EsoBites: Real I: Brahman Atman Operational Theory (7)

EsoBites: Real I: The Master Within (7)

October 12, 2016

Dissecting Brahman-Atman Operational Theory

On Monday, I introduced Brahman-Atman Operational Theory (BAOT) and ended with a rather harsh, but authentic, opinion as to its inherent value and main tenets.

As, I do not want to mislead you by failing to apply the signal–averaging properties inherent in the grand Law of the Library at Babel, I shall now dissect BAOT so to unveil its primary premises. Such unveiling being profitable, as it will permit independent evaluations of each major premise as to cognitive reasonableness and internal consistency and affective fairness (which is an expression of an understanding of just and mercy).

My rationale for such evaluation standards is that every society I am aware of, past or present, has utilized such premises so to bring order to themselves. This is important for we cannot understand any Operational Theory of Existence (OTE), until we understand the cognitive-affective Values Systems functioning in our species. Such Value Systems best appreciated by observing the temporal operation, of what is called, the Theory of Other Minds.

This method of dissection will be employed throughout this series of discourses. For, no one can construct rational and effective Theoretical Models of Spirituality (TMS) unless he or she is well-versed in the methodology of dissection of existing OTEs. For if the component parts, or premises, are unreasonable and not conducive to wholesome actions, then they must be sacrificed and not included in the construction of a new OTE.

Never accept an OTE based solely upon authority. Listen, think, question, verify–then reject, accept, or modify, realizing that error shall always be present. Remember, that what is Higher can never be experienced in the fullness of its pristine form by what is lower. For the virtual images constructed by our imago operators and situated within our mental dreamscape when contacting the Higher is flawed, as we are limited to an extremely coarse-grained sacred image. As the mystic dost say, “we see, but darkly, for we lack proper Light and proper Being.” Do not forget this!

When I see a seeker working using such analysis, it brings much joy into my heart

So lets us begin with how I choose to discuss our conceptualization of Brahman (which always less than what is). If we restrict this term to its most standard meaning, I posit that it is difficult to argue effectively against the actuality of Brahman. For example, at its simplest, Brahman connotes the loftiest, most general, most complete, and most encompassing Foundational Principle. Brahman is the uncreated Ultimate Actuality. As the Ultimate Actuality, Brahman constitutes the One, Absolute, and True Infinity. Brahman is the nonexistent infinitude “without” each Creation. Brahman is beyond enumeration, symbolic description, and can never be encompassed by cognition or affect.

In the major schools of Hindu philosophy (and in all Esoteric and Neoplatonic Schools of the Occident), Brahman is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. Brahman is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, the Totality which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman, as a metaphysical concept, is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.

Postulating the presence of an eternal, infinite, unfathomable Source, without beginning nor end, seems the most parsimonious OTE and TMS to accept in modeling Creation itself. While, I shall not discuss it today, the Brahman OTE can be conceptualized using explicit definitions of multidimensional space, time, and energy (quanta) married with quantum mechanics and relativity theory (with some internal corrections).

So in conclusion, the presence (I cannot say existence or nonexistence at this level of operation) of an Ultimate Actuality operating via a Foundational Principle is an acceptable operating model from spiritual and scientific stances. So now we can employ Brahmanic Operational Theory rationally.

Tomorrow, we discuss the concept of an Atman which is much more problematic.

Leave a Reply