Postulating a Metatheory - 2009 - Csaba Varga

1. Postulating a Metatheory
Varga, Csaba
We wanted to rely on all prior data, nexus, knowledge, assumptions–within our
reach- in our account of overall explanation of reality/consciousness-layers and their
concepts. As we are in Europe, it is clear that the arguments-counterarguments of (normal,
postnormal) science necessarily constitute majority. Among the different type of theories we
reckon not only the classical natural sciences and social theories, but what is more, we take
into the complex theory system all contents and forms of cognition, logic and message, also
the theological approaches of the five world religions and the diverse tradition theories. We
can not leave out the arts from metatheory, and especially not from metaphilosophy.
Furthermore, we can not ignore the tradition theories rooted in philosophy, or the higher
ranking conceptions of esoterism. All the works of theory building belong here, with which
human thinking has experimented in the last thousands of years, without judging their truth
by any invented scale of the truth, and so selecting among them.
Metatheory and metaphilosophy integrates human knowledge in three phases on the
following levels:
(1) Pre-existent basic theories, like pre-theories, every single scientific (normal and post-
normal) theory, post-scientific theories of disciplines, all the theologies, artificial
intelligence, etc.
(2) The so-called supra-theory: it is the accumulation of scientific, post-scientific,
metaphysical and theological top theories. It is “knowledge” above basic theories, in other
words, theories of first level theoretical integration;
(3) The joint, unified theoretical and over-theoretical systems of the two phases, that is,
second level integration. Meta-theory is the entirety of knowledge segments, top knowledge
and the systems of knowledge and over-knowledge, in this manner, a unified new knowledge
of an entirely new category. This opens us to the ultimate, only reality/consciousness1.
Through the integrated knowledge – as our new „tool” by now – and the attainable high
state of consciousness it is also essentially new and fundamentally different knowledge what
can evolve. We may call it a new philosophy, a new science, a new theology, a new thinking
by genre, and all together it is the actual metatheory and system of metaprinciples that is a
unified framework of philosophy, science, theology and art. It is post-science, if you like.
__________________________________________________
1. The calm search for a viewpoint
1
In this sense see for example: „Without doubt there is no other reality than God, only the illusion (wahn) veils
it from our eyes - and illusion is illusory.” Al-’Arabi Ad-Darkquawi: Az emlékezés rózsakertje (Új Paradigma,
Budapest, 1999, p. 322.)
1

2. In order to think over metatheory, we search for the highest (if you like: the deepest)
viewpoint which is open to all (“n” number of) directions, universal, and beyond universality.
We are exploring open (or unopened) nodes and dimensions of a system and post-system not
yet named. In a preliminary sense, we call it the metatheorical viewpoint.
Metareality/metaconsciousness and metaconsciousness/metatheory conception-pair (as an
undoubled unity one) placed in that limited-unlimited viewpoint, or rather in that virtual,
sensual, logical, spiritual, transcendent space are not only vivified and dynamically
advancing, changing but they implement a continuous self-creation, self-improvement. For
the time–being, do not consider the question how metareality/metaconsciousness and
metaconsciousness/metatheory self-creation connect to each other.
At first, we had decided only on a metatheorical viewpoint that is not only an unbiassed,
undogmatic openness, but essentially the viewpoint of universal-transcendental knowledge.
From this point on we will (interpretedly/uninterpretedly) document only dynamical self-
creation, self-transformation2 becoming possible.
We do not think that reality (observed totality) and ourselves (the observer’s totality) are
totally open to cognition, but neither do we think that reality and ourselves are totally
unknowable. We cannot suppose in advance that we accept openness to cognition or a lack of
it as local viewpoints. But there is one (object) point we cannot avoid: the many-faceted
rethinking of the relationship of the observer (ourselves) and the reality observed.
The freedom of thinking is limitless by all means. Therefore we would like to suspend3
all possible limitations and self-limitations of our viewpoint. We take this upon ourselves not
in order to hide our lack of an opinion or to avoid phrasing our standpoint; but because we do
not want to raise or maintain4 a hindrance to self-creating thinking.
Why could not we be open to all understood theories and to constructions beyond
theories by querying or suspending all our previous conceptions and conceptional meta-
interpretations (personal reflection-sets of reflection-systems)?
And/or: Why could not we become curious to all other theoretical, philosophical or even
sacramental constructions by controlling and suspending deliberately the conception-system
and meta-interpretations manifesting themselves inside and through us?
Why could not we be inspired by the personal or transcendental consciousness, see
through and step over the Zeitgeist transformed into all existing theories and embrace all old
and new perspectives?
Why could not we think that the birth of a united meta-theory is realizable in the so
called post-modern science of today’s Euro-Atlantic science-progress, since the post-modern
era has rightly questioned all previous great-theories and dogmas, meanwhile the lack of
new-style grand theories is blocking the thought-development of the sciences? Why could
not we expand the Euro-Atlantic science intellectual sphere to become a universal, global
knowledge space?
2
This essay is the first chapter of a book in making. (In the book, a new chapter is devoted to each basic idea,
however the final goal is to explore meta principle.)
3
„Crisis has to come in order to see: there is only one sincere and thorough philosophy. The one, which is indeed
occupied with reality, which is beyond the ideologies stuck to eras; and interested only in what exists.” Béla
Hamvas: World-wide crisis (Institute Hamvas, Budapest, 2004. p. 431)
4
„For him no established Truth looked sacrosanct; he started by challenging the very foundation of successful
modern science, namely Newtonian Mechanics. And already then he showed that creative thinking could
proceed liberated from any support, be it experimental or even mathematical: it was a pure conceptual flight of
the imagination.” Yehuda Elkana: Einstein’s Legacy- edited text of the opening lecture for Germany’s Einstein-
Year, Berlin 19th January 2005. (Élet és Irodalom, Budapest, 2005. febr.11.)
2

3. And/or: Why could not an uppermind – for example the Holy Spirit – inspire us to phrase
new theories and conceptional meta explanations based on our personal mind-status or even
independently from that?
Why could not my/our minds - as the one and only subject of the existence – manifest
itself as a total and unlimited knowledge-universe, while they would not listen to any
outgivings beyond our consciousness which are (spiritless) also without interest anyhow?
Why could not it be so that neither meta-reality nor a meta-consciousness nor the meta-
human nor meta-theory and not even meta-God as leading categories of the new ideology are
unasked, uncurtailed, unlimited?
And/or: Why could not it be that we accept equally the transcendental (far beyond
rationality) and non-transcendental (bound to reality) determination of all existence and of all
that exists?
Why could not it be correct that the limited-unlimited reality on the one hand exists in
itself, in its own actions (without the gazing of human being) and on the other hand it exists
by the gaze of human beings?
And/or: Why could not the philosophy or a unified meta-theory specifically reach a point
now where it again summarizes, unites and generalizes after the rationalization,
differentiation and specification of human thought? 5
Why could not it happen that the rehabilitation of a re-interpreted metaphysics and an
equally re-interpreted physics (sans “meta”) are taking place at the same time?
And/or: Why would not the identification be correct that the final theory and/or the most
basic rules of reality/consciousness can not be understood and express without the approach
of a meta-theory and/or the hypothesis of a meta-philosophy?
Why could not it be that meta-theory – by means of self-development - becomes first
meta-philosophy, than as a second step equally post-theory and post-philosophy; such a
consciousness and consciousness-state which requires the construction6 of a new
terminology? Why could not we finally advance to being able to let the only meta principle
evolve.
And/or: Why could not meta-theory reach the status where it simultaneously and equally
helps the (meta)human of the new millennium awaken to the consciousness that we need to
move on the steps of meta-reality/meta-consciousness both upwards and downwards? Why
could not we reach the point where a meta-reality visualizes a new reality, a meta-
consciousness visualizes a new consciousness, the meta-human visualizes new human-
hypotheses or meta-time-meta-space visualizes a new conception of space-time?
Let’s ask then all the other missing questions too.
2 The perspicuity of an elemental revelation
Let us start developing Meta-theory on a low level. Why can we not think that it is not
only the facts which are rational, observable, verifiable by means of experiment that find
5
We may mention several authors to support that thesis. Let’s cite only one as an example: „ All it takes is for
someone to pull all the pieces together in a radically new way and produce a theoretical model that is able to
account for the world of mind along with the world of matter.” Peter Russel (The Consciousness Revolution,
edited by Ervin Laszlo, Új Paradigma, Budapest, 1999. p. 62. )
6
In this introductory study we do not expound in detail the difference between scientific theory, philosophy,
(philosophical or universal) metaphysics and meta-philosophy (or unified philosophy) materializing meta-
consciousness. For different kinds of human ideologies, see Frithjof Schuon: The Transcendent Unity of
Religions. (Kvintesszencia Kiadó, Debrecen, 2005, p. 30-31. )
3

