Entering the Domain
A Prolegomena to the Infinitization of Selfhood
Entering the Magnum Opus, the Infinitization of Selfhood by Michael D. Robbins, is from a meta-historical perspective[1] an entering into a long standing ageless Tradition[2], a Tradition which has its own unique terminology and conception of Reality. It is an entering into a primogenial venture for Absolute freedom, which has set the stage for a historical conflagration of the illusive boundaries of the personal ego.
If “the History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom”, and it is Spirit's consciousness of its own freedom which is “the final cause of the World at large,” as Hegel presumed [3], then the present work is a mirror in which the Spirit of freedom can see its own end.
By entering into this treatise the reader not only enters a book but an arena or forum in which profound metaphysical thought has been discussed and developed through centuries.
One might ask, however, in regard to the former, how it is possible that one, by entering a book written in 1997, gains entrance to centuries of thought?
The answers to such a question are in the present case fourfold:
- Because the subject of this book is universal in character and thus timeless.
- Because the author writes from within an ageless Tradition.
- Because the book is concentrated upon Wisdom rather than knowledge - thus it is living as a continual ideation.
- From a metaphysical historical standpoint: because there is only One, and this One reveals itself to itself through the evolution of history - thus there is “Really” only one great author known as Spirit or the One Monad.
This does not imply that there is nothing new in the present treatise, but only that the general subject dealt with is timeless, so to speak. Dealing with this general subject, the Infinitization of Selfhood, the author contributes new realizations, insights, methods and compositions and thus continues a Tradition of realization and thought which has been living for centuries. The new is the actualization of as yet potential compositions of permanent principles or ideas (archetypes); this is to a large extent undertaken in the Infinitization of Selfhood, as we shall see.
As a preliminary when reading or entering a book one must always consider what the nature of the book is, and with what consciousness it was written or how it was intended to be read.
Furthermore one must determine what line of thought or Tradition/tradition the book was written within, the context so to speak, since this places the work and the understanding of the work in a more universal perspective and determines its specific characteristics.
Finally the subject and the purpose of the book must be considered in order to obtain a “complete picture” of the treatise.
Since this book deals with the Infinite and the concept of Oneness, the purpose of this prolegomena to the Infinitization of Selfhood is to prepare the seeker of the Infinite[4] for the entering of the domain[5] in which the infinite discusses with itself[6], or the domain in which the nature of Identity is examined from the angle of sub specie aeternitas.[7]
It is my intention to prepare the reader by providing access through the following four general parts:
1. The Philosophical Nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood
1a. The Metaphysical Nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood
2. The Esoteric Nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood
3. The Place of the Infinitization of Selfhood in Tradition and its conceptual use of traditions
3a. The Abstract context or Tradition
3b. The concrete context or the conceptual use of traditions
3ba. The Advaita Vedanta tradition
3bb. Platonism
3bc. The Modern Esoteric tradition of H. P. Blavatsky and A. A. Bailey4. The contributions of the Infinitization of Selfhood and final thoughts
1. The Philosophical Nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood
There can be no doubt in the mind of the reader that the present work was written from a deeply realized “Love of Wisdom” or “Philosophy”. When one reads the work, the Infinitization of Selfhood, one soon recognizes its penetrating inquiry and insight into the nature of the Real and the Unreal by means of the virtuous combination of the boundless abstract mental faculty and the systematic concrete mental faculty; or in other words: the totality of mentality, so to speak, confronts and elevates the reader from the first moment.
The stylistic approach and method set forth in the Infinitization of Selfhood is mental, demonstrative, and rationalistic and thus generally seeks to think its way through philosophical problems with the aid of Pure Reason[8] and the science of definition. It seeks to free the mental faculty by the expansion and destruction of limited, habitual, conventional modalities and thought structures in order to perfect the self by identification with the formless essence. Its approach is complex and paradoxical in order to reach simplicity and oneness. It forces Philosophy beyond conventional or classical logic in its application and incorporation of infinity into well bounded and well defined things or individual substances. It is a destroyer of minds in order for them to become the Mind.
“The Mind is the great Slayer of the Real.”
So “Let the Disciple slay the Slayer.”[9]The style is thus devouring, consuming, dissolving, exhausting and actually highly inspiring in order to truly release and expand the essence of mind and in order to invoke the intuition. The Infinitization of Selfhood is a Spiritual Electrical Fire burning (in) all that which is not.
The philosophical nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood is theoretical, metaphysical and practical or, in other words, it incorporates the three parts of philosophy into one unit, which is what makes philosophy living.
Esoterically theoretical philosophy can be regarded as a science, or as a coherent and lawful method of making inquiry into the real through the unreal, a process which begins its activity in and with the mind or the mental faculty, however, esoterically, its destiny and final end do not lie within the individual or finite mind but beyond. This end of theoretical philosophy, which is its true beginning, since “things end where they begin”, is clearly and most convincingly demonstrated in the Infinitization of Selfhood with its process of Infinitizing the essence of “all known” concepts.
The dualistic limitations and the vital potential of the mental vehicle is exposed, expanded and tested in the Infinitization of Selfhood in order for it to become a spiritual epistemological organ or, in other words, in order for the mind to grasp the ungraspable. It forces an opening or construction of the bridge[10] linking the finite with the infinite. This is one of the reasons why this treatise is philosophical in nature from an esoteric perspective, i.e., since it moves consciousness from the explicit to the implicit via the mental organ and its abilities, so one not only becomes able to “see in bigger wholes” but actually approach the “One Whole”.
The Infinitization of Selfhood can be regarded as a theoretical philosophical process beginning with an analysis and definition of apparent finite entities and “ending” in the infinite, which must by necessity reside beyond finite mind as it is.
In Section I commentaries to (and definitions of) many philosophical aspects are given, in the attempt to conceptualize them so that they may become clear concepts. Philosophy thus begins on a concrete conceptual level with the clarification and analysis of thoughts or as Wittgenstein has written in the Tractatus 4.112: The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts.
Philosophy is not a theory but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. The result of philosophy is not a number of 'philosophical propositions', but to make propositions clear. Philosophy should make clear and delimit sharply the thoughts which otherwise are, as it were, opaque and blurred.”[11]
In the Infinitization of Selfhood great effort is made exactly with this purpose as its aim: to clarify what exactly is meant when we use certain concepts to describe the reality in which “we live, move and have our being”; or as the author puts it, “Linguistic rigor and verbal inventiveness are practiced in order to facilitate the grasping of the otherwise ungraspable.”[12]
An attempt is made to define many crucial concepts such as, finite, infinite, point, beginning, time, space, etc., commentary upon these concepts is offered on different levels using a specific system of capitalization of words and letters, in order to establish a framework in which the (finite) mind can understand and use the obtained vision of the otherwise formless.
