cited the papers correctly.” “I’m not sure that you contradicted the papers that you cited in an effective way.”



You also reference people like Susan Blackmore in the paper. We’ve had her on. She said, specifically, “I’m no longer a researcher in this field. I shouldn’t be considered a researcher in this field,” and yet she’s cited, even though her research has been pretty thoroughly countered in, for example, the Handbook of Near-Death Experiences by Greyson and Jan Holden. They cover all that stuff.



There seems to be a little lack of balance, but that’s my perspective on it.



Dr. Caroline Watt: As I said, it was intended to be a provocative piece. It’s not claiming to be balanced. The paper, if it wasn’t limited to two or three pages, I could have dealt more thoroughly with many different aspects because there’s more to near-death experiences then the dying brain hypothesis. It would have been a longer and more in-depth paper, but that wasn’t the paper that we wrote.



We were focusing on the implications for our understanding of the brain, the audience for this paper, and cognitive scientists. To them, it probably is new. I know it’s not new to you and me, and most of your listeners.



The argument that there are physiological explanations for near-death experiences is new to that audience, so I’m not saying that the paper is not of any value; it wouldn’t have been published otherwise. But I think it’s new to that particular audience.



Alex Tsakiris: Okay, fair enough. Dr. Watt, tell us what else is going on with you. I thoroughly appreciate you delving into this so much, because you did qualify at the beginning saying survival of consciousness isn’t a main area of your research, and it’s not something that you plan on returning to. I do appreciate you spending all the time in dealing with this.



What else is going on? I saw some very interesting ideas or illusions to you might being doing work, or are doing some work with precognitive dreams, which is a fascinating area.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Thank you for asking about that, Alex. My main activity at the moment, if I’m not teaching…I teach parapsychology and supervise PhD students and undergraduate students doing parapsychology projects. I also have an online parapsychology course that I teach, and the next one starts in April.



When I’m not doing that, I’m trying to find time to do research. Last year, I was very fortunate to win a grant from the Perrott-Warrick Foundation to do a three-year program of research into precognitive dream experiences.



I think these are particularly interesting. They are somewhat neglected experiences. They were popular with the [maimonides] studies; there was a flurry of research. They are among the most common, spontaneous, paranormal experiences, but they haven’t actually had a great deal of research since the [maimonides] studies.



They’re interesting to me, because they have both angles. There is definitely a psychological component to some of these experiences; memory may play a role, and the propensity to see connections between a dream and subsequent events may play a role. I think they’re very ripe for testing the psi hypothesis, as well, and actually see is there objective evidence when you take away the issues about anecdotal reporting, and so on. When you run a control study, you can test the idea of whether people can dream about future events.



It’s fascinating to me. It’s a subject that I can look at. I have a number of different students working on it, coming at it from all these different angles; from the psychology and the parapsychology/psi angle. I’m really enjoying looking at this question. I’ve got a couple of years yet to go on it, so not many answers yet, but it’s fascinating for me to look at.



Alex Tsakiris: I think it is fascinating. We’ve had several guests on our show who have experienced that and have written some books about it. I find it just a very fascinating area, and it does seem to be quite fertile for research. I don’t know who’s really digging into it very much.



We certainly wish you best of luck with that. We’ll also have a link up to the online parapsychology class that I know will probably spark some interest among some of our listeners.



Dr. Caroline Watt: Thank you, very much.

 

 




Amazon Source
Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science


Bradley Bartholomew's book The Spiritual Genome brings to the forefront the theory of a networked intelligence in the DNA. He clearly outlines this theory that the DNA of all living creatures (including plants) is connected in the quantum substratum, and that it is this networked intelligence which constitutes the essential oneness from which springs all the diversity of life that we see around us. Bradley Bartholomew's book illustrates that this networked intelligence is governed by a level of computer processing declared as the ultimate source of life. This he says is demonstrated in how memristors in the DNA enable the storing of data, which has a direct bearing on such widely held beliefs about past lives and reincarnation. The Author cohesively explains how the DNA can act as a universal quantum computer with sufficient processing power to potentially enable the generation of the entire universe.
The Spiritual Genome explores how DNA acting as a universal quantum computer is foreshadowed in the Hindu Upansishads written more than 2500 years ago. The Upanishads are interpreted using state of the art neuroscience as well as Quantum Mechanics. This is said to not only enable the precise location of the Inner Self, but also demonstrates that what we experience through our five senses is capable of being generated from within. It can also be generated through a Quantum Mechanical interpretation of Maya; the ancient Hindu doctrine of the illusory nature of all things. In the words of Brad Bartholomew the Author, "We find that all this "diversity" that we see around us is in fact a virtual reality nested in the networked intelligence".






 

Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science






Aurobindo's writing style, like that of other esotericists like Blavatsky and Steiner, is heavy and repetitious. This is unfortunate, as the poor style veils a cosmology of great comprehensiveness and profundity.
Of great relevance book is his detailed map of states of consciousness.   Influenced by such diverse sources as the Theosophical idea of seven planes of consciousness and existence, the "Hindu" (Vaishvanite) Puranas with their poorly defined idea of seven Lokas or "Worlds", and the early Taittiriya Upanishad (700 B.C.E.), which refers to an ascending series of five "selves" (atma) - Food (anna), Life (prana), Mind (manas), Consciousness (Vijnana), and Bliss (Ananda); Aurobindo postulated seven planes of being.  But these are not equivalent to the Theosophical ones.  The higher four are totally transcendent planes of infinite Consciousness and Bliss.  The lower three - the physical, vital, and mental - are the planes of finite existence.  Beyond all the planes was the Supreme or Absolute.

The Supreme Sachchidananda Para Prakriti Para Maya	Sat	Infinite Existence
	Chit-Tapas	Infinite Consciousness and Will
	Ananda	Infinite Bliss
	Supermind	Infinite Truth-Consciousness
Prakriti "Lower Hemisphere"	Mind (both spiritual and mundane levels)	Overmind  Intuition  Illumined Mind  Higher Mind  Thinking Mind
	Life
	Matter	Physical Subconscient Inconscient

The four higher planes are eternally pre-existent, and constitute the modes or qualities of the Absolute (in Indian philosophy, the Absolute is described as being Sat-Chit-Ananda or Sachchidananda, of the nature of pure Being, Consciousness, and Bliss.
The Supermind is Sachchidananda in manifestation; the transitional stage between the unchanging planes of Sat, Chit-Tapas and Ananda and the finite lower ones.  Aurobindo considers it pivotal for the Divine transformationof the world.  "It alone contains the self-determining Truth of the Divine Consciousness (that) is necessary for a Truth-creation." [Letters on Yoga, vol 1, p.239]
Between the Supermind and the lower three planes is a transitional level, the Overmind, a level of global or cosmic consciousness.  Beneath the Overmind one passes from Truth (albeit a multiform, rather than as in the Supermind a Unitary, Truth) into falsehood and ignorance.  These are the lower planes of Mind, Life, and Matter.  It is also in these lower planes that their dwells the Divine Soul, or "Psychic Being".
The terminology in all this is a little confusing, for Aurobindo and Mirra use the term Life or "Vital" to designate what Western occultists and Theosophists call the Astral plane.  "Vital" in this context therefore has nothing to do with the life-principle (the Etheric plane of Steiner and the Prana of the Hindus).  Similarily, "Psychic" is used to refer to the Spiritual or Higher Self, the Divine Soul, rather than the Astral realms, as is the case with the common understanding of the word (e.g. "psychic experiences").  This curious terminology derives originally from Max Theon, Mirra's teacher in occultism

Links

Parts& Planes of the Being - at the Integral Psychology web site
Theory of Creation - Involution and Evolution - an excellent, comprehensive, and detailed summary, from Growth Online

Kheper Home | Sri Aurobindo and the Mother Home | Sri Aurobdino's Cosmology | Mirra's Cosmology | Topics Index | New | Search

images not loading? | error messages? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?
contact me

page by M.Alan Kazlev

1848-1927

Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science

Max Théon - the Unknown Occultist


Théon was in many ways a latter-day Gnostic, an enigmatic occultist whose evolutionary and occult teachings were indirectly taken up by the Indian philosopher-sage Sri Aurobindo, and may have also had some influence on the metaphysics of both H.P. Blavatsky and,   A Polish Jew, he travelled to London, France, Egypt, and finally Algeria, founding several esoteric groups along the way.  He was known under several names, but we can refer to him as "Max Théon", the pseudonym he adopted while in Algeria.
Théon and his knowledge is truely extraordinary.  At the very least he was, and is, equal in importance in understanding the development of modern Western esotericism, to figures such as Blavatsky, Steiner, Crowley, Gurdjieff, and Alice Bailey.  Yet this figure, who was active in Paris around the turn of the century (he apparently commuted between Algeria and Paris), has been until only very recently virtually unknown outside the Mother and Sri Aurobindo's talks! Now however the situation is changing, and hermetic scholars like Christian Chanel and  T Allen Greenfield have written on this important figure. At the time of writing however there was no web site devoted to Theon and his teachings. So I decided to put this one up, to honour an esoteric teacher I have, ever since I fiurst heart of him, felt a very strong connection with.

