A Key to the
Enigmas of
the World:
(Chapter
21)
Necessity
of abandoning our phenomenal logic for a noumenal approach. Science must
recognize that only through poetry and mysticism do we approach the world of causes.
Preparation through faith and love are necessary to overcome the terror ofinfinity.
The real meaning of 'Poor in spirit'. The Organon of Aristotle, the Novum Organum
of Bacon and Tertium Organum which, though often forgotten, existed before
the others and is a key to the hidden side of life. Necessity of discarding our two-dimensional
'idols' and attempting to enumerate the properties of the world of causes. Everything
said about mathematical magnitudes refers also to logical concepts.
Finite mathematical magnitudes and logical concepts are subject to the
same laws. We
have now made it clear that laws discovered by us in three-dimensional space
and operating in this space are inapplicable, incorrect and untrue in a space
of a greater number of dimensions. This
is equally true in mathematics and in logic. As
soon as, instead of finite and constant magnitudes, we begin to examine infinite
and variable magnitudes, we see that the fundamental axioms of our mathematics
cannot refer to them. And
as soon as, instead of concepts, we being to think in other terms, we must
be prepared to meet with an enormous number of absurdities from the point
of view of existing logic. They
would seem absurdities to us because
we approach the many dimensional
world with the logic of the three-dimensional world. It
was shown earlier that for an animal,
i.e. for a two-dimensional being thinking
not by concepts but by representations, our logical propositions are bound
to seem absurd. The
logical relations in the world of many dimensions appear just as absurd to us.
There is no reason whatever for hoping that in
the world of causes relations
can be logical from our point of view. On the contrary, we may saythat
EVERYTHING LOGICAL is only phenomenal. On the other side there can be nothing
logical from our point of view. Everything that exists there is bound to
appear to us a logical absurdity, nonsense. And we must remember that we cannot
orientate ourselves there with our logic. The attitude of human thought in its
main trends to the 'world beyond' was always entirely
wrong.
The
'world beyond' of the spiritualists, in all the existing versions of it, is but
a naive and
primitive representation of the unknown. In
'positivism' people have denied the world beyond altogether, because, refusing
to admit
the possibility of logical relations other than those formulated by Aristotle
and Bacon,
people denied the very existence of anything that appeared
senseless andimpossible
from the point of view of these formulae. And in
'spiritualism' they attempted
to build a noumenal world on the pattern of
the phenomenal, i.e. against reason,
in defiance of the forces of nature, they wanted at all
costs to prove that the world
beyond is logical from our point of view, that the same laws of causation
operate there
as in our world, and that the world beyond is nothing more than a continuation
of ours.
Positivist
philosophy saw the absurdity of dualistic theses, but, unable to widen the field
of its activity limited by logic and the 'infinite sphere', it
could not think of anything
better than DENIAL. Only
mystical philosophy felt the possibility
of relations other than these of the phenomenal
world. But it dwelt on vague and nebulous sensations, unable to define or classify
them. Science
must come to mysticism, and then to the study of forms of consciousness and consequently of perception - other than ours. Science must throw off almost everything
old and must start from a new theory of cognition, for mysticism offers a new
approach.
Science
cannot deny the fact that mathematics grows, widens and passes beyond the boundaries
of the visible and measurable world. Whole sections of mathematics examine
quantitative relations which do not exist and never existed in the real world
of positivism,
i.e. relations to which there are no corresponding realities in the visible,
i.e. the
three-dimensional world. But
there cannot be any
mathematical relations for which there
would be no corresponding
realities at all. Consequently, mathematics transcends the boundaries of this
world and peeps into the world of the
unknown. It is a telescope by means of which
we begin to investigate the space
of many dimensions with its worlds.
Mathematics
goes in the vanguard of our thought, in
the vanguard of our powers of imagination
and representation. It already calculates relationships which we are totally incapable
of imagining or even thinking about. All
this cannot be denied even from the strictly 'positivist', i.e. positive point of view.
