Definition and Distinctions The concept of emanation is that all derived or secondary things proceed or flow from the more primary. It is distinguished from the doctrine of creation by its elimination of a definite will in the first cause, from which all things are made to emanate according to natural laws and without conscious volition. It differs from the theory of formation at the hands of a supreme artisan who finds his matter ready to his hand, in teaching that all things, whether actually or only apparently material, flow from the primal principle. Unlike evolution, again, which includes the entire principle of the world, material and spiritual, in the process of development, emanation holds to the immutability of the first principle as to both quality and quantity, and also in the tendency of the development evolution implying one which goes from less to more perfect, while emanation involves a series of descending stages.

Hindu, Zoroastrian, and Greek Phases In the Upanishads of the Veda several passages which point, if obscurely, to this doctrine. One frequently quoted passage asserts that "From this Atman originated space, and from space the wind, and from the wind the fire, and from fire water, and from water the earth, and from the earth plants, and from plants food, and from food the seed of man, and from the seed of man himself." This, however, does not clearly assert an emanation, but merely marks the stages of descent that separate man from the Atman. Attempts have often been made to derive the Gnostic doctrine of emanation from the Zoroastrian Avesta, but with doubtful success. Even if we may assume another higher power antecedent to the two hostile powers set forth in this dualistic system and comprising them both, still the independence of these two, as well as of the angels or half-divine beings who surround them, is not clearly asserted as owing to their emanation from the primal principle. In the ancient Egyptian religion, in which polytheism early appeared, there is no question of either emanation or evolution. In Greek philosophy emanations (aporrhoiai) occur at an early period, as in Empedocles, who accounts for sensual perceptions as emanations or effluxes proceeding from the objects perceived. Similarly Democritus spoke of effluxes of atoms from the thing perceived, by which images (eidola) are produced, which strike our senses. But these views do not come under the general head of emanation, since they do not touch the origin of the atoms. Nor does the teaching of the Hylozoists, like Heraclitus, with his doctrine of the transformation of all things into fire, and then of fire into all other things. The same is true of the Stoics; some of the later ones, like Marcus Aurelius, speak of the soul as an aporrhoia of God, but this means a part of God, not an emanation from an undiminished source. The first real mention of the doctrine in Greek or Hellenistic philosophy is in the Wisdom of Solomon, where wisdom is described as " the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence (aporrhoia) flowing from the glory of the Almighty." These and the following expressions may, indeed, be poetical, not involving a personification of wisdom apart from the Godhead; but the way in which wisdom is spoken of throughout the book makes for the conception of an independent cosmic power which is an efflux from the Godhead.

Philo and Early Christian Doctrine The doctrine of emanation is a little more explicit in Philo, though he does not teach it clearly and consciously, still less purely and logically. It assumes its most definite form for Greek philosophy in the works of the Neoplatonists -- though their speculations are largely derived from the Gnostic mythological systems of Basilides and Valentinus, in which emanation played a prominent part. According to Basilides, a whole series of eons emanated in successive stages from the unbegotten Father; and the Valentinians spoke of the primal essence as "throwing off " (proballein), without diminution, that which was derived from it. In the Neoplatonist system, the highest principle, the One, overflows without a conscious act, merely by a law of its nature, losing nothing of its fullness and this process has no end in time. It goes from more perfect to less perfect, and the ineffable Unity is the source of all plurality. The Nous (intellect), the first stage in the process, thinks, and thus from it emanate the soul and the logos (word). So the process goes on until the lowest stage is reached in essenceless matter. The notion of emanation was frequently used by the early Christian writers in the attempt to express the relation of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father. The idea is similarly used by Athenagoras, Origen, and Arnobius- Tertullian even ventures to employ the Valentinian term probola for the relation of the Son to the Father, while repudiating the separation which Valentinus had taught between his eons. In the final establishment of the Trinitarian doctrine the idea of emanation undoubtedly played a part, as in the emphasis laid upon the Son's being " begotten, not made " (Nicene Creed), and the " procession" of the Holy Ghost; but the idea of descent to imperfection is lacking.