Théon's Life

The following biographical review is based in part on the account given by Pascal Themanlys, and in part on the Mother's references to Théon during private talks, in part on and some scattered information from elsewhere.
Mirra first:

"I don't know if he was Russian or Polish (a Russian or Polish Jew), he never said who he really was or where he was born, nor his age...

He had assumed two names: one was an Arabic name he had adopted when he took refuge in Algeria...After having worked with Blavatsky and having founded an occult society in Egypt, he went to Algeria, and...called himself `Aia Aziz' (...meaning `the beloved').   Then, when he began setting up his Cosmic Review and his 'cosmic group', he called himself Max Théon, meaning...the greatest God!  And no-one knew him by any other name than these two...

He had an English wife.

He said he had received initiation in India (he knew a little Sanskrit and the Rig-Veda thoroughly), and then he formulated a tradition which he called the `cosmic tradition' and which he claimed...(predated) the Cabala and the Vedas."

[Mother's Agenda vol 1, p.219]
Pascal now:

Max Théon was born in 1848 in Warsaw in Poland, and studied the ancient tradition. Since there are no conditions to the transmission of knowledge and each initiate is free to use it as he sees fit in this respect, Théon's early fellow-initiates approved his mission to bring light to Western seekers. However, they wished to avoid the responsibility involved in such a work of dissemination, and asked not to be connected with his work.

introduction to Visions of the Eternal Present
Finally, some information from the Web on Théon. This is from the OTO history documents (the O.T.O., based on the teachings of Crowley, is the most important post-war magickal/occult organisation)

Born in Poland, Théon travelled widely in his youth. In Cairo, he became a student of a Coptic magician named Paulos Metamon.

The first sentence is most probably correct (Mirra mentions he was initiated in India). The second I do not know enough to comment on. The O.T.O. material also mentions Théon in connection with the The Hermetic Brotherhood Of Luxor (correct), and says that his original name was Louis-Maximilian Bimstein (incorrect, for reasons to be demonstrated shortly)

Spurious information on Théon

Théon is unfortunately someone who, like other important but mysterious esoteric figures, has had a lot of spurious information develop around him. Two bits of wrong information in particular that can be mentioned here are currently on the web. One is Theosphical, and the other Thelemic.
The Theosophical material, which goes back to Blavatsky, does not mention Théon by name, but is very slanderous of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, the occult organisation Théon founded. According to the  Theosophical glossary"the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor (H. B. of L.) A spurious "esoteric" society started about 1884 in England, which later spread to America before it was exposed as a fraud in Yorkshire by Theosophists around 1887." In fact the order was founded in 1870, not in 1884 (unless this is a different organisation of the same name, which in view of Blavatsky's connection with Théon I doubt, and the H. B. L., Théon, and 1884 are also mentioned in  OTO history documents), and rather than being a fraud was significant enough to have been connected with the O.T.O.
The on-line  Tales of Thelema by T Allen Greenfield, presents a fictional assemblage of romantic stories and anecdotes, among which some historical references are mixed. Mentioned here is a supposed episode of the life of Théon as a young boy, Louis-Maximilian Bimstein, (b. 1850) with his father Rabbi Bimstein, soon to leave Warsaw for Cairo. The story has young Louis recalling an early meeting in 1860 in Frankfurt with an elderly man, Franz Joseph Molitor, a member of the Frankists. A little later, following reference to a prophet who would "announce the Aeon" (i.e., Crowley), he announced he would call himself "Max Théon" - the Great God. Of course, pious Jews referribng to the prophet of the new aeon is a humorous fiction. The narrative continues:

He (Molitor) led them to a chamber below ground, surprisingly dry, illuminated by seven torches, encircling a blazing star with the letter "F" in its center, a sign known to all followers of Jacob Frank.

In order to determine the validity of this with a friend, Yakov Leib Ha-Cohen, who is a world-class authority on Jacob Frank, and comes from a family of Frankists. He confirmed that there was no such "sign" in Frankism.
In fairness to the author, it should be stated that "Tales of Thelema" is a collection of just that -- tales, fiction. It makes no claim to be more nor less than historical fiction. I thought it best to mention this however because historical fiction can sometimes be confused for statements of fact, and conversly works of historical fiction can be used as vehicle for presenting fact. In any case the author has presented his nonfiction views on Theon, in  Story of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light (Looking Glass Press).

Louis-Maximilian Bimstein

Because "Louis-Maximilian" seems like an unusual name to come from an East European Jew (Moses, Isaac, etc are a lot more plausible), I originally believed this name to be bogus. However, I have since been told told that Bimstein is a Jewish German-sounding name (like Bernstein, Rothschild, Bronstein, etc) as it was usual for all Jews (Ashkenaze) who were speaking Yiddish.
Bimstein means "pumice stone" and is perhaps the indication that someone in the family was dealing with those objects which were much precious for the beauty of women. And Louis-Maximilian is an homage to the Austrian Emperor of that time, as a kind of protection (very usual too). The part of Poland where Théon's family was living (Silesia with Krakow as capital) was a part of the Hungarian-Austrian Empire till the Seven Years War between Prussia and Austria, and after the war was in Prussia (that is the part with most important coal industries and the biggest Jewish community till Hitler).
In Sujata's Book there is the photocopy of Théon's marriage certificate in England where he indicates his name and also that his father was a "Rabbi" and was called Leon Judas (= Lion of Juda, traditional too among Jews, also to be found under the names of Löwy, Lévy, Lévi, etc from German Löwe = Lion).
In an email  T Allen Greenfield has informed me that, in the context of the late Holy Roman and later Austro-Hungarian empire, the name "Louis-Maximillian Bimstein" is not at all odd. This was an Empire with radically differing overlapping cultures and languages. Jews typically spoke Russian, Hungarian, German and Yiddish, and had personal names for their encounters with different ethnic groups. They might have a hebrew name, a hungarian name, a German name, and so on. Apparently one can find the Bimsteins including Louis-Max's father and sister by a bit of searching in the Jewish Gen data base.

The Young Théon

Max was exceptionally young when he mastered different occult lores and became proficient in occultism. He spoke several languages with ease, and was adept at many crafts. A diversity of subjects interested him - scientific or artistic or sociological. He could always hold his own against the experts in any line.

With his refinement, his aristocratic bearing, he became a much sought-after guest in London's high society. Very quickly he gained a reputation almost matching that of the Count of Saint-Germain - in the Court of Louis XV - who claimed to be several centuries old. Théon never made any such claims. But rumours about him flew around at a great pace. Some spoke of his earthly immortality, others said he was the son of a Russian Prince, and so on and so forth. Dr. Théon's enigmatic personality aroused everybody's curiosity, but he took good care never to satisfy it

Mirra the Occultist

Théon and Blavatsky

Théon's association with Madame Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical society, is most interesting, for it indicates at least one way in which Théon's teachings could have shaped subsequent Western esoteric understanding.  Not directly, but through the medium of Theosophy.  (This of course is to say nothing regarding the nature or influence of the esoteric societies Théon himself founded - whatever they may have been).  According to the Mother, it was Théon who taught Blavatsky Kabbalah [This is in Mother's Agenda, either vol 1 or vol 3].  It is also interesting that the concepts of Seven Planes of existence, the central importance of evolution, and a reincarnating Soul or Higher Self which is distinct from the psycho-physical personality, were common to both Théon and Theosophy; and in fact still are central teachings in all Theosophical and Theosophically-derived systems of thought.
Mirra says that

"...Barlet [mispelled Barley in the Agenda]...met Théon in Egypt when Théon was with Blavatsky; they started a magazine with an ancient Egyptian name..., and then he told Théon...to publish a Cosmic Review and the 'Cosmic Books'...."

