From Indian Metaphysics to Universal Ontology: Sāṃkhya, Sri Aurobindo, Meta-Para-Ontology
Shapoval, O. (2026). From Indian Metaphysics to Universal Ontology: Sāṃkhya, Sri Aurobindo, Meta-Para-Ontology. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23082944
Abstract
Integrated metaphysical systems combine ontological, cosmological, psychological, evolutionary, and soteriological relations within larger conceptual configurations. Their concepts therefore cannot be compared adequately by examining individual terms or apparent similarities alone. Meaning is shaped by the relations in which concepts participate and by the larger systems in which those relations are organized. Direct synthesis risks importing the internal organization of one system into another. Terminological comparison can identify similarities without establishing the structural relations that make them comparable. This essay develops a framework for addressing this problem of comparison and for formalizing relations identified across different integrated metaphysical systems within a common ontological architecture. Sāṃkhya and the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo are examined as two systems characterized by different forms of architectural organization: Sāṃkhya differentiates fundamental ontological relations within a coherent metaphysical framework, while Sri Aurobindo integrates related ontological, cosmological, psychological, and evolutionary relations into a broader metaphysical vision. Meta-Para-Ontology engages these systems through ontological decomposition, identification of structural functions, and reconstruction. This procedure distinguishes general ontological relations from the particular metaphysical interpretations through which they are expressed and reconstructs them within an explicit ontological architecture. Universality arises through coordination across difference: heterogeneous metaphysical systems can retain their distinct conceptual and metaphysical configurations while becoming structurally comparable through common ontological relations. The essay thus presents Meta-Para-Ontology as a method for constructing a universal ontology by differentiating and reconstructing ontological relations identified across historically situated metaphysical systems.
1. Introduction: The Problem of Universal Ontological Construction
Fundamental ontological relations cannot be identified within integrative metaphysical systems without addressing the conceptual configurations in which those relations are embedded. This methodological problem arises both in attempts to construct a universal ontology and in philosophical projects seeking to synthesize Eastern and Western metaphysical traditions. Fundamental principles in major metaphysical traditions are not isolated ontological elements that can be compared independently of the traditional context connecting ontology, cosmology, psychology, epistemology, evolutionary theory, and soteriology through metaphysical interpretation. A concept may therefore express a fundamental ontological relation while simultaneously participating in a specific interpretation of reality, a cosmological sequence, a theory of consciousness, or a soteriological orientation. Identifying the ontological relations expressed through such systems cannot be based on similarities between concepts alone. It requires distinguishing the relations and functions expressed through them from the particular conceptual configurations in which they have been developed.
This distinction became a central condition in the formation of Meta-Para-Ontology (MPO), a process involving the analysis of metaphysical material across different conceptual frameworks, the identification of structural functions and ontological relations, and their subsequent differentiation and reconstruction within an ontological architecture (Shapoval 2026b). The resulting architecture organizes these relations according to a set of distinctions that can be examined independently of the particular metaphysical configurations in which they were originally articulated. This process established the basis for the four-register organization of Meta-Para-Ontology and for its capacity to accommodate heterogeneous ontological and metaphysical formulations.
Indian metaphysics, particularly Sāṃkhya and the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo, constituted one of the most substantial and internally developed intellectual sources for the formation of Meta-Para-Ontology, alongside a broader examination of philosophical, scientific, psychological, and religious models. Their particular significance lies in the high degree of integration achieved within these systems, which articulate relations among heterogeneous domains while incorporating diverse conceptual elements into broader metaphysical architectures. Their analysis provided especially rich material for identifying, differentiating, and reconstructing recurring ontological relations across integrated metaphysical architectures, through which the MPO architecture itself emerged. The breadth and integrative capacity of Sāṃkhya and the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo therefore played an important role in shaping the Meta-Para-Ontological architecture, representing exemplary instances of comprehensive metaphysical integration.
The integrative character of these systems therefore made decomposition necessary for their formal reconstruction. A concept embedded within a comprehensive metaphysical architecture cannot simply be transferred into a general ontology as a self-contained element, because its traditional meaning may encompass several structural functions and relations at once. These functions and relations are related to their historical concepts, but they are not identical with them. A concept may perform several structural functions while its traditional meaning extends far beyond any one of them. Conversely, a particular metaphysical interpretation may provide one account of a relation without exhausting its ontological significance. The structural function is therefore analytically distinguished from the larger conceptual configuration in which it occurs; it is not assumed to have existed in the source system as an independent category formulated in those terms. The formation of MPO involved identifying such functions within their original configurations and reconstructing them so that they could be differentiated and organized within a more general ontology. The historical concept remains intelligible within its own system, while the structural relation identified through it becomes available for comparison and reconstruction.
The transformation examined in this essay can therefore be formulated as a movement from integrative metaphysics through ontological decomposition and functional reconstruction to formal differentiation, reconstruction, and the formation of an open universal ontology. Integrative metaphysical systems provide configurations in which fundamental distinctions are already present, but often remain embedded within wider conceptual orders. Ontological decomposition makes it possible to distinguish the constituent concepts and relations relevant to the ontological problem, while functional reconstruction isolates the structural functions performed by those concepts and abstracts them as structural operations that can be examined independently of their original conceptual formulations. Formal differentiation then separates relations that may have remained integrated within the source systems, and reconstruction organizes the resulting relations within the architecture of Meta-Para-Ontology. The resulting ontology can retain relations encountered through particular traditions while allowing their broader metaphysical interpretations to remain distinct from the architecture itself.
This process establishes an important distinction between genealogical continuity and architectural identity. MPO has a substantial intellectual genealogy in Indian metaphysics, particularly in Sāṃkhya and the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo, and several of its fundamental ontological principles exhibit significant affinities with relations articulated within those traditions. Indian metaphysics provided major intellectual material through which problems of potentiality, formation, manifestation, consciousness, differentiation, and evolution could be encountered in highly developed forms. Sri Aurobindo in particular provided an integrative metaphysical vision in which relations among consciousness, manifestation, formative principles, and evolutionary development were brought into an unusually comprehensive configuration (Sri Aurobindo 2005; Sri Aurobindo 1997). Yet genealogical continuity does not entail architectural identity. The fact that a distinction or relation has an identifiable intellectual genealogy within a particular metaphysical tradition does not determine the final organization or ontological status that it receives within Meta-Para-Ontology.
This distinction also defines the broader scope of the present inquiry beyond a general project of East–West synthesis. The central objective is to identify points of functional convergence through which relations articulated within distinct metaphysical systems can be reconstructed as structural invariants of a common ontological architecture. Such reconstruction provides a basis for relating heterogeneous systems through their underlying ontological relations while preserving the conceptual and metaphysical configurations in which those relations are articulated. The formation of MPO involved a broad comparative process encompassing the decomposition of concepts across different disciplines, ontologies, and metaphysical systems, with Indian metaphysics representing a particularly significant intellectual domain in which broad and highly integrated metaphysical configurations provided especially rich material for this inquiry. The particular value of these traditions for the formation of MPO lay in the breadth of the domains integrated within their metaphysical architectures. Their philosophical systems bring together ontological, cosmological, psychological, epistemological, ethical, evolutionary, and soteriological dimensions within comprehensive accounts of reality (Larson 1979; Sri Aurobindo 2005). Such integration provides an unusually rich field for identifying relations that extend across domains that are treated as distinct within modern disciplinary organization.