Pseudo Dionysius, Scholastic, and Mystic Doctrine A common misunderstanding regards Dionysius the Areopagite as of importance in the history of the doctrine of emanation. He does teach an efflux from God; but the heavenly hierarchy, with its various grades of perfection, does not arise by an emanation of one from the other; all have their origin directly from God, or the Highest Good. Erigena, referring much of his doctrine to Dionysius, makes use of a kind of creation which resembles the Neoplatonist emanation. His world of causoe primordiales is eternal, though not with God's eternity, but eternally created by or proceeding from God. Creation is a process through these to the visible and invisible creatures; it too is eternal; God is in the creation, and the creation in God. From Erigena the custom passed over to scholasticism of considering creation as a sort of emanation; but in the passage of Thomas Aquinas most frequently quoted in this connection (I., qu. xlv., art. 1) the specific character of emanation is so weakened as to be perceptible only in the fact that he does not draw a sharp dividing line between God and his powers and the world. In the mystics, despite their connection with scholasticism, the doctrine of emanation can scarcely be discovered in its pure form. But in the Jewish Cabala the emanationistic origin of the world is distinctly taught; the connection with Christian Gnosticism, with the Neoplatonists, and with Dionysius is evident. With the founders of modern metaphysics, Descartes and Spinoza, emanation plays no prominent part; but the logicians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries make use of the term causa emanative in contradistinction to causa activa. It is also found in Leibniz's conception of the relation between God and single monads; God is the primal unity, the monas primitive, which produces the created and derived monads.
The dynamics of Emanation. A Exercise in Metaphysical Speculation. Emanation In Relation To The Absolute. Before defining the laws of emanation, a basic proviso needs to be stated.  And that is that emanation does not pertain to the Absolute Reality.  Although even within the Absolute Itself there would seem to be stages of manifestation, progressive stages of self-focusing of the Absolute Consciousness, these stages or poises of the Supreme do not actually constitute distinct and seperate "planes".  Rather, all of the stages of manifestation of the Supreme are complementary or non-contridictory with each other.  Nor can there actually be a coming into (or a passing out of) being, because all aspects of the Absolute are eternal in any case, and at the level of the Absolute there is nothing else but the Absolute, so there is nothing for the Emanator to emanate into.  Emanation can only occur within the realm of duality itself. How then does one get from unity and plenum of Being, as represented by the Absolute or Supreme Godhead/Reality, to the duality of Being and Non-being, and the fact of seperate existence, as representative of ordinary (and not only ordinary, but also psychic, spiritual, and even higher) reality? The answer - and on this point our various sources seem to be in full agreement - is that the Absolute Reality, the Absolute or Supreme Godhead, forms within Itself (all this is speaking metaphorically of course; remember that, ultimately, there is nothing else but the Absolute) a duality, a set of polar opposites.  In this way the One becomes Two, and there is "room" for emanation. Hence we have the division of the Tao or Tai Chi into Yin and Yang, the division of Paramashiva or Parasamvit into Shiva and Shakti, the division of The One into the Finite and the Infinite, the division of the Light of the En Sof into Hesed and Gevurah...., no matter how many examples are given, they all present the same basic principle, although often approached in different ways and from different perspectives.  For example, the Tantric Shakti is by no means the same as the Taoist Yin (although both are identified with the female principel).  But both Tantricism and Taoism agree that the One becomes Two, and that this is the beginning of creation. Hence the dualistic perspective of the Manicheaeans and Gnostics for example - the Light or Spirit as the opposite to the Darkness or Matter, and creation coming about through a sort of admixture of the two - is not false, but simple corresponds to a "lower" or "more manifest" aspect of existence that the Monistic Realisation of the one ineffable and inconceivable Absolute. It is at this same level that the process of emanation occurs.  The pure Monistic teaching (for example Advaita Vedanta or Prajnaparamita Buddhism) is beyond emanation, but if the origin and nature of the cosmos and finite existence is to be taken into account (which most of these Monists are not interested in doing, because of their single-minded dedication to Liberation) then the theory of emanation has to be considered. My own understanding of the original Polarisation of the Absolute - the One becoming Two - is that it is the polarisation of the Absolute or Supreme into the Absolute Itself, and the self-veiling of the Absolute.  In other words, into infinite Being and infinite Non-being, or Light and Dark, Spirit and Matter, Abundance and Lack, Self and Not-self. So we have the two polarities, the two aspects, each infinite.  On the one hand, the Supreme revealing Itself as Itself; as infinite Consciousness, Light, Love, Power, Bliss, Divinity, Perfection, Creativity, etc; the pole of Absolute Spirit.  On the other hand, the Supreme veiling or conceiling Itself; as infinite non-consciousness, deprivation, formlessness, receptivity, and non-being; what Plotinus would have called hyle.  The Supreme in Its own transcendent nature is of course beyond, but also includes, both these poles, in total unity and harmony. From the polarity of the Supreme revealing Itself as Itself, the Supreme emanates or radiates out as infinite plenitude all the gods, worlds, beings, and evolutions, into the Supreme veiling Itself as non-consciousness or hyle. That radiation out from the positive to the negative pole of the Absolute constitutes the process of emanation, and it follows specific laws.  These laws have been elaborated in a number of different occult and philosophical teachings: Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, Theosophy, and elsewhere.  In the rest of this chapter I will present a brief and unavoidably incomplete definition of these laws of creation.  Incomplete, because it would require a weighty volume, and many many philosophical statements and definitions, to do justice to this subject.  The Neoplatonist Proclus for example wrote a large book, The Elements of Theology, which thankfully has survived to the present day, in which he attempts a comprehensive definition of the laws of Emanation.  But even that work, invaluable as it is, is not complete, because it is only written from a specifically Neoplatonic perspective, and hence does not cover the other equally valid perspectives of different esoteric teachings on this subject. In this section, then, I list some of the basic laws of emanation, briefly describing each, and giving quotes from different sources where relevant.