This highly important part of true philosophy and very vital and useful system of definitions renders thoughts and ideas clear and specific, and is actually an essential element to any philosophy and philosophical treatise, as David Dilworth writes: “The emergence of an original, yet intrinsically coherent, interlocking vocabulary may be said to be the mark of a philosopher.”[13] This can truly be said of the work of Michael D. Robbins.[14]
However, when this first task of bridging the infinite with the finite, or defining and thus “making” concepts finite has been undertaken, philosophical problems arise. When all thoughts have become clear with their own unique definitions or sharp boundaries, and just as the concrete mental faculty has become satisfied with its dualistic logical conclusions or definitions, the abstract mental faculty, with its inherent wish to synthesize all these distinct thoughts into one whole, synthetic, organic, pattern, begins its philosophical venture and thus problems arise.
At this stage it seems as if “a philosopher has a problem for every solution”, or it seems as if “philosophy is a sacred disease” as Heraclitus wrote.
With all these problems arising, however, this next step of philosophy is important and necessary, as is demonstrated in Section II of the present work, since it is what finally determines the nature and constitution of cosmos; it is what makes metaphysics possible and finally ethics or practical philosophy, because without solving or attempting to solve problems of inconsistency between definitions or principles, no metaphysics can be actualized.
This means that the function of metaphysics, which is to know and explain first principles, disappears. If knowledge and understanding of first principles disappears, a real foundation for ethics or action in the phenomenal world also disappears.
Section II of the present work is a theoretical and practical analysis of both cosmological-metaphysical and psychological questions and principles: for example, what is jealousy if in reality there truly is only one essence? Or how can cosmos be infinite if the law of periodicity is a fact?
It is commonly known, for example, that jealousy is an emotion of loneliness due to someone seemingly liking another as well, or when another appears to like an individual for whom one has a strong liking, and when the unwelcome liking appears to be reciprocated by the individual one likes. However, if All, in reality, is One, which is the basic premise of the Infinitization of Selfhood, then in Reality the “other” does not really, in essence, exist.
Consequently a philosophical problem arises since two concepts or definitions collapse in the presence of each other—that of jealousy and that of Essential Oneness. One of the concepts must be viewed differently or be utterly destroyed. One of the concepts must be an illusion to a certain extent and then the discussion begins. This is what is meant by a philosophical problem at this stage.
If all such related questions of cosmological and psychological nature are not determined, it becomes difficult to know what truly IS—i.e., what are the first principles of any metaphysical system and if one does not know what IS, how should one then act in relation to that which IS, or know what is the right principle for any action – “The Good”, so to speak.
During this step Philosophy, thus, becomes the art of making and solving problems, or as Robert Ginsberg writes of Philosophy: “Philosophy is a creative art of making problems. ... Philosophy probes problems. It tries to show what a problem is in the sense of what is problematic about it. It explores alternative possibilities of dealing with the problem.” This is well demonstrated in the problem section in the Infinitization of Selfhood.
It is as if the first task of philosophy is to find the specific nature of “all” entities only to later make these specific definitions vanish in the infinite essence of all which is the Self or the Absolute. Finite isolated entities cannot hold on to their boundaries when they become infinite or are viewed from the angle of the eternal, since the infinite knows and has no boundaries; thus, again the infinite must be One.
The Infinitization of Selfhood is actually a philosophy of the first and most fundamental root of all being and the consequences of viewing all phenomena in the light of this first substance, i.e. the Self. The Infinitization of Selfhood is thus an Illumination of principles resulting in a revealing of the True (the One Reality).
1a.The Metaphysical Nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood
This brings us to the metaphysical nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood, which actually is one of its foremost characteristics.
Metaphysics, in the classical Aristotelian sense of the word, is the philosophy of first principles or the “science which makes as the object of its speculation being as being and things which are essentially inherent in this.”[15]
Metaphysics is the science of ontological principles or the science of what (truly) IS (in itself). Its epistemological aim is to know the fundamental principles which are both universal and permanent; or in other words, metaphysics seeks to know what the basic root(s) or element(s) of reality is (are), and thus to deduct all secondary elements from the primary ones (or, as in the classical distinction—qualities from substances).
The primary ontological elements of reality could be res extensa (extension) and res cognitas (cognition) as in the dualistic metaphysics of Rene Descartes, or Purusa and Prakriti as in the dualistic metaphysics of the Samkhya philosophy.
The point is that metaphysics seeks to find and explain the most fundamental principle(s) of existence or the principle(s) which cannot be subdivided further and which is (are) independent of any other principle(s).
In the metaphysics of the Infinitization of Selfhood there is (in Reality) only one such fundamental principle and this is the Absolute Self. This supreme One is the only absolutely Real and the most primary, which will be further discussed in the sub-section on Advaita philosophy.
“This supreme science of the Real [metaphysics]...is the only science that can distinguish between the absolute and the relative, appearance and reality...”[16]This is the metaphysical aim of the Infinitization of Selfhood, however, it is not only to distinguish the Absolute from the relative, but to show the relationship between the relative and the Absolute and, furthermore, our relationship to the Absolute as well as the relative.
“Metaphysics, which in fact is one and should be named metaphysic ... is the science of the Real, of the origin and end of things, of the Absolute and in its light, the relative.”[17]This is exactly what the Infinitization of Selfhood does, it shows the relative in the light of the Absolute so we can come to know the Real and act in accordance with it.
Many metaphysical systems have been developed through time trying to answer the questions of what truly IS, what is permanent and what is universal, and even critique, as with Kant, has been developed. However, esoterically the aim of metaphysics is not to prove anything but to demonstrate what IS and to discuss the consistency of the principles involved in the doctrines of esotericism.
Metaphysics is thus the organ in the body of esotericism that demonstrates the consistency or non-consistency of the “revealed” principles found within the inner doctrines of esotericism, philosophy or religion.
This is also the way metaphysics is used in the Infinitization of Selfhood; it does not seek to prove new principles as much as it seeks to solve the problems arising from the principles already revealed in the tradition of Advaita, Platonism and Theosophy etc.
The Infinitization of Selfhood is, thus, in this light, a systematic metaphysical treatise designed to discuss the consistency of esoteric principles (as found in the teachings of H. P. Blavatsky, A. A. Bailey and from the Author’s “own” insights) when exposed to strict Monism or the consequences of viewing cosmos in the light of the first proposition of the Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky: The Boundless Immutable Principle. The Result is a metaphysical system known as Radical Infinitism.
The basic elements of this metaphysical system can be seen in Section III of the present book where certain metaphysical conclusions are set forth as a ground upon which further action can be taken in the direction of living the principles discussed in the problem section.
Section V provides some helpful tabulations, lists and figures of the metaphysical system which I strongly advise the reader to consult as a good background for deeper study.
