Introduction

What does "Integral" mean in this context?

The word "integral" was original used by Sri Aurobindo to describe the yoga he taught (integral or Purna ("Full") Yoga), which involved transformation of the entire being, rather than, as in most other teachings, a single faculty such as the head or the heart or the body. The term was adopted by Jean Gebser who taught that human consciousness evolves in a an ascending series from archaic through magical, mythical, mental, to the aperspective and finally the integral. These ideas were then incorporated by Ken Wilber, who also adopted Gebser's definition of "integral" to define his own philosophy. The current "integral movement" is very much the result of Wilber's tireless efforts at getting a larger paradigm accepted by the postmodernist and skeptical mainstream academia.

While identifying with the integral movement (which includes both Wilber's followers and critics), I feel it is time for the next stage, a new metaphysic based on a more complete integration of phenomenological, esoteric, and scientific thought. The current essay is a proposal in that direction.

Essential Points

I propose that an integral paradigm should include

1. an epistemological methodology that takes into account all experiences and phenomena, regardless of whether or not they fit one's preferred paradigm
2. a philosophy or worldview that, in understanding reality, incorporates all approaches, science and esotericism, perennial philosophy and postmodernism, in a way that enhances each, while not being limited by the shortcomings of each.
3. a cosmology that includes material, occult, and spiritual realities in a single grand and coherant whole
4. a polity and society in which monolithic centralisation and authoritarian hierarchism is replaced by distributed networks in which any who have the ability to contribute may do so, if they so wish
5. a moral insight that is empathetic and pancentric (taking into account all sentient beings) rather than anthropocentric
6. a spiritual process that involves all the faculties of the being, rather than just one
7. an evolutionary process of collective and global transformation

The first three are theoretical, the remaining four practical.

Regarding point 1, I find only an empirical-phenomonological approach such as represented by (and combining and synthesising) Buddhist self-analysis, Jungian and Transpersonal Psychological openess to archetypal experiences, and a Cartesian-Husserlian radical revisioning of everything previously taken for granted, would be up to the task. Scientific method, while invaluable as a sub-methodology, doesn't work globally because it is too selective, due to its rigid exclusion of subjectivity. And pre-biased dogmatisms of rationalism, religionism, etc, are much worse.

With point 2, Ken Wilber's philosophy is a good start here, but is still much too bound to a postmodernist physicalism (e.g. his rejection of occultism and of metaphysics). In this essay I have proposed a much broader and more organic worldview, one that is not afraid to declare itself "metaphysical"

Point 3 requires a bringing together of many different "maps" of reality, including the vast canon of western scientific knowledge, the various esotericism traditions such as Neoplatonism, Tantra, Sufism, Kabbalah, Hermeticism, Theosophy, etc, the psychological insights of people like Freud, Jung, Assagioli, and Grof, the visionary insights of Teilhard, Sri Aurobindo, Edward Haskell, Erich Jantsch and others, and more, in a grand "hedgehog" theory. Such a project is not new, it is something already attempted (as mentioned) by Ken Wilber, and before him, by Hegel, although with not completely satisfactory results. This is because even the grandest theoretician of everything still has some a prior starting point or bias that shapes the way they put things together. For Hegel it was Christianity, for Wilber it is Adi Da, and - putting my own cards on the table here - for me it is Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Whether you the reader find my own attempt saitsifactory or not is something you must decide. However this essay is not intended as a dogma, only as a starting point for further discussion and exploration.

Regarding point 4, Michel Bauwens is making great progress with his suggestion of peer-to-peer networking, which eliminates hierarchical authoritarianism.

Point 5 is shown by the environmental (Greens) movement, animal liberation (Peter Singer etc), the "alterglobalisation" movement, and consideration for the rights of all humans and non-humans, not just the ruling social class. John Heron's suggestion (see e.g. P/I: Pluralities/Integration #67 (April 25, 2005)) of co-operative inquiry and a "participative paradigm" (which asserts the participative relation between the knower and the known) is also important here; if you see the Other as an object, you can exploit him/her/it without qualms of consciense.

Point 6 is illustrated by the Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo, in which all faculties of one's being - physicall, vital, mental, psychic, and spiritual, are developed. In this it is very similar to the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky Fourth Way (which develops simultaneously the "moving", emotional, and intellectual centers), except that it is explained more clearly, and involves a Divine Transformation absent in the Gurdjieff tradition.

The beginnings of point 7 might be said to be represented by various "new age" spiritual centers such as Auroville, Findhorn, and Lindisfarne, but this is still only the beginning. For ultimately the transformation has to go beyond these isolated centers to reach a wider consciousness, and this will never happen while information is centralised in the hands of monolithic media corporations, exoteric religious instiuitutions, and totalitarian regimes and lowest common denominator democracies. The Internet and the birth of decentralised virtual communities constitutes perhaps the best option in which this can take place.