[9]Mother's AgendaMother's Agenda, vol 3, p.452
I have attempted to follow up the above references, by checking the biographies of Blavatsky, of which there are a number available.   And although Blavatsky was twice in Egypt (in Alexandria and Cairo) in the 1850's and in 1871, and during the second visit founded a spiritualist society, the Société Spirite, which was to study the teachings of the well-known medium Allen Kardec, and which apparently collapsed after only a fortnight, nowhere is there any mention at all of Max Théon, or Barlet, or a magazine with an ancient Egyptian name.  Logically, the period when Blavatsky and Théon met would have been during her second visit.  But it appears that this was a part of her life which Blavatsky preferred to remain silent about. Indeed, whilst she did not mention Théon, she was very hostile and vocal towards the hermetic society he established.
In his biographical chapter on Théon, Christian Chanel considers it unlikely that Théon and Blavatsky met:

"Various remarks attributed to Mirra Alfassa by her biographers connect Theon with Madame Blavatsky's first attempt at public work: the "Société spirite" she started in Cairo in 1871. But they are too insubstantial and contradictory to allow us to accept them [footnote: they consit of remarks mnade by The Mother" concerning events fifty years before. See Satprem I, 180-181, repeated in Nahar II 48, 51). While it is not impossible that Theon was in Egypt in 1871-2, and there met Blavtasky and her former teacher, the Coptic magician Paulos Metamon...it seems unlikely, especially if he was in Paris in 1870, and in England by 1873."

On the other hand a book by R. Paul Johnson, The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge, SUNY Press, argues that the "mahatmas" were dramatised historical adepts with invented names. According to Johnson, Tuitit Bey is actually Max Theon (Louis Maximilien Bimstein). In this book (I think, I need to check up the quotations) Johnson supports Mirra's assertions that Blavatsky learned Kabbalah from Theon (when i have the quote I'll include it in this page)
It is perhaps worth noting also that Pascal Themanlys, in his hagiographic essay on Theon, "Prophecy and Meditation in the Light of the Kabbalah" (see A Way of Meditation in the Light of the Kabbalah mentions both Madame Blavatsky and Mirra Alfassa as Theon's pupils (Ansgar Edtion 2002 p.4)

The Hermetic Brotherhood Of Luxor

The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor was a mystical society which Théon established (or took over, for the organisation seems to predate him) when visited London in 1870.
According to the O.T.O. documents, the H. B. of L. surfaced publicly in England in 1884 (this is the year that Blavatsky says (incorrectly). The origins of the H.B. of L. are unclear, but there is some evidence linking it with the Brotherhood of Luxor, which was involved in the founding of the Theosophical Society, the 18th century Austrian Masonic/Rosicrucian splinter group known as the Fratres Lucis, as well as the latter's 19th century English spiritualist namesake, Hermetic Brotherhood of Light. According to violin-maker and Scottish philosopher Peter Davidson, Théon came to England in 1870, where he and Davidson established an "Outer Circle" of the H.B. of L. In 1873, Théon, then just twenty-six, was made its Grand Master; Peter Davidson was the Order's frontal Chief. Blavatsky, Olcott, Barlet and many other occultists of the time were among its members. But in 1877 Blavatsky and Olcott severed their relation with the H.B. of L. It is known that Blavatsky's first Master was the magus Paulos Metamon, whom she had met in Asia Minor in 1848 and again in Cairo in 1870. Metamon was either a Copt or a Chaldean. Many people, including Barlet, believed that "Dr. Max Théon was the son of 'the old Copt."'
In 1883 by Thomas H. Burgoyne (aka Thomas Dalton, 1855-1895) joined the H. B. of L. He later wrote a book summarizing the basic teachings of the H.B. of L., titled The Light of Egypt. The function of this "Outer Circle" of the H.B. of L. was to offer a correspondence course on practical occultism; which set it apart from the Theosophical Society. Its curriculum included a number of selections from the writings of Hargrave Jennings and P.B. Randolph.
The Tales of Thelema (which as I have already pointed out is unreliable in several areas) states that in 1873 Carl Kellner (who was later to found the modern O.T.O.) reached Cairo for the first time, being one of many westerners of his day to make the "journey to the East" (others included Madame Blavatsky, the rosicrucian and teacher of sex-magic Pascal Beverly Randolph, and Richard Burton, the English adventurer). In Cairo Kellner "met for the first time with another, quite mysterious young man, then going by the name of Aia Aziz...When Herr Kellner met Aziz he had just been named Grand Master of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, a hybrid body with elements of freemasonry, ancient Egyptian religion and Ansari Islamic Tantrism." Aziz introduced Kellner to Randolph, who is here referred to as his student. Irrespective of the factuality or otherwise of this information, there is no doubt that there was a lot of important occult activity going on at this time, several decades before the founding of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
The first volume of "The Light of Egypt," originating from the pupils of Max Théon at the time of the H. B. of L., had nine editions in one hundred years in the U.S. The book is attributed to its secretary, Th. H. Burgoyne. One of the purposes of publishing the book was to clarify vulgarized conceptions about reincarnation and 'karma,' and to modify the influence of simplified Buddhism.

Max and Alma

It was at a party of London's high society that Max Théon was introduced to a young Irish poetess. She had a calm look, full of light. Touching hands for the first time revealed to them the harmony of their deepest beings.

introduction to Visions of the Eternal Present
By May 1884 Max and Alma knew each other well enough to go to theatre together. On 21 March 1885, Max and Alma were married. One of the two witnesses was Augusta Roife, who was also known as Miss Teresa. The three of them went to live in N°ll Belgrave Road, St. John's Wood, Marylebone, which was Alma's residence.
A little later Théon began holding seances. Soon, however, the couple realized that England was not the best place to pursue occult knowledge, and the next year they went to the Continent. On March 9, 1886, that the three crossed over to France and reached Paris. They spent a few days there sightseeing, before seeking a house. In November Théon began holding seances in France. But after several moves around France they decided to make a larger change. Therefore in December 1887, the Théons left France for Algiers. Three weeks later Teresa joined them in Oran. After several months' search they finally found a place in the suburbs of Tlemcen. They acquired, in Madame Théon's name, a large villa on a hillside with extensive grounds. which took about a year to make the place livable. On May 1, 1889, they came to live in Zarif. It was to become their base.
Mirra the Occultist

The Cosmic Movement and the Cosmic Review

Around the turn of the century the Théons decided to found the Cosmic Movement. Among the most important of Theon's students at this time were Louis Themanlys, a spiritual philosopher and writer, and Charles Barlet a metaphysician. Louis was also a friend of Matteo Alfassa, Mirra's brother, and so it was from Louis that Mirra first heard about Théon and the Cosmic Philosophy. Together they established the Cosmic Review - intended for the "study and re-establishment of the original Tradition".
Théon declared that his wife Alma was the moving spirit behind this idea. Thus, it was thanks to Madame Théon that all the science of the occult that Théon had accumulated could be put into practice.

Théon and Mirra

Théon's house in Tlemcen. Mirra Alfassa Morisset is looking out the window at the top rightIn Paris in 1905 Mirra Morisset (who later in India became known as the Mother) first contacted Théon, and later she joined him and his wife in Tlemcan, Algeria, for the purpose of learning occultism [Glimpses of the Mother's Life, p.57, also photographs facing p.172].  Théon himself, despite his great intellect, apparently had little clairvoyant ability, for rather than attempt to perceive the occult realms directly, he would employ the services of his wife Alma, and later of Mirra as well.

Max Theon, drawn by Mirra
Max Theon

Théon symbol - the Lotus in the Six-Pointed Star

The six-pointed star of course is the symbol of Judaism, but the lotus and the square make it something else.  According to Mother, Théon claimed that this symbol is the Seal of Solomon (a legendary occult symbol) [Mother's Agenda, vol 3, p.454].  Significantly, Blavatsky also refers - in a discussion on Kabbalah - to the over-lapping triangles as Solomon's Seal, although her figure does not include the central square and lotus [H. P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, Quest Books].
In fact, the Mother designed Sri Aurobindo's symbol directly from Théon's, making only minor changes in the proportions of the central square [Mother's Agenda, vol 3, p.454].
      The symbol on the left is Théon's original; that on the right is the version Mirra designed for Sri Aurobindo.