The more specific metaphysical subject of this treatise is, however, the Infinitization of Selfhood, meaning an investigation of Self-hood or Identity from the angle of the Infinite - which is the Absolute One(ness) in Metaphysics. “In the view of the author, the one and only supreme effort of any E/entity in this or any other Cosmos is to solve the problem of IDENTITY. The problems of Love and Creativity are closely related but, fundamentally secondary, because when the REAL IDENTITY is understood (and, as it were, become), then Love and Creativity in fullest measure follow.”[18]
From this quote we clearly see that in the opinion of Michael D. Robbins, IDENTITY is the most important problem to solve even primary to Love and Creativity. Michael D. Robbins thus later writes that:
“The goal of the treatise is perhaps the most practical of all possible goals--a new appreciation for and deep realization of one’s TRUE ESSENTIAL NATURE. It is my conviction that a great range of human problems can only be solved first, through approach to this great realization and, finally, through the realization itself. Otherwise, it seems to me that, no matter how much we may know, no matter how much we may love, and no matter much power we may possess, if we are ignorant of the realization, we would necessarily lead relatively superficial lives. This latter possibility has never been acceptable to me.”[19]
The reason as to why IDENTITY is of primary concern even over love, knowledge, and power is that Id-entity is a Primary Substance or in other words there is a something which acts: Loves, Knows, Creates, has Power etc. We cannot truly know before we know (become) the knower, we cannot truly love before we know (become) the source or Heart of Love etc. All these are secondary or qualities of the entity possessing them.
When we come to know (be-come) the possessor of Power, Love, Creativity, which is our self (Identity) as The Universal Self then Love, knowledge and power come naturally because then we (know we) are these.
“Know thou Self” and “Thou art That” are two ancient sayings, one from the West and one from the East. “To know one self” truly is to know that we are “That”: the unnamable One All in which reside all the qualities of Power, Love and Knowledge. This is the Root of the World and our self. One must always strive after the root since it is the supreme cause of all other(s).
The Philosophy expounded or set forth for the world to contemplate in this treatise is, thus, called “Radical Infinitism” or Non-Dualism as mentioned, because it is a philosophy which seeks to go to the root and source (radical) of all “Id-entities” and infinitize them, so to speak, bring them back to their (one) essence (the Self).
The main theme or the first and central principle of this treatise is therefore to infinitize the self in order to “restore the SELF unto the Self”[20], or, in other words, a systematic destruction of the illusive personal ego in order to obtain true IDENTITY. It is a treatise which seeks to restore all principles to their inner most source in order for the self to more fully live the True and Real.
However, many problems arise on the path to Selfhood, both theoretical and practical, resulting in paradoxes (or in Greek that which is beyond {para} knowledge {doxa}) with regard to “conclusions” and the consequences of the arguments, when one tries to restore the apparently finite and dualistic to their infinite and monistic Reality. The reconciliation of the “apparent finite” with the Infinite is thus at the very heart of the Infinitization of Selfhood.
1b. The Practical Nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood
This demonstrates that the Infinitization of Selfhood is not merely a theoretical and metaphysical-philosophical treatise only for the mind and Spirit, but contains actual advice for the practical application of Oneness in matter and form.
Section IV of the present book demonstrates this fully with its counsels on living the life and principles of Radical Infinitism.
Philosophy without action (or, one could say, without actuality) is no true philosophy at all; a doctrine found emphasized in the great Bhagavad Gita of India: i.e., that all is activity (because the three gunas are the constituents of all) and, thus, even sitting, doing nothing is an action, which means that we might as well due something purposeful and helpful in the world since we cannot avoid acting. Purposeful action is actually the actualization of man and, thus, his destiny.
The aim of Philosophy is thus to perfect the human being and so perfect the actions of the human being, meaning actualizing the potential of the human being as a genus.
“What is philosophy after all? If not a means of reflecting on not so much what is true or false but on our relation to truth? How, given that relation to truth, should we act?” [21]True philosophy is the perfection and purification of life through right action, which means that all metaphysical and theoretical philosophy primarily has its value in giving insight into the ideal nature, laws and constitution of the world so that we may act according to this ideal for the completion of the world purpose or plan. Any treatise on philosophy should thus in essence contribute to this primary aim of ethics.
This is the goal of the Infinitization of Selfhood: to give insight into to the nature of the Real-Self in order for the self to live more truly, or in order for the self to (re)become its true SELF, thus destroying the delusion of separatism through the application of Oneness in practicality.
A most beautiful set of ethics is formulated in the Infinitization of Selfhood which reminds one of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, or the ethics found in the Christian gospels: that one should act from a pure motive of universality, or that the all should be reasonably included in every act. To act as if everybody or the whole would do the same act. To act as if one’s act was a universal Law.
Thus if one considers doing an isolated selfish act, the consequence is that everybody would do isolated selfish acts; imagine the consequences!
Oneness in action is actually the only reasonable ethics because there can exist no ideal harmony where there is no purposeful and loving interaction between entities.
All apparent separate units must act in perfect relation to every other unit if harmony is to be attained, otherwise chaos is the result. The philosophical problems of ethics, harmony and chaos are great, but thinking about their solution is greater if one’s actions are directed accordingly.
“How are we to treat one another?” It is asked in the Infinitization of Selfhood on “The Problem of Morality” and it is answered that: “From the non-dualistic, Radical Infinitist perspective, we are to treat each other as essential selves “within” the ONE SELF. On a still higher turn of the spiral, we are to treat each other as if we were the ONE SELF, ITSELF, which we ARE, ESSENTIALLY. We are not to be objects to each other but subjects—REALLY, the SUBJECT. If we persist in treating each other as objects, we treat each other as “things” un-REAL, as “things” divorced from the SELF. If, however, we treat each other as Subjects who are the SUBJECT, we begin directly and immediately and fully to feel the impact of every act upon another as if it were and act upon OURSELF-as-OurSELF because it is so.”[22]
From this quote we clearly see that the great implications and potential of the ethical theory found within the Infinitization of Selfhood is a call to all true “seekers of the infinite” to actually “enter the domain” and actualize oneness in practicality.
“In order to Love THY neighbor as THY SELF, each must certainly identify at the deepest level with his neighbor. This identification, Essentially, means the capacity to see the difference and yet be the sameness which one also sees. Thus fellow traveler upon the Path of Synthesis, see only the sameness which is the SAMENESS, the GREAT HOMOGENEITY. Minimize the differences. Acknowledge them; know their place within the scheme of things, but merge yourself within the SAMENESS and BE LIFE.”[23]
Thus writes the author of this book, the Infinitization of Selfhood, to all fellow travelers in the drama of life advising them to complete their philosophy in practical application. The Philosophical nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood is thus more in line with the ancient philosophical traditions of Greece, Persia and India since it displays a philosophy which is integrated in living actuality and not just a theory of speculation as modern academic philosophy has become for many in the West.
Also the philosophy of the Infinitization of Selfhood is connected to a Tradition/traditions as discussed in part three of the prolegomena and thus not a separate unit.
In this section my purpose has been to demonstrate the philosophical nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood and thus show the reader that the treatise, if used intensively, is a great tool for the expansion of mind, thus linking the finite with the infinite in order for the self to rebecome the SELF and live accordingly.
“Once you feel and know you are the SELF, how can you help but be the SELF in active, deliberate manifestation.”[24]
2. The Esoteric Nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood
As seen from part one of the present prolegomena: the Infinitization of Selfhood is highly philosophical in nature, however, it is philosophical within a larger context since it embodies a certain “driving force” or, in other words, there is implicitly within the Infinitization of Selfhood a motivation or spirit which seeks to effectuate the reader so that he himself can gain access to an experience (or re-becoming) of the SELF.
