The Mystic Way

The Mystic Way is to be understood as a way of inquiry and practice, not a fixed dogma. It suggests direction without demanding adherence to a single doctrine. It is an activity of transformation—the inward process by which a person moves toward union with Ultimate Reality.

The Mystic Way is focused on the staged spiritual journey itself: awakening, purification, contemplation, and union. It has one supreme objective, union with Ultimate Reality. So here, “way” means a lived process, discipline, and the ascent of consciousness toward the One rather than a denomination or doctrine.

At a certain level of spiritual growth, you realize that no one religion or philosophy has all the truth. You see that there is one mountain but many paths. You learn non-attachment to views and begin to live by the motto: Learn from all, cling to none.

Some mystics begin in one tradition, then grow beyond it—like a child growing out of clothes that no longer fit. Others become spiritual nomads, studying several traditions in depth and seeking to move beyond surface-level understanding without becoming identified with any one of them.

Neoplatonism and the Path to the One

Plotinus lived about 600 years after Plato, the famous student of Socrates. He lived an austere and highly disciplined life centered on philosophy and inner contemplation. He was said to eat very little—often only one meal a day or even less—avoided luxuries and bodily indulgence, and spent much of his time in quiet reflection, teaching, and conversation with students rather than pursuing public life.

This unusual man became the founding figure in synthesizing the insights of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics into what we now call Neoplatonism—a vision of reality that offers a coherent metaphysical path back to the One.

The Foundations of Henayana

Neoplatonism is foundational to Henayana, the Path to the One, in shaping both our metaphysics and our soteriology. Metaphysics, in this context, concerns the philosophical study of the fundamental nature of reality—existence, being, and first causes.

The historical Buddha, Gotama, tended to avoid metaphysical questions and focused instead on the practical path of Liberation. His followers, however, were never satisfied with this, which is why Mahayana emerged. Mahayana filled in the metaphysical gaps with innovations such as Buddha‑nature, pure lands, celestial bodhisattvas, and the erasing of the Gotama’s distinction between samsara and Nirvana.

Henayana, by contrast, seeks to augment rather than contradict the historical teachings of Gotama. It does this by bringing in the best insights from science, psychology, and Western philosophy.

The Neoplatonic Structure of Reality

Neoplatonism presents a metaphysical framework in which the structure of the universe corresponds to that of the human psyche. The macrocosm of the cosmos is reflected in the microcosm of the inner life.

Following Plotinus, reality has three major divisions:

– At the highest level, the One is the eternal, ineffable source or Ground of Being.
– The first emanation is the nous, the organizing principle of reality—the demiurge of Plato and the Logos of Stoicism.
– At the lowest level is the physical world.

Our internal psychological makeup mirrors this external order. The One is reflected in consciousness, which is my interpretation of psyche. The nous is reflected in cognition, the information‑processing aspect of the mind. And the physical corresponds to our brain and body.

Descent, Ascent, and Liberation

Another important aspect of Neoplatonism is the idea of descent and ascent. Our consciousness descended from the One into the physical and must now ascend and return to the One. Salvation or liberation is attained through union with the One.

Neoplatonism fills in the gap that Gotama left concerning the nature of reality. Yet it remains incomplete without the addition of process philosophy, which teaches that the world is a matrix of becoming—not of substances but of events.

Neoplatonism, like Buddhism, also accepts karma and rebirth. Most people are not aware that reincarnation was taught by Plato and Plotinus. Philosophers often ignore this inconvenient truth, but reincarnation was at the heart of Western philosophy.

Even more interesting—and rarely discussed—is that Neoplatonism taught a version of Nirvana. If the One is beyond becoming, and we return and are rejoined to the One, we enter into “the unborn, unformed, unmade, unconditioned” (Udāna 8.3). Liberation is attained by ascending out of the conditioned realm. The One is the only reality beyond the conditioned realm. Therefore, union with God is Nirvana. This is Henayana.

A Brief Glimpse into a Vast System

Neoplatonism is a very complex and detailed system subject to various interpretations. This is only the briefest introduction.

The Buddha Believed in the One

Five blind men encounter an elephant in the jungle, each touching a different part to “know” it.

One feels the trunk: “It’s a large snake!”
One grasps the tusk: “No, a spear!”
One touches the leg: “A tree trunk!”
One holds the ear: “A fan!”
One bumps the side: “A wall!”

They argue fiercely, each insisting his version is the truth.

A wise sage explains: “You all grasp fragments of the same elephant. Reality is one, but partial views breed endless strife.”

When I say the Buddha believed in the One, I am talking about the elephant—the whole, not the fragments.

Not a Personal God

The Buddha most certainly did not believe in a personal creator deity like the “Man Upstairs,” a bearded overseer on a throne handing out rewards and punishments. As you can see, everything depends on what you mean by the word “the One.”

