The Translucent Revolution: How People Just Like You Are Waking Up and Changing the World
Arjuna Ardagh - website  Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science  Translucence is a concept presented by Arjuna Ardagh in his book The Translucent Revolution: How People Just Like You Are Waking Up and Changing the World. The book is the product of more than 170 in-depth interviews, including many New Paradigm/New Age/Global Mindshift/Integral movement "thought leaders" and spiritual teachers (e.g. Andrew Cohen, Jean Houston, Byron Katie, Eckhart Tolle, and Neale Donald Walsch), and a survey of more than 13,000 people.
From the website (via this page):

For more than a decade, author Arjuna Ardagh has studied this worldwide advance in human consciousness marked by what he calls "translucents" - individuals who have undergone a spiritual awakening deeply enough that it has permanently transformed their relationship to themselves and to reality while allowing them to remain involved in ordinary life. According to conservative estimates, millions have shifted in this way, and while the breakthrough moments themselves don’t guarantee sustained transformation, their increased frequency is remarkable.

The Translucent Revolution draws on the author’s dialogues with thousands of writers, teachers, and workshop participants around the world who have been touched by a radical awakening, and whose lives emanate translucence. He blends observation, anecdote, and research, including commentaries from leading pioneers in the field of human consciousness like , to offer simple, concrete strategies for cultivating a translucent way of life. The Translucent Revolution offers a blueprint for positive change and an optimistic perspective on these uncertain times.

"Radical Awakening ... the moment when you taste reality outside the limiting confines of the mind, when you know yourself to be limitless, much bigger than, yet containing the body, beyond birth and death, eternally free. Despite the activity of thought and feeling, you know yourself to be the silence experiencing that movement. It is the moment when you can intuit the real potential of life, free from the incessant mental machinery of complaint and ambition. A radical awakening often releases a tidal wave of creativity and generosity of spirit, a natural impulse to serve and contribute. In these moments, we know that love is who we are, not something we sometimes feel."

A confusing quality of the book is the definition of Translucents, as the experiences seem to range from those who have had quite profound and permanent awakenings - certainly way beyond anything I've experienced! - down to others who are basically very ordinary and conservative people, but just with a little bit of awakening and insight (your base level New Age / Cultural Creative / Integral community person in other words). And as I read more I realised that what he is describing falls into the latter category, not the former (which is what I am interested in). This is indicated by Ardagh's rather pointless "Spiritual Myths List" which is central to his book, but is basically a straw man argument that says nothing.

1. After a spiritual awakening, there is no more ego and personality traits disappear completely. What remains is just a homogenous oneness with everything.
2. Awake people are not identified with the personality and therefore have no interest in changing it.
3. Awake people have no sense of a separate doer. Therefore they do not initiate action, but sit quietly doing nothing and wait for things to happen by themselves.
4. People who are awake do not have feelings, particularly "negative" ones like anger, fear, jealousy or greed. Instead, they are always calm, in an unchanging state, feeling an unbroken oneness with everything.
5. You have to choose between feelings and presence. When you have feelings, you have lost who you are.
6. Awakened people do not need anything from anyone. They do not have relationships, since they feel oneness with everything.
7. It does not matter what you say or do. Once you are enlightened, every action, even lying or manipulating is spontaneously for the good of all beings.
8. After an awakening there is only peace and harmony with everyone, with no need to do anything. Translucent relationships are always harmonious.
9. Sex is an event of the lower chakras. Awakened people have transcended sex. Sexual energy completely disappears with awakening.
10. Awake people automatically have open and flowing sex, without the need for any practice.
11. Having children is a distraction to spiritual life. Like Buddha, Jesus and all the great masters, you must choose between family life and spiritual freedom.
12. After an awakening, all the negative influences from your family will dissolve through divine grace. You will spontaneously know how to be a perfect partner.
13. Awakened people are naturally creative. Great art flows through them spontaneously, without any need for formal training or skills.
14. Spiritually awake people would have no need to paint, write poetry, or make music; those are all just activities of the restless mind.
15. After a spiritual awakening there is no need to learn anything; you already are everything.
16. Business and spirituality are two separate arenas of life; it's inappropriate and embarrassing to mix the two.
17. After any kind of spiritual awakening, money will flow easily and effortlessly into your life, with little or no effort.
18. Money corrupts. Anyone with real spiritual integrity should not be concerned with money, success or the world.
19. Awakened people are always in perfect health; they never get sick.
20. Those awake to their real nature have spontaneous healing powers. Like Jesus, they can cause the sick to rise up and walk.
21. After an awakening, no-one needs psychotherapy; there is no ego and no personal life remaining.
22. Awakened people are beyond attachment to the body. They have no care if it lives or dies.
23. After a spiritual awakening, there is no more need for religion. All churches are just for sheep to blindly follow rules.
24. Only very few people in all history have ever known real spiritual experience. The rest of us must be content with a contact high.
25. There is a specific state, in the future, that you can aspire to, where evolution is complete. Then you will flatline and nothing will ever happen again. Till then, you know nothing.
26. Spiritual people are beyond the mundane activities of the world; they re just one with what is. Politics and activism are dirty and ignorant.
27. Everything is happening on its own. There is nothing you can do, and no doer anyway. Nostradamus said there would be a big war, followed by two thousand years of peace. The Mayans support this, and so did the tea leaves in my cup this morning. Involvement in the ways of the world is just interfering with the divine plan.
28. We are entering a golden age; all we have to do is to mediatate and to love each other and chant Om and the world's problems will evaporate automatically.
29. Capitalists and big corporations are evil. We need an armed insurrection; we can overthrow the oppressors, and the enlightened ones will rule supreme. The world can only be changed through militant political insurrection.

I would ask, is there anyone, anywhere, who really believes or teaches that "spiritual awakening...(w)hat remains is just a homogenous oneness with everything"? And so on with the whole list except for the last which seems to be a straw man directed at a cartoon version of old style leftism. But mixed in with straw man charicatures is the element of dualistic and hedonistic thinking - e.g. Osho lifestyle tantra and Esalen feel-good Californian pop spirituality. For example, he lists among the myths "Money corrupts"; implying that money doesn't corrupt. Well, tell that to the victims of abusive gurus! Only an authentic Realizer like Ramana or Anandamaya Ma is at the level where money no longer corrupts.
To be fair to Ardagh, a lot of his book clearly seems to grow from the sort of disillusionment we all have with the New Age/Eastern Guru/Spiritual Teacher movements to "deliver the goods". People who expect enlightenment remain just as screwed up and limited as before. That's because, obviously, none of these so-called spiritual teachers are in any way Enlightened. They aren't even at the level of the Intermediate Zone. They aren't even at the level of gnosis. Because of this, the author incorrectly assumes that there is such a thing as Supreme Enlightenment (in other words, because he hasn't met an Enlightened Being in person, assuming he would even recognise one if he did), and instead adopts a well-meaning but at the same time muddled definition that comes from a place of exoteric consciousness. i.e. anyone and everyone who has any awakening or opening at all beyond ordinary ego-shadow consciousness, from the most banal to the most awesome, is a "translucent"
At the same time, although not providing any information at all regarding what authentic Realization means, this is still, from a social (and social evolution) point of view , an important book in that it provides a very detailed look at the postmaterialistic spirituality of the American holistic / Cultural Creative demographic. There is certainly a strong overlap between Ardagh's "Translucents" and Paul Ray's "Cultural Creatives" .
Of interest here is the idea of a collective shift in consciousness. According to Ardagh there really is a huge shift in consciousness occuring. This fits with what people in the Integral Movement like Ken Wilber, Steve McIntosh, and Andrew Cohen and the staff at EnlightenNext are saying, although Wilber and McIntosh would distinguish between "Cultural Creatives" and "Integralists". However there are a number of other possible factors that could explain this, without a global evolutionary shift. At the moment, I honestly don't know which of these two explanations are correct. (Here's a discussion of the book on the Integral Institute (Wilberian) book club)
I did find Ardagh's book very useful in helping to explain features of many gurus, which I previously classified as "Intermediate Zone". Most of these are simply "Translucents" (see classification here) who arrogantly or deludely believe that they can present themselves as "Enlightened" Spiritual Teachers or Gurus, when they are no more evolved - in fact may often be less evolved - then many of their students, devotees, and disciples.
An alternative term, instead of "Translucent", could be Transpersonal. These are individuals who have a Transpersonal opening, who have developed some measure of Transpersonal consciousness; an awareness beyond their ordinary state. Speaking simplistically, one can assume a spectrum of Ego-Shadow (what Ardagh calls "Iago" after a sinister character in Shakespeare's play Othello) - Transpersonal/Translucent - Gnosis - Intermediate Zone - Enlightenment. This can be represented as follows

Ego-Shadow

Translucent

Gnosis

The "Intermediate Zone"

Realization

Divinization

The Intermediate Zone might be defined as a powerful state in which - as with authentic Enlightened beings - the devotee can aquire experiences through "contagion". With a "Translucent", there would be much less likelihood of this, or none at all, because they are closer to ordinary consciousness. But the fact remains that many devotees of merely transpersonal/translucent (and common gnostic) gurus do have such experiences. In this case the explanation provided by David Lane ("neural surfer") (Wikipedia page) is probably much better, that it is the devotee him or herself that creates the feelings ( he calls it the Kirpal Statistic (link) (link). Of course this does not mean we should make simplistic generalisations of this; there is no real way to tell where Transpersonal ends and Intermediate Zone begins

Terms like "Postmaterialism", "cultural creatives", "participatory approach", "integral consciousness", "planetary consciousness", "new age", "new paradigm", "holistic", "sustainable", and "transluscent revolution" are among the many convenient labels that can be applied to the current social, cultural, and/or spiritual, individual and/or collective, evolutionary development of consciousness and society beyond, or rejecting, both reductionistic materialism (and its counterpart, exoteric, literalist religion), and materialism in the sense of soul-destroying and ecologically unsustainable consumerism, superficiality, and monolithic capitalism.
Individually, postmaterialistic consciousness can be defined physically, emotionally, and mentally, although these are three interrelated perspectives on the same thing, not three separate things.
Physically it corresponds to conscious evolution or evolutionary or secular spirituality, which means taking progress into our own hands, rather than follwing narcissistic greed, hierarchically authoritarianism, and the destructive pattern of naked ape politics and competiveness.
Emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually, it means is moving beyond ego-shadow (I-It) duality to empathic (I-Thou) wholeness.
And as far as mental worldviews and understanding goes, it equally reiects both the consensus paradigm of secular materialism, agnosticism, reductionism, and relativism (modernity) and institutionalized religion. At the same time it is not yet at the level of gnosis. So on the one hand it is no longer really exoteric and yet it isn't quite esoteric; although on the other hand if esoteric is equated with gnosis, and exoteric with lack of gnosis, then it is still very much exoteric. Indeed my feelings when encountering this material and these subcultures is that they are exoteric, but a wholesome and socially and ecologically sustainable exoteric.
Socially, culturally, and collectively, the challenge at present is to attain a post-materialistic society (sometimes called integral society, rising culture, etc). I do not believe it is possible for humanity as a whole to attain gnosis or a gnostic society at this stage; indeed there has never been a collectively gnostic or esoteric society on Earth, even in ancient Egyptians and traditional Tibetan society most of society would have been on a self-serving and surface consciousness level, and gnosis mixed up with mythological thinking, politics, ignorance, duality, etc.
I find it significant that even the majority of the "new consciousness" New Age / Cultural Creative / Alternative movements today (obviously there are exceptions!) seems to have been barely penetraded by sentientist awareness, and instead buy into the meat, dairy, poultry, etc industries, thus helping to perpetuate the torture of countless innocent beings. Without consideration for all sentient beings on Earth, how can the collective karma be addressed and a new world created? This is the great taboo in the New Age/Integral/etc movement. One of the things I would like to do is create a new esoteric system based on sentientist insights. Of course I'm not the first, Mahatma Gandhihas already done so. This is a work for true visionaries, and the most radical moral challenge of our age.
Also, in contrast to the standard idea of gradual evolutionary progress (Theosophy, Spiral dynamics, Wilberian Integralism, etc), I do not consider that higher consciousness and a truely spiritual and gnostic society will evolve or appear through a simple, gradual, and linear progression. Those worldviews are still caught up in the 19th and early 20th century "myth of progress" idea. Instead I like to believe in a series of transitions centered around locii of radical individual and collective Divinization, and this will have a backward effect of gnosticising a proportion of the population. This seems to be what Sri Aurobindo is describing when he refers to a ladder of degrees of consciousness from ordinary consciousness to the Supramental (in The Life Divine, pp.968-9) that develops aftersupramentalisation (i.e. among those beings and nature that has not yet been supramentalised).