This spirit or motivation of the work can be said to be its substance or idea (in the Platonic sense) where the philosophical aspect can be said to be its mental polarized quality or method of approach. Esoteric Philosophy is, then, the result, or perhaps Philosophical Esotericism.
Let us examine this term Esoteric Philosophy from an essentialistic or idealistic perspective (thus, not falling into the modern fallacies of nominalism and materialism) in order for us to understand the wider scheme of the Infinitization of Selfhood or its Esoteric nature.
Esoteric as an adjective when applied to Philosophy as a substantive implies that Esoteric is a specific quality determining or effecting the substantive Philosophy, or to put it in classical Platonic terms of Philosophy: Esotericism is a substance (idea) in which Philosophy participates due to its embodiment of the quality of esotericism and, thus, it becomes Esoteric Philosophy.
Philosophy is not just Philosophy in the present case, but a Philosophy embodying a specific force or characteristic which is seen in its motivation and direction. As all archetypes, Esotericism operates as a force or law in and through nature effectuating those entities which come into rapport with its energy and attraction. When a particular entity begins to embody the quality of Esotericism, the adjective Esoteric can be applied to its nature as in Esoteric Philosophy.
However, before we can determine why the Infinitization of Selfhood is a treatise of Esoteric Philosophy or is Esoteric in nature we must first briefly establish a notion of Esotericism itself.[25]
Esotericism from the Greek Esoterikos generally means inner or hidden. When the notions of force, evolution and consciousness are applied to this notion of the inner or the implicit – hidden, Esotericism can be defined as “that force which moves consciousness from the explicit to the implicit, thus making the implicit explicit.”
When this definition is conjoined with Philosophy, as in Esoteric Philosophy, we get a Philosophy which seeks to move consciousness, by mental discipline, from the explicit or limited to the implicit, until all that which is implicit becomes explicit to consciousness, or in the words of the mysteries: “When all stands revealed” to consciousness -- when consciousness has (re)become One -- the SELF.
This is the driving force of the Infinitization of Selfhood, to let all stand revealed, and that all is The SELF which ‘SELF-Veils’ itself in limitation or by the power of Maya.
The Esoteric nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood thus not only expresses itself in its use of the concepts found in the esoteric tradition of H. P. Blavatsky and A. A. Bailey but in the way it effects and conditions consciousness and, thus, participate in the Idea of Esotericism. The Infinitization of Selfhood is, thus, a direct expression or actualization of the Idea: Esotericism.
Consciousness is, as long as it is subdued by matter or phenomena, conditioned by Maya -- the force which divides and separates Oneness into pieces: as object and subject. Maya is a force felt by all entities in the evolutionary process consequently their evolution becomes a fragmentary movement from point to point, or it can be viewed as a gradual expansion of a circle of illumination (I-consciousness) until it includes or illuminates all (absolute consciousness). This means that during the process of evolution and under the influence of Maya some parts of the consciousness will always be in darkness or implicit -- the part(s) which has not been revealed yet or made explicit because “the circle of light” has not been expanded enough to shed light upon it.
Other elements are explicitly present within the consciousness because they have been revealed or experienced. The Esoteric (inner) is that which is as yet implicit and the Exoteric (outer) that which is explicit within the consciousness. However, that which is Exoteric to one entity might not be Exoteric to another entity but still Esoteric or implicit. Only “when all stands revealed” has all that which is Esoteric become Exoteric; consciousness has (re)become one unified field of illumination -- this is the absolute consciousness of the Self.
Evolution (and involution) is the general force which moves consciousness. Esotericism (as substantive - idea) is the specific force which moves consciousness from the explicit to the implicit so that the implicit becomes explicit or, in other words, that force which moves the circle of consciousness into the inner unknown depths of consciousness and thus expands consciousness. It expands the sense and realization of Identity.
So Esotericism is that force which seeks to make consciousness whole and unified, whereas Maya is that force which seeks to separate consciousness and, thus, keep it limited and identified with objective appearances.
The Spirit of the Infinitization of Selfhood is a “Spirit of freedom” in the “Absolute” sense of the word since it is (a) Spirit which seeks to move consciousness from its explicit or usual and finite state of ‘I-consciousness’ to its implicit or inherent, infinite, boundless center of Spirit. Freedom is the final cause of consciousness, which is realized or brought to completion in the state of Absolute Oneness.
The entire evolutionary effort is to restore every living entity to its true essence of life; the force and goal of Esotericism is the illumination of consciousness by expanding consciousness (through initiation) and, thus, revealing the One Self. The very nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood is the same force with that same goal. Its approach is primarily philosophical but its Spirit (force) and goal is that of Esotericism.
The esoteric nature or spirit of the Infinitization of Selfhood is clearly demonstrated in its livingness, or in the Section IV on “Counsel on Living the Life of Radical Infinitism”, since the method of this section seeks to expand consciousness to its utter fullness. It advises the reader to “Infinitize all seeming units of Life”[26] or to always see the infinite essence in all that which one meets on ones path in life, thus negating the force of Maya and actualizing the force or idea of Esotericism, since it expands consciousness and pushes the ring-pass-not into the implicit or unknown, thus making it explicit and actual – i.e., it seeks to make the SELF actual, always and everywhere; a state which actually is the completion of Esotericism.
In Section VI, methods are provided for the seeker of the Infinite to practice in order to slowly attain a realization of the One SELF. These methods consist of the reflection on certain aphorisms, specially designed meditations on the Infinite and mantras or power affirmations in order to transform and condition the limited consciousness to re-become the Infinite.
3. The Place of the Infinitization of Selfhood in Tradition and its conceptual use of traditions
The importance of this third part of the prolegomena to the Infinitization of Selfhood resides in its presumed ability to place the Infinitization of Selfhood within a context and thus hopefully provide some knowledge of:
- the nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood
- the traditional background
- the terminology and
- the lines of reasoning and thought within which the treatise was written
The context of a work is always, as a general rule, to be found within a Tradition/traditions[27] and, in an abstract sense, a text is always (if its nature is universal) an expression of a specific, condition, level, experience or process taking place within the subject, not just a product of a concrete historical period.
The context in which I chose to place the present work is both abstract and concrete, meaning that the context will be viewed from “a-non-thingness-sphere,” so to speak, to which the present author gives ontological status and from a “thingness” or historical sphere.
The abstract context will contribute mostly to an elaboration on the nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood, whereas the concrete context section will contribute more to the question of traditional background, terminology and historical lines of reasoning.
3a. The Abstract context or Tradition
The context of the Infinitization of Selfhood is, from an abstract perspective, related to Philosophical, Esoterical and Psychological processes taking place within the subject with its correspondence to Cosmo-Philosophical principles, thus being non-related to phenomena or things as such.