4. room in science, but also all other not rational slices of reality as well as all interrelations not
observable by ways used up to now?
Why could not a social scientist step outside the approach and methodology restrictions
of his philosophy working with an approach used by the natural sciences reaching in
addition an objective external system of comparison of the post-objective systems, a system
beyond researching earthly society exploring as it does a celestial, not veritable society.
May we do it? Or more precisely: do we have another alternative? Of course, we do not.
The toughest pre-requisite for deciding for the meta-theory viewpoint was, that beside (or
after) one virtual reality believed to be tangible, thought of as something that can be
discovered- we should think of the existence of another reality that is virtual, transcendent,
beyond rationality, thought to be unknowable as an organic part of the total or meta-reality
too. Nevertheless, there is nothing new in raising this unvarnished question. Today for
example, it is also not a small problem for an open-minded brain researcher or a neural
system expert to reach from one –mostly rational, seemingly researchable reality that is the
research of the brain to the other, intangible reality of consciousness highly irrational in the
opinion of many.
The elemental revelation has indistinctly been lying inside us for decades that the
material and not material worlds can not be separated, and at the same time, that the
nonmaterial (mental, soul, that is consciousness, even consciousness and spiritual) reality/ies
indicate a similarly complicated, structured, intelligible world-system or complex dimension
of reality as the physical-astronomical universe. Or: as now some theoretical physicists
suppose, the parallel universes.
Nor do we find new aspects in the fact that we intellectually cannot but review the
celestial world above our heads (allegorically said) the same way as we do in our earthborn
civilization the industrial or the information age society. In the 18th century, Baal Shem7
showed the cardinal experience very accurately: „ Man sometimes cannot help realising that
there are uncountable celestial spheres existing above him, and this small Earth on which he
dwells is merely a tiny point. But the whole Universe is nothing compared to God, the
Infinity, who accomplished the shrinkage and made space inside itself to create the worlds.”
So do we have no other option than to make conscious the knowledge hiding in the haze?
3 The starting positions of Meta-theory
Before stating anything, we would like to indicate that meta-reality, meta- space-time,
meta-human, meta-theory are nothing else than top-level manifestations of meta-
consciousness?
When we postulate that the external (not only material) world is primary and
determinative, than one starting position is that Meta reality creates its meta-theory, or there
is no meta-theory independent from meta-reality anyway.
On the other hand, however, if we think the contrary; i.e. that the world creates physical
reality, a justified starting position is that there is or may be a Meta reality of meta-
consciousness and Meta-theory. If in our opinion there is neither an objective Meta-reality nor
a spiritual reality spiritually independent from us, then the starting position is also acceptable
that true meta-reality/meta-consciousness only exists inside man. If we assume, however, that
meta reality and meta theory are both the creations of a spiritual-transcendental power or
possibly of a single Meta-principle, then the correct starting position alone can be that God (or
7
Baal Shem (Yisrael ben Eliezer) 1700-1760, founder of Hasidism.
4

5. a being – non-being above all other gods, e.g.: the Absolute, that is Meta-God) and/or meta-
consciousness have imprinted meta-theory in us. If we consider the integrated starting point,
that several of these theoretical starting positions mean a standard theoretical viewpoint, and
then consequently we must organize the external and internal orientated starting positions into
an integrated position-system somehow.
What does that look like?
Logically, we can name at least eight to ten meta theory starting position alternatives: 1.
Meta reality and meta consciousness are one and the same; 2. Meta reality creates Meta
consciousness; 3. Meta consciousness creates Meta reality; 4. Neither creates the other, the
two are not one and the same, but a co-operation of the two parts is the case. (And there may
be different types of that again.); 5. Meta-reality/meta-consciousness exists only inside man
or a human consciousness; 6. Meta-consciousness or/and meta-human-consciousness can be
observed and experienced only inside meta-reality; 7. Meta-consciousness / meta-reality are
both the creations of God or a Superior Transcendence; 8. That eight or more fundamental
positions together are the starting position of Meta-Theory, a consequence of which being
that not all alternatives are necessarily incongruous.
Logical decision is not easy in any way. Eventually we can only choose or we are forced
to choose the meta-scope starting position, i.e. that during the construction of meta-theory we
have to allow, or we are made to allow for all possible starting positions – possibly on the
highest level. We may not set up a prohibitive sign. It would not be reasonable to put any
starting positions into parentheses. Let us give way for continuous intellectual thinking.
Nevertheless, we would not like to forget, possibly deny that before the attempt of
articulating meta-theory we also stood for one of the theoretical starting position. In any
case, the position denying the existence of a reality beyond human existence is the one that
stands farthest from us. However, we are not positing our own starting position up to now to
the start-up position for the theoretical decision – that is we accept to remain inside the meta-
theoretical starting position. (Moreover, we expect that new viewpoints may be arising
continually.) It is enough to point out that the current quantum mechanical argumentations
open the way to even faster advances, so we can understand the ’paranormal” and the
’transcendental” states.”8)
The choice is extraordinarily hard also because, sadly, Thomas S. Kuhn is right when he
writes: „The proponents of different theories are like the members of different language-
culture communities.”9 Therefore on the one hand we cannot deny our own theoretical
viewpoint; on the other hand we are ready to earnestly examine other theoretical starting
points. Thirdly, we do not proclaim absolutism for the new language-cultural community
either, but perforce we may encounter all the language-cultural knowledge groups who vote
only for one alternative out of the eight to ten start-points.
However, why would that be wrong? We take upon ourselves an arising conflict.
4. The system of the new top concepts
We could give this essay varying titles according to each starting point. Meta-reality
and/or Meta-consciousness. The Meta-theory of meta-reality. The meta-reality of meta-
theory. Meta-reality, meta-consciousness and meta-theory solely in us. The transcendental
meta-reality and meta-theory. Or: The unified meta-reality, meta-consciousness, meta-human
and meta-theory. The outline of a limitless Meta-principle. Eventually choosing the title
“Postulating a meta-theory” reflects that we leave the question open. Each possible title
8
Robert Anton Wilson: Quantum Psychology (Mandala-Véda, Budakeszi, 2002, p. 239.)
9
Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Gondolat, Budapest, 1984. p. 270. )
5

6. incorporates those general categories (meta-reality, meta-consciousness) that we would like
to present in more detail.
I know entirely well that the question can arise clearly: what if we leave the „meta”
prefix from each concept, and face our old categories again? We can ask, too, should we
return to the old categories that would not radically redefine them. There is nothing to keep
us from choosing this re-defining alternative in principle, but that comes with the not
marginal drawback that in almost every sentence we should make clear that we now mean
each expression differently than before. That disturbed, mixed thinking and phrasing situation
supposedly would paralyze the straightforward and complex exposition of the new
reality/consciousness.
In principle a more beatific linguistic solution exists: we leave off not only the „meta”
prefix, but also the following (old) language constructions, in other words we would at once
radically replace the abounding „meta” prefixes (sometimes perplexing and seemingly
superfluous) and the concepts conveying the expression of the old state of consciousness
with new linguistic signs/expressions. That is all very well, but where should we take those
new languages? Where is our ancient/future meta-language? To make new words known and
accepted – even if we had them - takes a very long time, and in addition to that, it would not
be possible to translate these letter combinations into other languages. It shows up even from
so much that it is a dead end for the time being, but only for the time being, to any
alternatives like that, an extra universal consciousness- and knowledge state and a new
universal language would be necessary.
Let us stick to meta categories for the moment. Our essay stands on not one, but
several - meta approach - top-level concepts, and we do not wish to decide in advance how
those relate to each other (hierarchical, not hierarchical, etc.).
We name six top concepts to start with: 1. Meta-reality (inevitably not independently from
Meta–consciousness for example); 2. Meta-consciousness (similarly not independently from
Meta-reality); 3. Meta-human/Meta-human-meta-consciousness (also not independently from
the previous two and from those following); 4. Meta-God (not independently from any, but
not depending on any of them either); 5. Meta-Change (the category of operation that is the
complex, ordered not-ordered net of isolations and interactions or the non-net of that; that is,
the laws of flows, changes, transformations, self-creations, and so on); 6. Meta-theory (it is
not independent from any one, but depending on meta-consciousness the most, as one
possible projection of meta-consciousness and one of the models of Meta-change). For the
time being, we are not making an attempt to comprehend the Meta-principle (or the Meta-
principle group).
Therefore, in our essay we strive to apprehend the concepts and the contents/forms
behind concepts, statically and in change at the same time. (Behind? Is it possibly the other
way round? Do the words/concepts create the realities behind? The prefix „meta”
demonstrates, of course, that the concepts we use are not identical with the concepts without
„meta” – reality, consciousness, etc.
Besides the possible top concepts we are going to use several additional concepts as
well (meta-space-meta-time, meta-history, or meta-method, supra theory).
The new top concepts, inevitably, document the new reality/reality image which
shows that the traditional (rational, natural, material) reality is a much wider territory than
thought before, on the one hand. On the other hand, that the invisible (not rational, not
material, emotional-intellectual etc.) reality is the determinant of the material world much
more profoundly than thought before. Thirdly, that the existence of a sacral (not material and
not only mental at the same time) actuality is getting more and more evident. We may also
convey all that metaphorically with the concept-pair of quantum reality and quantum
consciousness.
6