 

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

1. The Absolute and the Relative Reality
2. Three Grades of Knowledge
3. The Way of Form and the Way of Formlessness

1. The Absolute and the Relative Reality

The Unmanifest Absolute Reality in Itself - Shunyata, Paramatman, Tao, Buddha-nature, etc - is the Supreme Ground of all Reality.  Its attainment is experienced as Nirvana or Liberation or or Self-Realization.  The opposite of this state is the world of phenomena, Maya, the relative truth,  Illusion, Samsara, "the wheel of rebirth", subject to Ignorance (avidya) of one's True Nature, craving, unhappiness, and so on.
It is generally considered that between these two extremes there is no continuum, unlike the other dimension/parameters we have considered.  The lower, relative reality, is a juxtoposition on the higher, the Absolute Reality.  That's why the various Indian philosophies (Vedanta, Mahayana, etc) speak of the "Two Truths", the Relative and the Absolute Truth.  Hence Enlightenment (realisation of the Absolute) is not something to be attained, because one always was and is the Absolute.  Enlightenment is simply the realisation that you are the Absolute right now, and that there is no birth or death, future or past, self or other, but only the eternal present, the one universal "I" (this is putting it very simply, but space does not allow an analysis of the subtlties of the doctrine, or the differences between Mahayana Buddhist and Advaita Vedantin conceptions of Enlightenment).

2. Three Grades of Knowledge

Yet from another point of view one can suggest a continuum, in the area of Advaitin and Mahayanist epistemology (science of knowledge).  Whereas Western academic epistemology is divided between the Rationalists, who say we know things because our minds contain pre-existent ideas, and the Empiricists, who say that the mind is a blank slate, and everything we know and learn is through the senses, the Indian mystical epistemology is concerned with spiritual knowledge, rather than knowledge about (general or mundane) knowledge.
Basically, this monistic philosophy (both Advaita and Mahayana affirm a single Absolute Reality) refers to three grades of knowing, each lower of which is false in relation to the next.
The lowest grade is illusion, or hallucination, such as things in a dream, which appear real while dreaming, but then are seen to be false upon awakening; or tricks of the eye, such a rope which in the distance or in the dark appears to be a snake, or mother-of-pearl which appears to be silver.
The next level is "empirical" knowledge; knowledge as it ap-pears to the senses (and, one may add, to the instruments of modern science), and which reveals the world as it "objectively" is.
The highest level is transcendental knowledge; knowledge of Reality as it actually is, revealed through the superconscious or enlightenment experience.  Relative to this absolute knowledge, everyday empirical knowledge stands in the same relation as hallucination or misperception stands to the latter.  That is, the objective world itself is realised to be a "dream", an "illusion", a "rope-snake", or whatever.  Realisation of absolute knowledge is the same as realisation of the Absolute (or Godhead) itself, because in these spiritual traditions the Absolute is itself considered as a - or rather the - faculty of knowing or experience; or in other words of the nature of pure Consciousness.
The terms of the three grades of knowledge vary according to the particular school of thought.  To give three examples

	Nagarjuna 2nd C Buddhist	Vasubandha 3rd C Buddhist	Shankara 8th C Vedanta
3. Absolute	Paramartha	Paramarthika	Paramarthika
2. Empirical	Samvriti	Paratantra	Vyavaharika
1. Illusion	Samvriti	Parikalpita	Pratibhasika

An interesting twist to this is given in Tibetan Buddhism, where there is the distinction between the lower Enlightenment of the Dharmakaya (Truth-dimension) and the greater Enlightenment of the Swabhavakaya (Self-nature dimension).  This theme is adapted by Da Free John, who distinguishes between subjective Enlightenment (realisation of the Self or Absolute Within), and objective Enlightement (realisation of the Absolute - the Radiant Transcendental Being - in all things.  Hence we could say that the Paramartha or Absolute Truth is divided into a lesser and a greater.
Higher Paramartha:        =   Absolute Realised in all things
Lower Paramartha:        =   Absolute Realised within; Liberation
Paratantra/Vyavaharika: =   Relative Knowledge
Parikalpta/Pratibhasika:  =   Illusion

3. The Way of Form and the Way of Formlessness

All this is explaining things from a pure "Knowledge Yoga" perspective, but there are also other teachings - Tibetan Buddhism and Taoist Yoga to name just two - which strive for realisation of the Absolute through other dimensions of being, such as the Inner or etheric-psychic-occult.  It all depends whether one prefers the austere approach or the way of form.
A good example of the way of form is shown by Tibetan Buddhism, in which painstakingly elaborate visualisation (Mental body), including visualisation of chakras (Etheric body), deities, mandalas, etc, is combined with focused meditation (inner mental being) to contact and identify with particular deities (expanded/shuddhashuddha being) and activate the subtle "winds" (vayu = prana = ch'i) (inner etheric body).  This finally generates first an "impure illusory body" (Inner Etheric and Inner Astral; Lower Paramartha) and finally a "pure illusory body" (Higher Paramartha), which latter represents the attainment of full Buddhahood.
In contrast to all this is the austere but much simpler and presumably easier to follow techniques of Advaita Vedanta, which attempts to realise the Absolute through a continual intuitive-mental approach of focusing on awareness (see for example the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and to a lesser extent (because he has a somewhat broader approach) Da Free John).  The Rinzai Zen attempt to break down the mental structure through the constant pondering on a paradoxical utteance or koan is somewhat similiar, although employing a novel approach.

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

 

As long as human beings have been putting ideas together and trying to figure out how the world works, we have also been adapting the ideas put together by those who have preceded us in this task. And not just adapting, but giving new interpretations, new slants on things, and incorporating the ideas of others, to create new combinations of thought and understanding. For not to question and not to create and envisage anew is to become stuck in the literalism, fundamentalism, and intellectual totalitarianism and infantile following of and obedience to the views of others that characterises the mindset of those who are unable and unwilling to question or to think for themselves. Now, more than ever, in a world of specialisation that is technologically rich but metaphysically poor, there is a need for a new and grand synthesis of the ideas that have come before.

Eclecticism and Synthesis

Eclecticism is often depreciated. It might be said about someone following their own way that they are a "mere eclectic", taking and choosing what suits them from the diversity of opinions around them, or from the spiritual supermarket of New Age beliefs.
This attitude is promulgated by conservative people who, while perhaps well-meaning, are nevertheless threatened by those who think for themselves. For the fact is that eclecticism is the first step in the path of true creative thought. It means that one is not satisfied to merely swallow whole the worldview or ideology that is dished out to them. And I say this with no judgment on the quality of that worldview. It may indeed be a very sublime one, but to accept by rote the teachings of, say, Sri Aurobindo is just as bad as to accept by rote a literalist-fundamentalist interpretation of Bible, Koran or Gita. First one should look and think for oneself. Then one can return to Bible, Koran or Gita, if one wishes, with a new and broader understanding; or reject them in favour of another perspective if one is so guided.
But while eclecticism is the first stage, it is by no means the last, although for many it is all that is required. But those who wish to explore and envisage further may develop their own unique synthesis, not just an assemblage of facts, but those facts welded into a new cosmology or understanding from their own insight; or rather, from the descent of the higher light working through their mental being and coming to new combinations and new partial truths. These truths may often be the equal of those of the worldview they left, or they may be the superior of them (or the inferior of them, it can go any way, but even if "objectively" inferior these new truths are still right for the person in question, which is why he or she was guided to formulate them)
A synthesis may be loosely or poorly constructed, it may simply be a patchwork with a weak central theme, and different subtruths uncomfortably joined together, or it may be a magnificent and harmonious whole, a new integral truth that does not negate or ignore the parts of which it is composed