Let me explain: The Infinitization of Selfhood can be viewed as an expression of a process whereby the One (the Monad) realizes or reveals itself to itself through the Mind (or through the mental vehicles); this moves the consciousness from the explicit or known to the implicit or unknown, thus making the unknown known (Esotericism). On the individual level this is actually the expression of an esoteric psychological process taking place within the subject at a certain interval or level on the path to the Absolute.[28]
This psychological process found within the “individual” subject on its way from the finite to the infinite-Monad (where it in reality always was) has its analogies to the process found within macrocosmos or, when speaking in principles or absolutes, found within Cosmo-Philosophy which deals with the Absolute principles determining the cosmological process.
The Infinitization of Selfhood is thus not a concrete biography dealing with the individual’s psychological and personal experiences of phenomenal life and with objects of the persona (the mask) but, in a sense, a Monadography dealing with, or expressing implicitly in a philosophical manner, the subjective process by which the finite self becomes restored to the Infinite Self, the one Monad. The Infinitization of Selfhood is thus a direct and living expression of a certain stage on the inner path of initiation.
From an abstract point of view this monadographical process (through which the monad reflects itself and sees itself in order to unveil itself through the mental vehicles) can also be seen on a more global level in the process through which Logos or Logoic consciousness gradually evolves and reflects itself through its vehicles, in this case, known to man as Religion as a whole, Philosophy as a whole, and Science as a whole. When an individual man precipitates a work which contributes to the evolution of Spirit’s (Logos’) self-reflection in either one of the three departments mentioned: Religion, Philosophy or Science, that work is universal in nature and thus contributes to Tradition.
All the great works which have been “created” or precipitated through history make the Logos or the indwelling entity of any system (here the logoic consciousness) evolve. All these great works, among which the Infinitization of Selfhood by Michael D. Robbins is found, contributes and embody Tradition, or are the expressions of Tradition.
The Infinitization of Selfhood is one of such great works for its innovation, synthesis and testing of both Esoteric and Philosophical ideas and for its synthesis of Esotericism and Philosophy. It is a major work in the Tradition of the principle of Oneness and Identity in which the One can now obtain a possibility to see “its Self”.
Tradition can thus from an abstract-metaphysical or non-thingness perspective be viewed from two perspectives:
As a specific continual process (Tradition) by which the One reveals itself to itself and thus realizes itself. As the uncreated wisdom which always has been and always will be in essence; a wisdom embodying principles which some have grasped through pure reason or revelation and discussed in various manners through history under cyclic law.In both these cases Tradition is to be regarded as permanent and unchanging in essence, however, in the first perspective this might seem contradictory since Tradition is defined as a continual process, implying movement, however, this is not to be seen as linear movement but rather as a expansion and contraction in which the essence always remains the same.
The first perspective is viewed from the perspective of the One, or sub specie aeternitas, and in the second case from the many. The first perspective, that the One reveals itself to itself, as seen from the angle of sub specie aeternitas is logical in the sense that: All is the One, thus, there is only One since all is all. The One is itself, which means that the One is identical with itself since it IS all; otherwise (if it is not identical with itself) it would be nothing and this cannot be so, since the One is all (as seen above). So when the One reveals itself to all (the many as in the second perspective) it reveals itself to itself.
The second perspective is stating the same thing as the first only from the angle of the many or the phenomenal.
But in order for us to return to the purpose of placing the Infinitization of Selfhood in an abstract context, what, then, does the above mean? It means that from an abstract point of view the Infinitization of selfhood is written as a self-reflection or self-realization, and a Self-identification or unification with the Absolute.
This book is the one (Monad) seeing itself, thus the context is in reality non- phenomenal. It contributes to a subjective process in which the World Spirit evolves itself and is, thus, in an abstract sense, not the product of a sociological, historical or personal psychological creation.
3b. The concrete context or the conceptual use of traditions
On a concrete level or on the level of thingness, which is also from the level of the particular, the Infinitization of Selfhood draws terminology and ideas from particular traditions or lines of thought developed through history.
This section is not designed to give a complete and detailed description of all the historical traditions in which parallels can be seen to the Infinitization of Selfhood, but merely to give a short overview of the most central traditions or lines of thought which the Infinitization of Selfhood draws upon, since it will be very useful for the reader to have a certain background before venturing into the Infinitization of Selfhood.
Some of the most central traditions are:
a) The Advaita Vedanta tradition
b) The Platonic tradition
c) The Modern Esoteric tradition of H. P. Blavatsky and A. A. Bailey
3ba. The Advaita Vedanta tradition
The Advaita Vedanta school of Indian philosophy is known as the impersonalist school and the school of Non-dualism within the larger context of Uttara-mimamsa Vedanta -- the sixth Indian School of Philosophy.
The metaphysical ontology, epistemology and psychology of this school or tradition is both implicitly present and to a certain extent explicitly expanded and continued in the Infinitization of Selfhood, so some background information on these metaphysical elements is, in the opinion of the present author, most valuable in order for the reader to understand the concepts of the Infinitization of Selfhood more deeply.
The main exponent of this school, to which the Infinitization of Selfhood itself is dedicated, is “Sankaracharya the greatest of the Esoteric masters of India...”[29] The exact date of when Sankaracharya lived is not known, most scholars considers it to be 788-820 A.D.,[30] however, the esotericists claim that he was born 510 B.C.[31]
Advaita literally means “not-two” and is thus known as the philosophy of non-dualism. According to Sankara, All is “One without a second”, even though there seem to be many parts when we perceive the world via our senses. The entire universe with all its aspects and planes of existence is One and not just a unity (parts making up a whole). This One is Brahman which is Atman as well (our Self, the One-Self).
This same idea is inherent in the Infinitization of Selfhood and is also the first proposition of the Secret Doctrine by Madam Blavatsky.
The Advaita philosophy of Sankara is very well summed up by Dasgupta in the following quote in which he states that the main philosophy of Sankara is:
“that the ultimate and absolute truth is the self, which is one, though appearing as many in different individuals. The world also as apart from us the individuals has no reality and has no other truth to show than this self. All other events, mental or physical, are but passing appearances, while the only absolute and unchangeable truth underlying them all is the self. While other systems investigate the pramanas [means of knowing] only to examine how far they could determine the objective truth of things or our attitude in practical life towards them, Vedanta sought to reach beneath the surface of appearances, and enquired after the final and ultimate truth underlying the microcosm and the macrocosm, the subject and the object.”[32]
This main theme of Advaita Vedanta is very close to the main theme of the Infinitization of Selfhood, i.e. The One Self being the sole true ontological element in reality.
“Both” philosophies seek to go beneath appearances or unveil the Self-veil and thus realize that all the apparent separate objects in reality are the one subject, i.e. the Self; “The world of Form, per se, is only interesting in as much as it is REALLY the WORLD OF ABSOLUTENSS in disguise.”[33] And again, “All things except the SELF are un-REAL except they be considered the SELF ITSELF.”[34]
The Infinitization of Selfhood might to some readers be considered very similar to Buddhism (in general[35]), however, this is not so, because in Buddhism (in general) there is no fundamental ontological principle and thus also no self. In most Buddhist doctrines there is in reality only nothingness or emptiness which is fullness in non-being (thus not ontological).