A Consenus Approach

Previously, metaphysics and esoterics has been the work of a single philosopher or visionary or yogi, presenting their own experiences and understanding. The downside is that this had led to fixed religions and dogmas, mental rigidity and literalism (at its worst, fundamentalism), and in some cases (both traditioanl and modern) spiritual authoritarianism. The way to avoid this is through a collective approach, by a community of gnostics and esotericists. This might be the seen on the one hand as esoteric version of Wikipedia or Principia Cybernetica, but not limited to the physical or rational consciousness, and on the other the "virtual" equivalent of "new age" or spiritual centers while not limited to a single locality or orientation.

The collective or collaborative approach, as in the Principia project and the Wikipedia, can create consensus while at the same time avoiding the authoritarianism of old-style literalism and conformity. The problem is however that metaphysics and esotericism is a Visionary, experiential approach. This is the opposite of western secular science, history, etc which is based on objective verification of facts through scientific and literary critical approaches. How does one arrive at a visionary consenus, and avoid an integral philosophy being reduced to insipid "lowest common denominator" spirituality?

Michel Bauwens suggests (in an email) a wiki-style mega-structure, in which different people can add different perspectives. In this way integrity of the original version can be maintained, and a committee could be formed to validate the final version. This would involve a three-tiered structure: the master version (1), the collective draft (2), a communally validated version (3). 3 is akin to scientific peer review, a form of quality control.

Basic Premises

- or why should you believe this thesis over the next universalising integral metaphysician?

Every worldview rests on certain assumptions. Since we are trying here to explain literally everything, in an Integral and consistent manner, and since we do not wish to begin from a pre-existent bias (scientism, religionism, whatever) , we need assumptions that are similarily universal.

In formulating a new, integral theory of Reality, there are a number of logical starting points. Each of these various alternative modes of inquiry has their respective advantages and disadvantages. The best thing is to combine them, to emphasies the advantages and get rid of the disadvantages. What is required also is a special methodology based on phenomenology and mystic experiuence (just as science is based on empirical Popperian methodology).

I propose that all knowledge (which includes western secular scientific, literary critical, and postmodernist knowledge) begins from individual empirical and/or phenomenological experience. First, a definition of terms:

• consciousness - individual awareness or "I-ness", and all the datums of experience it encompasses/illumines/experiences/contains
• datum of experience - any observation, perception, sensation, thought, feeling, volition, intuition, experience, revelation, or anything else that occurs to, in and/or as (relative or absolute) consciousness. Kant's phenomena
• explanation - any theory, hypothesis, belief, worldview, paradigm, doctrine, or dogma that creates a verified or an arbitary knowledge "map" of relative and/or absolute reality on the basis of one or more datums of experience. In the Zen parable (finger pointing at the moon) this is the "finger".
• reality - that which is, the nature of things, either a small aspect of the whole ("reality"), or the entire whole ("Reality" - see "Absolute"). Kant's noumena. In the Zen parable (finger pointing at the moon) this is the "moon"
• Expectation set- the set of expectations, preconceived biases and opinions, cultural background, and so on, that prejudice or distort a datum of experience so as to make it conform to the preconceived explanations of the individual who has the experience
• confirmation/proved - when sufficient (which may be one or more, depending) datums of experience agree with an explanation (or that explanations predictions)
• falsification/disproved - when sufficient datums of experience conflict with an explanation (or that explanations predictions)
• consensus reality - a map or model or explanation of reality that is agreed upon by two or more (usually much more - e.g. a whole society or civilization) individuals. Consensus reality usually incorporates a combination of verified and arbitary knowledge
• verified knowledge - an explanation that has been confirmed or proved enough times by enough datums of experience to be considered reliable ("true") and taken on trust - e.g. "the Earth is round" or "fire requires oxygen" are examples of verified knowledge. Civilization and science rests on a body of verified knowledge (mixed with arbitary consensus reality)
• arbitary knowledge - an explanation that cannot be considered reliable, either because it has not yet been confirmed by enough datums of experience, and/or because it has been falsified) e.g. "sex before marriage is a sin" is an example of arbitary knowledge
• Absolute - the totality of reality in itself, or a perspective that embraces or corresponds to It.
• relative - a (usually very small) part or aspect of the total reality, or a perspective that corresponds to it.
• weighting - the amount of significance given to a datum of experience, as regards its value in formulating or contributing to or proving an explanation.

The following is suggested as basic methodological working principles or assumptions in formulating a new integral paradigm or Theory of Everything.

In addition to this we have the two secondary methodologies of Esotericism and Science. Both depend on the primary epistemological phenomenology outlined above for their validity. e.g. scientific experiementation still occurs within the consciousness of the scientists doing the experiements or making the observations, even if the objects being observed exist in their own essence outside their consciousnesses, and their records and observations form part of a larger "noosphere" or memetic totality. And in the same way, the various esoteric teachings are generally the doctrrinal - even the ossified - formaulations of what were originally actual experiences by anonymous yogis and "psychonaults". The exceptions here are those like Rudolph Steiner and Sri Aurobindo who are actually recording their experiences. Even there we can only read about their experiences, their experiences are not real until we participate in the reality they are describing.