And, having admitted the
possibility of widening the field
of mathematics beyond
the limits of the world known through the senses, i.e. beyond the limits of the
world accessible (be it only theoretically)
to the organs of sense and to apparatus, science must, by this very fact, admit
the expansion of the real world far beyond the limits of the 'infinite sphere'
and logic.
In other words it must recognize the reality of the 'world of many dimensions'. The
recognition of the reality of the world of many dimensions is an already accomplished
transition to the understanding and the recognition of the world of the miraculous'. And
a transition to the
miraculous is impossible without
admitting the reality
of new logical relations, absurd and
impossible from the point of view of our logic.
What
are the laws of our logic? They are the laws of our perception of the
three-dimensional world or the laws of our
three-dimensional perception of the world. If
we want to leave the three-dimensional
world behind and advance further, we must
first of all evolve some fundamental logical principles which would enable us
to observe
the relationships of things in the world of many dimensions and see in them a certain
orderly interdependence rather than complete absurdity. If we enter there with logical
principles of the three-dimensional world, they will drag us back, will not
allow us
to rise above the ground. We must first of all, throw off the fetters of our
logic. This is
the first, the great and the principal liberation towards which humanity should
strive. A
man who has thrown off the fetters of 'three-dimensional logic', has already
passed in thought
into another world. And this transition
is not only possible but is being constantly
accomplished. Unfortunately, we are not entirely aware of our rights to the 'other
world' and often lose these rights,
considering ourselves locked into this terrestrial world. And yet ways leading there exist. Poetry, mysticism, idealistic philosophy
of all ages and peoples preserve traces of such transition. Following these traces
we also can find the way. Ancient and modern thinkers have left us many keys with
which we can unlock the mysterious doors, and many magical
formulae before which
these doors open by themselves. But we
failed to understand the purpose
of either
the keys or the formulae; and we have lost the
understanding of magical ceremonies
and rituals of initiation in the Mysteries, which pursued only one aim - to help
this transition in man's soul.
And
so the doors have remained locked, and we
even deny that there is anything behind these doors.
Or, suspecting the existence of another world, we
regard it as similar
to ours and separate from ours, and attempt to penetrate it without realizing
that the
chief obstacle on our path is our own
division of the world into
this world and the world beyond.The
world is one - but the means of perceiving it are different. And with imperfect
means of perception it is impossible to penetrate into that which is accessible
only to the perfect. Attempts
with the logic of the phenomenal world to penetrate in thought into
the world beyond, the world of noumena, the world of causes, if they did not
prove a complete failure or did not lead a man to the world of waking dreams,
gave one result only. - Conscious of the new order of things man lost the
sense of the reality of the old order. The visible world began to appear to him fantastic,
unreal; everything vanished around him, disappeared like smoke,
leaving a terrifying sensation of
illusion. He felt in everything
the abyss
of infinity, and everything pouring away into this abyss.
The
sensation of infinity is the first and most terrifying
trial before initiation.
There is nothing! The small insignificant soul feels itself suspended in
an infinite void. Then even the soul itself ceases to exist. There is nothing there
is only infinity, the constant and continuous breaking up and dissolution of
everything. In the mystical literature of all peoples there are references to this
sensation of void and darkness. The
mysterious deity of the ancient Egyptians, mentioned in the
Orphic myths*
was: 'The thrice-unknown darkness in
contemplation of which all knowledge
is resolved into ignorance.' This
means that, approaching the world of
causes with nothing but the knowledge
of the world of phenomena, with his own
instrument of logic which
proved futile because all the new eluded
him, a man was bound to experience
a terror surpassing all limits. In the new he felt as yet nothing but chaos,
the old was vanishing, receding, becoming unreal. Terror and regret at the
loss of the old was mingling with the fear
of the new, the unknown, terrifying
in its infinity. At
this stage a man goes through the same experience as that of an animalin
becoming a man.