7. As we leave the assessment of the chosen intellectual path to others, so we hold back
from such self-evaluating statements as that bringing up meta-theory and putting it into issue
means something fundamentally new in the European/Euro Atlantic thinking.
5. Barriers and prospects of developing the theory
At the outset we have not decided, and even now it is not decided once and for all, or at
least we have not fixed from the beginning what meta-theory should contain, what its logic
should look like, what kind of a theoretical construction it should offer. We deliberately
reserve the chance of creation - self-creation. We do not restrict vision, imagination, and
logic in the least. We would not be pleased if a meta-transcendent consciousness or our own
consciousness-unconscious possibly had ready, finished meta-theoretical visions, although a
normal medium role is not without interest, and is not to be dismissed lightly. The phrase not
being pleased, on the other hand, indicates wonderfully our barrier that deep inside we would
not like and we can not let go even the personal opportunity of the person creating scientific
knowledge for the time being. Knowing the barriers, however, makes stepping over them
possible.
We allow and support Meta-theory which is being born (supposedly, it is born), is being
created (supposedly, it is created), in constructing itself (or also itself) continuously. Let us
remember, that we want to make the self-development of meta-theory possible in that we try
to create at least the limited-unlimited space for it; that is, we would not like to put obstacles
in the way of creation happening in ourselves and via us. It is the free uninterrupted process
of theoretical construction.
As we do not assume, and reasonably, we may not assume, that our own minds and our
consciousnesses would be meta-computers or a meta-knowledgebases knowing and
understanding all the knowledge in the global knowledge society, therefore our aim merely
can be to realize as clearly as possible our limitations concerning knowledge and mental
perception. This situation sharply raises a seemingly unanswerable dilemma, even if we
would like to use both the left and the right hemispheres of our brains. If a single person is
not able to have all the important knowledge in principle and in practice, even if he were a
brilliant genius otherwise. What is more, he may not have a full picture even of what are the
important and the not important facts from an infinite amount of information. So he must
face consciously and personally that awkward and disturbing problem of how and when he
can control the theoretical hypotheses using all pre-existent and future possibilities of
cognition.
We can present this dilemma more sharply too. Permanently there is not, and will not be
enough qualitative, quantitative and established knowledge to prove the truth of and protect
meta-theory with a scientific logic. If the required knowledge always remains insufficient,
the reasoning based on the limited knowledge alone is unsatisfactory for fundamental
theoretical demonstrations. On top of that, post-normal science has lost its firm theoretical
fundaments for quite a long time. To go even further, scientific knowledge, for that matter, is
going through paradigm shifts; therefore, almost every natural- and social science
assumption may be accepted only currently, temporarily (in our days, only for years or
decades at a maximum). If the global scientific self-development10 would reach the point
where the unified scientific and, separately, a sociological meta-theory came into existence, it
would supposedly cause profound paradigm shifts, and would be a question intensely
disputed for decades.
10
See in this volume Jozsef Csorba „Towards a Big Theory…”
7

8. Consequently, meta-theory, (and many other theoretical constructions, too) necessarily
may be only a vision or hypothesis, and to give acceptable reasons for it, we can seek
different cognitive tools and methods and can find them. At the same time, it does not follow
that the chance to grasp the truth has vanished, however. Since the truth earlier, as later on, is
at once as it is not.
Despite all the obstacles of theory creation, meta-theory does mean many aspects: new
sensibility, new cognition, new logic, new intellectual control, new conceptual system,
namely new reality/consciousness. Without the new sensibility, or without the new
perception the new cognition would be mostly impossible, without the new cognition,
however, the new logic alone is insufficient, and that is a pre-requisite for the new conceptual
system. The new intellectual control requires an expansive and combined check system,
because all the tools of cognition until now have accumulated more errors than temporary or
lasting results. No one is the owner of the truth, no cognitive method guarantees truth, and
the spirit of the age does not sanction any theory or hypothesis forever. In addition, it does
not follow that the completion of a scientific verification or the understanding of information
coming through religion would be impossible.
The new reality/consciousness however is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved –
and meanwhile it is clear that after this new reality/consciousness still n number of times
newer reality/consciousness will be emerging from the mist.11
P.S: The biggest hindrance to theory development is the state of science, even if we
necessarily wish to transcend the science of our culture. We may risk a hypothesis: the
highest level science, especially in the not always public research centres of the great
countries, has reached post-science. However, the majority of Hungarian scientists are
unwilling and unable to switch even to the way of thinking of post-normal science, although
this is a standard in the global knowledge space today, be it said or unsaid. (Is the difference
between normal, post-normal, and post- science clear at all? Ziauddin Sardar writes, „ A
great deal of contemporary science is no longer normal science in Kuhnian terms.” „Science
fails to deliver prompt answers to many questions of our age”. „The post-normal science
requires science to extend its frontiers, to include different measure processes, viewpoints
and knowledge types..”12)
6. Who looks at whom and how?
We have no reason to lightly suppose that we altogether know without doubt that actually
there is meta-reality and consciousness (and most of all, how it is), but there is a feasible
theory hypothesis (or most likely more) that is meta-theoretical conception which promises at
least a glance at meta-level forms of reality and/or consciousness.
A hypothesis even more amazing than that can be postulated, too. At the same time, we
have no reason to suppose that there is not or that there may not be a total meta-reality
independently from the Observer (or from looking at it), and theoretically it is not unfeasible
that this meta-reality is looking at us with supra-reality „eyes”, and sees us with its glance
like the creators of meta-theory. Actually, nothing is impossible hypothetically – and that is a
merry state of mind. The contemporary normal and post-normal science (what is more, post-
science) is the history of that knowledge accumulating process, that the Zeitgeist always
11
We also could have written the following thought: „…this book is first and foremost about a fundamentally
new intellectual structure that needs to be understood in its own terms, and can not reasonably be fit into any
existing framework.” Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science (Wolfram Média Inc. 2002)
12
Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars (Alexandra, Pécs, 2003. p. 72-73.)
8

9. reaches a point where it accepts such newer and newer cognition results as were considered
unfeasible before, and their truth had been denied for long.
We can offer at least ten-twelve possible basic answers to the “who is looking at whom?”
question concerning observation and cognition:
• The Observer is looking at the entity under observation, meta-reality (the Observer is
separated from the entity being observed, the Observer is able to look, and
dominates the one-way, seldom mutual connection with his gaze.);
• The entity being observed is looking at the Observer, the Meta-human (that is meta-
reality sees and lets itself be seen by the Observer, and it is the dominant one in the
interaction or in the one-way seeing.);
• The “no one is looking” state (the observer and the observed reality are the same, the
two are not separated, either they do not see each other, or there is no need for
looking.
• The looking is unfeasible altogether, meta-reality/Meta-consciousness is not
perceivable, it can only be experienced, there is no observed one and there is no
looking either ;
• There is an exchange of looks between equals, that is, looking is possible and
successful, however, there is equilibrium and reciprocity between the observer and
the observed one;
• The observing consciousness (it is meta-human-consciousness now) is looking at the
observed consciousness (which is meta-consciousness), that is the personal Meta-
human-consciousness reflects itself and meta-consciousness is creating it;
• The observed/Meta-consciousness is looking at the observing/Meta-human-
consciousness (the impersonal Meta-consciousness appears in the personal Meta-
consciousness, and meta-human-consciousness is able to notice it);
• Meta-consciousness, the impersonal / personal Meta-consciousness-reality is Self-
existent. (In this state the personal Meta-consciousness does not separate from the
impersonal Meta-consciousness, but self-reflections are possible.);
• Meta-unconsciousness (there is no looking at oneself, there are no interactions
between Meta-consciousnesses, what is more, they flow into each other, fuse into
each other, etc);
• Meta-self-consciousness (the impersonal/personal self-consciousnesses are
continually created by the Absolute, the Meta-principle or “simply” God, meta-
reality can be seen as its projection;
• All (or some basic relations together) make possible meta-perception, meta-cognition,
or a cognition where the possibility of inaccuracies is reduced. (Let us keep in mind:
the basic answers are only elements of the non-created/ created unity.)
• Etc.
We did not name all the basic answers, but the more than ten possible alternatives already
show that meta-theoretical approach offers at least that many paths for cognition-mixing. In
the recent consciousness state of humanity, we cannot even exclude meta-unconsciousness
because all perceptions, interpretations of our consciousness-unconscious may well be the
expression of the unrecognized unconsciousness.
Therefore not only the „Who is looking at who?” is a right question. If we see beyond the
reality of our Euro-Atlantic world, than we see for example in the Hindu culture they reserve
the concept of reality – as one of the basic answers shows - for the primary reality, the self-
existent. As Sri Ramana Maharshi puts it, ”What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world,
the individual soul, and God are appearances in it. All the rest: ego, mind, etc., are merely its
objects.” “One cannot describe that state. One can only be that” “The self-existent is the
9

10. primary reality. Only the self alone is reality, so stay always in it”13 This approach leads
already to the formation of the concept of the unity assuming that a multiple-stage, meta-
level reality/consciousness pre-supposes unity.
7. The integrated Meta-methodology
There are both traditional and post-modern (and today still unknown) ways of cognition.
The traditional – essentially not material, but transcendent – thinkers acknowledge not only
one method of cognition, that is they know not only the rational argumentation of early
science alone. For our modern way of thinking it is amazing and usually unacceptable that
beside science they consider the mystical cognition and the information and inspirations
arising from beliefs are also ways of cognition. One of the representatives of that traditional
cognitive philosophy is Al-Ghazali14, who wrote the following: „Verification through
evidence is science, getting in the state of god-closeness is insight, the acceptance of
experience and hearsay in good faith is belief.”
Well, the fact that science is accessible for all, at least in principle, while the other two
cognitive methods are only accessible for those who have personally experienced, and
knowingly applied them, makes it even more difficult to accept this idea. In fact, there is no
such gap between traditional and post-modern thinkers as we usually suppose. For example,
already in the 60’s the anti-culture program of the new psyber society15 rushed through the
US, showing not only the electronic technology induced greater efficiency of the beat
generation, greater than all prior generations, but also that masses of the new generation
wanted to live through mystic-religious experiences with the help of artificial drugs16.
Timothy Leary writes for instance, „ Science is the systematic attempt to record and measure
the energy process and the sequence of energy transformations we call life. The goal is to
answer the basic questions in terms of objective, observed, public data. Religion is the
systematic attempt to provide answers to the same questions subjectively, in terms of direct,
incontrovertible, personal experience.”
We do not wish to value the individual accomplishments of either the new or the ancient
thinkers referred to. The purpose of the reference was to realise that despite all prejudices and
reservations Meta-theory cannot avoid raising seriously and calmly the question: what are we
to do with the cognitive techniques and contributions 17 prior to science and beyond science?
The clear question therefore is this: can we form meta-methodology to fit the development of
meta-theory, which necessarily equally incorporates all prior and current cognitive methods,
ranging from religious insight to the new type of cognition happening via Internet using
artificial intelligence?
Our answer is a definite yes. Yes, meta-methodology can be worked out. Consequently,
the development of meta-theory demands the thorough examination of a complex meta-
methodology as well.
After Meta-methodology, the basic methods of cognition are the following:
a) Pre-scientific (everyday, direct, personal and communal experience, tradition etc.), that
is, the observer incorporates the observed one, and vice versa.);
13
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Absolute Consciousness (Filosz, 2003. p. 34-35. )
14
Abu-Hamid Mohammed Al-Ghazali (Palatinus, 2003)
15
Thimothy Leary: The Politics of Ecstasy
16
To avoid misunderstanding: we do not wish to popularize the New Age-t. A reliable critique, although not
always thorough is given by Rama P. Coomaraswamy in his essay entitled „The Desacralism of Hinduism for
Western Consumption” (Tradíció MMV, Kvintesszencía Kiadó, 2005. p. 141-148)
10