Epistemology - what do we know about knowing

Before we we can know anything, we have to know how we know. Hence Epistemology; the study or science of knowledge.

Where to begin? How about an appeal to authority, by considering the most respected and/or reliable sources? First off, we can leave out belief-systems based on denial of datums of experience. For example Scientism, Naive Naturalism and reductionism denies phenomenological facts of psychic and paranormal experiences, Creationism and Fundamentalism denies empirical facts in the fossil record, radiometric evidence of ancient Earth, etc; both deny mystical and pantheistic experiences. We can also leave out belief systems that are patently absurd - e.g. literal Judeo-Christianity says a supernatural God made Adam out of clay, and Eve out of his rib - or contain serious inconsistencies or historical biases. Some good candidates then are Western wisdom, embodied by Plato (respected as the main source of Western philosophy and even theology (via Augustine etc)), Eastern wisdom, represented by Nagarjuna, Shankara, etc (based on mystical experience rather than on religious dogma), and modern secular wisdom of Science (which has revealed amazing things about how the universe works; in a manner that none of the other systems of knowledge were able to do; hence it deserves our respect). What do each of these authorities say about knowledge? We find that according to Plato there are four types of knowledge, which from the least to the most reliable is: aesthesis (sense-knowledge), doxa (opinion), episteme (knowledge based on reason), and gnosis (spiritual knowledge) Obviously, Plato wasn't impressed with evidence of the senses. If we look at Eastern philosophy we find either the trilogy (again from least to the most reliable) of Illusion (Parikalpita or Pratibhasika), Empirical (Paratantra or Vyavaharika; this would be Plato's aesthesis and episteme perhaps), and Absolute (Paramartha or Paramarthika, which would seem equivalent to Plato's Gnosis), or at the very least the duality of Realative (Samvriti) and Absolute (Paramarthika). Finally, Western Science considers only observation from the senses and from instruments etc, which are confirmed or falsified through successive observation and/or experiment. Science itself neither supports or denies metaphysics.

This gives us:

* according to the strict phenomonological premises adopted by Moshe Kroy, every experience is valid. However one could say that the interpretation of that experience may be correct or incorrect.

Although the above is presented in a hierarchy, one could equally say that all forms of knowledge tell us something about reality, even if it is only about relkative reality, or, even more limited, about an incorrect understanding of relatiove reality. We will return to the subject of hierarchy (a dirty word in post-modernism and "politically correct" thinking, although Ken Wilber (SES pp.xxx) provides a good argument in favour of some sort hierarchical framwork.)

Obviously, one can postulate many more than just three levels, in fact one could even say that every metaphysical reality (see following scetion) has its own form of knowledge that corresponds to it. But to keep things simple we'll keep it at just three. So, it is suggested here that every datum of experience is valid, but an explanation or belief system that is derived first or second or third or tenth hand from such datums, is either (a) illusiory, (b) relative but valid, (c) points to the Absolute (the Absolute itself cannot be conveyed in conceptual terms), or (d) a coombination of two or all three of the preceeding

What does it mean to say that every datum of experience is valid, but the explantion may or may not be? Ok, take Near Death Experience (NDE). According to one physicalist theory, this is a hallucination. The reasoning goes:

(a) when the brain is starved of oxygen it hallucinates.
(b) when heartbeat, breathing etc stop the brain is starved of oxygen
(c) therefore NDEs (which occur during outward cessation of vital signs) are hallucinations.

Not only is this theory bad logic (along the line of assuming that because A equals x and B equals x, therefore A must equal B), but it is falsified by the fact that OBEs (out of Body Experience) are very similar to NDEs, but these are not triggered by cessation of oxygen supply to the brain. If we look more clearly at the above theory we see it is inspired by a preconceived bias or explanation, which is physicalism. The scientist or neurologist begins as a physicalist, and that prejudices everything (they also have the added hassle of trying to explain or explain away OBEs). So the NDE experience itself (as reported by survivors), is a valid experience. But the explanation may not be.

The above is an example where there is a clear dichotomy between experienceand explanation. But much more often there is cross contamination between the two (point (2) of the Basic Premises). e.g. When the born-again person claims to have experienced Jesus, it (the explanation) isnt necessarily Jesus, even though the experience itself is valid. But the experience is itself coloured by a prioor expectations and prejudices (e.g. reading the bible, talking to other evangelicals), which then (via the subconscious, or even the conscious) appear in the experience. This is then taken as "proof" that the experience is valid, the result being a feedback loop. And of course the fact that a Hindu will see Krishna and not Jesus falsifies the experience, but this is conveniently ignored by evangelicals themselves, as it would falsify their entire belief system.

In short, the one rule here should be: include every experience. Even if the experience is a subjective "hallucination" , it still needs to be explained. That is also why those teachings and worldviews that are based on negation - e.g. fundamentalist religionism rejects evolution and process, sceptical physicalism rejects psychic experiences - cannot be used as guides, the way that more embracing theories and explanations can. If there are facts that don't fit one's theory, it is necessary to expand and develop the theory so that they do, not misinterpret and distort or ignore the facts!.