Grand Synthesis through the Ages

The following is an extremely brief and incomplete review, more a glance or short and partial synopsis than anything else. At the end I provide a statement of my own goals here.
For tens of thousands of years, since the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens, human consciousness and knowledge did not change. The only knowledge was tribal lore, carried down by word of mouth, taught by the elders to the young, who in turn in the fullness of time became elders to teach and guide the next generation, and so on. Writing was unknown, and the entire universe was encompassed by the community of one's own tribe, the immediate environment, and the tribes in the next valley
This is a society that is astonishingly static. Before the coming of the white man, Australian Aboriginal society had changed little (if at all) in fifty thousand years, and Amazonian Indians lived as they must have ten thousand years ago. And it's not hard to see the reason why. A prehistoric buddha may arise and be known as a great healer, revered for many generations and placed with the other ancestors in the sky, but their message would soon be lost. A stone age shakespeare may invent some great stories, some of which are added to the tribe's repartee, but he would not further the culture of development of the tribe as a whole.
The development of ideas only began with the discovery of writing, which in turn was only made possible by the agricultural revolution, which provided surplus that freed people from the need to hunt for food every day (although it would also enslave many in much worse conditions, as serfs and labourers toiling in the fields), and resulted in the rise of the first cities and stratified societies. In a word, civilization.
Once you have writing and a literate scribe or priestly caste, it becomes possible for anyone who can read to have access to the thoughts of those who came before them. They are then free to add their own ideas and interpretations, to build upon the earlier ideas. With surplus you have the possibility of trade, and hence the exchange of ideas with other city-states and empires, other peoples and civilizations (You also have a much-loved (as representative of the gods on Earth) but autocratic monarch, a standing army, and invasion and conquest of those neighbours who are weaker than your own city state, but that's another story.)
For three thousand years, societies evolved and developed, empires rose and crumbled. We cannot know who the first great thinkers were, but surely one of the earliest people we know of to develop a "theory of everything", a true synthesis incorporating the spiritual and the material, must have been Pythagoras. Pythagoras had the benefit of Greek philosophy, science, culture, and freedom of thought, had travelled to Egypt and met with the priests there, and even, so the story goes, been as far as India, where he had encountered the teachings of the "naked ascetics" (the Vedantic Yogis one might assume).
Pythagoras explained everything in terms of harmonies, so that the same forces that moved the celestial spheres could be seen in the mathematical ratio between musical notes, and the proportions of geometrical figures. He was both mystic and scientist, taught the virtues of a pure vegetarian diet, the transmigration of souls, the relation of spiritual and sensory reality, and the archetypal attributes of pure number (a concept not very different to ideas in modern physics). He founded the Pythagorean school of the mysteries, and his ideas formed the foundation of the Platonic tradition, and hence of western philosophy as well as of the Western Wisdom Tradition as a whole.
Late antiquity was also a time when profound developments of mystico-philosophical thinking were taking place. The edifice of knowledge and understanding advances by the assimilation of new insights, which are then added onto what has come before, to create new interpretations, visions, and worldviews. But new insights can only come about in two ways: through new and unique experiences of individuals (for example the Enlightenment of the Buddha, or the thought-experiments of Einstein), and through meeting with other cultures, which have had centuries to develop their own unique perspectives. Or preferably, both.
And, equally important, new ideas and new worldviews can only flourish in an environment free of religious oppresion
And this is what happened in the Hellenistic world of Roman civilization. First Alexander, and then the Romans, had conquered many other empires, as well as trading with those in the Far East beyond their borders. At this time, Roman society was secular (with token acknowledgment to the Emperor as God on Earth), so it was a good opportunity to explore new visions of the universe without the stranglehold of conservative authoritarian religion that always tends to retard these things. The abundance of mystery schools and sects of Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East, a spirit of anxiety and uncertainty (all those barbarians at the borders), and the insatiable human hunger for a spiritual aspect to life, which can never be denied, no matter how hard secularists try (the 20th century's failed Marxist experiment for example, now on it's last legs), all added to the mix. Indeed, the late Roman Empire has been often compared to the modern West in these ways, although these comparisons may be misleading.
In any case, this period saw the development of several attempts at Grand Synthesis of all previous philosophical schools, spiritual and esoteric teachings and religious pantheons. The Middle Platonic and Neopythagorean schools and the inscrutable Chaldean Oracles gave way to the profound summation of all classical thought in Neoplatonism, a tradition that itself became more all-encompassing and elaborate as the earlier founders like Plotinus and his student Porphyry were replaced by the more theurgic Iamblichus and theosphical Proclus. With these latter two Neoplatonism became truly a Grand Synthesis of cosmological and Philosophical thought.
At the same time, new eclectic and syncretic religions like Pauline (which welded Pagan thinking (the suffering god-man) with original Jerusalem-Christianity) , Johanine (mystic revelation), Alexandrian (middle Platonic) and Augustinian (Platonic) Christianity, Gnostic sects with their baroque and pessimistic cosmologies, and Manichaeism which integrated Christian, Greek, Buddhist, Gnostic, and Zervanite and Mazdian Zoroastrian approaches, developed. This period interestingly also saw the rise of Mahayana Buddhism (which incorporated Hellenic elements) and Tantra in the East.
The closing of the last Neoplatonic academies, and the conquest of a long declining Rome by new barbarian leaders, signalled an end to this original age of freedom, and the West entered the dark ages of religious fundamentalism and oppression of those who would think differently to the Church. Meanwhile, civilization flourished in the Islamic world, where **** [need to add text] **** combined exoteric islam with aristotlean thought, and Avicenna
It was in the Islamic world that the precious knowledge of the ancients were preserved (that much of it that had survived the burning of the library of Alexandria that is), and form where it was rediscovered and translated in **** [need to add text] ****ushering in the return of classical learning in the renaissance. This flood of lost knowledge and wisdom into city states in which the Christian Church was reasonably tolerant, triggered a period of incredible syntheses, in the work of ,
This was also the last time that it was possible for a single gifted individual to actually be an authority on everything. **** [need to add text] **** the Encyclopaedists were not synthesisers, they simply collected and compiled information, in the spirit of making knowledge available to all. The age of the Renaissance Man, with his Grand Picture of the workings of the universe, human nature, and God, was over.
In the 18th century, the American and French revolutions and parliamentary reforms in Britain demolished the divine right of kings, literary scholarship showed the Bible to be a work written in stages rather than a monolithic revelation from God, developments in science and philosophy provided rational explanations to the workings of the universe and of economics and human society, and the increasingly comprehensive findings of geology and other areas of science meant it was no longer tenable to believe in a literal 6000 year old universe. All this paved the way for the paradigm shift that was the Darwinian revolution in the mid 19th century, which confronted people at a very deep level by forcing them to question (or not, as the case may be) their long-cherished religious literalism. At the same time, scholars like Schopenhauer looked more sympathetically to the East, and instead of new and very different sects of Christianity like Christian Science, and mysterious occult societies like the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, and the Golden Dawn sprang up, based on empowering human nature rather than man as a helpless little insect before God.
And this brings us to the next great Synthesis, the marriage of East and West, Science and Religion, Secular Learning and Occultism. In a sense, this was the greatest synthesis ever, because never before had so much information been made available, thanks to the widespread and cheap distribution of the printed book, and a secular Western society that encouraged learning and education, and an educated elite hungry for knowledge and understanding of the Big Picture.
H.P. Blavatsky was not in any way a talented writer. Her style is heavy and disjointed, and larger parts of her writing have been plagiarised from other sources. She invented a myth of hidden masters, as a way of justifying her teachings (possibly in part channelled communications?) as revealed through "Mahatma Letters", as well as doing other things like burying tea cups and pretending to find them as apports. But her magnum opus, the Secret Doctrine, set the tone for all occult, esoteric, and New Age thinking since, provding a cyclic-evolutionary, east-west paradigm that was (and in a sens estill is) truely revolutionary.
Were this the classical world, Blavatsky's theosophical synthesis would have lasted a thousand years (just as Pythagoras' did). But the technological West is not the classical world. Science marches on, at an accelerating rate that can surely only culminate in a Singularity and the birth of a new primary Kingdom of evolutionary existence. And so within only a few short decades Blavatsky's Victorian-era pop-science ("the iguana lizard, a diminuative descendent of the giant Iguandon", etc) was looking ridiculously out of date. Her cosmology of rounds and cycles could no more be considered believeable than a literalist take on Genesis. Neveretheless, successive generations of Theosophists and off-shoots like Steiner (by far the most innovative and creative of all the theosophical-occult teachers) continued to hold these views, as did his followers and the Anthroposphical organsiation as a whole.
Because of his conservatism and backward-looking tendency, I do not consider Steiner an innovatiove thinker in the manner of Blavatsky. This is not to say that he did not say some very fascinating things; he most certainly did. But his cosmology - valuable as it is as metaphor, and as a new revisioning o the old medieval pre-/anti-modernist tradition in the mould of Guenon, Schuon and others - cannot serve as a Grand Picture for all age. For that we need a paradigm that does not have to deny or give a forced interpretation to the findings of geology, palaeontology, and so on. (As I suggest in Towards a Foundation of a Universal Esoteric Science, On matters of physical reality, Esotericism should defer to Science.)
A mere few decades to a century or so after Blavatsky, a number of thinkers had proposed various manners of Grand Synthesis. Never had there been so many Theories of Everything proposed. For this was the twentieth century, a period of unprecedented technological, scientific, social, economic, psychological, and philosophical prgress, where academic specialistation, rapid communications and the information revolution saw the amount of new knowledge increase literally exponentially (as indicated the number of new academic journals that are published each year).
It may be argued that this sort of endevaour is simply doomed from the start now. Arvan Harvat says

"It's nonsensical to speak of grand synthesis now, simply because the scope of knowledge has exploded in such a manner that no person can know what's going on even in his limited field (not to speak of other stuff.). Poincare (died 1912.) was the last universal mathematician, and Alonzo Church the last universal logician. No man in the world can know (seriously), say, 10 % of contemporary mathematics. And "grand synthesizers", like German methapysician Nicolai Hartmann (active mainly before WW1 and between wars) are necessarily an oddity, something like fossils and eccentric curiosities...The antiquated synthesizers [of the Classical and Renaissance world] tried to construct a system of "all" when such an effort still possessed some sense (or was on the verge). Now synthesis of "all" is ridiculous from the start. ...[Consider such ] diverse fields like genetics, astrophysics, brain science, information theory, mathematical linguistics,..."

The following very partial and incomplete esoteric-spiritual Grand Synthesisiers are listed here, but many more could be mentioned, especially from areas of learning that I am not conversant in. So if there are no names on this list that should be, please let me know. Note that this list does not include visionaries in only specialised fields, no matter how far reaching those fields may be. These are people who literally incorporate everything (not just provide a theory that might explain it, but include at least the bare basics of just about everything in their systems of correspondences), in a pythagorean vision of a unifying principle behind the diverse multiplicity

• Teilhard de Chardin's omega theology, which unites evolutionary science (which means the entire physical universe, from atoms to man) and Christianity
• Sri Aurobindo, the first truely Integral Thinker (more recently this term has been appropriated by Ken Wilber) who showed that this-worldly Materialism and other-worldly Mysticism/Spirituality were just equally one-sided perspectives, and proposed a cosmotheology in which the static transcendent Absolute Reality adopts a dynamic form (Supermind) through which the cosmos and all finite beings come about. His evolutionary philosophy, culminating in the divinisation of matter itself, paralleled Teilhard's in many ways, although neither knew the other (Teilhard's Phenomenon of Man was only published after his death)
• Buckmister Fuller (synergy, and other ideas)
• Edward Haskell's Unified Science
• Oliver Reiser's Cosmic Humanism
• Arthur M Young's Reflexive Universe
• Erich Jantsch's Self-Organising Universe

(Note: I haven't included by the Fourth Way of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky as I have recently come to understand that despite its inclusiveness this only refers to certain slice of Reality, as indicated by the "food diagram" with its subtle (but still physical) energies. In addition, there is no formualtion of objectivist science in Gurdjieff's teachings, it is rather an esoteric system of self-development, and we are looking for esoteric plus science and exoteric, i.e. for expalnatiosn of everything)
Now, in the first decade of the 21st Century, where the Internet has enabled a truely amazing dissemination of information, and where there is even more information around than ever before, it is time for a new synthesis, a grand synthesis of grand syntheses. This is what I am proposing here.
Obviously, I am not the first to attempt such a task, as there are many who are undertaking this sort of thing right now. Increased information and data flow encourages increased interpretaion and revisioning of that data flow, in a positive feedback loop that sees us roaring to the Singularity, with many "cells" of the global "noosphere" working in parallel
Perhaps the most ambitious of the current grand synthesisers of grand synthesisers - the meta-grand synthesisers if you will ;-) - would have to be the american philosopher Ken Wilber, whose flawed yet still immensely ambitious Integral Synthesis serves as a current indicator and touchstone of where we are at right now. It is worth pointing out that although Ken Wilber pays homage to Sri Aurobindo (who he completely misunderstands) and Erich Jantsch, among many many others who he has been inspired by and integrated into his grand synethsis (or Integral System) he does not include innovative thinkers like Haskell, or Stan Gooch (who although primarily psychologically-orientated, makes many important contributions)
What I humbly intend to do is to create a larger and grander Integral Worldview, my own version of the Theory of Everything.