The Ontodynamics Of Emanation Assuming the Emanation metaphysic to be valid, a number of specific ontological laws or axioms follow.  I call them the Principles of Emanation, or Laws of Manifestation (a term also used by the New Age writer David Spangler in a slightly different context [David Spangler, The Laws of Manifestation (Findhorn Foundation, 1975)]), because the define the unfolding or emanation or manifestation of  reality from the original Absolute. About a dozen axioms have been listed here.  Many many more could be  proposed, and indeed an entire self-consistent axiomatic  philosophy be written - along the lines of Proclus'  Elements of Theology; Leibniz's Monadology, Wittgenstein's Linguistic Philosophy, and Whitehead's Process Philosophy - but I would prefer to avoid too much intellectualising.  Where there is too much intellectualising the ratiocintational mind (which is the organ of the intellect) loses touch with the original higher  gnostic light, and begins to churn out a vast quantity of mental  verbage.  Some of this may be valid, the rest not so much so,  but in any case it just adds to the vast amount of words already in the world, and buries the original Truth behind the impulse under a mountain of distraction.  But the true purpose of philosophy is not to produce more and more endless lower mental ideas, but to point the way to, and be a vehicle for, the higher Truth.  That is why in I have tried to stick to axiomatic statements that have already been backed up by previous  esoteric revelations, and by intuitive common sense.  In some cases these statements are also independently supported by the philosophical implications of the new physics as well.  Yet for all this, the following list is intended only as a tentative formulation, not a rigid creed.

Only The Absolute Has Authentic Reality. If you're going to start somewhere, you might as well start from first principles, or The first principle, and use that as the foundation for everything else.  So, what is the most univer-sal mystical and esoteric teaching; even more so than emanationism?  Why, the Reality of the one single Absolute Reality - call it Brahman or Tao or Shunyata or the One or God (in the mystic's sense of the word) or whatever, it's all the same. As the only authentic Reality, all the other levels of being only have reality in as much as they partake of the nature of the Absolute.  They are nothing but the different modes or aspects of the Absolute; which doesn't mean that they are unreal.  Matter is not illusion, matter is the Absolute in Its mode as matter.  Mind is not illusion, mind is the Absolute in Its mode as mind.  And so on for every possible level and aspect and plane of reality.  Real "pantheism" (or panentheism - for the Absolute transcends as well as includes everything else) does not deny the world, it affirms it.  As the Taittiriya Upanishad (7th century B.C.E.) puts it:

Principle of Hypostases Reality Consists Of A Series Of Distinct Hypostases, Which Exist In A Linear Causal Relationship. The essential perspective of the Emanationist cosmology  is that reality is hierarchical.  It  begins with the Source and proceeds through various stages of deprivation, down to matter and nonbeing.  Emanationist Cosmology describes Reality in terms of a specific structure.  The accounts of different emanationist metaphysicians are similiar enough for it to be possible to present a uniform account embracing all of them. The Neoplatonic term Hypostasis can be used to define each of these particular structural components of Reality.  Each Hypostasis is a qualitative unit of Reality, having a dynamic relationship with those Hypostases above and below it. And this is the "guts" of emanationism; the essential definition of the emanationist cosmology.  The hypostases are not positioned randomly, scattered everywhere so to speak, but rather are ar-ranged in a definite order, a definite sequence, with each higher member of the sequence logically implying the member that follows it. So, to give the example, if we have a cosmology made up of Absolute Reality, spiritual reality (God and heaven), psychic or intermediate reality, and physical  reality, cit follows that these must have a specific causal  relationship.  Each higher level logically preceeds the next  level. So the Absolute Reality or Godhead preceeds the Personal dualistic God, because the Absolute Reality is the ALL (which is why it's called the Absolute) - it includes everything, God and Universe - whereas God, the religionists constantly remind us, doesn't include the Universe; he's separate from it.  So the Absolute or Godhead emanates the Personal dualistic God; the dualistic God doesn't emanate the Absolute Godhead. And the Personal God, as the spiritual reality, logically  preceeds the psychic or intermediate reality, because the spiritual reality is wholly of the nature of the Good, of love, compassion, forgiveness, etc, whereas the psychic or intermediate  reality includes both positive and negative, good and evil.  (The  wrathful judgmental God of the fundamentalist bigot actually per-tains to the psychic, not the spiritual, reality).  Also, the Personal God has the power of world-creation, whereas the  "spirits" of the psychic reality don't. And finally the psychic reality logically preceeds the  physical reality, because it is beyond the limitations of space and time (for example in the astral body you can travel anywhere  in the universe instantaneously, whereas in the physical body you can't).

Principle of Qualitativness. Each Higher Hypostasis Is Qualitatively and Ontologically Superior To That Hypostasis Below It, And Qualitatively and Ontologically Inferior To That Hypostasis Above It. Or, as Proclus puts it: "Every productive cause is superior to that which it produces" [Proclus,  Elements of Theology, Prop.7]. This is where metaphysics differs from science.  The laws of science, which describe the physical world, are quantitative.  They deal with quantities, with numbers and values denuded of any "sacred" or "spiritual" or ontological quality; lifeless, soulless. The laws of metaphysics in contrast are qualitative - they deal with qualities, with realities that possess "spiritual" or ontological value, that have life and soul.  In other words, greater and lesser, perfect and imperfect, good and evil, higher and lower, and so on. And here it is the higher hypostasis that has the more "positive" quality.  The religionist compares the perfection, infinity, and eternity of God with the imperfection and finiteness of Man.  The mystic the all-embracing unity, blissfullness and freedom of the Absolute with the multiplicity, unsatisfactoriness, and limitation of mundane reality.  The occultist and the depth psychologist the greater power, numinosity, and integrating quality of the inner psychic reality with the superficiality and emptiness of the outer mundane reality.  Hence the relation of higher and lower, superior and inferior.  Which in turn leads to the principle of Downward Causation