A Metaphysical "Map" of Consciousness/Reality

Beginning with point (1) of the Basic Premises, every datum of experience should be considered without bias, and point (6), the more inclusive explanation is to be preferred, I have chosen what I feel to be the most inclusive explanation; something that can sympathetically explain every datum, without rejectiong any as "false". This is the hierarchical ontology (theory of being), which has been proposed by a number of universalists, such as Huston Smith and Ken Wilber.

Note that I certainly am not saying that hierarchy is all that is. Because the existence of hierarchy automatically assumes its complement/polarity/opposite - equality. But we can't just say "everything is equal" either, because some things are not equal. So we begin with hierarchy, more specifically, a Hierarchy of Being (note - it is fashionable nowadays in postmodernist academia to reject "hierarchy", along with "metaphysics". As Ken Wilber points out, even those who reject hierarchy still have their own hierarchical values (SES p. xxx). Wilber however still felt he had to kowtow to secular academia (in order to be accepted perhaps) and so he rejected metaphysics, perhaps this is also why he has rejected occultism).

However, when we look at various examples of the hierarchy or "spectrum" or "great chain" of being, we find there is a lot of disagreement regarding its component levels. For example Kashmir Shaivism gives a very different spectrum of being to Theosophy or Kabbalah. Or some insist on a timeless metaphysical sequence of emanation (e.g. Plotinus, pre-Lurianic Kabbalah), whilst others propose an evolutionary succession (Teilhard, Wilber), or assume both (Blavatsky, Aurobindo). Clearly, this explanation is not sufficient to incorporate all datums of experience.

I would like to suggest then, as a working explanation, not one but four hierarchies, gradiants, gradations or spectrums of being. (There may be more, but this seems to be the minimum required to explain things). These are:

• The Universal-Atomistic Axis - From Universal Whole to "Atomistic" "Point" (and vice versa) - representing the Holarchic arrangement of Systems. As this in large part consists of Holons, it can be called the Holonocline ("holon" gradiant)
• The "Horizontal" Inner-Outer Axis - From Innermost (subjective) to Outermost (most external) Being - representing the Concentric Polarity of Being. Dealing as we are here with inner elements of psychology and consciousness, this parameter can be called the Endocline
• The "Vertical" Spirit-Matter Axis - From Transcendent Nous (Mind) down to Physical Matter (and vice-versa) - representing the Hierarchy (Great Chain of Being) of Planes of Existence. As this constitutes the spectrum or great chain of being in the most classic sense, it can be designated the Ontocline (ontos = being)
• Levels of Selfhood - From True Self / "I" to Non-Self / "This" / Phenomena (and vice versa) - representing the Monadology (or plurtaity and unity) of Selves. This, therefore, could be referred to as the Autocline (auton = "self")

Each of these correspond in a generic way (these things should never be taken dogmatically and turned into procrustean nonsense) to one of the primary fields of human endeavour:

The Holonocline or Universal-Individual Axis corresponds, on the physical level, to Science especially the systems sciences and natural and applied sciences, also the social sciences in part. On the supraphysical it becomes the domain of esotericism
The Endocline or "Horizontal" Inner-Outer Axis corresponds to the Arts (and the Social Sciences in part) with its dicotomy of Mythos and Logos, Imagination and Reason, and to depth and transpersonal psychology.
The Ontocline or "Vertical" Axis or Planes of Existence corresponds to Esotericism and Occultism with their understanding of the ascent of consciousness through levels of existence (and exoteric religion to some degree, although here there is a lot of false understanding due to literalism)
The Autocline or Levels of Selfhood corresponds to the Spiritual Path; not literalist or exoteric religion, but yoga, sadhana, and esoteric (mystical) religion; the essense of self-transformation, and the nature of the knowing Self (especially as elaborated in Eastern Philosophy)

Of course, each of these fields can also be applied to the other hierarchies or parameters, which is why it is misleading to only assume a one on one equivalence.

Let us now consider each of these four metaphysical sequences in turn:

The Holonocline or Universal-Individual Axis

The Universal-Individual, or Universal-Atomistic Parameter is the easiest to understand, because it is the only hierarchy that Western secular consensus reality accepts. Atoms are made of subatomic particles, molocules of atoms, biological cells of molocules, and so on, upto the entire cosmos as a whole. Each higher level embraces and includes and serves as the environment or ecology of the lower, and each lower level is a subunit or subsystem or component of the one above it. This whole concept was nicely formalised at a biological and systems science level by Arthur Koestler, in his book Janus, a Summing Up. Each entity at each hierarchical level, each "holon" as Koestler termed them, is both a whole of the parts or entities of the level below, and a part of the whole above. More on this in the ontodynamics section. For now, this is one of the four hierarchies or dimensions or parameters of Being, the parameter of expanse or scale, or Universal-Atomistic. The following then is a suggested list of major scales of being:

• Transcendental - everything, the universe and beyond - that mode of the Absolute which is the universe (and the universe as the Absolute)
• Universal - everything in manifestation (at that "level" of reality", oertaining to the universe as a whole (but not to the Absolute; i.e. the Absolute includes the Universal but not (as superficial readings of Pantheism assume) the reverse) e.g. the laws of physics are universal (throughout this universe).
• Cosmic - any large to very-large scale manifestation; metaphorically and/or esoterically, the "macrocosm" as opposed to the "microcosm". It may be interstellar or galactic or inter-galactic, or pertaining to the entire universe, but not invariant in the way that the "universal" phenomena are. Each of these of course can be divided and sub-divided into any number of degrees and subdegrees: e.g. "cosmic" proper, intergalactic, galactic, interstellar, solar systemic, etc (and any number of subdivisions between these)
• Collective or Immediate Environment - the (physical and/or psychic and/or spiritual and/or whatever other ontic level is applicable) environment surrounding the individual (or "individual holon", with and through which it interacts with the cosmic forces (or holons), the "field of influence" or (in theosophical and New Age thought) the "aura" or "psychic (etheric, "astral", whatever) energy field around an individual. From a subjective reference point, every "holon" is the center of its own environment, and that environment is both a larger holon and also the aggregate of all the holons with which it is in contact at the time the "environment" is defined. Holons, like all things, are constantly changing). In Ken Wilber's 4 quadrant Integral philosophy, the Environmental Scale corresponds to the bottom half of the diagram.
• Individual - the holon being referred to. In human psychology and occultism the "microcosm", the individual as a smaller (fractal) image of the cosmic or universal whole. The individual is both a part of its environment, and the totality of all the holons of which it is constituted. In Wilber's 4-quadrant Integral philosophy, the Individual Scale corresponds to the top half of the diagram.
• Subsystem, Part - holons beneath the level of the individual. Here we have again a near infinite number of possible ranks, subdivisions, etc (in the human physical body holon we would say organs, tissues, cells, molocules, atoms, etc)
• Paramanu - this Sanskrit term means the ultimate or most fundamental atom (anu or minuteness). I'm using it here because the Greek term (atomos, indivisible) is already used by science (atom). It is here used in a hypothetical or figurative sense, as I am not referring to a specific funndamental particle. The paramanu may be superstrings or supermembranes of speculative modern physics, or something else again or even smaller, or it may be a unit or quantum of consciousness. However I disagree with Ken Wilber's statement that "it's turtles all the way up and down" [ref xxxx] because that implies an infinite regress; moreover I am going on the assumption that reality is corpsucular (Teilhard's term), granular or quantumised (this is the evidence from modern physics and there is nothing in immediate experience or occultism to disprove it.)

As with the four hierarchies in general, each of these holarchic levels might be said to be the sphere of analysis or understanding of one or another field of study or experience. So, just looking at things purely on the outer physical level (we'll examine the other metaphysical axii shortly), the Universal might be said to correspond to the laws of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, the Cosmic to astrophysics and astronomy, the Environmental to ecology, planetology, sociology, etc, the Individual to biology, psychology, and so on. Once again, these are only very crude generalisations, and should not be compiled into lists of rigid tables. Moroever, there are subjects like Astrology, which are discredited by both mainstream science and fundamentalist Christianity, but which are empirically valid (on the Cosmic and Environmental scales), sometimes astonishingly so (as someone who follows a scientific methodology I have been forced to accept the validity of astrology, despite my original scepticism).

This represents the Universal-Individual Axis on the Physical level. On the Psychic level it would be not science but esotericism and occultism that teaches these levels. But this is jumping ahead to the vertical axis; we will defer discussion regarding this a little first.

Ultimately, each end of the holarchy represents a particular polarity or aspect of the Absolute, and both the Universal and the "Paramanu" are united in the Transcendent, as shown below in the "quantitative scale":

These divisions seem - and are - pretty arbitary. Where does Environment/Collective enfd and Cosmic begin? And since an Individual may be a Part of a larger totality, isn't the distinction between these two superfluous? Wouldn't it be better to say atom - molocule - cell - tissue - organism - ecosystem - etc?

My reply is that what is important is not the details here, but the dynamic. A "cosmic" entity would function (manifest, be conscious, whatever...) in a completely different way to an individual entity. It would have a "distributed" rather than a "localised" existence. And even if and though a part of a larger whole, an individual entity would be an autonomous unit. So a person is an individual entity, a society is a distributed or collective entity. Or an ant is an individual entity, while the hive is a distributed or collective consciousness. The parts of an individual, on teh otehr hand, are not autonomous. If you take a cell from your body, it won't survive on its own. Whereas a bacterium or a protozoan is an individual entity. Furthermore to have a spectrum like cell-organism, or individual-society, is anthropocentric, because what about worlds and regions of interstellar space. And obviously what is being discussed here is not simply (and usually not even) size, but complexity, organisation, and inclusiveness. Size in the sense of physical dimensions of length, width, and breadth, are qualities of the dense physical subplane of the vertical axis or ontocline, which is considered later in this essay.