Kheper Home | Unified Theory of Everything Home | Topics | Esoteric and Exoteric | Different Esoteric Teachings | Exoteric, Esoteric, and Levels of Reality | Gnosis | Esotericism links | Mysticism | Metaphysics | East and West | New or updated | Authors | Search | What's New |

 

Science and Esotericism

Whilst the physical sciences have continued to progress ever since the time of Galileo, the esoteric sciences have not advanced to the same degree; and some haven't advanced at all (e.g. Astrology - with all the advances in so-called Esoteric, Humanistic, etc - still rests on the foundation of Ptolemaic (Geocentric) physics. Hassidic Kabbalah rehashes and reinterprets material written two centuries and more ago. Theosophy draws on the 19th century writings of Balvatsky, including Victorian science.). In fact esoterica in general does not progress the way science does. This is because esoterica is based on experiences, anecdotes, and dogmas, whereas science uses testable and objective experimental methodology. Science works because other scientists can conform or refute the findings of the original author. e.g.  special relativity can be  confirmed by measuring the slightly lower speed of atomic clocks in a moving aircraft, and other means. With esotericism this is not possible.
The problem is that there is no "objective" standard in esotericism. How does one for example prove or disprove something like Blavatsky's Seven Root Races? Or the Kabbalistic world of Atzilut? Or purusha and prakrtiti of the Samkhya philosophy?
Because physical science is to be based on the empirical unit of testable experiment ( Galileo etc) and  falsification (Popper), it is possible over the years, decades and centuries to create a vast edifice of knowledge. It is not necessary for every physicist to rediscover Newton's laws, and Einstein's relativity, and the quantum physics of Plank, Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg and the rest. These are already assumed to be valid, they have been tested, confirmed through independent experimental results, and so can serve as the foundation for further explorations.
This is the reason science is so powerful, and has achieved such miracles of knowledge and technology.
In contrast to the wonders of the modern scientific understanding of the workings off the universe, poor old Esotericism cannot get beyond the basic foundations. And what is worse, even those foundations are biased; coloured by the religious or personal idiosyncrasies of the author, and not amenable to confirmation or refutation the way physical science is. Each school follows the Founder, without questioning. The 4th Way people follow Gurdjieff and only use his jargon. The Theosophists ditto Blavatsky. Sometimes schisms occur, like the rival schools of Theosophy (Adya, Point Loma, Alice Bailey, etc), and there is no objective test to see which one is correct.
If an esoteric science is to be truly universal, it must be based on fundamental elements of knowledge that can be confirmed or refuted (as much as possible) and can serve as the foundation for further units.
In one respect this is not as easy as with physical science. Physical science - like exoteric religion - doesn't require one to alter their consciousness. It does however ask that one immerse oneself in a specialised body of knowledge, often for years at a time, of little relevance or interest to humanity as a whole, before one can embark on one's own research. Let us say you want to study, oh, say, prehistoric amphibians ( labyrinthodonts) of the  Triassic period. You have to spend several years learning basic  palaeontology and geology. Then spend more years specialising in vertebrate palaeontology, especially labyrinthodont amphibians, and that means you have to find someone who has already studies and researched and written papers on Triassic labyrinthodont amphibians. That person then becomes your supervisor, who helps you with your work and makes sure you are on the right track. Or if astronomy, you may have an interest in  protoplanetary nebulae, say. Again, the same pattern; general study, then specialised, and finally your own research (Master's thesis, then Phd), all this taking quite a few years. As you can see, it is very like getting initiated into, say, a Sufi or Tantric sect, and following the teacher or guru, who is there to help you find your own way (and never, as in many fake pop-gurus of the West, to take advantage of you).
And after all this, one's own research, when it is published, can be tested by one's peers. This process of peer-review is a fundamental element of western science. Whilst it leads to the danger of becoming hide-bound and stuck in old paradigms, it also ensures that any new discoveries are authentic; they are not something being churned out by any lunatic.
Now, consider esoteric science. You can, if you wish, join a school, according to your inclination and interests and talents. Say a Hermetic School, or a Tibetan Buddhist lineage. You are given material to learn, and when you feel ready you are initiated into the group. As you progress you are given more advanced material, or meditation practices, to learn and master. You are supervised by the elders of the group, who make sure you don't go astray, and help you if you have problems. You can specialise if you wish, perhaps you prefer a particular meditation, or a particular practice. Eventually, after many years, if you feel comfortable in this group, you become an elder or master or teacher too. And here also there is a sort of review by peers, although not in such a formal sense (although sometimes it may be). If you have wildly eccentric interpretations, your views may not be accepted. Sometimes they may be good views, sometimes ridiculous. There may be a schism, or you may be expelled. Paradigms determine belief-systems and behaviour in esotericist groups just as much as in science - if not more so! And most of all in exoteric religions, which at their worst are hidebound to the most literal interpretations of an old book, which, worthy as it may be in its message, becomes twisted and distorted when every word is taken as "gospel truth" (literally!).
So each branch of human endeavour - science or esotericism - follows a broadly similar path. Novice who joins specialised or specialist or even eccentric group, where he/she can pursue ones interests, is encouraged and guided, and eventually becomes a master or teacher or elder in his/her own right. this is just part of the cycle of human existence and interrelationships.
But science and esotericism also differ. Science is about discovering things - pure knowledge - for their own sake. The joy of learning is reward enough. Esotericism, being more pragmatic, is not only about knowledge, it is also about attainment. Of course, this varies too, with some forms of esotericism, like Theosophy, being almost totally theoretical (and hence like science), while others, like various schools of Buddhist or Yogic practice, being almost completely practical, with only minimal theory (just enough to provide a framework for the practice).
The greatest denial of knowledge however is found in some hidebound exoteric Religions and Cults, where learning of anything other than one's own faith or the teachings of the cult leader is actually depreciated or condemned as a distraction, or the work of the devil.
So an esoteric science, as suggested here, is not about the path to enlightenment or self-realisation, which is the true goal of mystical and esotericist practice, but about understanding the "intermediate realities" between the objective physical and the transcendent. In no way do I think this a bad thing. In fact, I consider this a worthy extension of human knowledge, and one that may even be necessary, if we are to broaden our understanding of the universe about us, and our own psyches. For me, the practical and theoretical should go together; each is unbalanced without the other.

Laying the Foundations

How then do we begin to lay the foundations for a Universal Esoteric Science? What methodologies do we use?
This is not an easy question. Perhaps a few propositions to begin with?
Let us begin with the Most Fundamental Empirical Datum of all, The Primacy of consciousness. Cartesian/Husserlian method (I remember this was taught by my old lecturer at La Trobe University, Dr Moshe Kroy, and it influenced me greatly) is that one can doubt anything but one's own consciousness, one's own existence, one's own bare awareness. This of course takes us to Advaita Vedanta, as Moshe perceptively realised. Because Shankara's Advaita, following on the "great sayings' of the Upanishads, says that all there is is the Self, the bare datum of Consciousness/Awareness, the Absolute Reality (Atman = Brahman).
So this is the first proposition - all that exists is my (well, your, because you are the one reading this) Awareness
Now, Moshe Kroy used the Cartesian method, but this is potentially debatable. As someone said, Descartes was wrong with his "Cogito, ergo sum". I perceive, therefore I am. The most honest declaration would be: perception exists.
But one could go further than that (because perception is still perception of something) and say "Bare Awareness Is" (Kashmir Shaivism, also Advaitin Atman (Self) = Brahman)). The ratiocination-based Western philosophical methodology is in this regard more limited than Vedantic/Tantric Bare Awareness methodology. It is important to understand what is being referred to here is not an ego or finite conscious self, but a boundless consciousness. It is proposed here that this is all that is.
This can be proved by a simple thought experiment. Try to imagine another bare awareness. You can't, because to do so would mean you include it in your awareness. Other than Being (which in this thought experiment is your being, your consciousness, although technically speaking the limited "I" is a reflection of the infinite awareness - see below) there is not even nothing. There is only That Being.
It is true that dualists, pluralists, physicalists and the like do assume the duality of subject and object, and say that there is an objective or other subjective reality, or non-being, beyond the All-Encompassing Awareness. But of course, to postulate such a reality, they have to imagine /visualise it. So they have still not gone beyond their awareness
Of course, solipsism is absurd too, but only because solipsism makes the mistake of identifying the Absolute Awareness (Parasamvit, Atman-Brahman or nirguna brahman, etc). with the limited sphere of the individual ego-consciousness and its sphere of awareness. So I emphasise, when referring to Absolute Awareness, I mean the Supreme, of which your subjective awareness is simply a reflection (good analogy here is the  golden lion metaphor in Hua Yen Buddhism (Fa-tsang). The infinite reflections in the mirror are not the actual golden lion)
So we have proposition number one - all that exists, all that is, is Infinite Non-dual Consciousness.
See this page for a more detailed take on this
This is the basic monistic insight, the mystical experience of Unity (see e.g.   Mysticism Defined by W.T. Stace), the premise of most (but not all - there are dualists as well) esoteric teachings, from Plotinus to Shankara to Ibn Arabi to Theon. At the beginning, and in essence now, there is only The One.
This of course has a corollary - everything is nothing else but Transformations of that One. Even inanimate matter is Consciousness, is nothing but Consciousness.
But if there is only the Supreme, why are we limited finite beings. Proposition two, there must be a progression from Infinite Absolute to Finite Relative. And hence, Reality has a structure, a gradient, and can be mapped. This is the field of study of esoteric science, mapping this structure, the "Body of God" as the Kabbalists so evocatively say. This also takes us to Emanationism, regarding which I have already provided an overview. See also Professor Huston Smith's book Forgotten Truth : The Common Vision of the World's Religions which presents human knowledge and experience in terms of a gradation of several metaphysical levels, in keeping with the teachings of mystics and spiritual traditions of all times and cultures. (Professor Smith's thesis is that an over-emphasis on experimental science since the time of Galileo has led to the loss of this sacred insight in the Western world)
But the Map of Reality - the Body of God - is not something static. That is where the Theosophists and Kabbalists and others go wrong, in trying to formulate a rigid set of planes, perhaps by analogy with physical characteristics. Rather, it is a dynamic process. Esoteric science is a study of processes, not of "things"
We now have the Ground of Reality, and the Body of the Godhead. But what about the Method to be used?
Since Consciousness is the sole reality, we should not depreciate consciousness in seeking to understand the universe. This gives us a Method, again shown to me by Moshe Kroy almost a quarter of a century ago.
Everything that appears in Consciousness is a valid datum of inquiry
This is the completely opposite approach to physical science, which seeks to screen out the effect of subjectivity (although it cannot deny the reality of the Observer - and hence of Consciousness). This is why science works best with inanimate objects, still adequately with living beings (although there is no conception of ch'i and little of the dynamics of the whole organism), not so good with societies and anthropology, and worst of all with psychology, leading to such absurdities as Behaviourism (which in its extreme form (Watson, Skinner, etc) even denies the existence of subjectivity!!!) and statistics-driven so-called experimental psychology. The more "inward" (the "within" to use Teilhard de Chardin's term) you go, the less that science works.
Science therefore is a methodology that works supremely well on the gross physical plane, when dealing with purely physical; objects, and less well with more subtle things.
Conversely subjectivism becomes absurd when applied to purely physical processes, this is where "magic" becomes "superstition", and the reason that the physically advanced but metaphysically impoverished Western and Western-inspired nations were able to conquer and enslave the technologically more primitive but metaphysically more advanced Asian, Tribal, etc societies (everything from the 16^th to 19^th century European colonisation of the rest of the world to the 20^th century Chinese conquest of and on-going genocide in Tibet)
Therefore Objective Physical Science and Subjective Esoteric Science thus complement each other perfectly. Which brings us to the next proposition.
On matters of physical reality, Esotericism should defer to Science.
Why? Because this way we can avoid absurdities like Steiner's cosmological cycles, in which the whole Solar System comes into and moves out of manifestation within the time of a single Procession of the Equinoxes. Examined in the hard light of scientific analysis, the Anthroposophical science of Steiner and his followers has all the persuasiveness of the Young Earth theory of fundamentalist Christian Creationism
Which brings us to our next point.
If we are to use as a foundation of inquiry the basic framework already established by the various esoteric teachings, we have to be very careful of one thing. Fixed opinions, which freeze the original fleeting inspiration or process into something stultifying. We need to get away from dogmas. Dogmas in esotericism are as bad as dogmas in science. In science, dogmas become old paradigms that obstruct new ideas, and have to be overthrown, and are only with difficulty. In esotericism, dogmas are far worse, they become fundamentalist and literalist fixations, and blind one to other truths and other possibilities, and destroy even the original truth that was in that teaching in the beginning. This is why dogmatism in esotericism, in religion, and everywhere else, should be completely avoided. Even the ideas presented here should only be taken as hypotheses and suggestions, never as dogmas, and only accepted if one feels in one's own heart that they have value.
Finally, we need to ask what teachings and experiences we will use and take as authoritative, in formulating our new Esoteric Science. Let us say (for sake of example) you like Osho and I like Aurobindo. Now, if Osho says the Absolute Reality and the Self (Atman) are the same, and if Aurobindo says that too, well, that is fine, there is no problem. But if Osho says once you attain Enlightenment that is the highest state, but Aurobindo says, no, there is a higher state beyond Enlightenment, you have to draw the Divine Consciousness down and transform your body and matter, there is a problem. (I am mentioning this because I once many years ago had a discussion/argument with a friend who was a devotee of Osho; I took (and still take) the Aurobindoan position, and he did not feel comfortable with that, because it referred to states beyond what Osho taught. One could say the same using Adi Da instead of Osho as an example). So, where there is a conflict, we need to decide which teacher is the most authoritative.
Everyone will have different ways of doing this, but my method regarding this is simple. The most Inclusive Teaching is the one that should be chosen. This is something the Buddha said once, his teaching is like the footprint of the elephant which can hold the other teachings in itself. So the more all encompassing the teaching, the more preferable it is.
Simple real world example (from religion rather than esotericism, but only to make a point): The fundamentalist Christian, or fundamentalist Muslim, who says "all non-believers go to hell", does not seem as persuasive as an ecumenical Muslim or ecumenical Christian who says "to every people God has sent a prophet" (or Teacher, or whatever). This is because the bigot excludes all others, and so their teaching is extremely arbitrary: why should the fundamentalist of sect x be right, but the fundamentalist of sect y wrong? Or vice versa for that matter? The ecumenicist includes all others, seeing them as part of a greater whole, therefore, devotee of sect x has part of the truth, devotee of sect y also has part. Both are partly correct, (but also partly limited) no favouritism. Seems a lot more reasonable to me.
Regarding this, see also the tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant
So we have, so far