The later years

In 1908 the death of Alma, his wife and companion of twenty-three years (from March 1885 to September 1908) was a terrible blow to Théon. He fell a prey to a profound depression. The Themanlys took their broken-hearted Master to their Normandy home and for several months nursed him with loving care, until he was somewhat recovered and could travel. He then returned to Tlemcen. But before doing that he told the members of the Cosmic movement that as the Heart of the Movement had stopped beating, the publication of the Cosmic Review would stop too.
Théon's visits to France then became extremely rare. Many people believed he had died in 1913 or thereabouts, but in fact he had been badly injured in a car accident, and was only able to walk after a year.
He was still in Tlemcen and recovering from his injuries when the 1914 war broke out. He held a war to be "the greatest crime, because life is sacred." According to Théon, as with Plato, the ideal political system is a Government by the Wise.
During the four years of war they did not move from Tlemcen apparently. His devoted secretary Teresa remained his companion. their last visit to Paris was in 1919-1920. Finally, according to a small paragraph in a newspaper published at Tlemcen, Théon died on 4 March 1927, and the funeral was held on 6 March 1927.

Théon's Influence

It is fascinating to consider the influence on Blavatsky; especially how similar some of the ideas and style of Théon's cosmic tradition was to Blavatsky. And it is even more astonishing to consider that the teachings of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo are today the only ones that in properly diffuse the Cosmic Tradition.
Mirra in contrast to Blavatsky seems to have been more faithful to Théon's conceptual scheme, as it really is an excellent system.  While at times not very impressed with Théon's personality (although she thought very highly of his wife, Alma Théon), she obviously thought very highly regarding his metaphysics, for she retained his concepts, and even his curious terminology, which she passed on to Sri Aurobindo [The Mother, Mother's Agenda, vol 3, p.58, Institute for Evolutionary Research, New York, 1982].  Thus Théon's metaphysic found its way, through Mirra's mediation, into Sri Aurobindo's comprehensive cosmology. Théon, Blavatsky, Aurobindo and Mirra were all occultist-mystics who brought together the occult (knowledge of and interaction with the intermediate worlds) and the mystic-yogic realities.

References

Sujata Nahar, Mother's Chronicles, book three - Mirra the Occultist,  Institut de Recherches Évolutives, Paris
OTO history documents
Pascal Themanlys, introduction to Visions of the Eternal Present, edited by Argaman in Jerusalem, 1991

Kheper Home | Theon index page | Hermetica | Kabbalah | Topics | New or updated | Search

 

The codes exhibit statistically very rare patterns not seen in ordinary texts.

 

 

Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science 

The 'cosmic' writings are so called because they deal with the science of all the degrees of cosmic substance. This science, which is akin to the science of numbers, was unknown to the official bible exegists of the various religions. In fact, these interpreters endeavoured to introduce connections between the formless and the physical state, while neglecting the invisible degrees between them, or confusing them with one another. That is, they freely replaced the qualities of one number with another number and took formal manifestations for the non-manifested.

Pascal Themanlys, introduction to Visions of the Eternal Present, edited by Argaman in Jerusalem, 1991

Download vol 1 - 17.2 mb contents

Download vol 2 - 19.4 mb contents

Download vol 3 - 19.9 mb contents

Download vol 5 - 6.29 mb

"The Tradition"

The Theons authored an extraordinary body of work, which he simply called "The Tradition".  Theon claimed that this constituted knowledge that pre-dated both the Kabbalistic and  Chaldean tradition of the West, and the Vedas of India, and from which both these latter were derived.   As I see it though, The Tradition is straight Gnostic cosmology, similiar to that of the Classical or Hellenistic Gnostics, although differing in certain respects.
The Mother's references to The Tradition are ambiguous.  Sometimes it seems as if Theon is the author; at other times as if The Tradition is something he in some way aquired or stumbled upon.

"...he formulated a tradition which he called the "cosmic tradition" and which he claimed to have  received - I don't know how - from a tradition anterior to that of the Cabala and the Vedas."

The real source of Theon's Tradition is obvious from the above passage.  It is something which Theon received.  In other words, it was a "channeled" communication.  This places it in the same category as the Chaldean Oracles, the Enochian Calls, the so- called Hopi Prophecies, the Alice Bailey/"Tibetan" material, the Seth and Ramtha material, the Ohapse and Urantia books, and indeed innumerable other spiritual and occult material of quality ranging from atrocious to (very rarely) magnificent.
What is more, the person responsible for this channelling may well have been Madame Theon, as the Mother often speaks of her clairvoyant and occult capacity.  As is so often the case with this sort of material, it is a woman who is responsible for bringing it through (the only two notable exceptions to this being the Chaldean Oracles and the Enochian material, the former produced by a father and son team in the early century after Christ (or so contemporary sources claim); the latter by the Elizabethan occultists John Dee and Edward Kelly (the latter serving as the medium)).
It is not unlikely that, having received the basic transmission, Theon proceeded to elaborate and build upon it.  Thus The Tradition is made up of (at least) two distinct strata, and this would explain any obvious inconsistencies within the work.
Sujita relates the Mother (Mirra)'s part in the composing of this extraordinary teaching.

As for the stories from the Tradition, "They are not to be taken as concrete truths, they are simply first-rate images," Mother told Satprem. "Through them I really got hold, very concretely, of the truth of what caused the world's distortion.... The essence isn't evil, but the functioning is faulty.

"The words are so childish that if you tell this story to intelligent people, they look pityingly at you; but it gives such a concrete grasp of the problem! It helped me a lot."

A slow smile spread across her face. "It was written in English and I am the one who translated it into French - into horrid French, perfectly horrid, because I put in all the words Théon had dreamed up. Then again, what words! He made a detailed description of all the faculties latent in man, and it was remarkable - but with such barbaric words! You can make up new words in English and get away with it, but in French it's utterly ridiculous. And there I was, very conscientiously putting them all in! Yet in terms of experience, it was splendid. It really was an experience - it was the account of Madame Théon's experiences in exteriorization. She had learned to do what Théon' taught me also - to speak while you are in the seventh heaven: the body goes on speaking, rather slowly, in a low voice, but it works quite well. She would speak and a friend of hers, another English woman who was their secretary - I think she knew shorthand - would note it all down as she went along. And afterwards it was made into stories, told as stories. It was all shown to Sri Aurobindo and it greatly interested him. He even adopted some of the words into his own terminology.

"The divisions and subdivisions of the being were described down to the minutest detail and with such perfect precision! I know, because I did the experience again, I did it on my own, without any preconceived ideas, the very same: going out of one body after the other, one body after the other, and so on twelve times, and my experience - apart from certain quite negligible differences, doubtless due to differences in the receiving brain - was exactly the same."

References and Links

Sujata Nahar, Mother's Chronicles, book three - Mirra the Occultist,  Institut de Recherches Évolutives, Paris
Max Théon et la philosophie cosmique by Pascal Thémanlys
Corpus Mmothra: La Tradition Cosmique- Via Antiquities of the Illuminati and Kheper blog by Jonathan Sellers (Monday, March 21, 2005), includes interesting comments on Theon and the Tradition, and reference to my essay on Theon (this section)
spiritus93 - English transaltion of volume 1 of The Cosmic Tradition.

Kheper Home | Theon index page | Hermetica | Kabbalah | Topics | New or updated | Search

The Occult Society
The Charter
The T. S. verses the H. B. of L.
Links and References Blogger Ref Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Sciene

The Occult Society

"In 1870 (and not in 1884, as the Theosophists claimed), an adept of calm, of the ever-existing ancient Order of the H. B. of L., after having received the consent of his fellow-initiates, decided to choose in Great Britain a neophyte who would answer his designs. He landed in Great Britain in 1873. There he discovered a neophyte who satisfied his requirements and he gradually instructed him. Later, the actual neophyte received permission to establish the Exterior Circle of the H. B. of L."