Advaita and Buddhism (in general) thus stand in a philosophical and ontological contrast to each other since where Advaita claims the SELF to be the reality beneath all appearances, Buddhism claims that there is no reality beneath all appearances -- there is only nothingness, which is not. However, the point where the two systems (in general) meet is in their highest mystical realization of the common unnamable, “That” which is beyond dualism and thought.
The Infinitization of Selfhood by Michael D. Robbins is philosophically and ontologically in tradition with Advaita rather than Buddhism and in a way continues the long debate between these two schools of philosophy.
The objective of both Advaita and the Infinitization of Selfhood is thus the restoration of the illusive self to the true SELF.
Michael D. Robbins writes the following of this true SELF: “By SELF [The ALL-SELF] is meant that IDENITY than which there is no other--the ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.”[36]
On “IDENTITY, the ONE” Michael D. Robbins writes: “BY the ONE Identity is meant the ONE AND ONLY BEING in the UTTER ALLNESS, present as the PRESENCE forever.”[37]
In these quotes one soon recognizes the most fundamental Advaita doctrine of identity between Atman and Brahman -- the ONE SELF WITHOUT A SECOND.
(This) Self (Brahman-Atman) is One, Eternal, Immutable, Changeless Universal and its essence is Consciousness or, in other words, Pure-Consciousness which is without the terms of duality such as: ashraya (subject) and visaya (object).
SELF is the One Reality or the only Real. However, when we speak of something Real and something Eternal and Changeless, does this imply that there is something Un-real or that the world we know is Un-real because it appears to be changing all the time?
The way Sankara deals with this question is to state that things which appear to be changing are real as long as they appear to be so, however, when they are perceived to be the Un-changing Self they will cease being perceived as changing. This means that as long as one perceives the changeable things to be real (due to Ignorance or Avidya-Maya) they are real to the perceiver; however, when one is awakened to the realization of the One Self, then all one perceives is the One Self which is absolutely Real, whereas the changing phenomena are only relatively real.
The phenomenal world is only relatively real since it is, on the one hand, the One Self in essence, however, not in appearance -- the aspects of change are only superimposed upon the real by ignorance. This means that Sankara does not deny the Reality of the world as such; however, he denies the reality of its false perception.
This false perception of the world as a separate manifestation is what the Infinitization of Selfhood seeks to destroy through several methods, philosophical, meditative, mantric and through counsel (see the sections of the book with the respective titles).
The world of phenomena is thus relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), however, its appearances other than Self are from a higher point of view false or un-real appearances. Brahman is the only Absolute – Real (Paramarthika Satta) and identical with the true Identity of the SELF.
It is only through Maya which is the same as Avidya that the unchanging Brahman-Nirguna, appears to be changing. Maya itself is neither not real, because it disappears when you attain knowledge of the Self, and it is not unreal either, because it exists until the knowledge of Brahman is attained.
This is generally the foundation of Sankara’s Vivarta-Vada, or theory of superimposition (Adhyasa). During the night one will believe the snake to be real until morning when light shines in and one sees it to be only a rope. The snake is phenomena, the night ignorance, the morning realization; light is knowledge of the Real and the rope is Brahman from the standpoint of the Absolute, since, from the Absolute – Brahman, the rope is the only reality, however, from another point of view Brahman is all of the parts, i.e., Maya: phenomena, ignorance etc.
On this highest Identification between Maya or Samsara and Brahman Michael D. Robbins writes:
”’Maya’ IS PARABRAHMAN”[38]“The Universe Is BRAHMAN. That which is before our eyes is the Living Miracle (Child of THAT, and, also, THAT ITSELF). This is true because the BOUNDLESS IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLE is indivisible and IS all things without exception. The apparent divisibility before us is illusory, but what the divisibility REALLY and ESSENTIALLY IS, IS REAL, for there cannot be anything that is ESSENTIALLY un-REAL. As we look around ourselves at all the amazing variety of color and form, hear the blending of many sounds and voices, and in general receive the multifarious testimony of the senses, we must realize that all this is THAT—the ONE AND ONLY REALITY. OF EVERY SINGLE THING 8 See, 8 may say of it, “This very thing is the ONE SELF in fullness, for there are no ‘parts’. This IS the ABSOLUTENESS. This IS the INESCAPABLE. It makes no difference what is presented. The ABSOLUTENESS cannot be escaped.”...
3bb. Platonism
There are several Platonic concepts which play a significant role in the Infinitization of Selfhood even though many of the traditional Platonic concepts come to new light and life.
I find it wise here to give a short background in some of these Platonic concepts in order for the reader of the Infinitization of Selfhood to understand and make a distinction between the original meaning of the concepts and the way Michael D. Robbins uses them.
In Platonism there is generally made a strict distinction between what Plato (427-347 B.C.) calls “The World of Being” and “The World of Becoming” or, in other words, Plato seeks to know and make a distinction between “what that is which is always real being, but is without generation; and what that is which is generated indeed, or consists in a state of becoming to be, but which never really is.”[39]
The World of Being
According to Plato the World of Being is a transcendental realm constituted by what he calls Ideas (eidos) also called archetypes because they are the first and primary forms or patterns constituting Reality. These ideas are ontological entities in themselves independent of phenomena or human consciousness and play the role of universals, i.e., those “concepts” which are common to many or unite the many, a genus so to speak.
For example there are many particular human beings, but we all have in common that we are human, or humanness is the idea or universal in which we participate. The archetype humanness will never change according to Plato but all the particular human beings will, thus the idea humanness is eternal and changeless. This also makes ideas the real objects of true knowledge for they are permanent.
Michael D. Robbins uses the same terminology i.e. the world of being, archetypes and ideas, however, slightly differently and yet the same, since he expands the context in which these concepts are used from their traditional Platonic cosmology.
The World of Being is used by Michael D. Robbins as the World in which the Archetypes reside, however, this World of Being is not absolutely Absolute or “non relative” as with Plato, since it is incorporated into a framework found in the teachings of A. A. Bailey, which argue that the World of Being in a larger sense, is a part of the World of Becoming, just as the seven great planes of existence in the Bailey doctrine are the Cosmic physical plane all together, and so on ad infinitum. There is a “bigger” World of Being on still higher and higher cosmic levels ad infinitum.
A World of Being is the World of Being within the respective ring-pass-not of the animating entity using it as a vehicle of Being. However, as it always is with the Infinitization of Selfhood, there is also another conceptual variation of the World of Being spelled out in capitals: WORLD OF BEING. This WORLD OF BEING when spelled out in capitals is absolute; it is “the DOMAIN of the INFINITE SELF, the ETERNAL BE-NESS.”[40]
The concept of Ideas/Archetypes is also expanded from the traditional Platonic use, even from the Neoplatonic use of them, as well. In the Infinitization of Selfhood they receive a distinctly occult (occult used in the sense of subtle energies and forces) function since they become “a compelling pattern of subtle energies fundamental to a given system, in conformity to, and in reflection of which, the design of certain derivative patterns of less subtle energy appears upon the lower dimensions of that system.”[41]
The definition of archetype just quoted is archetype with a small a: archetype is here to be understood in relation to a basic theosophical doctrine – that of the seven planes, which vertically (only a graphic description) are ordered according to perfection and reflection. The objects of the lower planes are in a sense a lower and thus less perfect reflections of their structure – archetypes on the higher planes striving through involution and evolution to return (re-become) perfect.