1. All that exists is Infinite Non-dual Consciousness. (The Absolute Reality)
2. Reality has a gradient and can be mapped (the Body of the Godhead).
3. Everything that appears in Consciousness is a valid datum of inquiry (Phenomenology)
4. On matters of physical reality, Esotericism should defer to Science (Critical Thinking)
5. All dogmatism is to be avoided (receptivity to new Possibilities).
6. Where there is a conflict between two teachings, the more inclusive Teaching is preferable.

Note that this is still a provisional list; as this essay is a work in progress, not a finished manifesto.

Why have Metaphysics?

A pragmatist may point out that the first two Propositions sound more like dogmas, and imply an unnecessary philosophisation. One can still construct an esoteric science or sciences using modern esoteric philosophies that differ (e.g. evolutionary-Gurdjieffian like that of John Lilly versus the American Zen of Ken Wilber) - or with no underlying "grand philosophy" at all. All that is required, from a pragmatic point of view, is to state that this physical universe is not all that is (as indicated by evidence of phenomena such as precognition, OBEs, NDEs, I Ching,..), and that various fields now subsumed under esoterica umbrella will be investigated according to their respective nature (e.g. the bioplasmatic body "needs" only some kind of energy body or "fluid", but not complete revolution in worldview that will annihilate old space-time 4-dimensional physics).
My reply to the purely pragmatic position is as follows. Without a unified framework, esoteric science becomes just one more version of scientistic agnosticism. Traditionally, aristotlean-medieval knowledge was tied to God/Prime Mover, the whole thing cohered because of that. Is is the foundation of all "sacred cosmologies". In most esoteric cosmologies (with only a few exceptions like Classical Samkhya and Manicahean Dualism) everything goes back to the original One.
What I am interested in is a universal system of knowledge, such as the Unified Science of Edward Haskell and co-workers, the Cosmic Humanism of Oliver Reiser, the Sacred Soviety of William Irwin Thompson, the Primordial Tradition of Professor Huston Smith.

Objective/Hard versus Subjective/Soft, and Levels of Reality

In some cases using terms like "Objective" for Physical Science and "Subjective" for Esoteric Science is too simplistic, abstract, or meaningless. And how do we know that physical reality is more "objective" (if, as the Kashmir Shaivites assert, everything is just a condensation of consciousness, it isn't). So whilst as a methodology these terms are useful, they should not be given any metaphysical authenticity. A better analogy here might be physics and chemistry ("hard" or "objective") versus psychology and sociology ("soft" or "subjective").
Or, "hard sciences" and "soft sciences" and "objective" and "subjective" may simply be some of a number of levels on the gradient of reality
More than that, Esoteric Science itself spans the spectrum from "hard" to "soft", and hence becomes a more inclusive paradigm that includes the hard/physical sciences as special cases within itself, (just as Newtonian Physics is a "special case" of Einsteinian physics), and adds a radical dimension of depth to - or even completely reinterprets, the soft/social sciences. Hence some parts of this research program can be subsumed under (hard/experimental/objective) "science" (acupuncture, etc), others under metaphysics and "art".
Arvan Harvat suggests we might divide human creativity into these areas:

1. arts (music, painting, imaginative literature,...) (Fine Arts)
2. philosophy, theology, historiography, criticism (social, literary,..) (Humanities?)
3. social sciences (sociology, linguistics, psychology, economics ?,..)
4. exact sciences (math, chemistry, ..)
5. applied sciences and technology (electrical engineering,..)

Looking at this sequence, which runs from "subjective/soft" to "objective/hard" (or "lunar/yin" to "solar/yang" consciousness; see for example Stan Gooch's map of the mind - Ststem B and System A) traditional esoteric sciences could be considered a hybrid of humanities and arts; its "precision" or "exactitude" measured not by exact sciences standards, but by, say, those of humanities or social sciences. In fact. some of what is defined as esotericism - astrology especially, or Buddhism, or Gurdjieff or even Hermeticism in part - can be interpreted as (alternative) psychology, with psychoanalysis, behaviorism, functionalism, and neuropsychology, say, being the more exact sciences side of the spectrum. Conversely some forms of psychoanalysis, Jung especially, might belong under traditional Estericism. So might Maslow, or Assagioli
Again, ch'i and bioplasmatic body would belong in the exact sciences realm, occult planes in the humanities, and Ching and Tarot divination (as opposed to Tarot psychology) to speculative physical theories that are still emergent (multidimensional universe etc.).
But there can be even more to it than just this. I have already referred to Professor Huston Smith's book Forgotten Truth : The Common Vision of the World's Religions which presents human knowledge in terms of four basic metaphysical levels.  If we apply this here, in terms of exoteric (conventional knowledge, as indicated in Arvan's list) and esoteric fields of inquiry and practice, we have the following (note, this correlation differs from the original table which remains more faithful to Prof Smith):

Reality	my cosmology	Huston Smith (Forgotten Truth)	Established fields	Suggested esoteric areas and possible of research
Unmanifest Godhead or Absolute	Absolute Reality	Spirit/Infinite	As revealed ("finger pointing at the moon") through Monistic mysticism	Enlightenment experiences of transcendence; Moksha, Kaivalya, Nirvana
Absolute in Manifestation	Dynamic Absolute	--	Aurobindoan Supramentalisation and equivalents (Lurianic concepts etc)
Spiritual- Divine	Noetic Noeric	Soul/Celestial	Theistic mysticism	Theosophic esotericism and metaphysics (Sufism, Kabbalah, Tantra, etc), higher yogic experiences, Adi Da's 5th and 6th Stages in part
Psychic- Intermediate	Psychic	Mind/Intermediate	Fine Arts, philosophy, religion, social sciencesPsychology, etc,..)	psi, OBE, NDE, various aspects of occultism
Etheric	Physical-Psychic Interface	(Life)	holistic and alternative healing, some elements of biology, emergent evolution, self-organising phenomena	morphogenetic fields (Sheldrake) and holistic physics (Bohm), chakras, acupuncture medians, Kirlian photography, bioplasma, orgone energy, ley lines, geomancy, feng shui, etc
Physical	Physical	Body/Physical	exact sciences applied sciences and technology	questions on causality/synchronicity, time-travel, superluminal phenomena, multiverse,

The above gives us a foundation, but what about the bricks to build the edifice? We will find there are different approaches and methodologies, depending on the aspect of reality we are inquiring into. For the physical, this is There are two broad approaches we can take here - experimental/empirical method science, and the experiential/phenomenology of mysticism. Many areas of esotericism however - for example practical occultism, represent an overlap of these two.

The Experimental/Empirical Approach of Science

The Experimental Approach is non-Metaphysical. Newton didn't care for Descartes or any philosophy of that kind. Real scientists (Newton, Huyghens, Euler,..) only needed that there is a world "outside there" with immutable laws and no whimsical divine interventions. For physical-experimental esoteric science all that is required is that this 4-dimensional world described in Einsteinian space-time 4-dim physics and with 4 forces (some are united in Salam-Weinberg Standard model) are not complete reality.
From this perspective the only starting point might be:

1. contemporary mainstream fundamental (quantum, relativity) physics is only partially true. Therefore I Ching, planes, parallel universus, precognition, NDEs,..
2. the 4 forces world of fundamental physics are similarly just a part of the larger picture. Therefore ch'i, telepathy, plants, auras,..