The adept in the above paragraph (from the introduction by Pascal Themanlys to the book Visions of the Eternal Present) is Max Theon, at the time a mere 22 years of age. I assume the disciple referred to is Peter Davidson (1842-1916), a Scottish philosopher. In London Theon was the Grand Master of the H. B. of L. - Exterior Circle of the Holy Brotherhood of Luxor, and Davidson, its visible head. One of Davidson's other teachers was the Rosicrucian Hargrave Jennings (c. 1817 - 1890). were joined in 1883 by Thomas H. Burgoyne (AKA Thomas Dalton, 1855-1895).
The function of this "Outer Circle" of the H. B. of L. was to offer a correspondence course on practical occultism; which set it apart from the Theosophical Society. Its curriculum included a number of selections from the writings of Hargrave Jennings and Paschal Beverly Randolph.
Theon and Davidson were heirs to an already established tradition, influences of which go back at least to Rosicrucian-Freemasonic ideas and movements of the eighteenth century. There are in fact a number of different, if related and overlapping, references here. As T Allen Greenfield points out, there seems to be

"a parallel tradition running through the eighteenth century Fratres Lucis and Asiatic Brethren on the one hand, and Cagliostro's Egyptian Rite (androgynous) Freemasonry on the other. These fuse with primordial Egyptian traditions during the Napoleonic conquests in Egypt, passed on to Metamon, Theon, Levi, Randolph, Davidson and other nineteenth century luminaries, down to Papus, Reuss, Kellner and, eventually, Aleister Crowley and his successors and heirs within OTO."

Thus Theon and Davidson and the H. B. of L. had an influence not only on Theosophy but also, directly and indirectly, with the OTO and hence Steiner (who was a member before the OTO became mostly thelemite), Crowley and most of modern occultism.

"The interior Circle of the H. B. of L. was formed within a distinct Hermetic Order in consequence of a division that took place in the ranks of the Hermetic Initiates. This division was the outcome of the natural difference between the initiates belonging to the Sacerdotal Caste and those who were seriously tested and graduated in the schools of occultism."

In the last decades of the 19th century, the Order of the The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor had considerable influence in all the milieu of Western occultism. It was the only order of its time that taught practical occultism in the Western Mystery Tradition. This very secretive order, which counted among its members many of the well-known figures of late 19th-century occultism, spiritualism, and Theosophy. The researcher, G. Marvin Williams, wrote that Madam Blavalsky's claim of being involved with the H.B. of L. was just a creation of imagination designed to gain publicity. But, despite Marvin's scepticism, Madam Blavatsky was indeed a member of the Order.
In later years, Peter Davidson emigrated to the United States and there published several books. While in 1889 some the H.B. of L. material in the form of lessons by Burgoyne was published as The Light of Egypt, minus only the practical teachings

The Charter

The charter of the Ancient and Noble Order of H. B. of L. which was signed: "M. Theon, Grand Master pro temp of the Exterior Circle," contains high principles and important data:
"We recognize the eternal existence of the Great Cause of Light, the invisible center whose vibrating soul, gloriously radiant, is the living breath, the vital principle of all that exists and will ever exist. It is from this divine summit that goes forth the invisible Power which binds the vast universe in an harmonious whole."
"We teach that from this incomprehensible center of Divinity emanate sparks of the eternal Spirit,which,after accomplishing their orbit, the great cycle of Necessity, constitute the sole immortal element of the human soul. Accepting thus the universal brotherhood of humanity, we reject, nevertheless,the doctrine of universal quality."
"We have no personal preferences and no one makes progress in "the Order without having accomplished his assigned task thereby indicating aptitude for more advanced initiation."
"Remember, we teach freely, without reservation, anyone worthy of instruction."
"The Order devotes its energies and resources to discover and apply the hidden laws and active forces in all fields of nature, and to subjugate them to the higher will of the human soul, whose power and attributes our Order strives to develop, in order to build up the immortal individuality so that the complete spirit can say I AM."
"The members engage themselves, to the best of their ability, in a life of moral purity and brotherly love, abstaining from the use of intoxicants except for medicinal purposes, working for the progress of all social reforms beneficial for humanity."
"Finally, the members have full freedom of thought and judgment. By no means may one member be disrespectful towards members of other religious beliefs or impose his own convictions on others."
"Each member of our ancient and noble Order has to maintain, human dignity by living as an example of purity, justice and goodwill. No matter what the circumstances may be, one can become a living center of goodness, radiating virtue, nobility and truth."

The T. S. verses the H. B. of L.

According to William Emmette Coleman

In 1875 Mme. B. had claimed to be in communication with an Egyptian Lodge, called the Brotherhood of Luxor, composed of "Adepts" or "Brothers"; Masters in magical lore, and she also caused Olcott to believe that one or more of these "Brothers" had accepted him as a pupil, and that certain communications to him purporting to come from them, and received by the Colonel through her, were the veritable productions of these "Adepts." Olcott asserts that one of them once visited him in his room in a materialized astral form, and as proof of his objectivity left with him his headcovering, which the Colonel retains to this day.

The indication here is that the Theosophical doctrine of Masters is directly based on the H. B. of L. Later however Blavatsky accused that magical order of swindling money from the gullible. The definition in the on-line Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary: defines the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor as "a spurious "esoteric" society started about 1884 in England, which later spread to America before it was exposed as a fraud in Yorkshire by theosophists around 1887," and that in August, 1887, Burgoyne "issued to the members a secret circular, the essence of which was that he had studied Chaldean Astrology for eighteen years, but could not communicate the 'lessons' in it and Occultism without a payment to him of $60; that his teachings had the full approval of the Masters...He was 28 years old at the time. He later published the same material in a book, The Light of Egypt, sold for $3.00."
We have seeen that the H. B. of L. was established in 1870, although perhaps it (as the O.T.O. historical documents suggest) only emerged publicly at the later date. Another minor point: if Burgoyne was born in 1855 than in 1887 he was 32, not 28. The reference to the "Masters" is interesting because it seems that the H. B. of L. is where Blavatsky originally developed the idea from. One wonders how much of this material is genuine, and how much slander. There was certainly an ideological difference (apart from her short-lived "Esoteric Section", Blavatsky was very much against teaching practical occultism, considering it too dangerous), and in Lodges of Magic Blavatsky warns members of Randolph and other love-philter sellers. This is evident in a number of letters abnd represents a long-running feud, at leats on Blavatsky's part. For example in a letter A. P. Sinnett, Blavatsky warns him of the "Hindu Brotherhood of Luxor with Davison in it and others working now in the U.S. against us."
It is interesting that most of the few hits on the Web for the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor are Theosophical propaganda of this nature; this stemming perhaps from a number of factors: a falling out between Blavatsky and Theon, and also clearly the puritan theosophists dislike of the controversial sex-magician Randolph who seems to have been associated (rightly or wrongly) with the love-philter con-artists and other quacks that would have been quite numerous at that time.

Links and References

Hermetic Brotherhood Of Luxor: Initiatic & Historical Documents Of An Order Of Occultism by Chanel, Christian et al (Eds.) Publisher: Samuel Weiser, Inc. - biography of founding and important members and presentation of documents; very important for the occulkt historian
T. Allen Greenfield, The Story of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, Looking Glass 1997 1st Ed Paperback vi + 194pp Illus - another book with of early documents from the H.B. of L.; a lot of material on Paschal Beverly Randolph
T Allen Greenfield, Hermetic Brotherhood Revisited - Thoughts on the Antiquity and Continuity of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light
The Invisible Basilica: Paschal Beverly Randolph by T Allen Greenfield and Notes on P.B. Randolph and the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light - based on a talk by Allen Greenfield
The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett - Theosophical University Press Online Edition
Critical Historical Review of The Theosophical Society [An Expose of Madame Blavatsky] by William Emmette Coleman, Member American Oriental Society, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and Pali Text Society. [Originally published in The Religio-Philosophical Journal, Chicago, Illinois, September 16, 1893, pp. 264-266.] - Published by The Blavatsky Archives Online. Online Edition copyright 1999.
Lodges of Magic, by H. P. Blavatsky
Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary Copyright 1999 by Theosophical University Press.
The Light of Egypt Or The Science of The Soul And The Stars by Henry O. Wagner/Belle M. Wagner/Thomas H. Burgoyne - free e-text versions of vol. 2 of the Light of Egypt
also...
The Influence of Egypt on the Modern Western Mystery Tradition: The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor by Samuel Scarborough. Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition No. 1, Autumnal Equinox 2001
Corpus Mmothra: La Tradition Cosmique- Via Antiquities of the Illuminati and Kheper blog by Jonathan Sellers (Monday, March 21, 2005), includes interesting comments on Theon and the Tradition, and HBoL
The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor: Initiatic and Historical Documents of an Order of Practical Occultism, by Joscelyn Godwin, Christian Chanel and John P. Deveney. book review at The Second-Hand Book-Stall.