After a momentary glimpse
of the new world it is dragged
back by life. The world it has glimpsed for a short moment seems a dream,
a fantasy, a creation of its imagination. But the old world of the past is no
longer the same either, it becomes narrow, there is no longer any room in it.
The awakening consciousness can no longer lead the same wild and free life
of a beast. It already Annie Besant,
The Ancient Wisdom, Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, 1939,
Introduction. knows something, hears some voices. And at the same time the body
holds it. And it does
not know where and how it can escape it or escape from itself. A
man on the threshold of the new world has exactly the same experience. He has heard
the music of heaven, and the dull songs
of the earth no longer touch or move him;
or, if they do touch and move him, it is because they speak to him of heavenly sounds,
of the unattainable, of the unknown. He
has experienced a feeling of an extraordinary
EXPANSION of consciousness, when for a moment everything was clear to him,
and he cannot reconcile himself to the slow earthly working of the brain. Moments
of 'sensation of infinity' are connected with quite special emotions.
In
'theosophical' literature and in books
on occultism it is often said that, passing into
the 'astral' world man begins to see new colours, colours which are not in the
solar spectrum.This symbolism of the new colours of the 'astral sphere' conveys precisely the
thought about the new emotions which a
man begins to experience together with the
sensations of an expanded consciousness - 'the ocean being
absorbed by a drop'. This
is the 'incredible bliss' of which mystics speak, the heavenly light which the
saints 'see',
the 'new sensations' which poets
experience. Even conversational psychology connects
'ecstasy' with completely unusual new sensations, inaccessible and unknown to
man in ordinary life. This
sensation of light and infinite joy is experienced in moments of expansion of consciousness
(the unfolding of the mystic lotus of the Indian Yogi), at the moment of the
sensation of infinity which produces, at
the same time, the sensation of darkness and
boundless terror.What
does it mean?How
to reconcile the sensation of light with the sensation of darkness, the
sensation of
joy with the sensation of terror? Can it
be simultaneous? Does it happen simultaneously?
It
does happen and it has got to be so. Mystical literature gives us examples of
this. The
simultaneous sensation of light and darkness, joy and terror seems to symbolize the
strange duality and contradiction of human life. It can happen to a man who is
very sharply
divided, with one side of his nature gone far into the 'spirit' and the other
side deeply
sunk in 'matter', i.e. in illusion, in unreality; with too profound a faith in
the reality
of the unreal. Although it must be remembered that we see only three of the seven colours of the
solar spectrum. Speaking generally, the new world gives the sensation of light,
of life, of all-pervading
consciousness, of joy. . . . But to a mind which is not prepared the
same world will give a sensation of infinite darkness and terror. Moreover,
the sensation of terror must come from the loss of everything real, from
the disappearance of this world. In
order not to experience the terror of the new world, it is necessary to know it
beforehand, either emotionally - through
faith and love, or intellectually
- by reason.
And
in order not to experience terror at the
loss of the old world, one
should
renounce it voluntarily beforehand, also either through faith or reason. It
is necessary to renounce voluntarily all the beautiful bright world we live in,
to admit that it is a mirage, a phantom, an unreality, deceit, illusion, may a. One should become reconciled to this
unreality, not be afraid of it but rejoice
in it. One should be stripped of everything. One should become POOR IN
SPIRIT, i.e. make oneself poor by an effort of one's spirit. The
beautiful Gospel symbol expresses the deepest philosophical truth: Blessed
are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. These
words become clear only if taken in the sense of renunciation of the material
world. 'Poor in spirit' does not mean poor in the material sense, in the
everyday meaning of the word; and it certainly does not mean poverty of the
spirit. Spiritual poverty is renunciation of matter, such 'poverty' when a man
has no ground under his feet and no sky over his head.