The purpose of this essay is to trace this transformation from integrative metaphysical configurations toward a formally differentiated and deliberately open ontology. Sāṃkhya and the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo provide the historical and conceptual material through which this transformation can be examined, while the formation of MPO makes explicit the ontological relations that emerge through their decomposition and reconstruction. The resulting architecture preserves the relations encountered within historically situated metaphysical systems while allowing their broader conceptual and metaphysical interpretations to remain distinct from the ontology in which those relations are organized. The subsequent formulation of Polymetaphysical Cartography extends this methodological development by providing a framework for reconstructing and localizing such relations across heterogeneous systems.
2. Indian Metaphysics and the Formation of the Ontological Question
2.1. Sāṃkhya and the Differentiation of Ontological Questions
Sāṃkhya provides one of the clearest examples within Indian metaphysical thought of a system in which fundamental distinctions concerning nature, consciousness, manifestation, and differentiation are developed within an explicit ontological framework. The classical formulation represented by Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṃkhya-Kārikā organizes reality through the distinction between Prakṛti and Puruṣa and through a differentiated account of the constituents and transformations of Prakṛti. Prakṛti is the productive, changing, and unconscious principle from which the manifest order develops, whereas Puruṣa is characterized as conscious, inactive, and distinct from the processes of nature. The system consequently separates the productive order through which the manifest world and embodied experience are constituted from a principle of consciousness that does not itself participate in material production. Several ontological questions later encountered in the construction of Meta-Para-Ontology are already articulated within Sāṃkhya as distinct questions: the relation between unmanifest and manifest nature, the distinction between productive nature and consciousness, the emergence of determinate forms from antecedent conditions, and the progressive differentiation of a productive principle into an ordered multiplicity of categories (Larson 1979, Kārikā 3, 19–22).
Unmanifest and Manifest
One of the first distinctions relevant to this analysis is that between Avyakta and Vyakta, the unmanifest and the manifest. In classical Sāṃkhya, Avyakta designates the unmanifest form of Prakṛti, identified with Mūla-Prakṛti or Pradhāna, while Vyakta designates manifest nature in its differentiated forms and constituents. In the standard enumeration of the twenty-five tattvas, Puruṣa and unmanifest Prakṛti occupy distinct positions, while the remaining twenty-three tattvas, from buddhi or mahat through the gross elements, belong to manifest nature (Larson 1979, Kārikā 3, 10–11). The distinction establishes an ontological relation between a condition in which determinate forms are not manifest and a differentiated order in which those forms become available for experience and analysis. The unmanifest is not nonexistence: it is a real principle within Sāṃkhya’s ontology, commonly associated with the condition in which the guṇas remain in equilibrium prior to their differentiated activity. The relation is therefore not simply one between an earlier hidden state and a later visible state. Avyakta designates the unmanifest condition of Prakṛti itself, from which the differentiated forms of manifest nature develop within Sāṃkhya’s account of causation and transformation (Larson 1979, Kārikā 10–11, 22).
What becomes significant for the formation of Meta-Para-Ontology is that the distinction between Avyakta and Vyakta makes explicit an ontological domain of potentiality between the absence of determinate manifestation and the fully differentiated order of manifested existence. The analysis of this relation contributed to the recognition that a universal ontology requires an explicit coordinate for potentiality itself: a condition in which determinate forms are not yet manifest, but in which manifestation remains ontologically possible. Avyakta thus provides an important historical instance through which the problem of potentiality becomes explicit and through which the need to distinguish potentiality from both formative determination and manifested form becomes visible.
Prakṛti and Puruṣa
The distinction between Prakṛti and Puruṣa introduces a second and deeper separation. Prakṛti is productive, changing, and constituted by the three guṇas, whereas Puruṣa is conscious, inactive, and distinct from the processes of material formation. The manifest world, including the bodily and psychological dimensions of embodied existence, belongs to Prakṛti, while Puruṣa remains fundamentally distinct from it. Sāṃkhya consequently establishes a sharp conceptual separation between the processes through which manifestation occurs and the principle of consciousness that witnesses those processes. Prakṛti is not merely passive matter; its constitution through the guṇas accounts for the differentiation and transformation of the manifest order. Puruṣa, by contrast, does not generate the differentiated contents of experience and is characterized as the conscious subject, witness, and experiencer in relation to the activity of Prakṛti (Larson 1979, Kārikā 11–13, 19–22).
Sāṃkhya consequently provides a clear conceptual separation between conscious witnessing and the processes of formation, together with an account of their relation through the conjunction of Puruṣa and Prakṛti. The problem of ontological distinction between consciousness and manifestation, however, is not exhausted by the specific formulation found in Sāṃkhya. Related forms of the problem recur across metaphysical and philosophical traditions, often through more implicit tensions or differently organized relations between consciousness, nature, manifestation, and determination. What Sāṃkhya makes especially explicit is the possibility that the principle of consciousness and the processes through which determinate existence is constituted may require distinct ontological positions within a single account of reality, a problem that receives particularly broad and diverse development across Indian metaphysics.
Latent Determination and Manifested Form
The Sāṃkhya account also raises the problem of how determinate forms arise from an antecedent condition without requiring that condition to possess the fully differentiated character of its effects. This problem is expressed more specifically in the doctrine of Satkāryavāda, according to which the effect is not an entirely new entity produced from nothing but is already present in a latent or undeveloped condition within its cause. Sāṃkhya connects this doctrine with the productive character of Prakṛti and with the transformations through which its latent determinations become manifest. The classical account of the evolution of the tattvas consequently presents an ordered development in which buddhi or mahat is followed by ahaṃkāra and the differentiated faculties, subtle elements, and gross elements. The precise interpretation of this sequence belongs to Sāṃkhya’s own theory of Prakṛti and causation, but its broader significance lies in the relation it establishes between antecedent determination and manifested form (Larson 1979, Kārikā 9, 22).
The ontological question can therefore be stated as a relation between formative determination and manifested form. A manifested form possesses determinate characteristics, yet those characteristics arise through a causal process whose conditions precede the fully differentiated form. Within Sāṃkhya, Satkāryavāda provides a general principle of causal continuity: the effect is already present in its cause, while the specific causal relations through which particular effects emerge belong to the successive transformations of Prakṛti. The ontological question formulated historically within Sāṃkhya is reconstructed within MPO as a fundamental ontological relation and receives formal expression through the architecture of its registers. Reconstructed within MPO, this particular relation concerns the interaction of Formative Causality (R2) and Manifestation (R3): R2 concerns the formative determination through which manifestation becomes possible, whereas R3 concerns the determinate form in which manifestation occurs.