Kheper Home | Theon index page | Hermeticism Index Page | Topics | New or updated | Search

The Inner-Outer Dimension

(Blogger Ref  http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science )


The "Concentric" or Inner-Outer dimension is totally different from (but sometimes confused with) the vertical series of planes of consciousness as described by Theosophy etc.  A number of stages of manifestation can be posited here, from the outermost to the Absolute.  These are each associated with their own states of consciousness and states of existence.

Subjective and Objective

From one perspective, it might be supposed that the "Concentric" Axis is not so much a hierarchy as a "polarity" is the familar dichotomy of subject-object, inner-outer, mind-matter, conscious-unconscious, yin-yang. This has been described in detail by Stan Gooch in his book Total Man. Also pertaining to this parameter is Sri Aurobindo's integral psychology, which incorporates a trichtomy of innermost, inner, and outer being presents a more esoteric perspective than that of Gooch. So does Chabad Kabbalah, according to which each sefirah has two aspects: Pnimiyut, Inwardness, innermost point, essence or core, the Divine Light, Chitzoniyut, outwardness, externality, the lowest point (Schochet, 1979 pp.127-8). For a psychological analysis, C. G. Jung presents a detailed explanation of the various aspects of the outer and the inner psyche, the latter consisting of progressively deeper layers of the collective unconscious

Four States and Meditation Levels

The Mandukya Upanishad, which was the foundation for all later Indian (Hindu and to a lesser extent Tantric Buddhist) psychology, speaks of the Self having four "feet" or states of consciousness. These are Waking, Dreaming, Dreamless Sleep, and the Fourth (i.e. the Absolute). Waking and Dreaming are self explanatory, but Dreamless Sleep here refers to a very deep level of consciousness in which the awareness is near (but not quite at) the Absolute.
In Shankara's Advaita Vedanta and all subsequent thought, including all current gurus and pop gurus, and the New Age movement in general, along with integral thinkers like Ken Wilber (ref link), the first three states of the Mandukya are matched with the five self levels of the Taittiriya Upanishad, which have now been downgraded to "koshas" or sheaths. The pranic, manasic, and vijnanic koshas are identified with dreaming and the subtle body, and by implication with psychic experience. In this way they confuse the "horizontal"inner-outer with the "vertical"physical-spiritual ontocline. Only Sri Aurobindo presents a different, original, interpretation on the Taittiriya, and, for that matter, distinguishes these two parameters in his own integral psychology.
A very different, much more empirical-experiential approach, is taken by Buddhist and Patanjalian maps of meditative states. Here we have a distinction between form and formless dhyana or samadhi. The Buddhists have 8 or 9 samadhic levels or "jhanas" (Pali; = "dyana" in sanskrit), arranged in a linear manner, from the most "superficial" to the most self-absorbed. This roadmap of meditative states was also then equated with Buddhist cosmology (in the distinction between Desire Gods and Heavens, Gods and Heavens of Pure Form, and Formless Gods and Heavens). A further development is found in Yogachara Buddhism, with the concept of an Alaya-Vijnana or "Storehouse Consciousness" that has intriguing similarities with the Jungian Collective Unconscious. This collective or universal consciousness is the source of the individual Manas and Mano-vijnana consciousness, which correspond more to the Ego (conscious) of western psychology (not the "ego" of pop-guru-ist teachings).
The following table is a suggested list of concentric hypostases according to Kabbalah, Theon, Sri Aurobindo, and Barbara Brennan.

Very Provisional Table of "Concentric" hypostases

Level	Universe or Region	Vedanta (Mandukya Upanishad)	Kabbalah (levels of the soul/souls)	Theon (four divisions of the Physical)	Sri Aurobindo	Jung	Barbara Brennan
enl.4	Infinite Bliss and Delight	Brahman / Turiya (in part)	En Sof (in part)	n/a	Ananda	--	--
enl.3 enl.2	Monadic	--	Yehidum Hayyah	n/a	Soul-Spark	--	--
enl.1	Innermost Being	--	Neshamah	n/a	Innermost Being / Psychic Being	Archetype of the Self	--
4	Purushas	Causal / Dreamless Sleep	--	Mental of Physical	Purushas and Inner Being	collective unconscious, archetypes	Soul Star
3	Inner Being	Subtle / Dream	Ruah	Psychic of Physical			Tan Tien
2	Eso being (Intermediate)		Nefesh	Nervo of Physical	(not defined)	Personal Unconscious	Human Energy Field - Auras and Chakras
1	Outer Being	Gross State (Waking)	Nefesh and Body	Physical of Physical	Outer Being	Conscious	Physical

Taking into account then these various references and teachings mentioned above, the following is a suggested series of hypostases of being from Inner to Outer:

Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science

• The Mandala
• The Integral Mandala - a Quadontological Diagram
• The Yin-Yang polarity
• The Absolute Reality as the Center
• The numerology of the Godhead
• The Coaction Compass
• Evolution

List of sub-topics

(daughter pages)

The Mandala

It may well be (although this is speculation) that the original polarity or divergence or Coming Into Being (by which the One becomes Many) is in the form of that most universal of glyphs and diagrams, the mandala.
The image on the left is a typical Buddhist mandala. We have the four quarters, representing the four primary archetypes, four deities (with the fifth in the center), four elements, four Jungian ego-functions, four worlds, four colours, whatever. And you have a series of layers, leading to and focussing on the center.
When meditating upon the mandala, the consciousness is guided through the various layers or rings from the periphery representing the outer consciousness to the center representing the Buddha Mind at the core of one's being (shown by whatever deity the mandala addresses or embodies, in Buddhism all deities are aspects of the void (shunya) or Absolute Reality)

Mandalic "Maps" of Consciousness/Reality/Existence

Wheel of Life - photo by Henryart 2005 - Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License

In addition to being a meditation tool and cosmographic diagram, a mandala can also incorporate a dynamic explanation of the nature of existence. Such for example is the Buddhist Wheel of Life (left), which illustrates not only the causes of rebirth and the six realms (states of existence) into which a sentient being can incarnate, but also the doctrine of Dependent Origination .

A more recent (but less widely known) example of diagram that portrays the dynamic causes and factors of existence is the Co-action Compass or Periodic Co-ordinate System developed by Edward Haskell and his associates, which shows the interactions between any two entities or elements of the same entity.
The Co-action Compass is a universally applicable cybernetic feedback diagram that forms the basis of the Unified Science paradigm, and which shows the interactions between any two entities or elements of the same entity, and incorporates the twin themes of karma and evolution.



Note (10 Dec 05) - some of the metaphysical hypotheses currently presented here will be comprehensively revised. Currently I am writing a book on my Integral Paradigm (tentatively called "Towards an Integral Cosmology"); and will also be revising some of the pages here. For one thing, I no longer accept the "Quadontological" Mandala diagram as an overall metaphysical diagram



Ken Wilber's AQAL (all quadrants all levels) diagram is the most recent attempt (apart from the present work) to encapsulate the various levels of existence, consciousness, involution and evolution in a single diagramatic form. Here we see both subjective and objective, individual and collective, holistic relationships, and stages of evolution of both matter and consciousness, in a depth of detail never before gathered into a single system of thought. Wilber's ambitious effort has been very popular in the consciousness movement, forming the basis of the "Integral Paradigm." Although flawed due to shortcomings in his methodology, an over-rigid intellectualising, lack of understanding of both his scientific (e.g. evolution) and his esoteric (e.g. Sri Aurobindo) sources, modernist and postmodernist physicalist aversion to metaphysics, and over-reliance on nondualism, it is still worthy of consideration, and in fact is the most complex map of reality prior to the present work. In fact it is his efforts have inspired me to create my own "integral theory of everything", which is the present thesis.
My own Integral Mandalas, or diagrams, shown here, are, as mentioned, inspired by Ken Wilber's AQAL diagram. Like Wilber, I have endevoured to summarise integral metaphysics in a series of basic diagrams or cartographies of consciousness and being (here is a comparison between our respective diagrams). It is important to remember that these diagrams should not be taken literally, they are metapohors to describe an understanding of reality that is itself only a work in progress. As soon as things are grabbed and frozen by the mind they lose their original zen-like quality, and one confuses the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.
Originally, trying to work from the "bottom up" in terms of the smallest number of possible parameters that could describe every possible state of consciosuness, I came up with a single diagram, which I called Quadontology. This presents a Fourfold Reality or A Metaphysical "Map" of Consciousness/Reality in terms of four hierarchies or ontoclines (axii or gradiants of being). In figuring these out, I have come up with several different variants. The current version is:

• Levels of Enlightenment
• Levels of Consciousness as Emanation
• The "Concentric" cosmology
• The "Vertical" cosmology

This is actually the third in the series. As I played around with these ideas I came up with different theories and interpretations. The first (since rejected) is :

• Levels of Selfhood - From True Self / "I" to Non-Self / "This" / Phenomena (and vice versa) - representing the Monadology (or pluratity and unity) of Selves.
• The "Vertical" Physical-Spiritual Axis - From Transcendent Spiritual Mind down to Physical Matter (and vice-versa) - representing the Hierarchy (Great Chain of Being) of Octaves of Existence.
• The "Inner-Outer" or "Concentric" Axis - From Innermost (subjective) to Outermost (most external) Being - representing the Psychological Polarity of Being.
• The Universal-Individual-Atomistic Axis - From Universal Whole to "Atomistic""Point" (and vice versa) - representing the Holarchic arrangement of Systems.

Which can be shown in a mandalic diagram:


Having given the above much thought and contemplation over a period of many months, and gotten a whole stream and succession of inspirations from the higher (supra-rational) planes or states of existence (specifically what Sri Aurobindo calls the Higher Mental), each contending with others as possibilities, and each with some authenticity, I finally decided on a new mandala. This retains the "vertical hierarchy" (Physical-Spiritual Axis), which is here redefined according to the Theonian and Aurobindonian "type descriptions", scraps the Universal-Atomistic Axis as quantitative rather than an ontocline with one pole in the Godhead, reinterprets the "Inner-Outer" Axis in terms of Theonian, Yogeshwarandian (Science of Soul, etc), and Sant Mat conceptions, and replaces Levels of Selfhood with two axii of Consciousness or Realisation.
We now have two parameters or axii of Consciousness, and two of phenomenal reality and states or planes of existence:

• Levels of Insight of Consciousness - From Normal Consciousness to Nondual Enlightenment (and vice versa) - representing consciousness in terms of the way of Insight or path to Enlightenment.
• Levels of Focus of Consciousness - From Vrittis or turnings of everyday consciousness to Transcendent Liberation - representing the levels of focus of consciousness.
• The "Inner-Outer" or "Concentric" Series - From Outermost (most gross) to Innermost/meta-causal (and vice-versa) - representing the gross-subtle-causal series of worlds and states.
• The "Vertical" Physical-Noetic Series of Worlds - From Physical Matter to Transcendent Spiritual Mind (and vice-versa) - representing the Hierarchy (Great Chain of Being) of Octaves of Existence.

Which can be shown again in a mandalic diagram:
However, this implies a duality of consciousness and worlds, or technique and reality, which is misleading, because there is only one reality, which goes through many transformations. Hence a third diagram, similar to the above, but replacing the "focus" axii with a Kashmir Shaivite style emanation or congealing of consciousness to matter (Stan Grof's test subjects also reported something very similar). This also incorporates a "top down" model based on Sri Aurobindo's vision of the Absolute Reality - or rather, the Manifets Absolute - as four four-fold, consisting of Sat, Chit-Tapas, Ananda, and Supermind, which constitute a sequence from Unmanifest to progressively more Manifest (but still infinite and perfect).
This version has gone through a number of minor revisions.
Originally the Sant Mat and Theon cosmology were identified the "Inner and Outer worlds" Concentric parameter.
But then on 27 Nov 05 I had the inspiration that these pertain to the Emanational (Levels of Consciousness as Emanation) ontocline. This had previously been defined solely by Kashmir Shaivism, and the fact that only one esoteric system went there had always made me feel the formulation was incomplete). In the new arrangement, Barbara Brennan's four levels of Inwardness in her book Light Emerging refer to the Concentric parameter, along with Theon's subdivisions of the Physical State (which I had previously included as subdivisions of the physical).
This new arrangement allows a unification of Sant Mat and Kashmir Shaivite cosmologies, and hopefully that the Integral Metaphysics system is becoming more authentic with each insight and development.

• "Epistemic" Levels of Insight of Consciousness - From Normal Consciousness to Nondual Enlightenment (and vice versa) - representing consciousness in terms of Insight or Enlightenment, the relative equivalent of Sat (pure Being), which is here full Enlightenment. There is a radical epistemological (subjective realistaion), but not an ontological (objective nature) change with each level.
• "Emanational" Levels of Consciousness as Emanation - From Limited Consciousness to Cosmic Shiva-Shakti - representing the levels of limitation or unlimitation of consciousness, representing the gross-subtle-causal series of worlds and states. This is the relative equivalent of Chit-Tapas (Consciousness and Will; equivalent perhaps to Shiva and Shakti), which is here the most universal level. There is both an epistemological and an ontological change with each level.
• The "Concentric" levels of Psyche and Soul - From Outer or Surface consciousness to the Innermost Soul. This is the relative equivalent of Ananda (Delight/Bliss/Love), which is here the innermost level. There is mainly an ontological change with each level.
• The "Vertical" Physical-Noetic Series of Worlds - From Physical Matter to Transcendent Spiritual Mind (and vice-versa) - representing the Hierarchy (Great Chain of Being) of Octaves or Planes of Existence. This is the relative equivalent of Supermind (Noetic Absolute - Truth Consciousness), which is here the highest level. There is a radical ontological change with each level.

This version comes from an idea I had on 11 Dec 2005. This was after working on my book on Integral Cosmology, and my feeling now that Sant Mat pertains to a series of density planes, like Theon's eight states, and the Theosophical planes (although the similarities with Gnosticism indicates there may still be some overlap with the Emanational parameter). The association with Sri Aurobindo's four transcendent hypostases is no longer of such relevance. Both the Epistemic and Emanational axii are no longer included, the latter replaced by the series Gross-Subtle-Causal-Supracausal. The Density Planes are distinguished from the Vertical Parameter. The four quadrants are also identified with four states of transformation and evolution. These can also be matched with Wilber's four quadrants (albeit not to exactly, but it is interesting)
This gives:

• Divisions of Consciousness - includes the series Gross-Subtle-Causal-Supracausal. - Corresponds to Spiritualisation, to Spirit, to Fire (or Light of Consciousness), and to Wilber's "Lower Right" quadrant (as the organising principle behind the world - note that in Wilber's diagram these are only referring to evolutionary stages (based on Jantsch) of the Gross Reality)
• The "Concentric" levels of Soul - From Outer or Surface consciousness to the Innermost Soul. Corresponds to Psychicisation, to Soul, to Water/Chalice (Agape, Pathotism), and to Wilber's "Lower Left" quadrant (through empathy one relates to others, hence the Social Worldspace)
• The Density Series of Planes or Worlds - From Physical Matter to Higher Spiritual Planes. Corresponds to Evolution, to Body, to Earth/Pentacle (Form), and to Wilber's "Upper Right" quadrant
• The "Vertical" Spectrum of Conscoiousness - From Inconscient to Superconscient - Corresponds to Ascent, to Consciousness, to Air, and to Wilber's "Upper Left" quadrant

It is important of course not to interpret these representations too literally; otherwise it all becomes a dogma. However, using the above diagrams as metaphors, they can be a glyph for the exploration of consciousness and reality, a map of reality, with correspondences.
And rather than say that one diagram is correct and the others incorrect, I would say that each of them incorporates a useful perspective. To assert that one has a single explanation, and that is the truth, is to become stuck in fundamentalism and literalism. This is what has happened in so many esoteric traditions, ancient and modern - they have become just so many fundamentalisms.


Update - the above has been revised and replaced by a newer insight.