Foxes
have holes, and birds of the air have nests, But the Son of man
hath not where to lay his head. This
is the kind of poverty when a man is
completely alone, because he begins
to see other people, even the most near to him, his father, his mother, not
as he saw them before, but differently, and renounces them because he sees real entities towards which he strives, just as in renouncing the phenomenal
phantasm of the world he approaches that which is truly real. The
moment of transition, the terrible moment of the loss of the old and the unfolding
of the new was depicted in ancient literature in an infinite number of
allegories. The purpose of the Mysteries was to make this transition easier. In
India, in Egypt, in Greece there existed special
preparatory rituals, sometimes
only symbolical, sometimes real,
actually leading the soul to the very doors of the new world, and
opening these doors
at the moment of
initiation. But external rites and ceremonies
could not by themselves
create initiation. The chief work had to go on within the soul and the mind of
man.
How
then can logic help man to pass to the consciousness of this new higher world? We have seen that mathematics has already found a way into this higher order of things.
Penetrating there, it first of all renounces its fundamental axioms of identity
and difference. In
the world of infinite and fluid magnitudes a magnitude can be not equal to
itself; a
part may be equal
to the whole; and of equal magnitudes one may
be infinitely greater
than another. All
this sounds like an absurdity from the point of view of the mathematics of
finite and constant numbers. But the very mathematics of
finite and constant
numbers is a calculation
of relationships among non-existent
magnitudes, i.e. an absurdity. Therefore, only that which seems an
absurdity from the point of view of this mathematics
can be the truth.
Logic
goes through the same process. It has to renounce itself, arrive at the
necessity of
its own annihilation - and then a new and higher logic may arise from it. In
his Critique of Pure Reason Kant proved the possibility of a transcendental
logic. Before
Bacon and before Aristotle, in ancient Indian scriptures there were given formulae
of that higher logic which unlocked the doors of the mysteries.
But the meaning
of these formulae was soon lost. They were preserved in ancient books, but only
as some strange mummies of extinct thought, words without real content. New thinkers
again re-discovered these principles,
expressed them in new words. But again they remained not understood, again
they turned into some useless verbal ornament.
But the idea continued. Belief was never lost in the possibility of finding and establishing
the laws of the higher world. Mystical philosophy never regarded Aristotelean
logic as all embracing or omnipotent. It built its systems outside logic or above logic, unconsciously, following the lines of thought laid down in the deepest antiquity.
Higher
logic existed before deductive and
inductive logic was ever
formulated. Higher
logic may be called intuitive logic, the logic of infinity, the logic of
ecstasy. This
logic is not only possible, but it exists, and has existed from time
immemorial; it
was formulated many times; it entered as a key into philosophical systems - but
in some strange way it was not recognized as LOGIC. The
system of this logic can be deduced from a great many philosophical systems. I find
the most exact and the fullest formulation of this logic in Plotinus, in his
treatise 'On
Intelligible Beauty'. I shall quote this passage in the following chapter. I
have called the system of higher logic 'TERTIUM ORGANUM', because for us it is
the third
instrument or the third law of thought after Aristotle and Bacon. The first was ORGANON,
the second NOVUM ORGANUM. But the third existed before the first. A
man possessing this key can open the doors of the world of causes without fear. The
axioms which Tertium Organum contains cannot be formulated in our language. But
if we still try to formulate them, they will produce the impression of
absurdities. Taking
the axioms of Aristotle as a model, we may express the principal axiom of the new
logic in our poor earthly language in the following way:
A
is both A and not A, or
Every
thing is both A and not A, or
But
in fact these formulae are completely
impossible. And they are not axioms of higher
logic; they are merely attempts to express the axioms of this logic in
concepts. In
reality the ideas of higher logic are inexpressible in concepts. And when we
come up against
this in-expressibility, it means that we have come into contact with the world
of causes. The
logical formula A is both A and not A corresponds to the mathematical formula: a
magnitude can be greater or lesser than itself. The
absurdity of both these propositions shows that they cannot refer to our world. Naturally,
absurdity does not, by itself, indicate that a thing belongs to noumena. But the
fact of belonging to noumena will necessarily be expressed for us in absurdity.