The Endocline or "Horizontal" Inner-Outer Axis

The "Horizontal" or "Concentric" Inner-Outer Axis is not so much a hierarchy as a "polarity" is the familar dichotomy of subject-object, inner-outer, mind-matter, conscious-unconscious, yin-yang. This has been described in detail by Stan Gooch in his book Total Man. The table is shown below:

Sri Aurobindo's integral psychology, which incorporates a trichtomy of innermost, inner, and outer being (sometimes a fourth category, outermost, is mentioned [ref xxxx]) presents a more esoteric perspective than that of Gooch. So does Chabad Kabbalah, according to which each sefirah has two aspects: Pnimiyut, Inwardness, innermost point, essence or core, the Divine Light, Chitzoniyut, outwardness, externality, the lowest point. (Jacob Immanuel Schochet, (1979) Major Concepts in Hassidism, pp.127-8).

diagram from Jung - Archetypes (author unknown)

The terminology used here is Kabbalistic, but one can equally use other concepts to convey this.

Depth Psychology and to a lesser extent Transpersonal Psychology represent other exploration of the Inner-Outer polarity. No one has studied this area better than Carl Jung. The following (right) represents a diagramatic representation of the Jungian system. Here we have the outer and the inner world, the latter consisting of progressively deeper layers of the unconscious. The collective unconscious - the deepest level of all - represents a whole world in itself.

In another diagram presented in a lecture Jung has even more layers. I don't have the reference (I came upon this many ytears ago) or a copy of the diagram, which showed concentric circles, but if I recall correctly it was (from outer to inner) sensation, thinking, feeling, intuition, affect, personal unconscious / shadow (these may have been distinguished), and collective unconscious.

The Mandukya Upanishad, which was the foundation for all later Indian (Hindu and to a lesser extent Tantric Buddhist) psychology, speaks of the Self having four "feet" or states of consciousness. These are Waking, Dreaming, Dreamless Sleep, and the Fourth (i.e. the Absolute). Waking and Dreaming are self explanatory, but Dreamless Sleep here refers to a very deep level of consciousness in which the awareness is near (but not quite at) the Absolute. This is in contrast to psychological empirical observations (waking up test subjects when their brain waves indicated dreamless sleep; they reprted experiences rather like daydreaming type thoughts (ref xxxx), and we may assume it doesn't refer to ordinary dreamless sleep but to a deep yogic state. Indeed later and modern commentators identify "Dreamless Sleep" with a type of Samadhi (e.g. ref. xxxx).

In Shankara's Advaita Vedanta and all subsequent thought, including all current gurus and pop gurus, and the New Age movement in general, along with integral thinkers like Ken Wilber (ref link), the first three states of the Mandukya are matched with the five self levels of the Taittiriya Upanishad, which have now been downgraded to "koshas" or sheaths. The pranic, manasic, and vijnanic koshas are identified with dreaming and the subtle body, and by implication with psychic experience. In this way they confuse the "concentric" inner-outer endocline with the "vertical" physical-noetic ontocline. Only Sri Aurobindo presents a different, original, interpretation on the Taittiriya, and, for that matter, distinguishes these two parameters in his own integral psychology.

A very different, much more empirical-experiential approach, is taken by Buddhist and Patanjalian maps of meditative states. Here we have a distinction between form and formless dhyana or samadhi. The Buddhists have 8 or 9 samadhic levels or "jhanas" (Pali; = "dyana" in sanskrit), arranged in a linear manner, from the most "superficial" to the most self-absorbed. This roadmap of meditative states was also then equated with Buddhist cosmology (in the distinction between Desire Gods and Heavens, Gods and Heavens of Pure Form, and Formless Gods and Heavens). A further development is found in Yogachara Buddhism, with the concept of an Alaya-Vijnana or "Storehouse Consciousness" that has intriguing similarities with the Jungian Collective Unconscious. This collective or universal consciousness is the source of the individual Manas and Mano-vijnana consciousness, which correspond more to the Ego (conscious) of western psychology (not the "ego" of pop-guru-ist teachings).