11. b) Scientific cognition (normal and post-normal science, theology), the observer is
looking at the observed one;
c) Cognition beyond science (a para science, knowledge beyond science, the techniques
of mystic religions), the observed gives signals to the observer who is only partly capable of
perception;
d) Post-scientific cognition (new science which broadens its horizon and its apparatus –
in an ideal case meta-reality/meta-consciousness reveals itself simultaneously in the various
interactions.;
e) Cognition via the arts (all older and new arts and post-art as well)18 – it can be the
manifestation of self-consciousness or the impersonal-personal meta-consciousness;
f) Artificial intelligence (self-creating meta-reality and meta-consciousness or merely an
extension to the cognitive techniques of the observer.)
g) Experiencing God (prayer, meditation, inspiration, etc.) – a high-level perception of
self-consciousness, interiorizing the transcendent viewpoint.;
h) Cognition arising from belief – a meta-consciousness/meta-god is being perceived in
meta-human consciousness19;
i) Cognition is limited or it is even impossible, looking is superficial or limited, even
impossible;
j) An integration of the cognitive methods, that is, applying the system of meta-supra-
methodology in which the parts are combined, complementary and controlling each other.
For the time being we do not explore what the new super-methodology creates: science,
theory, philosophy, metaphysics, or a form rising above all of those? What is the highest
stage20 of cognition?
We must not forget that cognition (even when using more methods together) frequently
yields only limited, and often no theoretical results at all21. (Let us bracket the scenario of
guaranteed cognition.)
The pre-scientific cognition is of interest to us because a personal evaluation of direct
individual and communal experiences often brings very new internal-external realizations. (It
is partly the “mystical-religious” experiences watched and described by many that belong
here) The God experience is not merely a religious experience, but sometimes much more
than that, sacral knowledge arising from the state of being close to God. The interpretation,
the survey of the universal-global-knowledge-space and the making and gathering of new
information (or super-information) is only possible with the help of the new human
equipments, the artificial intelligence. Apparently there will be a good many for whom only
the scientific, or maybe the post-scientific method is acceptable, and everything else is
unscientific and to be rejected. Most probably, there will be a good many too, for whom only
the God experience and belief give true knowledge and everything else is false or falsified. It
is not especially our duty to do justice to the parties, which is impossible nevertheless, or is it
18
See in this issue Kamaras Istvan’s essay (From where is the view on man and on social sciences possible? ),
according to it the language, the approach of science and of art can be mixed – within limits.
19
As Saint John of the Cross said: „..the mind can obtain facts and ideas in two ways. One is the natural, other is
the supernatural way. In the scope of natural way are those that the mind can understand, either by way of senses
or alone. The supernatural way, however all that the mind partake directly what are over his own ability and
talents. Győri Kármelita Rendház, 1995. p. 148
20
„For Schuon, existence has stages, and so has cognition.” Huston Smith: Preface. The essay is preface to the
book Frithjof Schuon The Transcendent Unity of Religions (Kvintesszencia Kiadó, Debrecen, 2005. p. 11.)
21
„If epistemology does not content itself with the analysis what distinguishes true knowledge from false
knowledge, but directs its attention to the process of cognition, the cognitive mind, and the cognitive function of
consciousness: philosophy is enriched by metatheoretical approach.” Andras Laszlo: The light of everything in
man (Sophia Perennis Kiadó, 2004. p. 14)
11

12. not? Both views casting off the other standpoint make it impossible to get acquainted with it
and to understand it. Further, it is not really our job to bring together the two methods,
attenuating each other somehow, because that is also often impossible and maybe
superfluous as well, since the two viewpoints judge from different states of reality and
consciousness, and discover different realities/consciousnesses.
Obviously, the top pattern of meta-methodology (supra-method) is nothing else than
applying all prior cognitive methods in a way that they control also each other, and using
them in a new logical order. It could bring enormous advantages both for classic science and
for theology, for instance. According to Stephen W. Hawking, three „yes” answers offer
themselves for the question: Is a normal and post-normal scientific unified theory describing
everything realistic?
• A total unified theory really exists, and – if we are clever enough- we can discover it
one day.
• A final unified theory does not exist, only an infinite number of theories in
succession, and the theories describe the universe more and more accurately.
• There is no theory of the Universe. The events are unpredictable beyond a certain
point, after that they are arbitrary and random.22
First, Hawking means not meta-theory unifying everything, but only a lower level, the
first step of it, the cosmological unified theory of the natural sciences. Second, sticking to
this level, it is relatively easy to agree that in time better and better theories will be born,
although instead of succession they partly appear to run parallel with each other recently. In
addition, of course, Hawking is right; the succession of theories should reach the ultimate
(meta-) theory sooner or later. The three alternatives are really only two possibilities;
eventually, Hawking’s logic must choose between yes or no. Meta-theory transcends the
viewpoint of normal science; certainly, it is not striving for being a unified theory/post-theory
by any means, but has no objections at all to possibly becoming that.
For that matter, where will the self-development of post-modern science lead to, is a
dilemma no one can answer. Ziauddin Sardar in his book23 that appeared also in Hungarian
writes: „ A great deal of contemporary science is no longer normal science in Kuhnian terms.
As can be seen from a string of recent controversies from the BSE affair in Britain to the
issues of genetically modified foods, science cannot deliver hard and fast answers to a host of
contemporary issues. The old paradigm of science which provided certainty and assurance is
no longer valid.” „ Post-normal science requires science to expand its boundaries to include
different validation processes, perspectives, and types of knowledge.”24
However, it is not sufficient to walk only the first half of the way leading from normal
science to Meta-theory. If we accept, for instance, that there is no society in the traditional
sense25, then following that reasoning, we may say there is no reality in the traditional sense,
and if that reasoning can be defended, then day of modern or normal science is really over. If
there is no reality independently from us, if there is no reality image, especially not an
objective and strictly regular one, then we may speak about different types of reality vectors
at the most. If in theoretical physics the observed object cannot be separated from the
observer and is not knowable in itself, then – even if it does exist – the society is inseparable
from the observing social science scholar. The terminology of the at least 150-years-old
Industrial age has come to an end, therefore not only the objective society, but also the
classical category of science has come to an end, too. The other half of the road is a new
realization: the science perceiving the true, deterministic world from outside is one to be
22
Stephen W. Hawking: The Theory of Everything (p.17)
23
Ziauddin Sardar: Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars. (Alexandra, Pécs, 2003.)
24
Op. cit. 72-73
25
See, in the present volume, the essay by Gabor Balogh (From Theory to Metascience)
12