To hope
to find anything in the world of causes that would be logical from our point of view
is just as useless as to think that the world of things can exist in accordance
withthe
laws of the world of
shadows, or stereometry in accordance with the laws of planimetry.
To
master the main principles of higher logic means to master the
fundamentals of the understanding of higher-dimensional space
or the
world of the miraculous. In
order to come to a clear understanding of the relations of the many-dimensional world,
we must get rid of all the 'idols' of our world (to use Bacon's expression); in other
words we must get rid of all the obstacles to a right perception and thinking.
And above
all we must have an inner kinship with the world of the miraculous. In order to come to the understanding of the
three-dimensional world, a two dimensional
being must already be
three-dimensional, and then get free of its 'idols', i.e.
of its accepted ways of feeling and thinking, which have become axiomatic and
are creating
for it the illusion of two-dimensionality. What
exactly must a two-dimensional being get rid of? First
of all - and this is most important - it must get rid of the conviction that
what it sees
and senses actually exists; and
as a result it must become aware
of the incorrectness
of its representation of the world, and then of the idea that the real, new world
must exist in some quite different forms, new, incomparable, incommensurable with
the old. Further, the two-dimensional being must get rid of the assurance that
its divisions
are correct. It must understand that things which appear to it totally
different and
separated one from another, may be a part of some whole incomprehensible to it, or that they may
have much in common, although
this may not be noticed; whereas things
which seem one and indivisible, are actually infinitely complex and manifold.
The
mental growth of the two-dimensional being must proceed along the line of the recognition
of those common properties of objects, unknown to it before, which result from
their similar origin or similar functions, incomprehensible on a plane. Once
the two-dimensional being has recognized
the possible existence of common properties,
formerly unknown to it, in objects which appear different, it has already come
near to our understanding of the world. It has come near to our logic, has
begun to
understand the use of a collective noun, i.e. a word which is not a proper name
but a common
noun; in other words, a word expressing a concept. The
'idols' of the two-dimensional being
which obstruct the development of its consciousness
are proper names which itself it gives to all surrounding objects. For it every
object has its own proper name, corresponding to its own representation of that object;
it has no common nouns corresponding to concepts. It is only by getting rid of these
'idols' and understanding that nouns may be both proper and common that it will be
able to advance further, to develop mentally, to approach the human
understanding of the world. Otherwise, the simplest sentence, such as:
John
and Peter are both men
will
be an absurdity for a two-dimensional being. In its own representation it will
take approximately
the following form:
John
and Peter are both John and Peters.
In
other words, every logical proposition of ours will seem an absurdity to it. It is
clear
why this should be so. It has no concepts; proper
names which make up its speech, have no plural. It is clear that the plural of
our speech
will seem to it an absurdity. But
where are our 'idols'? What must we get rid of in order to pass on to the understanding
of relations in the many-dimensional world? First of
all we must get
rid of the conviction that we see and sense that which actually
exists and that the real world is similar to the world we see. In other words,
we must
get rid of the illusion of the material world. We must understand with mind all
the illusory
nature of the world we perceive in time and space and understand that the real world
can have nothing in common with it. We
must understand that we cannot represent
to ourselves the real world in forms;
and then we
must understand the conditional
nature of the axioms of our mathematics
and logic relating to the unreal, phenomenal
world. In
mathematics the idea of infinity will help us to do this. The unreality of
finite magnitudes as compared
with the infinite is
self-evident. In logic we may base our thought
on the idea of monism, i.e. the fundamental unity of everything existing, and consequently
adopt as our starting point the impossibility of constructing any axioms consisting
of contrapositions, theses and antitheses, on which our logic is based.