Principle of Downward Causation. Causation Always Proceeds Downwards - Each Hypostasis Is The Cause Of The Hypostasis Below It, And Is In Turn Caused By Hypostasis The Above It. If the higher is superior to the lower, it  naturally follows that the higher is the cause of the lower, and not vice-versa.  In other words, Matter is caused by Spirit, Spirit isn't caused by Matter.  Man is created by God (or a higher reality signified by the word "God"), God isn't created by Man. This is the exact opposite of the materialistic position, which sees the higher  realities as the result or by-product of the lower; what we could call "Upward Causation".  According to this sceptical-materialistic version of science, physical matter, when it develops a sufficently complex structure, produces life (organic matter).  Life in turn, when it becomes sufficently complex, produces mind and consciousness (through the nervous system and the brain).  And mind or consciousness, when it becomes sufficently complex, (through the development of philosophy and religion)  arrives at the idea or meme of a First Principle, a God or Absolute Reality. But according to the emanationist cosmology, the opposite is the case.  The Absolute Reality produces through emanation universal mind, which in turn produces Life-force, which in turn condenses into matter and, eventually, living organisms.  This can be termed "Downward Causation"; the higher  causes the lower.  This is not to deny physical evolution (matter --> living organisms --> increasing intelligent organisms), but only to reject the sceptic's theory of the absolute primacy of physical consciousness. Thus, according to thhis axiom, all causation follows a metaphysically or ontologically downward direction.  Because of this, each higher principle is the Creator and Origin of the hypostasis immediately below it. So we can refer to "the branch and the root", each  higher stage being the "root" of the one it generates.  In Lurianic Kabbalah

"the world of Emanation (Atzilut) is the root to the world of Creation (Beriah), its branch.  The world of Creation in turn is the root to the world of Formation (Yetzirah), its branch, and so on" [L.I. Krakovsky,  Kabbalah - The Light of Redemption, p.86].

The same metaphor occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad, which says "...with food (=earth) as an offshoot, seek for water as the root; with water as an offshoot, seek for heat as the root; with heat as an offshoot, seek for Being as the root....All these creatures have their root in Being..."[Ch. U.: VI.8.6.; Radhakrishnan, The Principle Upanishads, p.457]. Thus "each preceding world is the soul to the following one, which it animates and sustains" [L. I. Krakovsky,  Kabbalah - The Light of Redemption, p 125].  Rather than a single God standing over the  world, or a single soul within the body, we have be-hind God another God, behind the soul another soul,  and so on up to the Absolute.

Principle of Relation: Each Higher Hypostasis Is Spiritual In Relation To The Hypostasis Below It; Each Lower Hypostasis Material In Relation To The Hypostasis Above It. The relationship between the Hypostases is thus one of "body and soul", "spirit and matter", or "Creator and creature" [L.I. Krakovsky,  Kabbalah - The Light of Redemption, pp 19], in that each higher level is the Soul, Spirit, and Creator of the level  immediately below it; and the Body, Matter, and Creature (created being) of the level immediately above it.  As the modern Lurianic Kabbalistic writer Rabbi Levi I. Krakovsky, puts it: "Ain Sof is Spirit to Adam Kadmon, and Adam Kadmon the vessel for that Spirit.  Adam Kadmon in relation to Atzilut is Spirit, and Atzilut is matter against Adam Kadmon.  Bria (Beriah) is matter to Atzilut and Atzilut is Spirit to Bria... And so on with Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah [L.I. Krakovsky,  Kabbalah - The Light of Redemption, pp 19].

Similarily, in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, we read that The Divine Names are active in relation to the a'yan al thabita (the archetypes of the phenomenal world), and these in turn are active in relation to the external world.  In each case the higher is active in relation to the lower and passive in relation to the higher. [A. E. Affifi, The Mystical Philosophy of Ibn Arabi, p.46]