Since all in occultism is regarded as (different vibrations of) energy, an archetype is here regarded as an energy pattern. Archetype with a capital A is “an Entity of a high order”, or “Patterned Relationships of Energies that control the patterning of all energies and forces vibratorily “below” them.”[42]
All particulars or lower energy patterns are determined by the larger Archetypical energy pattern in which they are a holographical part.
The word idea (and IDEA) is used in a slightly different way than archetype/Archetype. Ideas are in the Infinitization of Selfhood not necessarily archetypes which have been the fundamental energy pattern of an entity from the beginning of a systemic involution-evolution, but a new energy pattern emerging into manifestation when its “time has come”. Latent or new Ideas emerge or are activated during specific periods of history and thus manifest themselves by forming matter around their nature or pattern. This can take place on various levels thus the variation of the author’s use of idea and IDEA.
From this I hope it stands clear that the Infinitization of Selfhood uses the Platonic concepts Archetype and Idea in a slightly different manner than traditional Platonism, and yet the same; they are perhaps just placed in a “new” system or context.
The World of Becoming
In the Platonic tradition the World of Becoming is the world of the particular or of phenomena, meaning the world of appearances only. It is only a world which appears to be something and not a world which is something, as the World of Being or the world of ideas is.
The World of Becoming is always becoming something else and is, thus, never really “identical with it self”; it is constantly undergoing change and is fundamentally relative. In reality it is a shadow world only, reflecting the world of ideas or archetypes.
In the Infinitization of Selfhood, building upon the H. P. Blavatsky and A. A. Bailey tradition, the “World of Becoming” is viewed as comprising the physical/etheric, astral and mental worlds or the three worlds of human evolution or, at times, the cosmic physical plane in its entirety. The World of Becoming is constituted in the occult doctrine of that matter-substance which yet needs to be perfected or structured after the Archetype of the present system of evolution. It is thus in a constant process of becoming that which it needs to be at the final day when Pralaya begins. When the term World of Becoming with capitals is used it refers to the entire cosmos.
The Epistemology of Anamnesis
Plato’s epistemological concept of anamnesis or re-membering is also present to some extent in the Infinitization of Selfhood but again in another variation. In Plato’s theory, knowledge of the eternal forms or the Real is inherent within the soul because the soul itself is a part of the world of being; but since the soul has descended into a corporal body, it has forgotten the Real and its own true nature.
The whole project of Plato is thus to restore the soul to its own true nature or make it remember what the Good, the True and the Beautiful are, in order that man may slowly to climb out of the cave of ignorance and see the Light of the Good and Real.
In the philosophy of Michael D. Robbins building on the tradition of H. P. Blavatsky and A. A. Bailey, we are essentially a Monad, which essentially is the ONE SELF. However, during the period of universal activity or Manvantara, the Monad has extended itself into physicality or the World of Becoming from the World of Being and thus forgotten itself by false (but needed) objectification (Identification).
The project of the Infinitization of Selfhood is thus to contribute to the evolutionary process of true Identification in order for the forgetting self to re-member itself and thus re-become Itself, which essentially is the one Self.
This is the Epistemological process of the Infinitization of Selfhood: to make the self remember its Self and it is, thus, in its general lines of thought very similar to the thought and “Gnostic” project of Plato.
“Descending, 8 forget, and yet 8 remember. 8 Am always what 8 Am. The forgetting ‘part’ of MySelf thinks it is ‘something’, something Real and distinct, but it is not.”[43]From the above I hope it clearly stands out that the Infinitization of Selfhood builds on many of the concepts of Platonism and uses them in the context of modern esotericism thus bringing them into new light!
3bc. The H. P. Blavatsky and A. A. Bailey tradition
Modern esotericism and occultism as they have been revealed by H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891) and Alice. A. Bailey (1880-1949) forms the general or, perhaps, entire cosmological and traditional framework within which the Infinitization of Selfhood is written.
It is thus, primarily, the concepts of this cosmology which are expanded and philosophically discussed in the Infinitization of Selfhood. A firm basis in this tradition and cosmology is therefore highly recommended!
It is “not possible” here to draw forth all the concepts which the Infinitization of Selfhood has in common with this tradition because, in a sense, the Infinitization of Selfhood is (a part of) this tradition. My aim here is to provide a very short but essential overview of the relationship between the Infinitization of Selfhood and this general tradition.
In the works by H. P. Blavatsky a great cosmological and cosmogonical panorama with all its historical and cultural implications is set forth in a highly complex, systematic and synthetic manner which extends beyond what we can consider here in this prolegomena, however, in the Secret Doctrine, H. P. Blavatsky gives the principal essence of the cosmology and philosophy in three fundamental propositions:
1. “An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable Principle on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude.”[44]
2. “The Eternity of the Universe in toto as a boundless plane; periodically “the playground of numberless Universes incessantly manifesting and disappearing,”[45]
3. “The fundamental identity of all Souls with the Universal Over-Soul”.[46]
These three basic propositions on which the whole system rests are also the basis of the Infinitization of Selfhood. On the same page these three propositions are expanded into twenty two propositions which give a solid basis for both the Infinitization of Selfhood and future Esotericism, Occultism and Theosophy – read them and read them well; they provide a great key.
The approach of the Infinitization of Selfhood towards the three propositions of the Secret Doctrine is a great philosophical supplement to the works and approaches of A. A. Bailey and H. P. Blavatsky.
In the Infinitization of Selfhood the nature of the unthinkable Omnipresent Immutable Principle is discussed in relation to the Self and in relation to the finite appearances. This has the philosophical consequences that the Boundless Immutable Principle is shown to be the only absolute Reality, because it is all, whereas the world of appearances is real only as an actuality.
“New” thought on this boundless Immutable Principle is given most extensively and brilliantly in the Infinitization of Selfhood to such an extent that the present book, in my opinion, to this day is the absolute best on the subject since H. P. Blavatsky.
The second proposition or category is also extensively discussed and also the problems concerning it. What is space, what is cosmos -- are they infinite or finite? What is time, how does creation or emanation proceed, etc.?
All such questions or doctrines of esotericism are discussed in a philosophical manner with “new” powerful insights, great tabulations and lists which contribute greatly to the tradition of modern esotericism. Again in this area, the Infinitization of Selfhood, with its philosophical and esoterical approach to these problems, stands as a milestone in the history of esotericism for its new insights and contribution to esoteric philosophy.
The third proposition or category is also a main theme and it is, perhaps, a goal for the Infinitization of Selfhood to show the identity of all souls with the ONE OVER SOUL. Infinitization is probably the one book written in modern times which has extensively succeeded in this task.