Differentiation and Evolutionary Unfolding
The classical enumeration of tattvas presents an ontologically ordered account of how differentiated aspects of nature arise from a more fundamental productive condition. The sequence from Prakṛti through buddhi and ahaṃkāra to the faculties, subtle elements, and gross elements gives ontological differentiation a specific systematic form. A reality initially treated as a unified productive principle becomes articulated through increasingly determinate categories, each with a specific place within the larger order. Differentiation is consequently not merely a classificatory operation performed by an observer; within Sāṃkhya, it belongs to the constitution of manifest nature itself. Satkāryavāda provides the corresponding principle of continuity: the effect exists in its cause in a latent or undeveloped condition prior to manifestation. The transformations of Prakṛti describe a process through which determinations that are not yet differentiated as manifest categories become progressively articulated within an ordered structure (Larson 1979, Kārikā 9, 22).
The specific sequence of tattvas cannot simply be detached from the metaphysical framework that gives it meaning. What can be distinguished from that framework is the more general architectural relation expressed through it: a productive or potential condition gives rise to determinate forms through a process of differentiation, while the resulting multiplicity remains continuous with its antecedent conditions. This relation is fundamental to ontology because a comprehensive account of existence must explain how determinate differences emerge from antecedent conditions and how increasingly differentiated forms arise within an ordered process of development. In Sāṃkhya, this relation appears as the progressive differentiation of Prakṛti through the sequence of tattvas. In broader ontological and philosophical frameworks, comparable processes are frequently formulated in terms of evolution, increasing complexity, or the emergence of increasingly differentiated forms of organization. The capacity to account for differentiation and its developmental unfolding is an essential component of any universal ontology, since a comprehensive meta-system must explain both the emergence of determinate multiplicity and its relation to the antecedent conditions from which it develops.
Sāṃkhya as an Architectural Foundation for Later Metaphysics
The identified distinctions reveal a connected set of ontological relations within Sāṃkhya. The system distinguishes an unmanifest condition of Prakṛti from manifest nature; separates productive and changing nature from conscious Puruṣa; relates determinate effects to prior causal conditions through Satkāryavāda; and explains the differentiation of manifest nature through the transformations of Prakṛti and the guṇas. These distinctions show that Sāṃkhya had already separated several fundamental relations that become relevant to the construction of a coherent general ontology.
The significance of Sāṃkhya becomes still clearer when its historical development is considered. The ontological distinctions articulated within Sāṃkhya did not remain confined to the original formulation of the system. Across subsequent Indian metaphysical traditions, elements of its conceptual architecture were preserved, reformulated, extended, and integrated into different accounts of reality. The recurrence of Sāṃkhya-derived distinctions in substantially different metaphysical systems suggests that its categories possessed a degree of architectural generality that exceeded the particular interpretations. Several ontological solutions developed within MPO in response to the requirements of a Universal Meta-System are structurally close to solutions that can also be identified within Sāṃkhya (Shapoval 2026a). This convergence suggests that some of the fundamental distinctions articulated within Sāṃkhya already respond to architectural requirements of comprehensive ontology, identifying relations that any sufficiently comprehensive ontological system must address.
This structural persistence is especially visible in traditions that retained or transformed the tattva framework. Kashmir Śaivism, for example, incorporates the twenty-five categories associated with Sāṃkhya within a broader scheme of thirty-six tattvas, extending the differentiated ontology through additional principles and situating it within a different metaphysical account of consciousness and reality. The resulting system does not simply reproduce Sāṃkhya; it reorganizes and extends a recognizable ontological architecture within another metaphysical framework. Similar processes of preservation, reformulation, and extension occurred across Indian philosophy, where distinctions concerning Prakṛti, Puruṣa, causation, and the differentiation of manifest existence could be incorporated into broader combinations of philosophical and contemplative doctrines.
The historical trajectory therefore leads from Sāṃkhya as a highly differentiated ontological system toward increasingly extensive forms of metaphysical integration. This development reaches an especially large-scale form in the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo, where Sāṃkhya-derived distinctions are brought into a broader synthesis involving Vedānta, Yoga, consciousness, manifestation, and evolutionary development (Sri Aurobindo 1997; Sri Aurobindo 2005). Sāṃkhya can be understood as an important architectural foundation for a long process of Indian metaphysical differentiation, reinterpretation, and integration. More fundamentally, the explicit differentiation of these relations identifies a set of fundamental ontological questions that cannot be omitted from any comprehensive universal meta-system: the relation between nature and consciousness, the unmanifest and the manifest, causal determination and manifested form, and the differentiation of existence. Any meta-system that claims comprehensive ontological scope must account for such relations, whether it adopts the specific solutions of Sāṃkhya or reconstructs them in a different architectural form.
2.2. Sri Aurobindo and the Integrative Metaphysical Vision
The Indian thinker Sri Aurobindo represents a distinctive development of Indian metaphysical thought whose philosophy reinterprets and integrates elements of the Indian metaphysical tradition into a comprehensive metaphysical account. His philosophical work draws upon Vedānta, Sāṃkhya, and Yoga while also engaging modern evolutionary thought and the problem of human development, developing his own universal and integral vision of reality. His account relates inherited metaphysical principles within a broader framework encompassing transcendence and manifestation, consciousness and nature, and metaphysical realization. Developing further several fundamental ontological relations already articulated within Sāṃkhya, Sri Aurobindo deepens the inquiry into the relation between Puruṣa and Prakṛti while developing an involution–evolutionary account of the manifestation of consciousness and the nature of the human being. His inquiry organizes these fundamental relations into an interdependent system within a new comprehensive vision that brings together ontological, cosmological, psychological, and evolutionary dimensions (Sri Aurobindo 1997; Sri Aurobindo 2005).
Concepts belonging to different explanatory domains are interpreted through their relations to one another, giving Sri Aurobindo’s system its specifically integrative character. Ontological distinctions are connected with cosmology; cosmological processes with psychology; psychological development with spiritual realization; and spiritual realization with an evolutionary account of manifestation. In The Life Divine, the relation between the Absolute and manifestation is developed through an account of consciousness that includes both transcendence and involvement, while the evolution of life and mind is interpreted as part of a larger process whose roots extend into the prior involvement of consciousness in manifestation (Sri Aurobindo 2005). The resulting metaphysical system operates across several explanatory dimensions simultaneously, organizing relations that can be distinguished analytically into a mutually connected account of reality. This integrative dimension of Sri Aurobindo’s vision provides a particularly valuable example of how reality can be approached and described as a comprehensive whole, a concern that is directly relevant to the construction of a universal ontology.