13. rejected. There is not much sense in merely re-defining the material reality-hypothesis either.
Therefore, Meta-theory proceeds towards post-science, post-knowledge or post-theology,
meanwhile it makes visible the new “reality”, the post-reality and vice versa.
In our opinion, the ultimate Meta-philosophy – conditioned upon an infinite and finite
meta-consciousness – is also not a finished, fixed theory and not based on one truth. The
ultimate theory is namely not a closed but an open theory, and can give different answers to
same question for that matter. There is no other ultimate chance of an answer to take
seriously than the final theory of all, which essentially treats the final in the
timeless/spaceless domain. If that is so, than not only whether a unified theory is possible is
the only dilemma. On the one hand, there may be, on the other hand, there may not be, and
thirdly there have been before, and last before top level it reaches into heights of God, where
God exists not in time and in space, and there is no determination and no anti-determination.
Then we may still bring it one step further to the Absolute, Meta-principle that manifests
itself in several Meta-principles.
It is repeatedly an actual question of methodology whether we want to be independent
logically and mentally from the dominant Zeitgeist, the dominant dogmas in the sense of the
example of Socrates26. We have to make an effort, even if there is no task much more
difficult than that in our everyday state of mind, which requires a clear mind. It is somewhat
easier if our thinking leaves behind the logic of yes or no. If we revolutionize our way of
thinking, if we accept, in addition to yes and no, the maybe, or noise (as a scope that cannot
be interpreted) as a logical state, if we advance to at least quantum logic or perhaps unit
logic, then we may have a chance of understanding the theory of All. Then there is not much
sense in the yes or no answers of Hawking. Additionally, as long as physicists, astrologists,
cosmologists seek the final sense of nature only, they necessarily can only get half-answers,
that is, we may say that there is no unified theory of the Universe without meta-Theory. For
that matter, today it does not exclude the possibility any longer that a scientific starting point
could lead to discovering the meta-principle.
P. S.: Is meta-theory after all unfeasible? Even failure is a possible end. What can we
choose instead of Meta-Theory? It can be nothing short of scientific or theological theory
without „Meta”. However, do we still have that option? That is not a possibility either. Yes,
by every indication – almost irrevocably – it is not. The theory without „Meta” does not have
the smallest chance of becoming a unified final philosophy. Rather, we decide for the
unfeasible mentioned first.
Yet another actual question: is the final Meta-theory of a super string nature and type?27
8. The preliminary hypothesis of Meta-Theory
Meta-Theory viewed as a top-philosophy and post-philosophy, in our opinion, means in
brief that on one hand it is all the prior important scientific, pre-scientific and post-scientific
basic theory (the Christian and all other theology too). On the other hand, it is above (behind,
around) the traditional and concurrent theories, with a unified and transcendental viewpoint,
26
„Hegel when describing the true method, which is the action of the thing itself, referred to Plato, who favours
to present Socrates making discussions with young’s. They do not care for dominant opinions, and are ready to
follow the coherent questions of Socrates. He demonstrated his own dialectic method on those ductile young’s,
who do not want to change the own course of the matter, and do not want to wit and sparkle.” Gadamer: Truth
and Method. Gondolat, Budapest. 1984. p. 321.
27
A new theory in theoretical physics is in the making since the end of the sixties (the work of Joel Scherk, John
Schwarz, and Mike Green etc.) Brian Greene, one of its current representatives says „"just as vibrations of violin
strings give rise to different notes particles with different masses and force charges arise from vibrations of
elementary strings. Superstring theory in order to work requires “extra” spatial dimensions that are in a curled up
state and extraordinarily tiny, so we can not see them.” Brian Greene: The Elegant Universe
13

14. and so it is a supra-theory of the highest level resulting from the process of unification. Third,
it is a unity theory hypothesis of the joint and entire system of theories. Meta-philosophy is
such a broad term as it incorporates all existing theory, post-theory, then the unified highest
level top-knowledge of all theories, and as a key factor, the specific theoretical system of
both elements.
Those are three aspects together. This interpretation makes distinction between theories
based not on methodology but on type (interpretation level, abstraction quality, integration
measure, the height of their viewpoints etc.) of the theory.
Meta-theory metaphilosophy integrates human knowledge on the following levels in
three phases.
(1) Pre-existent basic theories, like pre-theories, every single scientific (normal and post-
normal) theory, post-scientific theories of disciplines, all the theologies, artificial
intelligence, etc.
(2) The so-called supra-theory: it is the accumulation of scientific, post-scientific,
metaphysical and theological top theories. It is “knowledge” above basic theories, in other
words, theories of first level theoretical integration;
(3)The joint, unified theoretical and over-theoretical systems of the two phases, that is,
second level integration. Meta-theory is the entirety of knowledge segments, top knowledge
and the systems of knowledge and over-knowledge, in this manner, a unified new knowledge
of an entirely new category. This opens us to the ultimate, only reality/consciousness28.
Let us have a look at them in more detail. There are two theoretical generalizations of
different levels in the first momentum alone. The first level gives a summary of only the
unified part-theories (For example, unified theory of physics or life theory) inside disciplines
(or branches of thinking). The second level is a higher step already: the joint theories on top
of disciplines, or the unified pre-theories, post-normal or post-scientific approaches.
(Examples are the unified social science theories or the unified religious theologies)29
The second momentum again brings us one step higher in the level of abstraction-
integration, to the world of supra-theories. These are top theories over science or branches of
understanding and already a post-colonial (not only Euro-Atlantic), intercultural or inter-
religious top sets of knowledge. (For example: post-theologies unifying world-religions,
mega-philosophies, integrated theories of science).
Last, the third momentum includes two steps again. Firstly, it is the shared meta-level
theoretical and/or philosophical (what is more post-theoretical and/or post-philosophy)
systems of the two momentums. Secondly, the highly ranked new knowledge sets and new
states of consciousness born of relations of shared systems of the meta-level, and from
projecting them to each other. Eventually it is reaching or rather getting initiated to the
consciousness state of the Absolute. (The top level in the unitary and unified system is the
integrated – not mechanically added – science+post-science+religion+art and so on)
The outcome is the most exciting one possible, and the most far-reaching one, too. That is
because now, due to decades-long global intellectual efforts, the systematic-non-systematic
top states of the created and self-creating knowing and knowledge-nets, which, of course,
builds equally both on the most ancient and on the most recent knowledge, revelations or
28
In this meaning see: „Without doubt there is no other reality than God, only the illusion (wahm) veils it from
our eyes - and illusion is illusory.” Al-’Arabi Ad-Darkquawi: Az emlékezés rózsakertje. Al-’Arabí Ad-
Darkquáwí: Az emlékezés rózsakertje. Kairosz Kiadó, 2005. p. 322.
29
I do not agree with Gabor Balogh who in his essay “From theory to Meta-science” calls already integration
inside a discipline Meta-meta-theory, because then we needed to use at least four meta prefixes for the really
high level meta-theory which incorporates three momentums. Similarly, I do not think the super-meta-theory
term of István Dienes is justified (See in this volume).
14

15. insights, may be born again, or may come into being on a higher level than ever before. This
miracle supposedly has happened many times in the life of humanity known today.30
The unified natural sciences, assumptions of the integrated Social Sciences or the
spiritual sciences reflecting systematically on each other are also the first momentum. Here
belong also the unified – but still inside each religion – theological theories, or among others
for example the unified esoteric school of thought. The second momentum involves the top
theories of top questions: metaphysical traditionalism, the philosophy of religion31 and post-
theology comparing the world religions, the shared hypotheses of the unified sciences. The
third momentum uses the first two as a building stone to start with, but from the knowledge
of the two momentums it develops the meta-system of theories on the one side, and on the
other side, it composes not only the new sets of knowledge of a meta-system of theories,
post-theories and philosophies, but new states of standards. All that is, of course, a strategy
for the development of knowledge first, then a consciousness-building strategy that can be
realized with the help of different cognitive methods in the beginning, partly one by one and
partly as a whole.
We do not intend to convey the impression that the way Meta-theory raises problems
would be something originally new. Think only about, for instance, that Martin Heidegger in
the last century, at the very beginning of the sixties (in his essay titled Kant’s Thesis about
Being) suggests the contraction of the words theology and ontology, because of the twin-like
characteristic of the question concerning the existence of Being. „ The duality of the question
about the being of beings can be brought together in the title "onto-theo-logy"32 Thus, what is
Meta-theory at the first starting level can be metaphorically defined also as onto-theo-logy,
provided we understand both ontology and theology in a wider sense. Earlier Hegel similarly
in §572 of the Phenomenology of Spirit33 writes about philosophy being the unity of art and
science insofar as „philosophy not merely keeps them together to make a totality, but even
unifies them into the simple spiritual vision, and then in that raises them to self-conscious
thought”
We can take another example too, since Johann Gottlieb Fichte while also interpreting the
Kantian heritage in his lecture given in 1794 in Zurich outlined the Theory of Science.34 We
cite from the notes of his 5th lecture: “.the purpose of science is not less than to bring into
existence the whole system of human spirit, in its general and necessitated determination.
Since this science is merely the representation of the system, but not the necessitated, original
and general system – in addition to the top act (on which the system stands) the philosopher
needs to take another action, which is nothing else, than a reflection on the top act.“ In the
same lecture: “the sharpest examination of all human knowledge ends at one point which is
not provable and we must accept it out of pure belief. “ It is not very clear what he means by
“top act” and “one point”, but the essence of Meta-theory can be defined as the drawing of
the whole system of the human spirit which inspection ends at a point that we accept out of
belief.
Our comprehension is obviously not identical with either meta-theory and/or meta-
philosophy of today, or that of its general or later canonized form of tomorrow. The category
of meta-theory described now is the definition of the term as we use it.
.
9. Physics and Metaphysics
30
The best example for that is the Rig Veda (The Rig Veda Book 1-10, tr. Griffith, 1896)
31
For instance: Frithjof Schuon The Transcendent Unity of Religions. In our volume see Ilma Szasz’s essay.
32
Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers, Osiris, Budapest 2003 p. 407.
33
G. W. F. Hegel: The Phenomelogy of Spirit Encyclopedia III. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 1981. p. 356.
34
Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s Lectures in Zurich. Magyar Filozófia Szemle, 2004/3. p. 323–351 .
15