The
logic of Aristotle and Bacon is fundamentally dualistic. If we are deeply
imbued with
the idea of monism, we shall conquer the 'idol' of this logic. The
fundamental axioms of our logic may be reduced to identity and contradiction, in
the same way as mathematical axioms. At the basis of them all lies the
acceptance of one
general axiom, namely, that every given something has something opposite to it. Consequently,
every proposition has its contra-position, every thesis has its antithesis. To
the being of every thing is opposed the non-being of that thing. To the being
of the world
is opposed the non-being of the world. Object is opposed to subject. Objective world
- to the sub-jective world. Not 'I'
is opposed to 'I'. Immobility - to
motion. Variability - to constancy. Multiformity - to unity. Falsehood - to truth. Evil
- to good. And, in conclusion,
to every A in general is opposed not A. The
recognition of the reality of these divisions is necessary for the acceptance
of the fundamental axioms of
the logic of Aristotle and Bacon.
In other words, this logic requires
an absolute and incontestable acceptance of the idea of the duality of the
world-
dualism. The recognition of the
unreality of these divisions and of the unity of all opposites
is necessary for the beginning of understanding of higher logic.
In
the very beginning of this book the existence of the WORLD and of INNER LIFE
was 'admitted',
in other words, the reality of a dual division of everything existing, because all
other contrapositions are derived from this contraposition. Duality is the
condition of
our perception of the phenomenal (three-dimensional) world; it is the
instrument of our
perception of phenomena. But when we
come to the perception of the noumenal world
(or the world of many dimensions), this duality begins to stand in our way, to become
an obstacle to knowledge. Dualism
is the chief 'idol' we have to get rid of. In
order to understand the relations of things in three dimensions and in our
logic, a two-dimensional
being must renounce the 'idol' of the absolute uniqueness of objects which
requires it to call things only by their proper names. We,
in order to understand the world of many dimensions, must renounce the idol of duality. But an application of monism to practical thinking comes up against the insurmountable
obstacle of our language. Our language is incapable of expressing the unity
of opposites, just as it is incapable of expressing spatially the relation of
cause and effect. Consequently, we should be prepared to find that all attempts to express super-logical
relations in our language will appear absurd, and actually will only hint at what
we wish to convey. Thus
the formula:
Everything
is both A and not A
representing
the fundamental axiom of higher
logic, as expressed in our languageof concepts,
sounds an absurdity from the point of view of our ordinary logic,
and is essentially
untrue. We must be prepared for the
fact that it is impossible to express superlogical relations
in our language. The
formula 'A is both A and not A' is untrue because in the world of causes the very
contraposition of 'A' and 'not A' does not exist But we cannot express their
real relation.
It would be more correct to say,
A
is all But
this also would be untrue, because A is not only all, but also any part of all,
and at
the same time a given part This
is exactly what our language cannot express And it is exactly to this that we must
tram and accustom our thought. We
must become accustomed to the thought that separateness and combination are not
opposites in the real world, but exist together and at the same time, without contradicting
each other. We must realize that in the real world the same thing can be both
a part and the whole, i.e. that the whole, without changing, can be its own
part.
We
must understand in general that there are no contrapositions and that each thing
is a
certain archetype of the all. Having
begun to understand this we shall begin to grasp separate ideas concerning the
essence of the 'noumenal world' or the world of many dimensions in which we actually
live. In
such a case the higher logic, even with the imperfect formulae -crude as they
may appear
in our language of concepts - represents a powerful instrument of cognition of the
world, the only means of preserving us from illusions. The
application of this instrument of thought gives the key to the mysteries of nature,
to the world as it is. Let
us try to enumerate the properties of the WORLD OF CAUSES which may be derived from
everything said so far.
It
is first of all necessary to emphasize that it is impossible to express in
words the properties
of the world of causes. Every thought which is expressed about them will be untrue.
It can be said about the real world that (in relation to it) 'a thought
expressed in words,
is a lie'. One can speak about it only conditionally, approximately, by hints,
by symbols.