The same integrative character, however, creates a distinctive problem for formal ontological reconstruction. Sri Aurobindo’s system is comprehensive precisely because ontological, cosmological, psychological, epistemological, evolutionary, and soteriological dimensions are developed within a single interconnected vision. Relations that can be distinguished analytically as different ontological or explanatory functions often acquire their full significance through their participation in this larger configuration. The resulting system therefore possesses considerable explanatory completeness while presenting a much denser object for formal analysis than a system in which fundamental ontological distinctions are already explicitly separated. Its concepts frequently operate across several explanatory registers at once, and their meaning may depend simultaneously on metaphysical interpretation, modes of experience, forms of knowledge, and processes of transformation. Formalizing such a system therefore requires more than extracting and reorganizing its concepts: it requires distinguishing the different structural functions carried by concepts whose original meaning depends upon their integration within a comprehensive metaphysical vision.
But what would Sri Aurobindo’s system look like if its underlying ontological relations were formalized as far as possible and separated from the historical, cultural, and, most importantly, religious context in which they were originally formulated? Such a separation may appear impossible precisely because these dimensions are deeply integrated within his metaphysical vision. Yet this difficulty is also what makes Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy particularly significant for the formation of Meta-Para-Ontology. MPO can be understood in part as an attempt to perform this further operation: to take an integrated metaphysical vision, identify the fundamental ontological relations expressed within it, distinguish their structural functions from the historical and interpretive configurations in which they appear, and reconstruct those relations within a formally differentiated ontology.
Sri Aurobindo’s work was therefore among the systematic intellectual influences on the development of MPO. At the same time, the theoretical foundations of MPO converge with many of the fundamental positions developed in Sri Aurobindo’s thought because both inquiries ultimately encounter the same underlying ontological relations. The relation between consciousness and nature, the unmanifest and the manifest, latent determination and manifested form, transcendence and involvement, and the increasingly explicit manifestation of consciousness are not isolated questions belonging to one philosophical tradition. They recur whenever a comprehensive account of reality is pursued to its fundamental level. As modern science and philosophy have penetrated deeper into questions of consciousness, matter, observation, fundamental reality, and the relation between underlying and manifested orders, particularly through neuroscience, cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and contemporary research on consciousness, they have increasingly returned to questions that had already been differentiated in Sāṃkhya and developed into a comprehensive metaphysical vision by Sri Aurobindo. This has generated an expanding body of comparative discussion concerning possible parallels between modern scientific and philosophical theories and Eastern metaphysical concepts, particularly around consciousness, observer and observed, and the relation between mind and matter. Questions long articulated within Indian metaphysics have thereby become increasingly relevant to contemporary attempts to understand fundamental reality, while structural parallels between otherwise distinct traditions have become an explicit object of philosophical analysis. This provides grounds for considering that a genuinely comprehensive Universal Meta-System will repeatedly encounter the fundamental questions articulated in Sāṃkhya and Sri Aurobindo, while the independent development of related questions in modern Western science and philosophy increasingly brings Western approaches into dialogue with Eastern metaphysics around fundamental questions concerning reality.
Consciousness, Manifestation, and Conscious Force
One of the central features of Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysical vision is the treatment of consciousness as fundamental to reality and as involved in the processes through which manifestation unfolds. Matter, life, and mind can therefore be understood as progressively differentiated forms of manifestation through which the involved consciousness progressively awakens from its apparent inconscience and becomes increasingly conscious in the course of evolution. Within manifestation, consciousness and Nature can be distinguished as Puruṣa and Prakṛti, with Puruṣa representing conscious being and Prakṛti the dynamic activity of Nature. Puruṣa participates in manifestation through conscious presence, witnessing, and sanction, while Prakṛti carries the dynamic processes through which manifestation unfolds. This distinction, however, does not constitute an ultimate separation. Sri Aurobindo also understands Puruṣa and Prakṛti as two aspects of a deeper unity, in which Nature is the dynamic power of Consciousness, Chit-Shakti, and conscious being expresses itself through its own conscious force. The differentiated relation of Puruṣa and Prakṛti thus remains real within manifestation while being grounded in an essential unity. As Sri Aurobindo emphasizes, the experience of Soul and Nature as dual is valid, while the experience of their unity is also valid; these relations can be experienced across different planes of consciousness and existence, allowing unity and difference to remain simultaneously present within a single metaphysical account (Sri Aurobindo 2005, 174–176; Sri Aurobindo 2012, 41, 44).
This integrated conception is expressed through Aurobindo’s treatment of Chit and Chit-Shakti, or Conscious Force. Chit denotes fundamental consciousness, while Chit-Shakti expresses the inseparability of consciousness and active force in manifestation. Knowledge, will, vision, and formative expression are consequently brought together within a conception of consciousness that is simultaneously receptive and dynamically expressive. The importance of this material for the present inquiry lies in the way several functions are integrated within a single metaphysical conception. The same applies to Aurobindo’s treatment of Puruṣa, which participates in the broader relation between witnessing consciousness and manifestation. Such concepts provide especially clear examples of how a metaphysical conception can carry several structural functions simultaneously. Their later decomposition therefore makes it possible to distinguish relations that are integrated within the source system without reproducing that system as the resulting ontology (Sri Aurobindo 2012, 14–15, 44).
Involution and Evolution
The concepts of involution and evolution provide the dynamic dimension through which Sri Aurobindo develops the relation between consciousness and manifestation. Evolution, in his account, is inseparable from involution: what emerges progressively in evolutionary development is related to what is already involved in manifestation. The emergence of life from matter and mind from life is therefore interpreted within a larger process in which consciousness has become involved in manifestation and progressively develops toward increasingly explicit forms of self-expression. Evolutionary development consequently acquires a metaphysical dimension extending beyond a purely biological account. It concerns both the differentiation of manifested forms and the progressive emergence of capacities of consciousness (Sri Aurobindo 2005, 122, 856–858, 866–868).
This relation develops questions already differentiated in Sāṃkhya concerning the unmanifest and manifest, antecedent determination and manifested form, and the relation between consciousness and manifested existence. Aurobindo brings these relations into a broader developmental account in which cosmological manifestation, evolutionary development, and the emergence of consciousness become mutually connected. For the present inquiry, the significance of involution and evolution therefore lies less in their complete metaphysical interpretation than in the integration of these relations within a single account of manifestation and development.
A further expression of this integration appears in Sri Aurobindo’s concept of Supermind, understood as the Truth-Consciousness through which unity and differentiated manifestation remain mutually intelligible. Supermind connects consciousness, knowledge, unity, and manifestation within a single metaphysical principle and thereby illustrates the density of relations characteristic of Aurobindo’s system. Here, these relations are presented within a single metaphysical conception, becoming analytically distinguishable when reconstructed within a formal ontology (Sri Aurobindo 2005, 153).
The Integrative Character of Sri Aurobindo’s Metaphysics
The distinctive significance of Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy for the present analysis lies in its integration of heterogeneous explanatory dimensions into a single metaphysical vision. Vedāntic questions concerning the Absolute and consciousness, Sāṃkhyan distinctions concerning nature and consciousness, yogic accounts of inner development, and evolutionary accounts of development are brought into a common account of consciousness, manifestation, and transformation. Relations that can be distinguished as ontological, cosmological, psychological, evolutionary, or soteriological therefore become mutually connected within the explanatory architecture of the system. Consciousness is related to manifestation; manifestation to involution and evolution; evolution to individual development; and individual development to transformation. A concept may consequently integrate several structural functions while its full metaphysical significance remains connected with the network of relations through which Sri Aurobindo gives it meaning (Sri Aurobindo 1997; Sri Aurobindo 2005).