In Udana 8.3, the Buddha said:

“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks, there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

I define the One as the unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. In more modern terms, the One is not a being, but the Ground of Being.

The modern understanding of God as the Ground of Being was not available to the Buddha. At the time, the only “gods” he knew were those of Brahminism. And the Reality he encountered in spiritual experience was not a personal being, but something entirely different.

Therefore, he never called this Reality “God,” though he could call it that today. But even today there are connotations that come attached to the word God, such as maleness.

So even though I sometimes use the word God, I find it safer to follow Plotinus and stick with the One, or in more modern form, the Source. In Buddhism, the One is the Unconditioned. In Daoism, it is the Eternal Dao. In philosophy, it is called the Absolute or Ultimate Reality. Different names, same Reality.

Neoplatonic Buddhism

My aim as a philosopher is to bring together Neoplatonism and Buddhism into a coherent synthesis. In doing so, I draw upon comparative philosophy, current insights from psychology, and what we know from physics and biology.

This project is a life’s work—years of study, contemplation, and struggle have led me toward this synthesis. Many traditions contain profound wisdom, but these two stand out as the finest expressions of the Western and Eastern philosophical worlds.

They meet, I believe, in the same ultimate insight: There is an Unconditioned Reality beyond time and space.

We are Sparks of that Unconditioned Reality—expressions of the One, refracted into the world of becoming. We find ourselves in this matrix of change and growth not by accident, but because becoming is the arena in which the Spark evolves.

Our meaning in life is simple and profound: to return to the One from which we came. This takes place by awakening to our Source and evolving our consciousness, our spark, into the likeness of and harmony with the One. It is the flight of the alone to the Alone – Nirvana.

When Plotinus Meets the Buddha

Plotinus lived roughly six centuries after Plato, the famed student of Socrates. He led an austere, disciplined life devoted to philosophy and inner contemplation. Ancient accounts describe him eating very little—sometimes only a single meal a day—avoiding luxury, and spending most of his time in quiet reflection or conversation with students rather than engaging in public affairs.

This unusual, inward‑turned man became the central figure in Neoplatonism, a grand synthesis of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. His system would become one of the most influential metaphysical frameworks in Western thought.

Why Neoplatonism Matters

Neoplatonism is foundational to Neoplatonic Buddhism, especially in shaping its metaphysics and soteriology. While metaphysics—the study of the fundamental nature of reality—was something the historical Buddha largely avoided, his followers did not. Their desire for metaphysical clarity eventually gave rise to the Mahayana, which introduced innovations such as Buddha‑nature, pure lands, celestial bodhisattvas, and the erasure of the boundary between samsara and nirvana.

Neoplatonic Buddhism takes a different approach. Rather than contradicting the Buddha’s early teachings, it seeks to augment them with the best insights from science, psychology, and Western philosophy. Neoplatonism provides a metaphysical scaffolding that aligns remarkably well with contemplative practice and modern science.

The Structure of Reality

Neoplatonism teaches that the structure of the universe mirrors the structure of the human psyche. The macrocosm of the cosmos is reflected in the microcosm of inner life. Following Plotinus, reality has three major divisions:

– The One — the eternal, ineffable Ground of Being
– The Nous — the first emanation, the organizing principle of reality (the demiurge of Plato, the logos of the Stoics)
– The Physical World — the realm of becoming and change

Our inner life reflects this same triad:

– Consciousness mirrors the One
– Cognition mirrors the Nous—the information‑processing, organizing aspect of mind
– Brain and body mirror the physical world

This parallelism is not merely poetic; it is the basis for the Neoplatonic path of transformation.

Descent, Ascent, and Liberation

Another central theme in Neoplatonism is the movement of descent and ascent. Consciousness descends from the One into the physical realm. Liberation is the reverse movement: the ascent back to the One.

Union with the One is salvation. It is the return to the Source, the rejoining with what the Buddha describes as the “unborn, unformed, unmade, and unconditioned” (Udāna 8.3).

If the One is beyond all becoming, and liberation is union with the One, then union with the One is Nirvana. This is the heart of Neoplatonic Buddhism.

Reincarnation, Karma, and the Western Tradition

Neoplatonism, like Buddhism, accepts karma and rebirth. Many people are unaware that reincarnation was taught not only by Plato but also by Plotinus. Philosophers often ignore this inconvenient truth, yet reincarnation was once central to Western philosophy.

Even more striking is that Neoplatonism contains a concept analogous to nirvana. The ascent out of the conditioned realm and the return to the One is, in essence, liberation. The One alone is beyond conditioning; therefore, union with the One is the highest freedom.

Neoplatonism is a vast and intricate system, open to many interpretations. What I’ve offered here is only a brief introduction.

Is the Cosmos All There Is? A Critique of Naturalism

Carl Sagan once claimed, “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” This is not a statement of fact but a statement of belief.