The doctrine of the great evolutionary process found in the writings of H. P. Blavatsky is in the works of A. A. Bailey expanded and elaborated so that one receives an insight into the evolution of the consciousness of the individual man. The whole Science of Initiation is exposed to us in a highly psychological and detailed fashion. The Infinitization of Selfhood is actually a highly valuable contribution to the Science of Initiation both practically and theoretically.
On a practical level it is a highly stimulating force for building the antahkarana, that is, for organizing and utilizing the full capacity of the mental constitution of a human being, as well as bringing it to its outermost limit -- the point of apparent contradiction between apparently equally true ideas, which must eventually result in the realization that the mind is the great slayer of the Real and result in the entering into synthesis, into Being or Oneness.
On the theoretical level it demonstrates a highly developed state of consciousness in a living manner. As mentioned in the section on abstract Tradition: the Infinitization of Selfhood can be viewed as a demonstration of a specific state of consciousness upon the way of discipleship, as set forth in the works of A. A. Bailey, which most disciples must pass through on their path to the Absolute. Much of the theoretical material on certain initiations is well demonstrated in a philosophical manner in the Infinitization of Selfhood, and can be attained through a practical living application, as is also advised in the counsel section of the present work.
4. The contributions of the Infinitization of Selfhood and final thoughts
What the reader has before him is the result of “the genius of originality”, and “all good things which exist are the fruits of originality”, as John Stuart Mill once said. One can always determine the originality of a work by the degree of its author’s freedom and maturity to think for himself, its ability to precipitate the beauty of the new on the shoulders of Tradition, and its manner of investigating both the formerly known and the unknown in a provocative new light.
It is my hope to have shown the reader of this Prolegomena that the principle and vitality of originality are inherent in the nature of the Infinitization of Selfhood, and that the “fruits” of this “originality” are consequently significant for the Spirit of humanity and its epistemological and initiatory striving towards “Conscious Immortality” and “Right Identification with REALITY.”
The contribution of this great work is nothing less than providing a philosophical and esoterical demonstration of the inherent Infinite Selfhood of all Life.
On a more particular scale its contributions are in modern times the initiative to establish a philosophy, grounded in Esotericism, which seeks the ancient goal of freeing the individual from separative limitations rather than “holding” the individual in them. It is the initiative to restore the universal in Philosophy rather than adhere to the particular and, thus, to unite all forms of life rather than separate them.
The Infinitization of Selfhood opens a whole “new” approach to modern Esotericism, Occultism and Theosophy – an approach which is abstract, mentally stimulating and antahkaranically activating, thus very useful in the task of freeing the esotericist from the many pitfalls of systemic and schematic thought, as the cosmological schemes of modern Esotericism often tend to be regarded as the truth rather than a “lower mental approximation or representation of Truth” adjusted to the limitations of the human mind.
Solid principles for reviewing the whole science of Esotericism sub specie aeternitas are, thus, a major contribution, since in reality there is only the One, as a fundamental Truth and consequently this, One, must be the initial step for any inquiry.
The work is most surely written with a deep experienced power, love and truth of the Infinite Self and this truly radiates the presence of this Self to everyone who reads and enjoys this book. It is seldom that one reads a book which comes straight from the Spirit through the heart and, when one does, what bigger joy can one have?
There is no doubt in my mind that this book will be a treasure of the centuries for all Esotericists and Philosophers who seek the ancient path of Gnosis. It surely is so to me and it has been a true honor to write the Prolegomena to this fine work, Infinitization of Selfhood, by Michael D. Robbins, my friend, my-SELF.
Copenhagen, Denmark, 15 - November - 2002
Tim Rudbøg
[1] By meta-historical I understand: A historical process based on the following two principles: 1. That history is a teleological process. 2. That history is a process by which the One realizes itself through world wisdom.[2] See part four of this prolegomena for an elaboration on the concept Tradition/tradition.
[3] See: Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich., Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Trans. J. Sibree, London: George Bell & Sons, 1888, pp. 19-20.
[4] The reader.
[5] The treatise.
[6] The One author.
[7] From the angle of the eternal.
[8] By Pure Reason is meant the faculty within the human constitution which is abstract mental and intuitive. Or the Latin Intellectus: the faculty which can perceive the transcendent or receive intuitions, meaning visions of the archetypal. It is a receptive mirror of noumena. One must not (necessarily) understand Pure Reason in the Kantian sense of the word meaning that it is a categorical complex subdued to his critique.
[9] Blavatsky, H. P., [Translator], The Voice of the Silence, Theosophical University Press, U. S. A., 1976 (1889), p. 1.
[10] Also called the Antahkarana in H. P. Blavatsky and A. A. Bailey Theosophy.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Rutledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1958 (1921), p. 77)
[12] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. X.
[13] Translator’s Preface to Nishida’s Art and Morality, p. XI.
[14] See Section I of this work and Section VII containing the Glossary of definitions.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, Trans. by J. H. M’Mahon, London, Bell, 1874,. 3.1. 1003a 21-22.
[16] Nasr, S. H., Man and Nature, Allen & Unwin, London, 1976, pp. 81-82, quoted in Traditionalism by Oldmeadow, Kenneth., Sri Lanka Institute of Traditional Studies, Colombo, 2000, p. 86.
[17] Nasr, S. H., Man and Nature, Allen & Unwin, London, 1976, p. 81, quoted in Traditionalism by Oldmeadow, Kenneth., Sri Lanka Institute of Traditional Studies, Colombo, 2000, p. 86.
[18] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. I-II.
[19] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. XIX.
[20] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. I.
[21] The Masked Philosopher by Michel Foucault.
[22] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 259.
[23] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 525.
[24] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 525.
[25] The subject and theory discussed here regarding Esotericism has been set forth in a more extensive manner in the introduction to my Ph.D.E. thesis, Prolegomena Arcanum 2002.
[26] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 513.
[27] Here the word traditions (without the capital T) is meant to signify specific lines of thought as in ism.
[28] Detailed descriptions of this stage are to be found in the works of A. A. Bailey.
[29] Blavatsky, H. P., The Secret Doctrine Volume 1, U.S.A., The Theosophical University Press, 1988 (1888 edition), p. 86.
[30] Dasgupta, S., A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1975, p. 429.
[31] Row, T. Subba., in: Blavatsky, H. P., Collected writings, Volume IV, U. S. A., The Theosophical Publishing House, 1997, p. 176-197.
[32] Dasgupta, S., A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume I, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1975, p. 439.
[33] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 294.
[34] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 481.
[35] I here write in general since there are many Buddhistic schools of philosophy varying in these matters but they still have some common denominators.
[36] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 859.
[37] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 739.
[38] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 319.
[39] Plato, Timæus, 27 d, Trans: Thomas Taylor and Floyer Sydenham, The Works of Plato, Volume II, The Prometheus Trust, England 1996 (1804), p. 429-430.
[40] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 898.
[41] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 674.
[42] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 675.
[43] Infinitization of Selfhood, p. 383.
[44] Blavatsky, H. P., The Secret Doctrine, Volume I, The Theosophical University Press, U.S.A., 1988 (1888), p. 14.
[45] Ibid, p. 16.
[46] Ibid, p. 17.