This provided Meta-Para-Ontology with a different kind of intellectual material: not simply already differentiated ontological relations, but dense metaphysical configurations in which multiple functions had become mutually connected. The formation of MPO therefore required an operation capable of decomposing such integrations, distinguishing the structural functions they carried, and reconstructing those functions within an architecture in which their relations could be made explicit and independently organized. Accordingly, a Universal Meta-System, as understood and formulated through MPO, cannot exclude either fundamental ontological relations or the most complex metaphysical formulations through which they are expressed. A comprehensive and non-reductive universal ontology can be formulated only by retaining such formulations within the scope of analysis while distinguishing their constituent relations and functions. The mere exclusion of complex metaphysical configurations on the grounds that they represent incompatible commitments or alternative perspectives cannot by itself establish the completeness of a Universal Meta-System.
2.3. Meta-Para-Ontology and the Construction of a Universal Meta-System
The construction of such a Meta-System does not entail replacing existing ontologies or integrative metaphysical systems. Sāṃkhya and the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo remain exemplary instances of internally complete metaphysical architectures whose integrity does not depend on further clarification or reinterpretation through MPO. The construction of a Universal Meta-System addresses a different order of problem: it seeks to formalize an architecture capable not only of accounting for diverse fundamental ontological relations, but also of accommodating them within its own organization and allowing structurally comparable functions to be related across different conceptual configurations without reducing one system to another or assigning a dominant status to any particular paradigm. Universality in this sense concerns the capacity of the Meta-System to coordinate structurally comparable relations across difference while preserving the integrity of the systems in which those relations are originally articulated (Shapoval 2026a).
3. From Integrative Metaphysics to Structural Functions
When the concepts of a metaphysical system derive part of their meaning from their position within a larger configuration of interconnected relations, they cannot be directly extracted and adequately isolated without taking into account the wider configuration in which they participate. Such integrative metaphysical material therefore requires a different kind of analysis. The approach developed in the formation of Meta-Para-Ontology was to analyze concepts according to the structural functions they perform, distinguish those functions from the broader meanings through which the concepts operate, and identify the relations that can subsequently be reconstructed within a common architecture. This approach makes particular ontological relations available for comparison and reconstruction while preserving the internal interpretations and broader configurations through which they acquire their original meaning.
3.1. Integrative Metaphysical Systems
An integrative metaphysical system can be understood as a system in which multiple ontological distinctions acquire their meaning through integration into a larger conceptual and metaphysical order. Its concepts do not function as isolated propositions. Their significance depends partly upon their relations to other concepts and processes within the system. Such a system may integrate ontological, cosmological, psychological, evolutionary, epistemological, soteriological, and metaphysical dimensions, with distinctions and processes in one domain acquiring part of their significance through their relations to others within the larger configuration. The central analytical question is consequently not simply which concepts resemble one another across traditions, but which ontological relations and structural functions are expressed through an integrative system and how they can be distinguished from the broader metaphysical configuration in which they occur.
This requires a distinction between a concept as understood within its native metaphysical system and the structural function it performs within that system. A concept may express several structural functions while its traditional meaning extends far beyond any one of them. Conversely, a particular metaphysical interpretation may provide one account of a relation without exhausting its significance for a more general ontology. A structural function is therefore not assumed to have existed in the source system as an independent category formulated in those terms. What existed historically was the concept operating within its native conceptual order; what can subsequently be identified are the distinct functions and relations expressed through that concept. This distinction does not reduce the historical concept to those functions. It allows the source system to remain intelligible according to its own principles while making the functions expressed through its concepts available for comparative analysis. A relation identified in Sāṃkhya or Sri Aurobindo can consequently contribute to a more general ontology without requiring the complete conceptual configuration in which it originally appeared to be reproduced within that ontology.
The distinction between these two forms of metaphysical organization has a direct methodological consequence. A formal procedure must be capable of identifying relations that are already differentiated within a source system while also distinguishing functions that remain integrated within broader concepts or metaphysical configurations. This dual requirement provides the basis for the methodological distinction between a historical concept and the structural functions it performs within its native system.
The relation between Puruṣa and Prakṛti provides a particularly clear example. Within Sri Aurobindo’s conception, their distinction and unity are both fundamental: their distinction makes their differentiated relation intelligible, while their deeper unity situates that relation within a more comprehensive understanding of reality (Sri Aurobindo 2005, 174–176; Sri Aurobindo 2012, 41, 44). An integral metaphysical system can therefore hold together relations whose ontological differentiation becomes necessary when they are reconstructed within a formal ontology. This illustrates one of the methodological problems that the formation of MPO had to address: relations integrated within a broader metaphysical configuration have to be disentangled and assigned distinct ontological positions if their mutual relation is to become formally intelligible. The distinction between Puruṣa and Prakṛti is therefore significant as a condition for ontological articulation. If this distinction were dissolved into their unity, no differentiated relation would remain through which Puruṣa and Prakṛti could be represented within an ontology. The difference affirmed within the unified conception would then disappear from ontological analysis, and the ontology itself would lose the differentiation required for determinate articulation. The construction of a formal ontology from Sri Aurobindo’s simultaneous affirmation of unity and difference therefore requires these two determinations to be separated at the level of description. Difference has to receive ontological status because without distinct determinations there can be no distinct ontological positions through which relations can be represented. Unity cannot simultaneously function as another ontological determination at the same level, since representing unity and difference as equivalent ontological determinations would leave their relation at the level of an undifferentiated abstraction. Formal ontology must therefore establish the level at which difference becomes constitutive of ontological articulation, while questions concerning the unity underlying or exceeding this differentiation remain beyond the scope of ontological determination. In this sense, the trans-ontological dimension marks a boundary of formal ontology rather than an additional ontological position within it. This separation of levels has precedents in many non-dual traditions of India where empirical and ultimate orders of reality are distinguished in addressing the relation between differentiated experience and non-dual reality. The task of formal differentiation is consequently to determine the conditions under which difference can constitute a coherent ontology, while leaving questions concerning unity beyond ontological differentiation to trans-ontological interpretations, contemplative experience, and religious experience.
3.2. Ontological Decomposition and Identification of Structural Functions
The analytical operation through which this becomes possible can be described as ontological decomposition. Decomposition distinguishes the different ontological relations and structural functions integrated within a metaphysical system, including cases in which several functions are expressed through a single concept. Its purpose is to make those relations explicit so that they can be compared across systems and considered as possible components of a more general architecture. A concept can therefore be examined in terms of the different contributions it makes to the organization of a system without being reduced to any one of them. The formation of MPO proceeds through a movement from historically situated metaphysical configurations toward the identification and differentiation of structural relations, followed by their organization within a common ontological architecture. Decomposition makes the integrated material analytically separable; identification isolates the structural functions expressed through particular concepts and configurations; comparative differentiation establishes their relation to corresponding functions encountered elsewhere; and architectural reconstruction organizes the resulting relations within MPO. The process moves from heterogeneous metaphysical material toward increasingly explicit ontological relations and, ultimately, toward their reconstruction within a differentiated universal architecture.