A Statement Beyond Proof

First, Sagan did not (and arguably could not) prove this claim. It functions as an assertion rather than a testable conclusion. The authority of a scientist does not transform a philosophical claim into an empirical fact; what is asserted without evidence can be set aside without evidence.

Second, how could one know that “the cosmos is all that is”? To make such a claim, one would already need access to “all that is,” which is precisely what is in question. Even within physics, the introduction of multiverse models complicates the idea of a single, exhaustive cosmos.

Third, if one was not present from the beginning, how could one know that the cosmos is all that “was”? There is no experiment, observation, or testimony that could establish such a total claim about the past.

Fourth, without the ability to predict the future with certainty, there is no way to justify the claim that the cosmos is all that “ever will be.” At best, this is extrapolation; at worst, it is speculation.

Naturalism as Worldview

What underlies Sagan’s statement is not science itself, but a philosophical commitment—often called naturalism or materialism. This is a worldview: a framework of assumptions that shapes how one interprets reality.

Naturalism holds that the natural world is all that exists. As such, it is not a scientific conclusion but a starting premise. Scientific theories, by contrast, are specific hypotheses tested through observation and experiment. No conceivable experiment could verify the claim that “the cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be,” because the claim is not empirically bounded.

Closely related terms include:

  • Materialism: the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements.

  • Naturalism: the view that everything arises from natural causes, excluding the supernatural.

  • Physicalism: the thesis that everything is ultimately physical.

Though distinct in nuance, each position denies any reality beyond the physical or natural domain.

The Problem of Consciousness

The central difficulty for naturalism is consciousness. There is one thing we can be certain of: that consciousness exists. As Descartes argued, “I think, therefore I am.” Even doubt confirms the presence of a doubter.

Yet consciousness resists straightforward explanation in physical terms. Despite extensive research, there is no widely accepted account of how subjective experience arises from brain processes. At most, we observe correlation—not causation—between neural activity and conscious awareness.

Philosopher Thomas Nagel sharpened this issue by noting that a conscious organism is one for which there is “something it is like” to be that organism. This subjective dimension does not easily reduce to computation or physical description.

It is also useful to distinguish cognition from consciousness. Cognition can be understood as information processing—something like computation. Consciousness, however, involves lived experience, the felt quality of awareness itself.

Reversing the Assumption

Rather than assuming that matter produces mind, one could invert the relationship: mind or consciousness may be fundamental, with the physical world emerging from it.

Some interpretations of quantum theory gesture in this direction. As Rosenblum and Kuttner note in Quantum Enigma, quantum mechanics challenges the idea of a fully observer-independent physical reality. The tension between physics and consciousness has persisted since the early development of quantum theory.

From this perspective, consciousness is not a byproduct of matter but the condition for the appearance of matter. In contemplative practices such as mindfulness meditation, one may directly observe that awareness is distinct from thought and more fundamental than it.

Beyond Naturalism

If consciousness is the one indubitable reality, then a worldview that excludes it—or attempts to reduce it entirely to physical processes—appears incomplete.

This does not necessarily entail a strict dualism of mind and matter. An alternative is to view reality as a single underlying whole with two aspects: an inner, experiential dimension (consciousness) and an outer, observable dimension (the physical). David Bohm’s distinction between implicate and explicate orders offers one way of conceptualizing this relationship.

There is no decisive evidence that the physical universe exhausts all that exists. That conclusion often rests not on proof, but on prior assumption. If something non-physical exists, it may not resemble physical objects at all—and thus may not be detectable by the same methods.

Consciousness, then, becomes central. It is not only the hardest problem for naturalism; it may be the key to a more complete account of reality.

Design Requires a Designer

There is unmistakable design in the universe—and wherever there is design, there must be a Designer.

Even Richard Dawkins concedes that “the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design, as if by a master watchmaker.”1

Evolution may describe how life adapts, but it does not explain the origin of the laws, order, and rational structure that make adaptation possible.

The design we see is not an illusion, as Dawkins insists. The profound order, rationality, and harmony woven throughout nature are not tricks of perception—they are evidence of an underlying intelligence at the very foundation of reality.

Consider the fine‑tuning of the universe’s physical constants. The gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, and others are exquisitely calibrated to allow stars, planets, and life to exist. Shift any of them by even 1%, and reality collapses—no atoms, no chemistry, no existence. This is not adaptation; it is a pre‑loaded blueprint demanding explanation.

Or reflect on DNA as digital code—life’s instruction set, encoding precise protein‑building algorithms more complex than human software. Random mutations may modify it, but the origin of such specified complexity points unmistakably to intelligence.

Finally, ponder the mathematical intelligibility of reality. Why does the universe obey elegant equations that our minds can actually comprehend?

As physicist Eugene Wigner marveled, this is “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”—as if reality were structured by a rational Mind for rational discoverers.2

Endnotes

1 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton, 1986), 5.
2 Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, no. 1 (1960): 1–14.