The problem of Cartesian dualism

Cartesian dualism, the philosophy that mind/soul/consciousness/spirit and body/matter constitute an irreducable dichotomy, has characterised much of the ontology and metaphysics of western philosophy since the 17th century - both in its influence on those who support it and on those who oppose it. In fact it goes back before Descartes hismelf, all the way to Pythagoras, who spoke of the transmigration of souls (an idea he may have gotten from Brahmanism). From Pythagoras, dusalism was adopted by Plato, and from Plato it made its way - always modified but still with the same basic dichotomy, to Gnosticism and Christianity (especially Catholicism, literalist Christianity (e.g. Protestantism) denies the concept of a soul apart from the body), and thence to Descartes
Whilst philosophers like Spinoza and Liebnitz came up with creative attempts around the mind-body dualism, many of Descartes's later successors simply dropped the concept of spirit or mind altogether, and hence philosophical materialism and naive physicalism was born. With the rise of logical positivism and analytical p[hilsoophy, the fall of metaphysics, and the inability of rational-objectivist thought to solve the mind-body conundrum, Cartesian dualism fell totally out of favour in mainstream academia.
Early in the 20th century Teilhard de Chardin's evolutionary philosophy, and more recently Ken Wilber's Integral Philosophy, attempt a resolution of the original Cartesian (Mind-Body) dualism by replacing mind and matter with a single holistic reality that has a mind and matter or interior and exterior aspect (in Ken Wilber's Four Quadrant map, in which the left half of the diagram pertains to "interiors" or subjectivity, the right half to "exteriors" or objectivity (consisting of objects / "it" (Upper) and systems / "its" (Lower) quadrants).
The quadontological approach to Cartesian dualism is rather different. This is shown on the left.
Quadontology argues that there is not a simple duality but rather four distinct polarities or gradations (ontoclines) of being, each with a "yin" (matter" so to speak) and a "yang") ("spirit" polarity. In Cartesian dualism the "Yang" polarity of three of the parameters are confused and jumbled together. This constitutes the mind or spirit member of the duality. However as far as everyday physical mundane reality goes, the "Yin" polarity of these three parameters do indeed merge, in what is usually considered "physical reality". This constitutes the "matter" or "body" element. There is also no "duality" between the two polarities of each ontological axis, simply a sequence or gradation.

The Absolute Reality as the Center

Like the center of the mandala which unites the four quarters, the Absolute can be said to constitute a fifth or unifying principle behind and at the heart of the other four. As Ken Wilber says about Spirit, it is both the highest member of the hierarchy and the underlying reality of the entire hierarchy {ABHOE p. xxx, etc]. But this is not entirely correct, because it is not only the highest member of each hierarchical spectrum, but also the lowest. I would follow Tantra and Taoism in saying that it is what preceds the original polarisation of each ontocline into purusha and prakriti, yin and yang. It is neither yin nor yang, higher or lower, self or non-self, but equally beyond both alone.

Parameters of Reality

Unmanifest Absolute shunya, tathata, paratpara Reality in Itself beyond Absolute and Phenomena	Pleroma (The Manifest Absolute) The One Absolute Unity The Many within One: These aspects within and of Unity, expressing absolute Harmony and Perfection
	Kosmos Aspects that are polarised (yin-yang) and dualistic. These constitute the dimensions of Kosmic and phenomenal, dualistic, involtionary-evolutionary existence EnlightenmentAvidya Shiva-ShaktiLimited Self InnerOuter NousMatter IndividualUniversal

Perhaps each of these sequences begins from a different aspect of the Absolute. Or maybe from the same aspect expressed in different ways.  Whilst still within the Absolute, all these dimension/parameters are unitary.  Within the Absolute Reality things are simple (Absolute Unity, Inifite, timeless spaceless consciousness, etc). But when they are projected down into and as finite or relative existence, distinction appears, and separation, and complexity. It seems to be a common esoteric teaching (and one that makes a lot of sense) that the purpose of the ever-unfolding Kosmos, of phenomenal existence, is for the infinite possibilities within the Absolute Itself to be allowed individual expression.

The numerology of the Godhead

Pythagoras and his followers adopted a numerological cosmology, according to which the monad was the first thing that came into existence. The monad gave rise to the dyad, which in turn gave rise to numbers, and thence points, lines, surfaces, four elements, and finally the cosmos. A similar cosmology is found in the Tao te Ching, where we find that the Tao begat one, the one begat two, the two three, and the three the "ten thousand things". And in Kabbalah, beginning with and especicially in the Sefer Yetzirah, numerological speculations are central to elucidating the nature of the Divine reality.
Here I use this sort of numerology progression in a purely allegorical or symbolic way to refer to the hypostases of the Absolute. It should not be taken as a dogmatic fact, but rather can be used as a metaphor (or if not suitable for that, discarded).
The Zero/Infinite prior to the One is symbolic of the Unmanifest ineffable, inconceivable Transcendent Absolute.
The One is that same Absolute in which the two aspects (which are actually one) of Shiva and Shakti, I and This, Absolute Consciousness and Power of the Absolute Consciousness, are in a state of absolute unity and identity (incidentally, Plotinus uses the term The One to designate the Absolute)
The Two in this context symbolises that Unitary Absolute in which the two aspects of Shiva and Shakti are polarised (but still in a state of absolute unity) and manifest as the divine hypostases of infinite Being, Consciousness-Power, and Bliss/Delight (the Manifest Absolute).
The Three here refers metaphorically to that same Polarised but Unitary Absolute iwhich is now actively manifest (hence a third element, tending towards Creation) as the Noetic Absolute.
And the Four designates manifest reality, the Kosmos, and its four aspects as expressed in the four-fold ontology

Evolution

Finally we have evolution, which is the movement to greater Omega (level 3 or noetic Absolute). This occurs at all the levels from 8 upto 3. This is shown in the following diagram:


In this diagram. the Theosphere symbolically represents level 3 (Manifest Absolute), the Noosphere 5, the Sociosphere 6, the Biosphere 7, and the first two the outermost ring. More specifically though, these realities pertain to the successive resonances or octaves (the vertical parameter or ontocline) of the subtle physical, affective, ideational, divine, and noetic Absolute in the physical evolution.

Tabulation of States of Consciousness and Reality

The following table I thought up on the 22nd and 23rd March 2006, while working on ideas for my book Towards an Integral Metaphysic. This table replaces the old AQAL-inspired mandalas and quadantology, which i feel are too limited, since there are much more than four parameters of reality.

Unmanifest Absolute / Unmanifest Sachchidananda
Unmanifest and Manifest Absolute / Manifest Sachchidananda Unmanifest<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Manifest includes the following realities: Sat, Chit-Tapas, Ananda, SupraMind--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Sat / Shunya / Paramatman / Absolute Truth	Chit-Tapas/Shakti/ Transcendent	Ananda / Delight	Supra-Mind/Truth-Idea-Will		Kalyptos / Hidden Depths
					Life / Love / Pathotism
	Cosmic Shakti				Mind / Essence / Archetype
		Divine Soul/Love	Divine Mind / Overmind / Atzilut / Relative Absolute
Levels of insight / self realisation	Intermediate Zone / Levels of siddhi / Between Cosmic and Individual		Universe of Spiritual Mind (Illumination / Revelation)
		Inner Being	Universe of Thought / Ideational Reality (Spectrum of Consciousness)
Avidya Samsara / Kleshas Relative Truth			Universe of Desire / Will (Higher and Lower Planes)
			Universe of Form / Structure - includes the following:
			Inner Physical Divine Being . . . .	Yang/Celestial Archetypal	Transpersonal	SupraCausal Physical
	Individual being Finite / Limited Self			Archetypal	Spiritual	Causal Physical
					Astral Etheric	Subtle Physical
		Outer Being / Desire Soul / Lower Self			Physical Etheric	Gross Physical (sphere of evolution)
				Yin / Chthonic Archetypal	Undersoul
					Negation / Inconscience

As always with these things, this diagram should not be taken in a literal context. It is a simplistic notation, nothing more. Each column represents a distinct ontocline. The rows, where applicable, are allegorical only. The whole table shows the relationship between the different raelities, although only some of the many possible realities are included. No doubt I will in furture revise this diagram too, but for the moment I am happy with it.
Only some links have been added, and not all of these are consistent, because these pages need to be reorganised according to my new understanding.

Bibliography

note - Amazon links are top the current edition, the edition cited may be out of printOdin, Steve (1982) Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism, State University of New York Press, Albany
Shear, Jonathan, ed. (1997) Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem, MIT Press
Smith, Huston. (1977) Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition. New York: Harper & Row.
Tart, C.T. (1975b) Some assumptions of orthodox, Western Psychology. In C. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 61-111.

Kheper Home | Provisional Metaphysical Theory of Everything Home | A New Integral Paradigm Home | Topics Index | New or updated | Search