This reconstruction concerns the formation of MPO itself: it is the reconstruction of identified ontological relations into a new architectural configuration, not yet the reconstruction of any particular source system. The later methodology of Polymetaphysical Cartography formalizes the recovery of structural functions as a reproducible procedure through Functional Reconstruction, which identifies the structural function performed by a concept within its native explanatory framework independently of MPO’s coordinates. Its stages establish criteria for isolating the indispensable operation, abstracting the structural operation, and verifying its structural invariance. Cartographic Localization then positions the reconstructed structural function within the established ontological topology. The historical formation of MPO and Cartographic Localization therefore operate in different architectural directions: the historical formation of MPO proceeded from heterogeneous systems toward common ontological architecture, while Cartographic Localization proceeds from a reconstructed structural function toward its position within that established architecture.
Chit-Shakti in Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysics provides a clear example of why such decomposition is necessary. Chit-Shakti integrates consciousness and force within a conception of the dynamic power of manifestation (Sri Aurobindo 2012, 14–15, 44). Decomposition makes it possible to distinguish the fundamental consciousness expressed through Chit from the dynamic and formative functions expressed through Shakti. Chit, understood as fundamental consciousness, is not thereby assigned a position within the four-register topology; its status exceeds the domain of ontological localization. The functions expressed through Shakti, however, can be examined in relation to the processes through which manifestation is formed and developed, allowing aspects of formative determination and manifested activity to be distinguished without treating Shakti itself as identical with any single MPO register. The decomposition therefore separates a trans-ontological dimension from the ontological functions through which conscious force operates in manifestation, while preserving their unity within Sri Aurobindo’s original conception. Decomposition does not imply that this integration is mistaken or that Chit-Shakti should be equated with one particular MPO category. It identifies the different structural functions carried by the integrated conception so that they can subsequently be compared with related functions expressed through other systems and considered in the formation of a common architecture. What is metaphysically unified in the source system can thus become analytically differentiated without losing its historical meaning. The same principle applies more broadly to integrative metaphysics: a concept may combine relations concerning potentiality, formation, manifestation, consciousness, differentiation, or actualization within a single explanatory configuration, and ontological decomposition makes it possible to distinguish these relations and examine their respective roles before they enter the architectural reconstruction of MPO. The source term itself therefore need not enter the MPO architecture as a universal category. What matters for universalization is the identification of structurally significant operations that recur across multiple metaphysical systems. By comparing such recurring operations across heterogeneous configurations, it becomes possible to distinguish invariant relations from their tradition-specific formulations. The universal coordinates and functions of MPO were reconstructed from these recurring structural invariants rather than derived from the terminology of any single metaphysical system.
This is the point at which the formation of MPO differs from simply selecting concepts from existing metaphysical systems and assigning them new names. The process involved a change in the organization of the inherited material itself. Relations that had been integrated within particular metaphysical configurations could be distinguished according to their structural functions, compared with corresponding relations encountered elsewhere, and identified as components relevant to a more general ontology. Ontological decomposition was therefore not an operation of reduction but the condition for architectural reconstruction. By distinguishing structural functions that had been integrated within broader metaphysical configurations, it became possible to identify relations that could contribute to a common architecture while leaving the complete systems in which they had originally appeared intact as objects of separate analysis. The resulting architecture could consequently be derived from relations identified across heterogeneous material, with each source system contributing structurally significant relations without determining the architecture as a whole. This transformation from integrated metaphysical material to differentiated structural functions provides the immediate methodological basis for the architectural formation of MPO.
4. From Identified Structural Functions to the Architecture of Meta-Para-Ontology
The preceding analysis identified structural functions across heterogeneous metaphysical configurations and distinguished them from the broader conceptual systems in which they occur. The next step was to determine which of these relations could serve as architectural requirements within a universal ontology and how they could be organized into a coherent system of ontological coordinates. This required a further distinction between an identified structural function and an architectural requirement. A structural function may be significant for understanding a metaphysical system without becoming an independent component of a universal ontology. Architectural construction therefore concerns the selection, differentiation, and organization of those relations that are sufficiently general and fundamental to organize heterogeneous systems, while leaving more specific cosmological, psychological, soteriological, and metaphysical configurations available for separate reconstruction.
4.1. From Structural Functions to Architectural Requirements
Not every structural function identified within a metaphysical system needs to become an independent element of a universal ontology. Some express fundamental ontological relations that recur across different explanatory frameworks; others depend upon particular metaphysical interpretations, belong to more specific configurations, or extend beyond the ontological domain represented by the architecture itself. Universal construction therefore requires distinguishing between ontological relations that can function as architectural requirements, interpretations of those relations within particular metaphysical systems, and stronger tradition-specific commitments. This distinction determines which relations become architecturally binding and which remain available for analysis within particular metaphysical systems. The criterion is not whether a concept is metaphysically significant within its native system, but whether its formulation can function as a sufficiently general ontological coordinate across heterogeneous systems.
This has an important consequence for the treatment of tradition-specific concepts. A concept may express a genuine ontological relation while also representing one particular way in which that relation has been conceptualized within a historical tradition. If structurally corresponding relations can be conceptualized differently in other metaphysical systems, incorporating one tradition-specific formulation as a universal architectural category would privilege that formulation at the level of ontology itself. The purpose of MPO is instead to preserve the architectural relation while leaving its particular conceptualizations open to independent reconstruction. A universal ontology therefore does not need to select a single traditional description of a relation when structurally comparable formulations can occupy the same analytical space. Their exclusion from the universal architecture does not imply that such formulations are rejected as false, secondary, or incompatible with MPO. It means that their specific conceptual form is not made architecturally binding. MPO does not exclude such formulations from ontological consideration; it determines their precise architectural status and scope. A formulation may remain fully significant within its native metaphysical system while being located, in relation to MPO, as a particular interpretation of a more general ontological relation, as a configuration extending beyond the ontological architecture, or as a concept whose significance spans both ontological and trans-ontological dimensions.
