Biblioteca Esoterica Esonet.ORG http://www.esonet.ORG 1

Biblioteca Esoterica Esonet.ORG
http://www.esonet.ORG
pole of an intellectual dualism whose other pole is finitude. For a human mind moved by
the uncertainties of existence, it is much easier to postulate infinity — thus to negate
finitude — than to understand what is implied in existence as a finite whole and in
Wholeness as the undefinable beingness of all wholes. For Wholeness is no-thing, and noone,
because it encompasses all things and all ones, be they predominantly objective or
predominantly subjective. Yet without Wholeness, nothing or no one could exist.
In this sense, the idea of Wholeness is not essentially different from the true Hindu
concept of Brahman. However, a basic difference does arise when the Indian philosopher
speaks on the one hand of the manifestation of Brahman as Ishvara, the Lord, He, or Ish,
and on the other of the non-manifestation of Brahman. In the philosophy of Wholeness I
am presenting. Wholeness can never "nonmanifest" — Wholeness can never "not be."
There is only being, but being oscillates, as it were, between two poles. Unity and
Multiplicity, subjectivity and objectivity. This oscillation is cyclic, and at no time is nonbeing
possible. There are only phases and conditions in which being is predominantly
subjective, and others in which it is predominantly objective. The latter constitute what
we, who are operating in them, call existence or the world.
When the strictly monistic philosopher or the monotheistic theologian tries to
persuade us that the part of our total nature which is under the sway of the principle of
Multiplicity is an illusion of no real validity, he actually contributes to a tragically dualistic
situation. For all that in human nature is subject to the still powerful trend toward selfmultiplication,
analysis, reductionism, and materialism inevitably fights back. Unqualified
monism thus leads to a state of psychological conflict; it defeats the purpose of integration
and forces the One more apart than ever from the Many.
At the present stage of the evolution of human consciousness, we must accept the fact
that the principle of Multiplicity is still a dominant factor in human nature. However
unified our sense of being — our awareness of being "I" — may be, it still has to deal with
and emerge from a multiplicity of organic and cellular voices, each seeking its own
satisfaction. The unity of human consciousness is precious; to make it tyrannical is to call
for "revolution" — neurosis or even total breakdown. We should try to imagine unity's
dominance without forcing the issue unnecessarily. In so doing we are wise if we do not
claim to understand fully a condition of being in which. Unity is lord and master, for such
a condition transcends the "human condition" as it actually is today. Nevertheless, a
sufficiently developed abstract mind can interpret such a condition in terms of a change in
the balance of power between the principle of Unity and the principle of Multiplicity, even
though the mind would not be able to experience the "feel" of being in these states.
Unfortunately, these states usually are spoken of in negative terms — nonbeing,
nonmanifestation, nonactivity, timeless, unconditioned. Such negations, together with the
concept of nothingness, merely reflect the bondage of past and present human
consciousness to the state of objective existence and reveal its incapacity of conceiving
positively of predominantly subjective being in the same way it considers positive the
31