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

• Innermost - the essential core or essence of the being, the state of Dreamless Sleep of the Mandukya Upanishad, Pnimiyut (Kabbalah), or Innermost Being (Sri Aurobindo, this equates with the Psychic Being (Soul) which will be considered under the rubric of Self-Notself); Formless Samadhi might go here as well
• Inner - the vast region of potentials and realities hidden from the narrow surface consciousness, but revealed through meditative and yogic practices, and studied by Depth and Transpersonal Psychology. This is the Collective Unconscious of Jung, the "inner planes" or "inner spheres" of occultism (in part), the "Inner Being" according to Sri Aurobindo; the Alayavijnana of the Yogachara and Vijnanavada school of Mahayana. Sri Aurobindo's Intermediate Zone and Da Free John's "5th Stage of Life" might be located here; Kundalini awakening, higher psychic experiences, contact with deities, etc
• Middle or Intermediate - a transitional physical, psychic and spiritual region between the vast inner sphere and the outer consciousness; includes the personal unconscious, the dream state, hypnosis, trance, meditation, and drug induced, schizophrenic and natural-healthy altered states of consciousness. Of course these don't all occupy the same "mindspace", because the gradations and near infinite combinations an dsub-combinations of the other three axii have to be considered as well. Some examples of the Middle/Intermediate Being in psychology are the Unconscious of Freud, the Shadow or Personal Unconscious of Jung, the Lower, Middle, and Higher Unconscious of the Psychosynthesis of Roberto Assagioli, the "inner planes" (in part) and "pathworking" of occultism, and the perinatal matrixes and other such phenomena described by Grof. In part also the "System B" of Stan Gooch.
• Outer - the surface physical and psychic consciousness and preconsciousness, the Ego or waking consciousness of Freud and Jung, the Field of Consciousness (as usually considered) of Assagioli. Can be itself divided into an Inner, Middle, and Outer as follows:
  • Inner part of Outer - the world of introversion, imagination, intuition, light meditation, mild altered state of consciousness (e.g. marijuana), mild trance. In part also the "System B" of Stan Gooch.
  • Middle part of Outer - ordinary waking consciousness.
  • Outer part of Outer - external physical reality or rationalising and externalising consciousness; the indriyas (senses) of Yogachara and senses, organs of action, and elements of Samkhya. Also the "System A" of Stan Gooch. Includes "objective" reality of western secular understanding, science, and academia; physical consciousness and objective raelity are here equated (since the "object" is nothing but another "self" - see autocline discussion)
• Outermost - Chitzoniyut or outwardness, or Kelippot ("husks" of creation, the outermost aspect of the being) of Kabbalah, which seem to be the same as what Sri Aurobindo calls the "Outermost Being". The negative counterparts of the positive states of consciousness described by John Lilly. In other words, just as there is a reality that is more "inward" then the familar external reality, so there is a reality that is more "outward". It is experienced as the world and existence as being utter meaninglessness (ref Lilly p.xxx]. Steiner's concept of "ahriman" and "the 8th sphere", and Gurdjieff's "moon" which has even more laws (restrictions) than "Earth" (see the Ray of Creation), would also seem to go here.

Although it seems like there is a progression from light to dark, spirit to matter, positiove to negative, etc etc, with the former being closest to Godhead or Absolute, the various esoteric monistic teachings are unanimous in asserting that opposite polarities or dualities emerge from an original unity (in Lurianic Kabbalah Hesed and Gevurah from the En Sof or Keter, in Tantra Shiva and Shakti from the Supreme principle (Parasamvit, Paramashiva, etc), in Taoism yin and yang from the original Tao). This can be shown as follows.

The Ontocline or "Vertical" Axis - Planes of Existence

The "Vertical" Axis consists of a hierarchy of Planes of Existence, an ontological gradation, according to which the Cosmos can be divided "vertically" into a number of worlds or states or gradations of being. This is the conventional "great chain of being" which - while rejected by the contemporary western physicalist consensus reality - forms the basis of most esoteric cosmologies, from Neoplatonism to the present day. But the concept of a vertical cosmology goes even beyond that, in the universal theme of the vertical world-axis, a cosmic mountain or tree or pole, is a common theme, which is found in Siberian Shamanism, Nordic paganism, and Traditional Hindu and Buddhist cosmography (Mt Meru), as well as in sacred architecture (such as the Buddhist stupa). Again, we find the theme, in Tantric iconography and subtle physiology, of the seven chakras, as an ascending series of states of consciousness.

With the occult revolution of the 19th Century, the concept of Seven "Planes" of existence was codified by a H.P. Blavatsky and Max Theon, and further developed by Sri Aurobindo, Alice Bailey, Gurdjieff (the "ray of creation") Sant Mat, and the New Age movement. Following Blavatsky, Aurobindo, and other esoteric teachers, the term "Plane" (originally derived from Proclus) or "Universe" is here used to designate each of these "vertical" divisions of reality.

The following ontological series is proposed to designate the primary hypostases of the vertical gradation. I have mostly followed, but in no way simply restricted myself to, the teachings of Sri Aurobindo. Because most people obviously are more familar with the physical reality, I begin there and progress up. Note that each of these planes can not only be divided into innumerable subplanes, but also a near infite number of fractal divisions.

Physical: The familiar universe of Form and Matter and energy, physical and mundane consciousness, and embodied existence as well as the more subtle blueprints that reside in the etheric or formative regions. Western knowledge and the physical mind pertain only to the lower or mundane level of the physical, and the "outer aspect of the outer being" of that "dense physical" at that. In this thin slice of reality, all the vast ramifications of modern secular knowledge and the fruits of the physical intellect may be found. Of course, because each Plane can be subdivided, fractally, into subplanes and subsubplanes (as illustrated in the esoterics of Kabbalah, Theon, and Blavatsky, and the psychology of Gurdjieff and Sri Aurobindo), one can still classify modern knowledge esoterically; in fact this would be a similar but, to my mind superior, system to the Four Quadrants of Wilber, and the vMEMES (neo- Spiral Dynamics) of Wilber and Beck. The etheric or formative regions meanwhile correspond to paraphysics, alternative healing modalities, auras and the etheric or subtle bodies, orgone energy, Earth energies, Anthroposophy, and other phenomena on the fringes of science, or considered quackery because they don't fit within the secular-reductionistic paradigm that recognises only the material-physical.