The Psychic Being, understood in Sri Aurobindo’s terminology as the evolving individual formation of the soul in manifestation, Chit-Shakti / Conscious Force, particular cosmological hierarchies, and other specifically Aurobindian formulations illustrate different aspects of this distinction (Sri Aurobindo 2012). The Psychic Being is a highly specific conceptualization within Sri Aurobindo’s account of individual evolution and therefore need not become a universal architectural category simply because its structural significance can be analyzed. Other metaphysical systems may articulate structurally corresponding dimensions of individual spiritual development through different concepts and relations. MPO does not leave such differences without an ontological reference point. Within the Manifestation register, the Actualization function establishes the evolutionary dimension of manifested existence, while the Evolutionary Axis represents this dimension as an ontological coordinate. Different evolutionary models and conceptions of developing organisms, complex organizations, progressive states of consciousness, or the evolution of the soul can therefore be located and compared in relation to this dimension, depending on the model and without restricting the scope of either scientific or metaphysical accounts in advance. This does not imply that consciousness or soul, when conceived in a metaphysically pure or trans-ontological sense, can themselves be reduced to an evolutionary coordinate. In such formulations, their status may exceed the ontological domain altogether, while evolutionary relations concern their manifestation, involvement, or development within the ontological order. Different metaphysical traditions may consequently conceptualize the relation between the soul, jīva, the evolving individual principle, manifestation, and the trans-ontological dimension in substantially different ways, while the corresponding evolutionary relations can remain structurally comparable through their relation to the Evolutionary Axis. The individual principle may be understood in different systems as ranging from a trans-ontological observing pole to an involved and evolving presence within manifestation. What remains invariant is not its substantive ontological status, but its relation to evolutionary manifestation: the Evolutionary Axis tracks the evolutionary dimension associated with this presence without determining the full ontological status of the principle itself. The four-register architecture and its internal functional and conceptual content therefore remain invariant, while the interpretations articulated in relation to it can vary. A concept such as the Psychic Being can consequently be understood as a particular interpretation of evolutionary development within manifested existence, while other traditions can articulate structurally corresponding processes through different conceptual frameworks. Their differences in terminology and metaphysical interpretation do not prevent comparison because the underlying ontological coordinates remain available independently of the conceptual form through which they are described.
Chit-Shakti / Conscious Force presents a different case: its formulation integrates dimensions of consciousness and force that cannot be adequately represented as a single ontological coordinate within the four-register architecture, because its significance extends across the relation between ontological manifestation and what exceeds the ontological domain. Particular cosmological hierarchies likewise belong to the organization of a specific metaphysical system and need not become universal coordinates merely because they express meaningful relations within that system. These cases therefore differ in their specific grounds for remaining outside the minimal architecture, but they illustrate the same methodological principle: universal architecture should retain generalizable ontological relations without making a particular metaphysical configuration universally binding.
The principle can be stated more generally: the invariant within MPO lies in the ontological relation and its coordinate position, not in the particular conceptual content through which a metaphysical tradition describes it. The Evolutionary Axis, for example, does not determine what the soul, jīva, Psychic Being, or another evolving principle ultimately is; it specifies the position of the corresponding evolutionary relation within the ontological architecture. MPO therefore does not require different metaphysical languages to converge on a common substantive description. They may preserve substantially different accounts of the entities, processes, and trans-ontological relations involved while remaining structurally comparable through invariant ontological coordinates. Universality arises from coordinate organization across difference, not from the unification of metaphysical content.
The same architectural logic also establishes a boundary concerning the scope of ontology itself. A concept may be excluded from the four-register architecture because it is too specifically tied to one tradition, because its scope extends beyond the ontological domain, or because it combines ontological and trans-ontological dimensions that cannot be represented by a single register. In such cases, leaving the concept outside the architecture is an analytical determination of its scope, not a rejection of the concept. MPO can therefore identify the ontological relations expressed through a concept while determining that the concept as a whole belongs to a broader metaphysical or trans-ontological framework. Such a determination preserves the concept’s significance while preventing the universal ontology from absorbing dimensions that exceed its own architectural competence. The boundary is consequently methodological: the architecture specifies what can be organized as universal ontological relations, while particular metaphysical traditions remain responsible for the fuller interpretation of concepts whose significance extends beyond that domain.
This distinction was especially important in determining what could pass from the comparative analysis of metaphysical systems into the architecture of MPO. Relations encountered in Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysics, for example, could contribute to the identification of architectural requirements without transferring the complete cosmological, psychological, or soteriological configuration through which Sri Aurobindo interpreted them. An architectural requirement must be sufficiently general to organize heterogeneous systems while remaining identifiable across different interpretations. It therefore concerns the relation itself at the level established through comparative analysis, not the complete metaphysical account in which that relation occurs. The architecture retains the identified relation while allowing its broader interpretation to remain associated with the systems in which it appears and with other systems in which corresponding relations may be identified through analysis. This establishes the transition from structural functions to architectural organization.
A significant parallel to this methodological orientation can be found in Sri Aurobindo’s own treatment of divergent metaphysical descriptions. In a discussion of the relation between Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, and Dvaita, he observes that in one experience “All is One” and Śaṅkara is true, while other experiences provide a justification for Viśiṣṭādvaita and even Dvaita (Purani 1982, 149). He consequently treats such differences as related to distinct modes or levels of experience rather than as grounds for reducing all philosophical descriptions to a single formulation. He also emphasizes that the mind “cuts, differentiates, analyses, represents,” and therefore cannot by itself determine that reality must conform exclusively to one conceptual description. Elsewhere, discussing the relation between different planes, he explicitly allows that an explanation may be valid within one plane while ceasing to have meaning for a consciousness that has passed beyond it (Sri Aurobindo 2012, 42, 145). This position is closely compatible with the methodological orientation of MPO. A Universal Meta-System does not establish a competing metaphysical doctrine with substantive priorities of its own, nor does it require universal acceptance of a single metaphysical proposition as the condition of ontological validity. It establishes an architecture within which different relations can become identifiable, comparable, and locatable according to their structural and ontological status. The relevant criterion can therefore concern the organization, scope, and architectural localization of a model: which relations it organizes, which domain it addresses, which ontological or trans-ontological status its claims presuppose, and at what coordinate or level its conclusions operate. A metaphysical formulation can consequently remain fully meaningful within its own system without becoming a universally binding proposition of the meta-system. In this sense, the plurality of metaphysical descriptions does not undermine universality; it becomes intelligible within an architecture capable of distinguishing the relations, levels, and domains to which those descriptions belong.
4.2. From Ontological Relations to the Four-Register Architecture
The identified ontological relations and structural functions provide the basis for the differentiation of MPO’s four registers: Meta-Potentiality, Formative Causality, Manifestation, and Meta-Actualization (Shapoval 2026b). These registers emerged through the combination of logical ontological inquiry, comparative analysis across heterogeneous models, identification of recurring relations, differentiation of levels and functions, and reconstruction of the resulting relations into a coherent architecture. The architecture therefore represents an organization of relations identified across multiple explanatory frameworks. At this stage, the movement is from the plurality of particular metaphysical configurations toward a common ontological architecture: relations encountered in different systems are compared, differentiated, and organized according to their ontological roles, thereby revealing invariant architectural requirements.