(for auras there is probably a conceptual effort that combines a) and b)- which is reality, because the Standard model is a quantum model)
Here we have two stages:

• experiment, in exact sciences manner, with everything that can be subjected to good, old fashioned ways (bioplasm, plants, dowsing,..) and compile a corpus of verifiable data-without some strong theory. Just incontrovertible facts.
• other, more metaphysical matters (I Ching, planes, evolution,..) will have to wait for breakthrough in speculative physics etc. For instance, when Relativity goes down and physicists' general concept of universe collapses (no velocity greater than speed of light, causality,...)- then, and only then will be possible to seriously ask questions like this: how can tossing I Ching coins predict something that will happen in next 6 months ? How this works ? What's the "mechanism"?

The Experiential/Phenomenological Approach of Mysticism

Science uses experiment and confirmation (or falsification). In esotericism however this is not easily possible. Sri Aurobindo may have experienced the Overmind (Noetic Reality), and Adi Da the Radiant Transcendental Being, and Max and AlmaTheon explored the byways of the psychic planes, but it is not easy for the average person to attain such heights (understatement of the month).
Of course, it is not easy to confirm or refute  the existence of the Higgs Boson either, but assuming a suitably large particle accelerator can be built, it can be done, by physicists with the required training. Whereas the realisation of the Noetic Reality or of Shunyata or psychic planes can be done very cheaply (in terms of material cost) but only with great personal skill and very rare attainment (in terms of individual training and realisation). Once again, Physical Science and Esoteric Science are polar opposites and complementary (like Yin and Yang)
A Universal Esoteric Science deals with experiences as authentic data (phenomenology, proposition 3 in the provisional list). But not all experiences, not all phenomena of consciousness, are accessible, as just explained. Pragmatic Esotericism (Spiritual Practice) takes experiences gained by those who have trailblazed before and above us, and uses them as guideposts on the spiritual path. Applying this to Esoteric Science, and not "just" Esoteric Practice, we should have the option to take these experiences and descriptions and use them to piece together an account of other planes of existence.
There are a number of obviously overlapping sources of experiences (for example a single individual may present both a teaching and an autobiography).
In the accounts of traditional (ancient or recent, include channelling) spiritual literature. This is often highly stylised and mythologised, and hence hard to decipher. e.g. the Vision of Ezekiel in the Bible, which some people like to interpret as a UFO. [e.g.  link, linklink]. Sometimes the symbolism may be so dense as to render the whole thing incomprehensible - e.g. the Sefer Zohar of Kabbalah - or tied in with folklore and myth - e.g. the Mahabarata. Or the narrative may be deliberately stylised or obtuse (Gnosticism, Blavatsky's Stanzas of Dyzan), or seek to conceal or confuse (Gurdjieff's Beelzebub's Tales). Often there is a quality of channelled material, and indeed many of these works are channelled (e.g. the prophets who heard voices etc). For these reasons, even though these accounts were all written by human beings (although the pious may interpret them as literal revelation by God/Deity in which the human author played no part other than to inscribe the words) they are not much, or any, use for formulating a Universal Esoteric Science
Then there are teachers who are presenting their own vision of Reality. They may be intelligent and have read widely, hence they are not likely to be so limited to one tradition, although they may have a preference for a particular tradition. Examples might include Adi Da, Sri Aurobindo, Meher Baba, Rudolph Steiner, and many many others. However, the immediacy of the autobiographical account is lost, and the whole thing has a didactic tone. Sometimes this also moves into the field of channelling, which will often tend to deteriorate the quality of the material (the Alice Bailey material, turgid, verbose, and unreadable, essentially Theosophy with a Christian slant, is a good example here). Even so there are a few rare individuals like Edgar Cayce, Jane Roberts, and David Spangler that retain a sense of purity not found in most channelled material
Of great value are the autobiographical accounts of both historical and recent mystics and psychonauts. Even with those who have drawn upon the traditional literature, which is very often (especially in Medieval material) all they know, and hence their experiences are coloured and biased by it, and the genuine insights have to be extracted, but at least they recorded their experiences faithfully. The Christian Mystical tradition is a good illustration of this. Even better are recent autobiographies like Swami Muktananda's Play of Consciousness; perhaps one of the best works of its kind, and one I found far more inspiring than Yogananda's cloying Autobiography of a Yogi. Hagiographies obviously are less useful, since there is the tendency to worship and hence gloss over things that the author did not like. Even so, in some cases the saint's words may be described and record his or her experiences. Also of use are the accounts of modern educated westerners, such as John Lilly's.
Also of great use are modern individuals who may or may not come from a tradition, but are simply describing their experiences, without pompousness or unnecessary symbolism, and without any agenda other than: well, this is what happened to me. Even though their experience may be colored by the symbolism of their culture, background, or religious upbringing - e.g. a Hindu might have a vision of Krishna, a Christian of Christ, one can still take away the superficial form, and look at the quality of the experience in itself.
In some cases the various descriptions referred to in some or all of the preceding categories may be collated by others, for example Aldous Huxley (The Perennial Philosophy) on mysticism, Masters and Huston's, or Stan Grof's account of psychedelic experiences, Jung's work on the Collective Unconscious, or Ken Wilber's mapping of states of consciousness. Such systematic coverage can be extremely useful, because the editor will have noticed certain common themes, and draw the reader's attention to them. Often both traditional and modern accounts are placed side by side, showing that these sort of experiences really are universal.
Of course, you yourself, the reader, may also have experiences, these are just as valid as those in any of the above categories.

"Type Experiences"

In biology, geology, and palaeontology, reference is made to the "type specimen". A type specimen is the specimen - perhaps a new species of insect, that a scientist refers to when describing it in a scientific journal. That way, if someone else finds a similar specimen, they can check and see if it is the same as the original, or warrants its own name and description.
I would suggest here that certain esoteric experiences which are described by mystics, sages, adepts, occultists, psychonauts, and the rest, be taken as Type Experiences, and hence referred to, in the same way that a biological or geological sample might be.
One must however be careful in selecting an experience, so as to avoid unnecessary bias. A contemporary educated person may be preferable to a medieval monastic ascetic, but if the ascetic has progressed further, they would have experienced things the modern person would not. If a person has a modern education, can think and write clearly, is aware of the pitfalls and delusions of the spiritual path, and has progressed to great heights, their experiences will obviously be very useful in the mapping out of the nature of reality.
The worst thing in all this are subjective distortions. e.g. a person may have a pure and profound experience, but straight away distort it into their own mental formulation. A lot of Rudolph Steiner's material reads like this. One senses amazing insight, a great and pure soul, but then reads the most ridiculous medieval nonsense, that would have been fine a thousand years ago, but just seems absurd today.
Also not too good, but not as bad as the above, is egotism and self-delusion. An individual may attain a very elevated state, and then claim to be the only one to have attained it, or to have attained it in its fullness. Now, in some cases, they may very well be the only one! In other cases, they are simply caught up in an Intermediate Zone delusion of grandeur, or overpowered by the great down-rush of light.
The only way to tell if an adept is sincere and has attained the highest state, or is just caught in the intermediate zone, is to compare their experiences with others. If others have had the same experience, then to claim uniqueness is a sign either of simple ignorance (which is forgivable, especially if the individual in question has not read much, perhaps coming from a culture or society where books or learning is limited) or self-delusion (which may or may not be forgivable, depending on how you view these things, and which in itself does not negate the rest of the experience), or seeking to delude others to further his or her career as guru or cult leader (which is a sure sign that this person should be avoided, unless you are an anthropologist or sociologist and want to study the phenomenon of cultish behaviour).

Suggestions for Areas of Research and Study

An incomplete list of suggestions and ideas:

• Physical Reality
  • Pragmatic experimentation, using the methodology of the exact sciences, on those topics of paranormal, etc that can be subjected to traditional scientific method (morphogenetic fields, kirlian photography, bioplasm, plants, dowsing,..) and compile a corpus of verifiable data.
  • In those cases with poor or no results from hard scientific approach to psi and paranormal, is it because there is no phenomenon, or because the nature of the experimental method adversely affects the subjects consciousness (a sort of esoteric exclusivity law?).
• Etheric Reality
  • Understanding energy levels in the subtle body (acupuncture, ch'i, microcosmic orbit, reiki, and other phenomena - note, these are close enough to the physical with sufficient "objectivity" to also be amenable to standard scientific methodology (but the paradigm-resistance would be huge)
  • Understanding Homodynamics and other alternative means of treatment that cannot be explained in reductionist terms
  • Mapping out of Chakras, aura, yogic anatomy, etc - understanding the subtle body
  • Application/reinterpretation of transpersonal psychology, meditative states, etc in terms of esoteric map of the nature if reality; alternatives to the standard monistic (usually Zen or Sufi based) or old Wilberian paradigms of TP Psychology
• Paranormal
  • Sympathetic but non-gullible re-evaluation of psi and similar phenomena, what is the mechanism?
  • Thanatology, Near-Death experiences etc interpreted as authentic psychic bardo states (rather than as "hallucinations of an oxygen-starved brain"); looking at both historical and recent accounts
  • UFOs, bigfoot, nessie, etc as etheric / parallel physical dimensions rather than materialistic explanations of little green men, surviving neanderthals, plesiosaurs, etc
  • Providing plausible theory for crop circles and other anomalous phenomena
• Psychic Reality
  • What is the influence of esotericism upon social sciences and humanities; e.g. , painters (Boticelli, Mondrian, Kandinsky,..), writers and poets (Goethe, Blake, Balzac, Rimbaud, Yeats, Henry Miller,..) had been attracted to various parts of esotericism: hermeticism, theosophy, kabbalah; how does art relate to esoteric realities, and vice versa?.
  • Magick and Occultism (applied hermetics, shamanism, etc) as valid techniques for interacting with the psychic realities, and manipulating psychic or physical events.
  • Reinterpretation of Jung's archetypes, synchronicity, etc as valid phenomena ("gods") on the supra-physical planes, and their expression and qualities as understood in that light (getting away from Jung's sloppy half-heated attempt at Kantean dualism and biological reductionism ("collective unconscious" as inherited or racial memory)
  • Reinterpretation of psychology and study of psyche to take into account experiential, phenomenological, and supra-physical factors as well standard physical elements; Steven Guth's "Theory of the Double" (work in progress)
• Mystic Reality
  • Empirical and phenomenological study of meditative, enlightenment, and other such states, free of preconceived religious or metaphysical biases. What does the "bare experience" in itself tell?
  • Application/reinterpretation of transpersonal psychology, meditative states, etc in terms of esoteric map of the nature if reality; what sort of map emerges? Look at alternatives to the standard monistic (usually Zen or Sufi based) or old Wilberian paradigms of TP Psychology
• Causality
  • Consider I Ching as a mathematical/"syncronistic" map of fundamental archetypes (ref DNA codons, other similarities? Particle physics in quantum mechanics perhaps?)
  • Synchronicity/meaningful coincidence - how can tossing I Ching coins predict something that will happen in the next 6 months? What about prophetic dreams? Classic Jungian synchronicity? What is the "mechanism"?
  • Explore thesis of Astrological causation in terms of subtle etheric spheres (Steiner), dumping of old humanistic-materialistic explanations of the "moon's tides" etc (works fine for the moon but what about Pluto?)
• Evolution
  • Exploration of interactions of "cosmic devic forces" with the terrestrial evolution; hypotheses of planetary and biological evolution, human society, etc [see e.g. Steven Guth and my work on "Astrognosis"Considering Islam, Cosmogenic Evolution, as well as Eco-Gnosis in general - see also Adendndum A for more (below))
  • What effect will future technologies have upon the body and psyche - cyborgization, nanotechnology, colonization of space, etc?
  • Possibility of new (different? higher?) kingdoms and/or grades of sentience emerging? e.g. AI and Vingean-Transhumanist Posthuman Singularity through technological evolution or augmentation, or Aurobindoan "Superman" through spiritual-divine transformation
• Cosmology
  • Formulating a map or diagram of the "Body of the Godhead" as a dynamic unfolding-enfolding process (not static planes) - concepts from Taoism, Neoconfucianism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Suhrawardi, Ibn Arabi, Kashmir Shaivism, pre-Lurianic, Lurianic and Hassidic Kabbalah, Max and AlmaTheon, Theosophy, Anthroposphy, Teilhard de Chardin, Sri Aurobindo and Mirra, Meher Baba, and others.