16. As a first approach, the following can be adequate: the new Meta-theory is essentially
metaphysic, or a new metaphysic. Thus, the first step is merely to replace the “physics” with
“theory” in the word metaphysics, meaning not only the physical, material, or natural world,
but a supra-reality which is global, over the whole reality, not only the physical and of
physical beings, or integrating all reality/consciousness. In this conception, the uplifting
caused by the word “meta” goes above not only nature, man, the second natural world (i.e.
society), but also the spiritual and transcendental realities in a narrower sense.35
Metaphysics is likely not a popular post-science in Hungary today, but at the same time it
is not in need for any intellectual-moral protection. The next hundred years will be or may be
not in small part again about Metaphysics getting into focus, since the paradigm shifts of
post-normal science put the metaphysical questions (metaphysical reality, consciousness
states) on the agenda again. All essential theoretical, philosophical problems are to be dealt
with as question of metaphysics (matter, reality, consciousness, life, death, God) until we
reach a point where it gets clear also in the framework of meta-theory (post-metaphysical?),
that even non metaphysical questions can not be answered without a metaphysical approach.
In the twentieth century apparently one could easily ignore Metaphysics with reference to
the modern scientific worldview, but meanwhile the post-modern science ruins the
theoretical content, even the scientific foundation of this ignorance. Simultaneously, the
modern science starts to contend with more and more metaphysical questions because with
the discoveries of the new quantum theories the circle and depth of the observations have
expanded. Consequently, a bigger and bigger fraction of post-millennium scientists have
quietly returned to Metaphysics36 – for that matter to the astonishment of positivist-
rationalist scholars- , irrespectively of the fact, that they may use other words, like Theory of
the All.37
Originally and in the last hundred years, Metaphysics had various meanings:
1. The philosophical study of the reality beyond physics (in a wider sense: natural
science);
2. The theological system of the transcendental reality considered supernatural and the
existence of God;
3. Meta-physics is a general, comprehensive, integrated scientific/post-scientific theory or
philosophy about Oneness38, meaning that Oneness is identical with Being since it
incorporates everything from the natural world, to the domains of consciousness, and to the
realms of God39.
35
„The created (’physikon’) and the created ones (’physika’), the created world (’physis’) is what the
interpreting translation according to the higher level refers to. The circle of the ones created- beings is larger than
that of the nature’s (in widest sense).” Laszlo, András: What is metaphysical tradition? (www.tradíció.org )
36
Ruzsa, Ferenc’s definition of metaphysics is „Metaphysics analyses the most fundamental and general entities
and structures of world and our consciousness, and their interrelations.” Ruzsa, Ferenc: A ’Meta-physica
mívelésének hasznárúl.’ Hungarian Philosophical Review, 2004/1-2, p 3. (Noteworthy are the essays of Ruzsa
Ferenc in Hungarian Philosophical Review: 1999/6, 2001/1-2.)
37
Hawking, Stephen W.: The Theory of All; Wilber, Ken: A Theory of Everything (Shambhala);
www.kenwilber.com
38
One of the excellent essays about the film titled Matrix (Jorge J. Gracia – Jonathan J. Sanford: The
Metaphysics of the Matrix) defines metaphysics in this third sense. (William Irwin: The Matrix and Philosophy
Bestline, Budapest. 2004. p. )
39
For that very reason it may be a misunderstanding, even in the figurative sense, if someone- as Csaba Vass –
calls modernization the realm of metaphysics - in a bad sense - in realization. The question whether the
globalization would be the third world over modernization (that is metaphysics) is controversial. If metaphysics
in a proper sense is concerned with the Whole, than it is not worth calling it a stage of reality, the realm of
metaphysics. (Vass, Csaba: Míg élők közt leszel élő, Ökotáj Kiadó, 2000, p 136.)
16

17. In the latter meaning, the concept of metaphysics and meta-theory are apparently quite
close to each other, they may as well be identical. However Meta-theory on the one hand,
with its treatise of a unified meta-reality and meta-consciousness instead of universalities
prior to things or existing in things, steps beyond the earlier reality and consciousness levels,
it visualizes sacral and not sacral world/consciousness at the same time. It is already a big
novelty in itself that the central focus is on consciousness40 instead of the old substance of the
individual. On the other hand, with that methodical extension and enrichment, that it rises
above scientific, post-normal scientific techniques considering theology understandably of
equal rank with science based on evidences, so it returns to the original meaning of
metaphysics, and opens up today’s thinking toward standard meta-thinking.
What is the plus of Meta-theory over the very different meaning “science” of
Metaphysics? It goes beyond philosophical metaphysics and traditional theological
metaphysics, and does not retreat in either subjective or objective idealism, while at the same
time it makes efforts to provide the lacking momentums, for instance besides metaphysics to
meta-chemistry41 or meta-biology.
At the same time, this extended metaphysical world-conception does not screen out the
traditional physical or intellectual domains; rather on the contrary, it fuses and integrates
them into a top theory. The Meta-theory we stand for is therefore such a supra-theory and
supra-system doctrine that probably transcends –as we noted – the philosophical meta-
theory, what is more, traditional metaphysics as well, that is, it makes the traditional
conception identical with not only magical solipsism, but it still does not stand exclusively
for objective idealism. To prevent all misunderstanding, meta-theory does not reject science
because that is an integral part of the system of the human spirit, on the contrary, it basically
expands and fortifies it, but it also reaches post-science, and simultaneously integrates also
metaphysics, so it does not deny theology either. True, it can be seen as it partly makes the
metaphysical method scientific, on the other hand, however, it partly theologizes science; but
we do not agree with those two explanations.
From this viewpoint, Martin Heidegger’s conception42 is also of interest. First, he says
categorically that philosophy is something very different from science43, although it hides
itself in science, puts on the outer form of science. Secondly, he says that metaphysics – like
philosophy – is a basic occurrence in the human Dasein, and fundamental metaphysical
concepts are broad terms from its nature. Thirdly, he concludes that the essence of
metaphysical thinking lies not merely in its focus on wholeness, but also in its
inseparableness from the questioner, and the thinking in existence, that is, the philosopher
and philosophy cannot be separated. We may look at this later statement as parallel to that
discovery in physics that the observation of physical phenomena is not possible without
considering the observer.
Summing it up, we can state that Meta-theory is not science or merely a scientific top
system, but a post-theory and post-theology, or philosophy in the sense of Heidegger, or, if
you like, meta-philosophy and metaphysics in one. However we can take the interpretation of
Heidegger one step further in that meta-theory - or a new metaphysics - has not only the
Oneness and the questioner of Oneness for its aim; but it creates a new Oneness, or a new
world and simultaneously a new questioner, a new inquiring position and new inquiring state
40
The following are also from the lecture of Fichte, cited earlier: „The definition of knowing is nothing else than
the definition of consciousness” p.325
41
It is not coincidence that in addition to quantum physics the term quantum chemistry has been born. See in this
volume: Hejjas, Istvan: Reality at the Level of Quantum Physics
42
Heidegger, Martin Introduction to Metaphysics Osiris, Budapest, 2004. p. 29–33.
43
Similarly, Bela Hamvas writes: „philosophy is not a science. Science has no style, it does not need one. It
would be a burden for science in a sense. Science deals with facts. Philosophy wants more. It needs knowing.
And knowing can only be personal.” p. 399
17

18. of mind. At the same time, to start with we say nothing more than what Heidegger represents,
namely that “metaphysics is the basic occurrence (Grundgeschehen) of Dasein”44, however
our conception of basic occurrence and Dasein is something else and we see them in a
different light in spite of all necessarily existing philosophical ambiguity.
Meta-theory perceives and displays a new world, a new reality, a new consciousness (that
is meta-reality/meta-consciousness), a new human being, a new thinking (that is meta-human,
meta-conscious meta-philosophy) necessarily at a high and complicated level of abstraction
and integration.
10. The initial conception of meta-reality – independently from meta-
consciousness
Unlike several philosophical viewpoints and category systems, we use the term reality,
and not Being. In Hungarian – in everyday usage, but partly also in a philosophical sense –
the term being expresses the being of something. It implies that existence is identical with
being45 , on the other hand, it also conceals that there is something before and behind being,
something that might be also independent from being, and that is nothing else than what we
use the term reality for. Therefore, we will discuss not the existence of being, but the
existence of reality. We would like to talk also about non-being/non-reality, and in a
logically separate way from being/reality. From this stepping out from being it also follows,
that the point Kant and Heidegger reached in their philosophy (Dasein, Sein, and a space–
filling net expressing the difference of the two) 46 despite all of its radical aspects does not
mean the end of the thinking path.
Nor is it without purpose that we discuss and allow to see not merely reality, but meta-
reality. A novelty in Meta-theory regarding conception is that it discusses not merely
traditional theories, or that it not merely joint theories in general, but as an active logical
feedback – with the help of intellectual integration – in the concept of a new reality, it
questions and reunites traditional and new sub-realities. Meanwhile, it does not assume at
all that we have conceptions about every dimension of reality already. This theory concept is
the cautious announcement of that new reality-hypothesis that it is not only at the top of
theories that higher knowledge may exist, but there are also non-existent half-realities on
top of realities (behind, around, etc.). On the other hand, there are structurally existing supra-
realities, and at last, the sub-realities, the non-existent and the top-realities together give up
meta-reality.(What Parmenides thought does not add up to all that is thinkable.) It is
important to perceive and understand that even with all that we have not yet apprehended
reality/meta-reality.
Necessarily, a part and an organic part of this borderless and dimensionless meta-reality
is not-being, and not the exclusive opposite of it. This is exactly why this meta-reality cannot
be reduced to physical-material reality; since meta-reality incorporates also the material,
intellectual and spiritual domains, and at last the supra-realities – interpreted as top-realities –
it necessarily cannot be barred from the infinite net of virtual realities either. No thing is
beyond reality, but there is not anything that would not belong to reality. Not-being partly
covers that which is not inside known reality yet, because we have no knowledge of it. If
there is not a thing, a thing does not exist, if a thing is absent, if a thing is unthinkable, that is
the same as a thing which can be perceived by hand. If we said “there is no”, it has come into
being right away, if we perceived its missing, it becomes real at once. If there is no such
44
Op. cit. p. 31.
45
Heidegger says: Being cannot be. Were it to be, it would no longer remain being but would become a being, an
entity. (Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers. Osiris, Budapest, 2003. p. 434.)
46
Heidegger, Martin: Kant's Thesis About Being. 1961. (Martin Heidegger: Pathmarkers)
18