Principle of Undifferentiation Every Higher Hypostasis is Universal and Undifferentiated -  The Field Or Ground - in Relation to its Subsequent Hypostasis Every higher Hypostasis is universal and undifferentiated -  the field or ground - in relation to its subsequent Hypostasis;  the subsequent Hypostasis is defined and limited - the focus or  figure - in relation to the preceeding Hypostasis. This can be explained using examples from Buddhist psychological monism and European mid-twentieth century phenomenology, both of which postulate a distinction of figure and ground, or form and emptiness, equivalent to the modern scientific conception of particle and field. The European Phenomenologists such as Edmund Husserl, Martin  Heidegger, and Maurice Merly-Ponty, rejected abstract  philosophising in favour of the analysis of immediate conscious  experience.  They realised that awareness of a particular object  or figure implied a background or horizon in which the figure was set [Steve Odin, Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism, pp.32, 36 (State University of New York Press, Albany, 1982)].  Hence the polarity of core/horizon, focus/fringe, or foreground/background. The Buddhist philosopher Herbet V. Guenther applied these  concepts from European Phenomonology to the traditional Buddhist  distinction of form and emptiness (rupa and shunyata), pointing  out that the objects one experiences exist within a field of consciousness.  Therefore "attention can be directed either to the  concrete, limited forms [=Rupam] or to the field in which these  forms are situated [=Shunyata]" [ The Dawn of Tantra, p.27  (Shambhalla, Boulder & London, 1975)].  The yogic or intuitive  experience (prajna) is therefore an act of "noetic reversal"  whereby the attention is radically shifted from the core or form  to the field or emptiness [Odin, p.37] The Transpersonal psychologist John Welwood uses this same  approach to offer an alternative to the established psychological theories of Freud and Jung, which, through their dualistic  separation of Conscious and Unconscious, are unable to explain  the meditation experience (since the meditation experience transcends such dualities) [John Welwood, "Meditation and the Unconscious", in The Meeting of the Ways - Explorations in East/West Psychology, ed. John Welwood, (Shocken Books, New York, 1979) pp.150-157].  He suggests instead that consciousness be un-derstood in terms of "figure and ground"; the "form and emptiness" referred to by modern Buddhist writers such as Guenther and Chogyam Trungpa.  In this interpretation, Conscious and Unconscious are not opposing tendencies, but rather the focal at-tention and holistic ground of the awareness [Ibid, p.160]. Welwood suggests that there are progressive levels of  psychological ground, "fields within fields", culminating in "the basic open ground", i.e. shunyata [Ibid, pp.160-161].  But -  moving from the psychological to the cosmological and ontological  - I would suggest instead (or in addition) that each higher  Hypostasis is the field or ground of the subsequent one, which is  its focus or figure.  And each subsequent hypostasis is an exclusive concentration or focusing on a single particular aspect  of the preceeding.  In this way the Universal becomes Particularised, becomes a focus or form, whilst rest of the Universal holds back and constitutes the Ground or shunyata. But to say that the Higher Hypostasis is the universal field  or ground, and that the subsequent Hypostasis is a focus or  figure of this, implies a further axiom:

Principle of non-diminshment. The Emanator Is Never Diminished By The Process Of Emanation. Although the higher hypostasis gives rise to the lower hypostasis, the higher hypostasis does not suffer and is not diminished thereby.  Emanation occurs sponataneously,a s a natually and limitless outpouring.  Just as - to use some Plotinian metaphors - the sun is not diminished by giving out light, the fire by giving warmth, or the flower by giving perfume - so the source or higher hypostais remains unaffected whilst at the same time generated the creation below it.