No doubt many more fields of exploration could be added.

Addendum 1 - Old and New Style Esotericism

The history of modern esotericism really comes out of an attempt to formalise the spiritual medium situation that existed in the 1800's. Groups gathered in the 1840's so that "scientific" evidence about the afterlife could be collected.
People like Theon fit in here.
And later came the attempts by people like Blavaskey, Steiner, etc to present the old esoteric truths and the new discoveries in a scientific frame work, using terms like rounds, and tables and hierarchies. They felt a need to adapt their visions into the social thought patterns (including the science) of the time ... which quickly became dated and so their descriptions have became absurd - e.g. the history of the planet c/o Steiner (he combined astrology with what Science at the time understood).
An example is the chemistry table of elements which unlocked the wonders of alchemy. The discovery of coal tar colours revolutionised the world. So of course attempts were made to classify in this way.
Part of the burden that the modern esoteric movement carries is the concept of evolution. At the time Blavatsky and others were writing Darwin's evolutionary concept let people keep the idea of a prime creator and abandon religion. You see, evolution suggests that everything things has been created to end up somewhere ... the end point of Newton's clock work universe - and we are moving towards the resolution of the creator architects great plan. Alas I suspect that rogue influences play into the world's spiritual ecology at random times creating a situation which is far from clockwork. See my somewhat discomforting meditative insight ... into the energy behind Islam [see Considering Islam] and then Alan's further development of this idea [see Cosmogenic Evolution]...
Before that earlier attempts to make sense of the formlessness of the Spiritual worlds gave us stuff like the Abramelin with its divisions into, Kings, Dukes etc - following the sociological thought patterns of the 14th Century. So it is not surprising that in our current attempts to forge a bit of "scientific" logic into the huge complexity of what surrounds us that we should be using the sociological thought patterns of our time - which come from the benefits that science has placed into our lives.
But, and it's a big but, many of the premises that modern science rests on are weak if not faulty. One of my favourite criticisms is our intrinsic belief that there is a "cause" for everything. I have come to the conclusion that "Causation is just a special case of association". Adopt my idea that association is the rule and "causation" is just a special case and you end up with the involvement of the spiritual world in everything in some form or another. What we do in the physical effects the Spiritual worlds and vice versa - and it is an ongoing interaction slightly out of time and place ... incidentally this is what the Australian Aboriginal concept of the "Dreaming" is all about.
And that's just one of the premises.
Now, the largest revolution in modern science has been the discovery of deep space, deep time and the huge complexity of the out there. As one astronomer said in a lecture I attended as she showed us the image of the radio energy coming out of a galaxy, "It is better not to think about such things". I wonder if Kepler had similar qualms?
And another major revolution in the making is the concept of randomness and variability. All our scientific modelling to date still runs on the concept of averaging - its part of our sociological democratic thought pattern. But it is a very poor premise to work from. So much cannot be usefully explored by averaging ... from the weather to the effectiveness of medicines ... and how do you average spiritual phenomena? (What is the average ghost or crop circle? ... randomness is inherent in the systems around us).
Now, both deep space and variability/randomness have not been added to our thinking patterns. New patterns are necessary to accommodate the new base line insights science has presented to us.
We need to add our new insights to our understandings of esoteric experiences. And that is what astrognosis is trying to do. Which places this developing concept [Cosmogenic Evolution] into a potentially revolutionary position.
It is interesting that in our new formulations about the development of life forms on our planet we end up with Devas as the link between our new ideas and concepts of the past. You see, Devas are just consciousness in a place. Remove the idea of place and leave consciousness and you have a "God or Goddess" ... And of course that is what we are too ... the "prima medica" is consciousness.
As an afterthought ...
I am working on a lecture series on the Doppleganger, the Double, at the moment and am exploring the multiple facets of human consciousness and the very nature of consciousness itself. Interestingly it is leading me to the conclusion that "consciousness" intrusions from deep space play an important part in our need to go to war. Yes, perhaps our leaders and the people that surround them are schizophrenic. Their minds and decisions being influenced by other consciousnesses "out there" which like to playing games with events on this planet ... So if we can stop the games we could have peace and if we don't, or can't, we will never have peace ... this is an interesting thought but only possible if one accepts some of the new premises suggested in this essay. It also makes one wonder if the images presented by Science Fiction and the beliefs of the UFO people are not coming from a consciousness "out there" identical to what is presenting me with these insights!
Material on the Doppleganger and its role in human consciousness will soon be on this web site - stay tuned for further inputs!

Addendum 2 - From Aristotle to Science to Esotericism

The "Traditionalist" School of Fritjof Schuon, Rene Gueneon, and others (reinterpretation/esotericisation of exoteric religions), tradition-bound esotericism in general, and people like Rudolph Steiner and his Anthroposphy (which through application of Goethean and Steiner's own clairvoyant gives it much to contribute to a Universal Esoteric Science) all seek to tie themselves to the past, rather than explore possibilities of the future. Their dependence on the aristotlean-medieval paradigm with its sacred universe and natural philosophy, means they are relying on failed science, in the same way that the Theosophists still are stuck with the Victorian science that Blavatsky new and write about (and that was, by the way, cutting edge in Blavatsky's time (later 19th century).
The problem is that the Aristotlean approach is not a form of science that gives results. Aristotle was abandoned due to inefficacy. It was simplistic because he did not know "the world", he was freely speculating, using the limited data and information available to him in the ancient Greek world.
Putting under a single umbrella concepts such as ch'i, I Ching, planes, evolution, etc is reminiscent of the times of Aristotle when all sciences (biology, psychology, physics, political sciences,..) were parts of philosophy. But this widely multidisciplinary approach is not the same as a holistic esotericism of science. One thing is "sci infancy" (Aristotle), and completely another modern multidisciplinary approach that is "mature science" (say, quantum chemistry tries to explain genetic processes by using thermodynamics, chaos and complexity, computer science, higher algebraic theories, ...and to connect them to the levels of electrochemisty and biochemistry).
In esoteric science you could imagine experiments (Kirlian, high voltage) combined with other high tech photographs (computer analysis of highly sensitive detectors) and explanation, in the beginning, with some kind fields combined with electrophysiology and biochemical processes monitored and theorized upon.
A true holistic paradigm can emerge only after any science has passed thru various stages of disintegration and integration. The following process or sequence could be suggested:

1. primitive science (Aristotle)
2. beginnings of empirical and mathematical science in modern sense (Galileo, Kepler)
3. new paradigm established (Newton, Laplace,...)
4. other paradigms appearing (Faraday-Maxwell, fields,...)
5. fundamental redefinition and new paradigmata (Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg,...)
6. multidisciplinary approach (chaos theory, complexity, Feigenbaum ...)
7. emergent holistic approach ( Sarfatti, Bohm's  hologram universe, quantum geometrodynamics of John Wheeler,.., also  synchronicity)

Bohm is a true scientist with a holistic approach.
The crux of the matter as far as superluminality is concerned (see e.g. the  Stardrive web site) is that the universe obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics at its birth subjecting it to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle when it was smaller than an electron. Hoyle and Sarfatti believe that it was at this primordial moment that consciousness from the future created the universe bringing itself into being.
Einstein's work on relativity provided a starting point for intuitive physicists such as Wheeler, Feynman, Josephson and others. The new physics has also given rise to a new cosmology of which Sir Fred Hoyle is a leading proponent. Hoyle compiled a massive body of evidence in his book The Intelligent Universe that seems to strongly suggest that only a living and intelligent (superluminal) God could have created a universe where life (us) exists. The very conditions of the birth of the universe (the big bang) were specifically tailored to produce life. The final anthropic cosmological principle championed by Hoyle, Sarfatti and others was first discovered in weaker form by Brandon Carter 9 The God Phone], who in 1968 stated:

"Had the numerical values of certain fundamental constants (the speed of light, the mass of an electron etc.) been only slightly different - the universe would not be able to sustain life as we know it." Experimentalist Alain Aspect proved (at the University of Paris in 1982), the reality of faster-than-light action-at-a-distance in an experiment on the quantum connection between pairs of photons. Delayed choice experiments (by Carol Alley of the University of Maryland ) and gamma photon-proton scattering experiments (by Charles Bennett of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory ) showed that future causes do create past effects.
Recent work by such respected physicists as David Deutsch, Kip Thorne, Yakir Aharanov, Alcubierre and Sarfatti, involving time-travel to the past, future-causality and other mind-boggling vistas, is invigorating superluminal physics as never before. For example, Alcubierre has shown that a Star Trek faster-than-light warp drive is possible within the known laws of physics [but see  this on-line essay by John Cramer for problems with Alcubierre drive - MAK]. Indeed, Sarfatti, interviewed by Kim Burrafato in UFO Magazine (Vol 9, No. 30 1994), speculates that UFO's, if real, would be time-travelling ships from our future explaining the strange phone call(s) he got in 1952. Sarfatti is no true believer here. He is quite willing to admit that the 1952 call(s) may have been some sort of prank, and all the subsequent synchronicities a random coincidence.
Sarfatti's credibility among other physicists, like the superluminal conjecture, seemed for years to lay dormant in the barren soil of a conservative physics establishment. For many years, talk of faster-than-light communication and time travel has been beyond the pale of good science. It was a suitable subject for comic books and science fiction only, 'strictly kid stuff.'"

Crazy, but...?

Kheper Home | Essays main page | Topics Index | New | Search

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


vision is something seen in a dream, trance, or religious ecstasy, especially a supernatural appearance that usually conveys a revelation.^[1] Visions generally have more clarity than dreams, but traditionally fewer psychological connotations. Visions are known to emerge from spiritual traditions and could provide a lens into human nature and reality.^[2]Prophecy is often associated with visions.
In simple words, it is a religious experience in which the experience can be seen and hence it is called a vision.