19. thing, if it does not exist, it does not necessarily follow either that it cannot be, cannot come
into being, and cannot exist in the imagination.
Meta-reality in our opinion is the only possible conception of reality. Every fragmenting
of reality, every curtailment of it and all forcing it within closed schemes lead to its
becoming indefinable. One of the classic examples of this is Aristotle’s wrestling with the
concept of reality; On one hand, he denies Plato’s transcendental doctrine of Ideas, on the
other hand, he accepts the Divine as the first cause and the main cause of every concrete
existence, and thirdly, reality is the system of individual substance in his opinion.
That is why we can read such sentences in his Metaphysics: „ If no substance can consist
of universals because a universal indicates a 'such', not a 'this', and if no substance can be
composed of substances existing in complete reality, every substance would be incomposite,
so that there would not even be a formula of any substance.”47
11. The determining order of the logical-conceptual system--post-system
Before we get lost completely in the chaotic world of complexity, to be sure, we ought to
note that we outline a flight of steps, and totalities can only be described by a flight of steps
in this essay on Meta-theory.
1. Meta-reality (not independently from meta-consciousness and Meta-theory);
2. Meta-consciousness (not independently from Meta-reality and not even from meta-
theory);
3. Meta-human man (not independently from the previous two and the following)
4. (Meta)God (not independently from any , but not depending on any of them)
5. Meta-theory, meta-philosophy (not independently from any )
At the same time, we do not outline the top of the flight of steps, or the ultimate one
point, or the single Meta-principle for the moment.
The metaphor about a flight of steps is not a multidimensional model. Even so, in this
vision of a system it clearly shows up that the human task is also multiple, that is all-
directional. It is necessary to move upwards and downwards on each step and horizontally
between each flight of steps - between steps on the same level -, what is more, from each step
of each flight of steps in different angles, diagonally. Meta-human is therefore something like
the oscillating (of material and not material nature) superstring, or that bright, outstretched,
waving net which clasps, covers, binds, and of course, makes dynamic, and brings to life.
The metaphor of the Meta-human has been illuminated with the steps r, but these flights of
steps quasi cover, evoke, and inspire the flight of steps to self-development. If our
presumption is that everything exists only inside the human being, than the five flights of
steps and the four flights of steps embodying the five flights of steps best exist inside us.
Lastly, every step in each of the flights has an inner structure as well; they consist of
many small steps - if we stick to our metaphor. Our hypothesis is a multidimensional,
complex, chaos-type logical/conceptual system.
The outlined system (and post-system) indicates at least six joint upward categories:
Meta-reality, Meta-consciousness, meta-human, meta-God, meta-change and meta-theory.
Obviously, the number of top categories can be at once incremented or decremented at
another time. It is important to emphasize that meta-theory does not consist merely of
phrasing the four main elements, because although those are an organic part of the Whole,
the potentially complete system of thought, they are far from being all. We did this indicating
and phrasing without clearing up the interrelations among the basic concepts and the further
47
Aristotle: Metaphysics. Lectum Kiadó, 2002. p.199.
19

20. general categories subordinating them under the five top concepts, for now. The outlined
meta-theory system or post-system still has ahead of it the decision whether one or more
principles/concepts from the five top concepts or from beyond those top concepts will take
the central role.
Suppose there is a central role; since another conception is possible, that there is no
central role at all, or there are more „central players”, or the main players are changing
continuously, or they are different depending on the varying directions of the observer and
the observed viewpoints.
The system and/or net of the top concepts can be imagined in a globular model, but it is
not a regular geometrical spheroid, but – for instance – that kind of space in which every
point is a central point and there is no outline anywhere48, or such as the World Tree of the
Cabbala, the tree of the Sephirot. Leo Schaya pictures Tipareth (the point of harmony) so:
„we must see clearly however, that it is more than a simple sphere since that has only one
centre according to geometry rules, while on the territory of Principal Forms, every single
Point that is grouping around the centre is at the same time the centre itself in a magical
way.”49. This description is as if we read the characterization of mystical quantum space. The
sphere model from the inside and the outside, as a whole, in the infinity of its wholeness is
itself the Unity model or Unity itself without distinctions.
We took five out of the potential essential concepts of meta-theory or meta-philosophy,
and tried, to some extent, to relate them to each other, now we may make the conclusion
that the categories picked out, and the reality/consciousness contents addressed by these
categories can be interpreted in such a model as is less a geometrical than an intellectual-
spiritual system. Thus, the main order is quantum space and a meta-system of an intellectual-
spiritual nature at the same time
12. The hypothesis of meta-reality ( without meta-consciousness as far as it is
possible)
Well, we do not know exactly, or at least not appropriately, what is reality(now without
any attribute, examined in itself), but we may take an effort to make a new hypothesis about
it, that is, to re-create or reconstruct supra- and meta-theory, and the abstract concepts
expressing them. However, let us skip differences between meta-reality and supra-reality for
now.
This meta-reality however is not a self-sustained realization, like being is not merely
existence, and this reality is not the opposite of appearance because that is reality too. This
reality is the composite of is and is not, of there is and there is not.50. Therefore this is more
than to be, but at the same time it is not merely that which is; or else being and its existence
together and a substance as well, but it is not the only and the only dominant essence, which
is also irrelevant . In addition, of course it is real and not real at the same time (of spirit,
conscious, divine nature), although that is real as well. It expresses quality and
simultaneously it is without quality. It is existence beyond space/time and in space/time
(space-time) simultaneously.
We cannot cut meta-reality – we repeat – apart from meta-consciousness, and this way
cannot see it as the end cause, or as objective being, and not in the least as objective
existence.
48
Leo Schaya: Az ember és az abszolútum a kabbala szerint (Arcticus, 2002 p. 43.)
49
Op. cit. p. 43.
50
See the essay of Varga Csaba entitled „The new world vision” (Tertia, Budapest, 2004.)
20

21. We can portray meta-reality in the most general sense only with its lack of boundaries.
Maybe for a first approach, the conception that meta-reality is “meta” because all reality,
every level of realities, every dimension, every vector, every content, every consciousness (or
all their attributes) belong to it without any restriction. In addition, even those realms, reality
domains about which we have no hypothesis, belong to it. It is not the question of the
observing and the observed, the contemplating and the contemplated sights of reality. Maybe
it is superfluous to stress that (meta-) reality is necessarily not only the visible (material,
rational, empirical) substance of reality because in that case reality would be equal to what
the observing being or equipment could take hold of. We will not be able to avoid defining
the matter since we can get hold of the concept of non-reality only after that of non-material
matter.
Up to now we did nothing else than, as an introduction, we released reality (leading to
inner and outer infinity) out of the captivity of the category and one-dimensional existence of
the material world. To understand that release is not that simple and self-evident, although in
principle who would question the existence of spiritual or/and virtual realities, at the same
time, however, if we go only one step further, even that is denied by many already –
especially some groups of scientists – who strictly refuse the existence of the divine world
(the Pleroma). However we have not yet raised the everlasting dilemma of the interrelation
between part-realities and/or reality layers. Moreover, we are far from the discussion of what
this divine reality is and where it can be found.
No matter how we talk around reality, probably it is at the same time independent from
us, and exists only via us and in us. Now we have to model the existence of the entire reality
(and because of that, the borderless and in its totality, cannot be apprehended). Meta-reality
(with or even without meta-consciousness) is a perfect unity, independent from what we
might think about unity and its hierarchy, and to what extent we are able to influence it.
Meta-reality is the manifestation (adopted for us, necessarily partially) of the One. God is the
manifestation (adopted for us, necessarily partially) of the One. The meta-human is, as before
(adopted for us and necessarily partially for ourselves) One. Meta-reality (this time inclusive
of Meta-consciousness as well), meta-human is the One as well. It is the manifested and un-
manifested One. It is the comprehensible and the incomprehensible One. This One is
however not the one known from Mathematics, but the One of philosophy, to which there is
no zero, and there is no two. It is the point and the infinite at the same time. It also means, on
the one hand, that there is no Meta-reality without divine reality, on the other hand, it is also
evident, that all that is not known yet, about what we have no idea yet, and what we have not
dreamt yet, all are parts of Meta-reality. There is no special gift of prophecy needed to see
that the classical sciences (and not only natural sciences) will be continuously, significantly
pushing out the definite borders of Meta-reality in every fifty- hundred years. (What is the
Absolute, or meta-God? That is a different question. Maybe it is the One/not-One.)
Before starting the discussion of the Meta-reality/Meta-consciousness model itself, we
think the following is reasonable as a starting hypothesis. Meta-reality has (1) at least four
domains; what is more, the top-reality of the domains is palpable (2), and the last these
domains, non-material of nature (3) can be explained in a particular, dynamic, but not
geometrical sphere model.
The four reality domains are:
1. Material reality, the sensory world.
2. Post material (beyond matter), second reality, Reality of the Soul.
3. Spiritual reality, world of knowledge.
4. Transcendent reality (Ultimate Reality, Unity Reality). All four realities include,
however, several more realities, more levels. It is essential to understand that these four
domains in themselves summarize only the quantitative constituents of Meta-Reality.
21

