consciousness, human being, inner cosmos, Uncategorized

Thoughts on the Inner Cosmos

We resemble the Cosmos in many ways. This surely suggests that it resembles us too, because resemblances always work in both directions. This gives us the fascinating possibility that the Cosmos is as human as we are Cosmic! So, what are the practical implications of this? I believe that the implications fall into two main categories. First, we human beings have the potential to know Cosmically. And second, we have the potential to be Cosmic. Let’s look first at our potential to know.

If it is true that we and the Cosmos resemble each other, then it follows that one way of getting to know the Cosmos better is to get to know ourselves better. I am by no means the first to suggest this. It was at the heart of Pythagoras’ work and, more recently, it was Peter Ouspensky who pointed out that to know the world, we should study ourselves, and to know ourselves, we should study the world. As above, so below!

Perhaps I hardly need add that this is not the way of modern science. As you probably know, science studies the so-called objective world “out there”. Very separately, it also studies the so-called subjective world “in here”, the world of human thoughts, feeling and behaviour. When it tries to connect the two worlds, science ties itself in knots, because it makes the sweeping assumption that objectivity can be applied to subjectivity (but not the other way around!). It therefore assumes that the “objective” laws of physics and chemistry can be applied to the subjective world, such as consciousness. It has not occurred to science that this might operate in both directions, that the laws of consciousness might apply to the world “out there”. This is where the Pythagoras/Ouspensky approach comes into its own. My own shorthand for this approach is “inner cosmos”, because this term tells us that when we look closely into ourselves, we see a reflection of the Cosmos. If you like, each one of us is the Cosmos in microcosm.

The inner cosmos approach differs radically from the approach of science in two important respects. First, it makes no distinction between objective and subjective. And second, it assumes that all the laws of Nature are underpinned by deeper, metaphysical laws, the laws promoted by the Pythagoreans. I will go into detail on this later, but here is one example, just to give you a sense of what I am talking about. The Law of Octaves can be found in physics (e.g. light), in chemistry (e.g. the Periodic Table), in biology (e.g. plant morphology), and also in the arts, music being the most obvious example. It is also found in aspects of metaphysics, such as the seven major chakras, and the Seven Rays. The point I want to make is that all the laws of Nature are underpinned by deeper Cosmic principles, and that these principles underpin everything about us, just as they underpin everything about the Cosmos. Effectively, they connect us to the Cosmos, and the Cosmos to us.

As for dropping the distinction between objective and subjective, ultimately everything is subjective, insofar as everything “out there” is as seen through our human eyes, from our human standpoint, and through the prism of our human mindset. In this sense, everything is subjective. Conversely, everything is objective, insofar as it is shared between us. I leave you to ponder this thought.

What about our potential to be Cosmic? I hope this does not need much explanation. If we are indeed miniatures of the Cosmos, size should not matter. Each of us is, potentially, a very small version of the Cosmos. The more closely we look into ourselves, we more we realise the truth of this. Hence the importance of learning to access our inner cosmos. As to what it might look like to be Cosmic, I believe that we all have some sense of this, even if this sense fades too often.


human being, Uncategorized

What is a Human Being

A lot depends on the answer to this question. The conventional answer, probably shared by most of academia and the media and much of the modern world, is that a human being is an animal that has evolved on this planet, and probably only on this planet. According to this view, life itself began by chance, and then we evolved over millions of years, through many stages, from the most primitive life-form, through fish, land based-vertebrates and primates. We are top of the evolutionary tree and – this is the controversial part – we are the most intelligent species on this planet. The same view also believes that we do not exist before conception, nor after the death of our body. There is more to the answer, but I think I have covered the essentials. If this is what you believe, then you almost certainly subscribe to the materialist worldview, in which the physical reality is the only possible reality. It is significant that chance and absence of deeper meaning play a large part in this worldview.


There is another, very different, answer to the question. At its heart is the belief that we are primarily spiritual beings, and that we incarnate on to the physical plane for particular purposes. There is nothing meaningless about this, and chance plays no part. It follows from this that birth is incarnation and death is “decarnation”, i.e. shedding the physical body. But there is much more within this answer! For example, because we are spiritual beings, we have spiritual attributes and we are connected to spiritual planes. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that we inhabit a Cosmos that is both spiritual and material, and that we exhibit, and experience, aspects of both.


One major implication of the second answer is that so-called “paranormal” phenomena and “spiritual” experiences are alien to those who believe in the first answer. It is because they subscribe to the materialist worldview, and to the science that flows from this, that they believe paranormal and spiritual phenomena are impossible and should be ignored. Yes, it is true that they seem impossible, but only if your beliefs are rooted in the metaparadigm that the Cosmos is physical, and only physical. If, however, you really do experience yourself as a spiritual being and feel that you are living in a world that is both material and spiritual, then much more is possible, including the “paranormal”.


I should add that there is some significant overlap between the two answers, between the two versions of the human being. There is much evidence that our physical bodies from primitive life forms. That said, there are some important missing links in the chain of human evolution. As for science, it has many useful things to say about the physical aspects of the Cosmos, but absolutely nothing to say about the spiritual aspects. The mistake scientists make is to believe that the physical Cosmos is one and the same as the whole Cosmos. However, this is changing, on two fronts – the bizarre findings of quantum physics (such as “entanglement” and “non-locality”); and the emerging science of consciousness. Although most people are unaware of this, science is going through a major transformation, and there is a small, but powerful movement (e.g. the Galileo Commission) to “expand” science, so that it can accommodate all those phenomena that it currently ignores or tries to explain away. A “science of the whole” is emerging, in which the physical and spiritual aspects of the world and the human being will be seen, and explored, as integral parts of a unified whole. There will come a time, I believe, when most of the world will believe in the second answer to the question: what is a human being?