Examples of visions[edit]

Visions are listed in approximately chronological order whenever possible, although some dates may be in dispute.

• Vision of God in the Book of Ezekiel chapter number 1. (6th century BC)
• Vision of a heavenly figure "like a son of man" in Daniel 7:13 (6th century / 2nd century BC)
• St Paul's vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus (1st century)
• Marian apparitions (visions or visitations of Mary, mother of Jesus) (1st century AD - present)
• Visions of the afterlife in the martyr accounts of Perpetua and Felicity (2nd century AD)
• The theoria (Vision of God) by which a Christian mystic may discern a deep aspect of God (in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) (3rd-6th centuries AD)
• Constantine's vision of Christ's sign (312 AD)
• Jakob Böhme's vision of 1600, revealed when he observed the beauty of a beam of sunlight in a pewter dish
• René Descartes' series of dreams on the night of 11 November 1619, which set the course of his life in science
• Blaise Pascal's vision of 23 November 1654, which reinvigorated his spiritual commitment
• Emanuel Swedenborg's visions, which formed the basis of a newly revealed doctrine (beginning in 1740s)
• Joseph Smith's First Vision (1820), including Throne-Theophany of Lehi in the First Book of Nephi in 1 Nephi 1:8-11 (6th century BC)
• Ramakrishna Paramahamsa had several visions of religious figures including Kali, Sita, Krishna, Jesus, and Muhammed. (mid/late 19th century)

See also[edit]

• Altered state of consciousness
• Apparitional experience
• Beatific vision
• Hallucination
• Kashf
• Lourdes apparitions
• Mysticism
• Neurotheology
• Private revelation
• Shamanism
• Temporal lobe epilepsy
• Theophany
• Vision quest

References[edit]

External links[edit]

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Visions

[show] v t e Private revelation Revelations Apparitional experience Christian mysticism Locution interior Marian apparition Religious ecstasy Vision (spirituality) Visions of Jesus and Mary Miracles Bilocation Charism Gift of miracles Gifts of healing Glossolalia Interpretation of tongues Prophecy Word of Knowledge Word of wisdom Eucharistic miracle Miracle of Lanciano Levitation Lourdes water Miracle of the Sun Odour of sanctity Stigmata Tabor Light Thaumaturgy Weeping statue Discernment Documents Code of Canon Law Haurietis aquas Normae Congregationis Tribus circiter Magisterium Rule of Faith Sensus fidei Theology Bridal theology Christology Mariology Mystical theology Popular piety Acts of reparation Immaculate Heart of Mary Consecration First Saturday Devotions Miraculous Medal Seven Dolors Pilgrimage Rosary Rosary of the Holy Wounds Sacred Heart Divine Mercy Eucharistic adoration First Friday Devotions Holy Hour Saint Michael Chaplet of Saint Michael Prayer to Saint Michael Scapular Shrines Sanctuary of the Divine Mercy Sanctuary of Christ the King Shrine of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Marian shrines Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica of Our Lady of the Pillar Chapel of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fátima Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help Shrine of the Virgin of the Rosary of Pompei Sanctuary of Monte Sant'Angelo  Portal

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


Defined broadly, a visionary is one who can envision the future. For some groups this can involve the supernatural.
The visionary state is achieved via meditation, drugs, lucid dreams, daydreams, or art. One example is Hildegard of Bingen, a 12th-century artist and Catholicsaint.^[1] Other visionaries in religion are St Bernadette and Joseph Smith, said to have had visions of and communed with the Blessed Virgin and the Angel Moroni, respectively.

Extended meanings[edit]

A vision can be political, religious, environmental, social, or technological in nature. By extension, a visionary can also be a person with a clear, distinctive, and specific (in some details) vision of the future, usually connected with advances in technology or social/political arrangements. For example, Ted Nelson is referred to as a visionary in connection with the Internet.^[2]
Other visionaries simply imagine what does not yet exist but might some day, as some forms of "visioning" (or gazing) provide a glimpse into the possible future. Therefore, visioning can mean seeing in a utopian way what does not yet exist on earth—but might exist in another realm—such as the ideal or perfect realm as imagined or thought. Examples are Buckminster Fuller in architecture and design, Malcolm Bricklin in the automobile industry and Ada Lovelace in computing. Some people use mathematics to make visionary discoveries in the nature of the universe. In that sense, a visionary may also function as a secular prophet. Some visionaries emphasize communication, and some assume a figurehead role in organizing a social group. In other words, a visionary means that a person can see what something could be long before it actually happens.

In art[edit]

Artists may produce work loosely categorized as visionary art for its luminous content and/or for its use of artistic techniques that call for the use of extended powers of perception in the viewer: (e.g. Gustave Moreau, Samuel Palmer, Jean Delville, Ernst Fuchs, the French SymbolistOdilon Redon, Brion Gysin, Max Ernst, Stanley Spencer, Edward Burne-Jones, Adolf Wolfli, Fred Sandback, William Blake, Hieronymus Bosch, and Henry Darger).
Visionary art can be incorrectly defined as a category of primitive art (art of those not formally trained) rather than describing people who have used their visions (or dreams) to create their paintings. Salvador Dalí is one artist who would exemplify visionary art that is neither religious nor primitive.

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

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


Visionary art is art that purports to transcend the physical world and portray a wider vision of awareness including spiritual or mysticalthemes, or is based in such experiences.^[1]

History[edit]

The Vienna School of Fantastic Realism, first established in 1946, is considered to be an important technical and philosophical catalyst in its strong influence upon contemporary visionary art.^[2][3] Its artists included Ernst Fuchs, Rudolf Hausner and Arik Brauer among others. Several artists who would later work in visionary art trained under Fuchs, including Mati Klarwein, Robert Venosa,^[4]Philip Rubinov Jacobson and De Es Schwertberger.

Definition[edit]

Visionary art often carries themes of spiritual, mystical or inner awareness.^[1] Despite this broad definition, there does seem to be emerging some definition to what constitutes the contemporary visionary art 'scene' and which artists can be considered especially influential. Symbolism, Surrealism and Psychedelic art are also direct precursors to contemporary visionary art. Contemporary visionary artists count Hieronymous Bosch, William Blake, Morris Graves (of the Pacific Northwest School of Visionary Art), Emil Bisttram, and Gustave Moreau amongst their antecedents.

Schools and organizations[edit]

The Vienna School of Fantastic Realism, which includes Ernst Fuchs and Arik Brauer, is also a strong influence on visionary culture. It may also be considered the European version, with the names being interchangeable.
The Society for the Art of Imagination, founded by Brigid Marlin serves as an important portal for visionary art events. More recently, a new wave of visionary artists collaborate to function as modern cooperatives involved in self-publishing and promotion of visionary artists through the internet and via festivals such as Burning Man and Boom Festival, and exhibition/ritual spaces such as Temple of Visions, Tribe 13, Synergenesis and the Interdimensional Art Movement.

Artists[edit]

Historic[edit]

William Blake (1757–1827) Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450–1516) Edward Burne-Jones (1833–1898) Salvador Dalí (1904–1989)

Max Ernst (1891–1976) Morris Graves (1910–2001) Thomas Häfner (1928-1985) Frida Kahlo (1907–1954)

Gustave Moreau (1826–1898) Samuel Palmer (1805–1881) Nicholas Roerich (1874–1947) Remedios Varo (1908–1963)

Contemporary[edit]

Pablo Amaringo Vincent Castiglia Norbert Cox Ernst Fuchs H. R. Giger Alex Grey Rudolf Hausner

Mati Klarwein Oleg A. Korolev Paul Laffoley Brigid Marlin Bill Martin Leigh McCloskey Cliff McReynolds

Andreas Nottebohm John Pitre Antonio Roybal Murat Saygıner De Es Schwertberger Robert Venosa

Organizations[edit]

• Society for Art of Imagination
• Society of Layerists in MultiMedia

Gallery[edit]

• A painting by Alex Grey.

See also[edit]

• Fantastic art
• Horror vacui
• Outsider art
• Psychedelic art
• Surrealism
• The Symbolist and Decadent art movement
• Burning Man

References[edit]

Sources[edit]

• Cosmic Art Ramond & Lila Piper (Hawthorne Books) ISBN 0-8015-1774-5, 1975
• Celestial Visitations The Art of Gilbert Williams (Pomegranate Artbooks) ISBN 0-517-53900-4, 1979
• Sacred Mirrors: The Visionary Art of Alex Grey", Carlo McCormick, Inner Traditions International, 1990
• Raw Creation: Outsider Art and Beyond John Maizels,ISBN 0-7148-3149-2, 1996
• The Art of Adolf Wolfli Elka Spoerri, Daniel Baumann and E. M. Gomez, ISBN 0-691-11498-6, 2003
• Nothing Is True - Everything Is Permitted: The Life of Brion Gysin John Geiger, (The Disinformation Company), 130. ISBN 1932857125, 2005
• Fantastic Art (Taschen) ( Schurian, Prof. Dr. Walter) ISBN 978-3-8228-2954-7 (English edition), 2005
• True Visions (Erik Davis and Pablo Echaurren) (Betty Books) ISBN 88-902372-0-1, 2006
• Metamorphosis: 50 Contemporary Surreal, Fantastic and Visionary Artists (beinArt) ISBN 978-0-9803231-0-8, 2007

Bibliography[edit]

• 1975 - Cosmic Art Ramond & Lila Piper (Hawthorne Books) ISBN 0-8015-1774-5
• 1979 - Celestial Visitations The Art of Gilbert Williams (Pomegranate Artbooks) ISBN 0-517-53900-4
• 2005 - Fantastic Art (Taschen) ( Schurian, Prof. Dr. Walter) ISBN 978-3-8228-2954-7 (English edition)
• 2006 - True Visions (Erik Davis and Pablo Echaurren) (Betty Books) ISBN 88-902372-0-1
• 2007 - Metamorphosis (beinArt) ISBN 978-0-9803231-0-8
• 2011 - "Positive Creations" (Schiffer Publications) ISBN 978-0-7643-3913-4

External links[edit]

• Essays and articles
  • The Path of Visions by Max Magnus Norman
  • What is Visionary Art? by Alex Grey
  • Academy of Visionary Art
  • The Visionary Process by Elle Nicolai
  • Daniel Mirante discusses visionary art
  • Visionary Art Essay by Maura Holden
  • William Blake and Visionary Art byJoseph Nechvatal
  • The Vienna School of Fantastic Realism by Otto Rapp

• Museums and galleries
  • Robert Donaghey Visionary Artist Gallery
  • SolPurpose | The Home of Visionary Art
  • Abstract Visionary Art
  • Phantastenmuseum Wien
  • Lila : Contemporary Visionary art and Medicine Culture
  • Society for Art of Imagination
  • Visionary Art Gallery
  • pod collective : online visionary art community and gallery
  • Iasos Visionary Artists Gallery
  • GodConsciousness.com
  • Plemora : Sacred Art Centre
  • Society of Layerists in MultiMedia
  • Portsmouth Art & Cultural Center, Virginia
  • Temple of Visions Gallery

• Media
  • Visionary Artists Podcast