22. We give also visual metaphors for each reality-domain:
1. The physical-biological reality of the trees, of houses, of people, and of societies;
Physical- chemical- biological, lifeless-living reality; matter (from ether to galaxies, from
atoms to galaxy clusters), life (self-reproductive organic polymers, unicellular and
multicellular creatures, and so on.); and humans as physical-biological beings, and last but
not least the new, civilization created material reality.
2. The world of virtual trees and everyday consciousnesses and the created (not-material)
reality of human societies; It is the duplication of material reality, secondary natural reality,
social reality, institutionalized virtual reality ecosystem, civilization, economy, society,
education, culture, and the man as a social being.
3. The substantial reality of mental trees and of the philosophies. It is the reality not
material in nature, data, information, knowledges, sciences, arts and man as an intellectual
being.
4. The eternal, ultimate reality of God and the order beyond the divine. It is the reality
beyond material and intellectual. It is spiritual, transcendent reality, true reality, clear
consciousness, ultimate reality, Absolute, God and man as a divine being.
Each of the four domains can be further divided into regions of reality, reality counties.
Also important to demonstrate is that the four domains of Meta-reality are not independent
from and not eliminative of each other, but they are the appearance, way of being, and
expression of the same Meta-reality on different levels.
The four reality domains are One on the one hand, and on the other hand they are many;
they are the continuation, projection of each other and are complementary to each other in
every directions.
13. The preliminary concept of meta-reality
Let us consider the four elements each as a symbolic stepladder, and let us examine from
both directions which are the lowest, and the uppermost steps for example, and from where
on this ladder the paths lead to.
The lowest stepladder is material reality, the external reality and the external human and
the empirical-rational world of external man. Most simply, all that is not
material/nonmaterial, and nothing what is obviously beyond material and of spiritual nature.
It is all the surface, at the same time not the form, and all what is beyond the façade, and all
that means - something beyond forms - more than physical-biological existence. It is all that
is outside, it is not anything that is inside; however, there are several elements and links at
the border of the two, which is the inside projection of the outer, and which is the outside
projection of the inner. This stepladder is the joint primary and secondary environment, that
is, the natural-environment world and the artificial, built world of civilization. All the
scenery, props, costumes and tools of the everyday world – although that will be the subject
of a debate later –, furthermore the personal and community conditions that put across the
scenery and have it accepted are strictly included. The concrete, existing terrestrial worlds of
man, and the concrete human persons in them who as natural and social beings (from birth to
death) are mainly existing on this level; in the same way, also the small and large groups of
man belong here, from their formation to their decomposition. In our study later on we shall
detail the elements, segments of the world of the lowest ladder. The unified scientific theory
– joining Gravity, Electromagnetic Force, Strong Interaction and Weak Interaction together
– belongs to the first ( and of course also to the second ) stepladder.
The second stepladder is post-material reality, but this is still not the spiritual or
transcendent reality. Post-material reality is the symbolic replication of material reality only;
however, this new virtual reality still has its material/nonmaterial tie. The world or worlds of
22

23. the second stepladder can still be interpreted with the help of global and local community
knowledges. In plainer words, it is the functional repetition of the lowest ladder world and
arrangements in individual and community consciousnesses, and in their real establishments,
which serves merely the purpose of keeping the lowest world functioning and going in every
aspect. Notably the society and the state, the language and the “language” of society (in a
functional sense), then knowing and culture, the mental world, the consciousnesses of
individuals and the community, the arts and sciences among others belong here, however
exclusively in a functional sense. This stepladder has necessarily two components: (1)
created, symbolic and often institutionalized reality associated with the material world and
reproducing it, and (2) parallel to that, the mental world, language, thinking and material-
centred knowing of symbolic reality. I still do not wish to say which was or is the first. In the
history of Europe, the last two-three hundred years produced the most profound success
exactly in developing material-rational thinking and consequently in establishing material-
rational institutions. The twentieth century is the triumph and domination of the second
stepladder - pushing the third and fourth stepladders into the background.
The third stepladder is mental reality which sharply diverges from the semi-intellectual
domains of the second step, at the same time not yet reaching up to the peak reality (divine
reality) of the fourth step. First, it is the substantial world of inner man, and the place of
inner human existence and the storehouse of its contents. It is the reality of a high ranking
personal and spiritual (but without God) consciousness. It is the country of “I”. The third step
hence – as a genesis and potentiality– is giving meaning to the first and second steps.
Therefore, it is not a follow-up (mental) function, but simultaneously cause and effect. The
material world can only be created and kept going according to the knowing and belief of the
third step. At the same time – after the modern-post-modern world’s tragic and spectacular
turning away and seceding from the third world and its requirements – the review and re-
creation of the first world can happen only with the help of the third world. In traditional
terms, this level can even be interpreted as the reality behind the surface/forms, the essence
behind appearances; and what is more, we may get to the point that this is factual reality, and
then the world of the first and second steps seem merely primitive mutations. The third step
is already identical with high-ranking natural and social sciences, currently theoretical
physics, theoretical biology or the ecological discipline. However, in earth civilization the
classical languages of mental reality are most of all religions (not always theologies),
philosophies (together with or transcending this, all post-philosophies, unified theories, or
meta-theory), which of course makes also the mental-spiritual meaning of Creation
comprehensible. All this involves that society and, for instance, social consciousness become
post-functional on this level, and because of that, the media of essential contents. This mental
reality, even though present in the first world, is not very effective, not yet (or not always)
institutionalized, and not yet a fundamental determining factor in the reproduction of global-
local societies on Earth.
The fourth step: the mapping of divine reality (and not-reality) which equally can be
captivated as first of all non-reality (meaning: denying-transcending the reality of the first
three steps) or the Only Reality because the reality of the first three are false, i.e. distorted
realities compared to this. In earlier known terms we may call it spiritual or/and transcendent
reality, although these two categories do not mean the same. Spiritual in a philosophical
sense means “only” that every being is of a spiritual nature fundamentally, and that matter is
only the appearance shape of spirit. Transcendent, however, means more than that since it is
not only transcendental or not only non- material, but in opposition of the world considered
finite, it is the infinite, the non-empirical, and the non-intelligible. The disadvantage of both
categories is that they refer only to supernatural and not to God and the Absolute, the
reflected contents of an eternal life’s reality.
23

24. The notion of divine reality also consists of several momentums. (1) The supernatural,
and the supra-natural (the nature beyond already-known nature) (2) The top-reality
transcending intellectual existence (the Intelligence- and Wisdom-reality includes also for
instance Clear Consciousness); (3) God (the heavenly kingdom of God, the sacral reality, the
domains of holiness, etc.), and the not personal Supreme Being over personal God, the
Divine, the Supreme Principium (the Absolute), as well. (This therefore is no more the
mapped, but the momentum of mapping the divine reality – but only the lowest level of it,
which is at the same time also the connection.) The three main momentums imply that this
reality is also greatly structured and of course it binds together complicated, multilayered
reality levels. The third and fourth steps of Meta-reality are already almost inseparable from
meta-consciousness. One of the most exciting dilemmas is that God and the divine reality are
not only transcendent and post-transcendent, but at the same time immanent reality as well.
Moreover, the other way round too. That is already another central topic of Meta-theory, or
Meta-philosophy.
The most critical issue of the fourth reality is to differentiate between divine reality and
that which is beyond divine reality (called as the Absolute). Christian theology keeps this
differentiating unjustified and impossible to interpret. The exoteric argumentation is as
follows: „There are no such ’elements’ from which in thinking the Absolute could be
constructed”51 „The “concept” of absolute or rather its notion accordingly are unusual, very
different from any other concept or notion. This difference appears in that although we can
give a hint of its meaning in language, but we can never describe it as an object which can be
clearly placed before us.” The counter-argument – based on logic only – can easily be
worded since the Absolute can very well exist in spite of the fact that for the time being we
or others can not construct it in thinking, nor describe it. The author of the earlier citation,
Bela Weissmahr writes. „God ’experience’ (and god demonstration unfolding from this
background experience) is possible for man because the human mind naturally ’is aimed at’
the Absolute and it never may be indifferent for him.”52 We cannot have any reason to
misinterpret this sentence, since we too accept it as evidence that the human mind originally
’is aimed at the Absolute’, however it does not follow from this shared recognition that God
and the Absolute (God and deity, that is the gods, and Deity53) are the same.
Finally another partial argument: „A religious man will hardly turn to a transcendent
Absolute in his prayer”54 Why is he not going to do that? Why could not we turn to the
Absolute when praying, meditating? Moreover, several Christian saints, for instance, might
have done just that. (Let us consider as a marginal spiritual experience now that other
monotheistic religions think it thinkable and practicable, what is more, a religious
experience, and a path that is suitable for living.)
More concept-groups can be applied to the four stepladders. The first step can be called
first (physical-material), the second stepladder second (reproduced), the next step, the third
(mental), and the last stepladder, the fourth (sacral) creation. Whereas it is possible also
conversely, the fourth step is the place of creation (but uncreated reality), the third stage is
the created spirit, the second step is the self-image of physical creation and the first is
created sensual reality. Since we have advanced as far as the concept of sensual, we may
rightly regard the reality of the first and second steps as sensual, while the third-fourth stages
51
Weissmahr, Béla: Filozófiai istentan (Mérleg-Távlatok, 1996. p. 90)
52
Op. cit. p. 153.
53
„For an exotericist the personal God is the only version of god, for him this version lies in that what is higher
and without versions after all; that is the Absolute, the Divine, the Nirguna Brahman of the Vedantists, the Tao,
which can not be put into word.” Huston Smith: Preface (F. Schuon: The Transcendent Unity of Religions. P.
25-26)
54
Op. cit. p.14.
24