Psychic: Beyond the physical, according to occult and esoteric knowledge, is the psychic reality or realities, which include various psychic and occult phenomena, forces, formations, and planes of existence. This includes the Astral plane, and above that the Angelic Universes. Many psychic experiences, revelations, religious experiences, and so on, come from here. In esoteric Islam this is the Imaginal Realm, the Barzakh or the Intermediate World, in which "bodies are spiritualitised and spirits corporalised". When we take into account all the fractal and dynamic combinations of the various sub-(sub- etc) planes and vertical gradautions or planes, and the other three ontological axii we find this is a truely vast region, far more diverse than physical reality. This is the realm of study of occultism and esotericism. The esoterics give explanations that it can be suggested are either correct or, if false in a literal sense, are at least symbolically true. Theosophy, Shamanism, Hermeticism, and other teachings all present either the theory or the practice of interacting with these realities. Others, like mediumistic spiritualism, are not recommended because they do not provide safeguards or correct understanding (see critiques by Blavatsky). Others again, like exoteric religions, give only distorted or fundamentalist understandings.

Lower Noetic / Mental / Ideational: Beyond the psychic worlds is the universe of Pure Intellect (nous) or pure Ideas, the Angelic or Archangelic Universe, the World of Beriah (Creation) of Kabbalah, the Manasic Plane of Theosophy. This is the region from which rational (and rational-intuitive) thought and intellect derive. One might postulate here spiritual archetypes which eventually manifest in the Physical universe. This is the macrocosmic equivalemnt of the indidvidual mind or intellect (not the emotions, desires, and passions, these pertain to the psychic reality). Because this region is more remote than the everyday consciousness, it is less often acessed or understood. In spiritualist and New Age teachings this seems to be considered a higher visionary region of light (find refs?). I think in the Life Divine Sri Aurobindo says that in its own sphere Mind is still an instrument of truth, it is only when it becomes a vehicle for falsehood and ignorance.

Middle Noetic / Spiritual Intuition / Higher Mind: If Sri Aurobindo is to be believed, the Higher Mind (which he equates with the Sahasrara or Crown chakra above the head) is the lowest level of pure truth, free from the ignorance and half-truths of the lower levels. So once we rise beyond even the pure conceptual mind we arrive at the region of archetypal or Higher Angelic hierarchies. This universe can be considered a realm of Integral spiritual intuition, the higher mind that can comprehend things intuitively, derive from here. The description that Sri Aurobindo gives of the Higher Mind pertains to the Higher Mind-ised embodied consciousness, the Higher Mind in itself woulfd be a region of almost inconceivable (to the limited physical consciousness) light and knowledge. Visionary references to higher spiritualk regions and angelogical hierarchies would pertain to this hypostasis.

Middle Noetic / Divine Light or Illuminition: Sri Aurobindo refers to the Illumined Mind which corresponds to the higher part of the Sahasrara or Crown chakra, and which is beyond even the Higher Mind. We should see this as the region or enlightened state of Spiritual Illumination, and hierarchies of Light. This universe also corresponds to the Sahasrara.

Higher Noetic / Divine-Intuitive Mind - Higher Enlightenment: It would seem (still using Sri Aurobindo as a guide here, although equivalences can be had in Theosophy, Sant Mat, and the cosmology of Max Theon) that Spiritual Illumination derives from the even more subblime Divine-Spiritual World of emanated hierarchies - further Gods and Archangels; this is experienced as a great Enlightenment, and those who have attained this state are regarded as great saints or avatars.

Higher Noetic / Divine or Cosmic Consciousness: - at the summit of creation are the Divine Worlds, Cosmic Gods and Godheads; intermediate between the Infinite Noetic Godhead (Logos) and the Manifest Temporal Cosmos. Here is where the One Light of the Logos or Transcendent Nous becomes a prism of many radiances, archetypes, gods, sefirot, or lights, which in turn supervise the creation below. The most detailed descriptions are found in Kabbalah (the World of Atzilut or Divine Emanation) and Sri Aurobindo (the Overmind). This is a region of profound cosmic and esoteric mysteries, in which there is no distinction between oneself and the cosmos [Sri Aurobindo].

The following tabulation presents a view of the "perennial philosophy" in terms of ontic gradtaions or planes; the various esoteric teachings all describing the same realities, although in different terms and from a different standpoint (Kabbalah for example is theological, Late Neoplatonism and Theosophy are both intellectual and to some degree abstract, and Sri Aurobindo is yogic and practical).