By Brian George
“It’s turtles all the way down!”
You wrote, “We all start from a basic set of assumptions, which almost always passively and unknowingly are considered axiomatic. Perhaps from sheer pressure of habit, perhaps from the idea that it's impossible to make a further examination of such 'axioms' and go beyond them. From a set of assumptions it's possible to build secondary structures, which inside the given frame can be quite functional…
My criticism in the present context is that you present sets of secondary conclusions such as 'life is a school', 'bypassing the intellect', 'returning to archetypal levels of creation' and 'developing powers to act as messengers between the worlds' all based on assumptions/axioms, which you do not enlarge on. You just take them for granted.”
The concept that there are multiple “worlds” is one that can also be approached and understood in a multitude of ways. It can certainly be understood in an esoteric fashion—as parts of this essay would suggest—but it could just as easily be understood as a convenience of description; as a slightly archaic way of saying “frames of reference.”
Thus in science we could speak of the animal, vegetable, and mineral "kingdoms.” We could speak of the world of quantum physics or the world of astrophysics—the laws pertaining to each of which have proved to be maddeningly incompatible. If our physical vision were sufficiently wide and penetrating, we could speak of the vertically layered worlds of the ocean, the earth, the air, the Van Allen radiation belt, and outer space. In terms of our own day to day experience, we inhabit both the world of the intellect and the world of physical matter. These two worlds clearly overlap at their edges, but they are not exactly the same; if superimposed, a great many of the details do not match up, and must be forced by acts of metaphysical violence to coincide. One world cannot be fully accessed from another—at least not without transposing the entire structure of our vision.
Although fully real, the boundaries between such frames of reference are never other than provisional. With a shift of scale, we can see that all of these apparently separate worlds are just subsets of the planet Earth—a blue marble that revolves around a medium-sized star, which itself revolves around an as-of-yet undetermined center. A bit further out, and with another shift of scale, the Earth and the whole of the solar system would be no bigger than a point of light—a point that might look suspiciously like what I refer to as the Bindu. Frames of reference can be collapsed to fit one inside the other, or expanded to show the most microscopic of detail.
(Illustration: Brian George, Tree of spheres, 2003)