Principle of Reflection:Every Lower Hypostasis Is The Image Of Its Preceeding Hypos-tasis. This is the other aspect of the theory of archetypes; that  the pattern or blueprint of any mundane thing exists eternally in the spiritual world. According to Plotinus, every lower or dependent hypostasis  is the eikon, mimema or eidolon, the image or copy, of the  preceeding hypostasis.  Thus the Nous is said to be the image of the One, and the Soul the image of the Nous, and in general every lower reality the image of its higher, generating reality [John  H. Fielder, "Chorismos and Emanation", in The Significance of Neoplatonism, ed R. Baine Harris, (International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia,  1976), p.103].  This process of manifestation as imaging Plotinus  refers to as chorismos.  John Fielder explains that the notion of  the image has four characteristics. First, an image is an image of something, so that the two are distinct  Second, an image is the likeness of the original, so that for example as Plotinus  points out the sensible world is the image of an eternal archetype of model [Ibid, p.104; Enneads, V.9.5 and III.7.1] (= the Principle of Chorismos or reflection). Third, the image is inferior to the archetype (= principle of qualitative gradation).  And  fourth, the image is dependent on the archetype for its existence, just as the mirror image lasts only as long as the object remains in front of the mirror [Ibid, p.105; Enneads, V.1.6].  This last point seems so striking that I was going to make  it into a seperate law of Hypostatology; the Law of Dependent  Being.  Except that there are obvious exceptions to it; such as  emanated beings (gods, angels, and so on) who attain a life of  their own independent of their immediate source.  Certainly, all  those beings are still absolutely dependent on the Essence of  being, the Godhead or Absolute, for their continued existence,  but that is Monism, not Emanationism. This idea of Chorismos or imaging was adopted by Ibn Arabi,  who, as Henry Corbin explains, states that each lower plane of  being, each Hadarat or "Presence", "is the image and correspon-dence (mithal), the reflection and mirror of the next higher.   Thus everything that exists in the sensible world is a reflection, a typification (mithal) of what exists in the world of  Spirits, and so on, upto...the Divine Essence itself" [Henry Corbin Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, (Princeton University Press) p.225]. In Shaivite and Shakta Tantra, the "imaging" theme appears in a monistic context in the reference to Vimarsha, the Self-contemplating or Self-reflecting of the Absolute (which is  Prakasha or Radiance) to Itself.  In a tantric text called the Kamakala vilasa, it is said that "Vimarsha is the mirror through  which prakasha reviews itself." [S. Shankaranarayanan, Sri Chakra, p.20].  Through vimarsha in turn the universe comes about.  So the mirror in which the higher hypostasis reflects itself is it-self that same hypostasis.

Principle of Proximity. The Closer A Hypostasis Is To The  Absolute, The More It Partakes Of Its Nature. Since the Absolute Reality - the Godhead, the Essence, the Tao, the Atman-Brahman - is the individual and cosmic reference point, it follows that there is a sort of ontological slope or  ladder or pyramid. At the top of the slope, or if you prefer at the base of the  pyramid, is the Absolute.  Immediately next to that is the first hypostasis (the Absolute, being Absolute, is even beyond all  hypostases, although we could still call it a hypostasis).  Since it is next to the Absolute, it is most like the Absolute in nature.  Just as the colour indigo, which is nearest violet on the  spectrum of colours, is most like violet. And since the hypostases or levels of being only have reality in asmuch as they partake of the nature of the Original  or Absolute Absolute, this first hypostasis is the most like the  Absolute Absolute in nature.  Indeed, it is so much like the Absolute that it can itself be called the Absolute, for it is the  Absolute relative to all subsequent reality. Next to the first hypostasis is the second hypostasis,  which, although itself very Absolute-like in nature, is still not quite as Absolute-like as the first hypostasis, which in turn is still not quite as Absolute-like as the Absolute-Absolute. And of course next to this second hypostasis is a third  hypostasis, which, although also very Absolute-like in nature, is  not quite as Absolute-like as the second hypostasis, which is not  quite as Absolute-like as the first hypostasis, and so on. So the further down the slope you go, or the further away  from the base of the pyramid, the less Absolute-like the hypostasis.  It is just like when you get closer to a fire, to feel  hotter, further away and you're colder.  It's the same with the chain of hypostases from the Absolute-Absolute.  And this is the  defining characteristic of the emanationist sequence of Reality.   The Neoplatonists, the Kabbalists, the Theosophists and the rest;  they are all in perfect agreement here.  Reality has a specific  ontological direction, a specific slope between Absolute Being,  Consciousness, Perfection, Goodness, etc, at one end, and the  negation of the qualities, total non-being, at the other.  And  the higher up the slope you go, the more Conscious, Perfect, Good, etc, things become.  If you go the other way, well, that's "hell", which some Christian theologians now define as "eternal  separation from God" (i.e. it's the other end of the spectrum).

From this comes Principle of Difference:Every Hypostasis Has Its Own Unique Characteristics, Which Emerge In That Hypostasis Due To Its Proximity Or Distance From The Superme Source Or Absolute. Each hypostasis has its own specific structure. And as Proclus expresses it in his  Elements of Theology (Prop. 19) the characteristic (or "primitive") quality "in any  natural class of beings is present in all the members of that  class, and is their common definition".   This "common definition" is the characteristic of that hypostasis.  Thus, (commentary on Prop. 20) Soul has certain qualities (e.g. activity), Intelligence certain other qualities (e.g. intuition), and the One other qualities again (e.g. Unity). An obvious analogy is the spectrum of visible light is made up of distinct colours (as in the seven colours of the rainbow), so the spectrum of Reality is divided into fundamental and unique grades or zones or spheres of existence.  Were it not for this law of emanation, there could be no diversity in existence, but only a monotonous uniformity.