And, if anything said about it is understood literally, it will become an absurdity.
Generally speaking, everything expressed
in words about the world
of causes
may seem absurd and is
actually already a distortion. Truth cannot be expressed.
The most one can do is to hint at it, to give an impetus to the thought. But everyone
must find truth for himself, by himself. 'Someone else's' truth is worse than a lie,
because it is - two lies. This also explains why truth can only be expressed in
the form of a paradox, or even in the form of a lie.
To speak of truth
without lies we must know some other language. Our language is not suitable. What
then can we say in our language
about the world of many dimensions, the world
of noumena or the world of causes?
1 In this world 'TIME' must exist
spatially, i.e. time events must exist
and not take place.
In other words, they must exist both before and after their accomplishment and lie,
as it were, on the same plane. Effects must exist simultaneously with causes.
What we
call the law of causation cannot exist there, because the necessary condition
for it is —
time. There can be nothing there measurable by years, days and hours. There can
be no before, now and after. Moments of different
epochs, divided by long stretches of time,
exist simultaneously and may be adjacent. At the same time all the
possibilities of a
given moment, even those opposed to one another, together with all their
results ad infinitum,
must become realized simultaneously with the given moment. But the length of
the moment may be different on different planes.
2There is nothing there measurable by our measures, nothing commensurable with
our
solids, nothing that is more or less than our solids. There is nothing lying to
the
right or the
left, above or below our solids. Nothing
resembling our solids, lines or
figures.
Yet, at the same time, all this may be. Different points of our space divided
for us
by long distances, must be adjacent
there. 'Proximity' or 'distance' are
determined there by inner 'affinity' or 'divergence', by sympathy or antipathy, i.e. by properties which
seem to us subjective. There is no matter there, nor motion. There is nothing that may be weighed or photographed,
or expressed in formulae of physical energy. There is nothing that has form,
colour or smell. Nothing possessing the qualities of physical bodies.
At the
same time,
with the understanding of certain laws, the properties of the world of causes
may be
studied in the categories which have been enumerated.
There is nothing dead or unconscious there. Everything lives, everything
breathes,
everything
thinks, everything feels, everything is conscious and everything speaks.
Axioms of our mathematics cannot be
applied in that world,
because there is
nothing
finite there. Everything there is infinite and, from our point of view,
variable. Laws of our logic cannot operate there. From the point of view of our logic
that world
is outside logic. It is the domain the laws of which are
expressed in TERTIUM ORGANUM. 7
The multiplicity of our world cannot exist there. Everything is the whole. And
every separate speck of dust, let alone every separate life and every
conscious being, lives one life with
the whole and includes
all the
whole
in itself. 8
In that world there can be none of the duality of our world. Being there is not
opposed to non-being. Life is not opposed to death. On the contrary, the
one
includes the other. Unity and
multiplicity, motion and immobility; oneness
and divisibility, good and evil,
truth and falsehood - all these divisions
are impossible there. Everything subjective is objective, and everything objective is subjective. That world
is the world of the unity of opposites. 9
The sense of the reality of that world must be accompanied by a sense of the
unreality of this world. At the same time no difference between the real and
the unreal can exist there, just as there cannot be any difference between the
subjective and the objective. 10
That world and our world are not two different worlds. The world is one.
That which we call our world is only our incorrect representation of the world,
the world seen through a narrow slit. We begin to sense that world as
the
miraculous, i.e. as something opposed to the reality of this world. At the
same
time this world, the earthly world, begins to appear unreal.
11
But everything said so far will not define our relation to that world, so
long
as we do not realize that even in comprehending it we will not embrace
it
in its entirety, i.e. in all the variety of relations existing within it, but
will
think
of it only in one or another aspect.
12
What has been said about the world of causes refers also to the All. But
between the world and the
All there may be many transitional stages.
Translation: Nicholas
Bessaraboff
and Claude Bragdon
and published by Bragdon's
Manas Press in 1920