Principle of Fractalisation Each Hypostasis Contains, As An Inner Octave, All The Hypostases Within Itself, But Only After Its Own Nature. This Law of emanation is an established Kabbalistic theme.  In Kabbalah for example, each of the ten Sefirot or Lights "is constructed of ten Lights, each of which in turn is composed of an equal number of Lights and so on ad infinitum" [Moses Luzzatto, General Principles of the Kabbalah, p.5].  The same theme appears in Theosophy, where each of the seven planes is divided into seven sub-planes, and in other esoteric teachings such as those of Gurdjieff.  In modern science and mathematics we se eit in theory of fractals, according to which nature repeats itself on every scale of magnitude with the same basic pattern; for example, the branching and re-branching pattern of a tree's limbs or a river and its tributories. Let us give an example of this law, using (for the sake of simplicity) the triad of Noetic (or pure Mental-Spiritual), Psychic, and Physical hypostases.  Consider now the Physical hypostasis; this would contain as sub-hypostases the Noetic, Psychic, and Physical hypostases.  But these are not the Noetic, Psychic, and Physical in their pure form.  Rather, they are the  "Physical"-ised version of the Noetic, Psychic, and Physical.  They can therefore be given a double-barrelled name each: the Noetic-Physical, Psychic-Physical, and Physical-Physical hypostases. But that is not all.  Just as the Physical hypostasis is divided into Noetic, Psychic, and Physical sub-hypostases, so each of these is divided into sub-sub-hypostases.  So we have the  Noetic-Noetic-Physical, the Psychic-Noetic-Physical, and the Physical-Noetic-Physical sub-hypostases, and so on with the Psychic-Physical, and Physical-Physical sub-hypostases.

And so on indefinitely. The subdivision-hypostasis approach can form the basis for a useful provisional classification for different states of consciousness and existence.  I say "provisional" because all this metaphysics should not be understood as hard and fast dogma, but simply as convenient theories that will do until something better comes along. So, beginning with a limited set number of fundamental principles (e.g. the Kabbalistic ten sefirot, or the Theosophical seven planes), which serve as the basic archetypes or paridigms, these can then divided into sub-hypostases.  So rather than the Abhidharmma Buddhist approach of having to memorise the attributes and relationships of a long list of elements of consciousness (dharmas or chait-tas), all that is needed is an insight into these four or seven or ten or however many basic qualities, which, like letters in a word or sen-tence or page, can then be brought together into any number of combinations. The fractal principle also means that every hypostasis is mediated by sub-hypostases. For unlike exoteric religion, which posits a vast ontologogical gulf between God and creation, and Monism, which says that there is only Reality, either God or an Absolute that includes both God and the world, the Emanationist hypothesis assumes that Reality consists of a vast ontological continuum or "Great Chain of Being", from the highest to the lowest, in which every level shades into the level above and below it.  Take the duality between finite and infinite; or relative and Absolute reality; or creation and Godhead (all of which mean the same thing).  This is linked by an intermediate principle, or a series of intermediate principles.  For example the Shaivite and  Shakta tantrics took Shankara's duality of Absolute and Infinite Nirguna Brahman and finite relative world-appearance or Maya, and inserted between these two a series of intermediate evolutes, the "pure tattwas", tracing the stages whereby the Absolute gradually limits itself and becomes the relative.  Likewise Sri Aurobindo places between finite Mind and infinite Supermind the transitional stages of "Spiritual Mind": Higher Mind, Illumined Mind, etc.  So there are no "gaps" anywhere in the spectrum of existence. Yet at the same time, this "Spectrum of Being" is not continuous.  Just as at the most basic level physical energy and matter is divided into bits or quanta, which cannot be subdivided (to attempt to do so only creates more quanta).