The first architectural requirement concerns potentiality itself. Across different metaphysical systems, the analysis encounters conceptions of an unmanifest or undetermined condition from which determinate manifestation becomes possible. Sāṃkhya provides a particularly explicit formulation of this relation in its distinction between Avyakta and Vyakta. As established above, Avyakta designates the unmanifest condition of Prakṛti, identified with Mūla-Prakṛti or Pradhāna, while Vyakta denotes its manifest and differentiated forms. The distinction therefore provides a historically explicit formulation of an ontological relation between a condition in which determinate forms are not yet manifest and a condition in which they have become determinate (Larson 1979, Kārikā 3, 10–11). What becomes significant for the Universal Meta-System is the ontological status of this relation: potentiality requires a distinct architectural position because it concerns a condition prior to determinate manifestation and cannot be reduced either to manifested existence or to the formative determination through which manifestation becomes organized. The relation consequently requires its own architectural coordinate, designated in MPO as Meta-Potentiality (R1). Indian metaphysical and cosmological systems provide some of the most explicit and extensively developed formulations of this threshold of unmanifest and undetermined potentiality, but the underlying relation is not confined to them. Analogous or structurally comparable thresholds can be identified across a wider civilizational field of philosophical, cosmological, and scientific models, including scientific cosmologies that encounter limiting conditions such as singularities. The comparative presence of such thresholds establishes potentiality as a general architectural requirement: a Universal Meta-System must be capable of representing descriptions that posit a condition prior to determinate manifestation without reducing that condition to either formed existence or the processes through which formation occurs.
The second architectural requirement concerns the relation between potentiality and determinate formation. If potentiality designates a condition in which determinate forms are not yet manifest, a universal ontology must also account for the processes through which determinations are retained, organized, and carried toward manifestation. Potentiality alone does not explain how a particular manifestation becomes conditioned by antecedent states. There must be an ontological relation through which what precedes manifestation can contribute to the determination of what subsequently appears. This relation constitutes the problem of formative causality.
Sāṃkhya provides an important historical formulation of this relation through Satkāryavāda, according to which the effect is already present in its cause in a latent or undeveloped condition (Larson 1979, Kārikā 9). As established above, this principle provides continuity between antecedent causal conditions and manifested form: the effect does not arise as an entirely new determination from nothing, but emerges through the transformation of what already exists in a latent condition. Related principles appear in other Indian metaphysical and religious formulations through concepts such as karma, saṃskāra, vāsanā, and bīja, which in different contexts describe the persistence of formative consequences, dispositions, tendencies, or latent conditions across subsequent states of manifestation. Their comparative significance lies in the recurring ontological relation they express: what has occurred or been established within a prior state can remain operative as a determining condition of subsequent manifestation. The relation extends beyond immediate efficient causation toward a form of formative continuity in which prior determinations are retained and carried forward. Sri Aurobindo develops related questions within a broader metaphysical account of involution, evolution, karma, consciousness, and manifestation. His treatment of evolutionary development connects present manifestation with conditions already involved within it, while his treatment of karma preserves continuity between action and subsequent consequences. Within his wider metaphysical system, these relations participate in a much larger conception of the persistence and transformation of consciousness and formative tendencies across manifestation (Sri Aurobindo 2005, 856–858, 866–868; Sri Aurobindo 2012).
For the present reconstruction, their significance lies in the way they make visible a general ontological requirement: manifestation is conditioned by determinations that precede the manifested form and continue to operate through the process by which that form becomes actualized. This requirement cannot be identified simply with potentiality itself. Meta-Para-Ontology therefore differentiates the next ontological register as Formative Causality (R2). R1 concerns the condition of what may become determinate; R2 concerns the formative continuity through which determinations are organized and carried toward determinate manifestation. The distinction is therefore architectural: potentiality provides the ontological condition of possibility, while Formative Causality accounts for the continuity and organization through which that possibility acquires determinate direction.
The third architectural requirement concerns manifestation itself. Once potentiality and formative continuity have been distinguished, a universal ontology must account for the determinate forms in which those conditions become manifest. Sāṃkhya provides an explicit historical formulation of this relation through Vyakta and the differentiated order of the tattvas, while Sri Aurobindo develops manifestation within a broader account of the progressive differentiation of existence, consciousness, and Nature (Larson 1979, Kārikā 3, 10–11, 22; Sri Aurobindo 2005, 122, 856–858, 866–868). Across these formulations, the underlying relation concerns the transition from formative determination to determinate existence. This relation is designated in MPO as Manifestation (R3), the ontological register of formed existence within which differentiation and actualization occur. Within R3, the functions of Recall, Differentiation, and Actualization (R, D, A) describe the principal modes through which manifested existence retains continuity, establishes determinate distinctions, and realizes new forms within Time–Space–Evolution.
The fourth architectural requirement concerns the reflexive actualization of manifested existence. Within scientific approaches to the evolutionary development of life, the human being represents a particularly developed form of reflexive consciousness, capable of turning consciousness upon its own conditions of existence and making the ontological status of manifestation itself an explicit object of inquiry. This capacity marks an important evolutionary boundary at which reflexivity becomes sufficiently explicit to raise the question of the distinction between manifested existence and the consciousness that witnesses it. R4 therefore designates reflexivity reaching its own limits, making possible the recognition of the distinction between manifested existence and the consciousness that witnesses it. Sāṃkhya provides a historical formulation of this distinction through Puruṣa as conscious witness distinct from the processes of Prakṛti, while Sri Aurobindo develops the relation between consciousness, manifestation, and evolutionary transformation toward increasingly explicit forms of consciousness (Larson 1979, Kārikā 19–22; Sri Aurobindo 2005, 856–858, 866–868). In MPO, this limiting condition is designated as Meta-Actualization (R4). R4 is the final ontological register and represents the present limit of ontological articulation within manifested existence. Sri Aurobindo’s conception of human evolution toward the supramental being can be understood in relation to this same boundary: his evolutionary vision extends the possibility of manifestation beyond the presently established human condition, whereas MPO identifies the ontological limit itself without determining what may lie beyond it (Sri Aurobindo 2005, 874–876). R4 therefore concerns the reflexive recognition of the ontological condition of manifestation, including the recognition of Puruṣa, while remaining distinct from any claim that Pure Consciousness itself can be represented as an ontological content or register.
Beyond R4, MPO identifies the Trans-Ontological Horizon. This horizon does not constitute a fifth register or an additional ontological domain. It marks the boundary at which ontological conceptualization reaches its fundamental limit: Pure Consciousness, Puruṣa, or analogous ultimate principles may be approached through metaphysical, philosophical, or contemplative formulations, but their ultimate status cannot be adequately determined through the same ontological coordinates by which manifested existence is organized. MPO therefore deliberately does not construct an ontology of what lies beyond the ontological domain, while not denying religious and contemplative paths that lead beyond the limits of conceptual knowledge. A more determinate ontological description would require a level of conceptualization that exceeds the architecture’s own conditions of ontological determination. The Trans-Ontological Horizon consequently marks an intentional limit of the system: MPO remains ontologically explicit up to R4 while leaving what exceeds ontological determination outside its descriptive architecture.
5. Reorganization of Relations within the Meta-Para-Ontology Architecture
The preceding sections described how ontological relations were identified within integrative metaphysical systems, decomposed into structural functions, reconstructed as invariant structural operations, and localized within the architecture of Meta-Para-Ontology. The present section examines the consequences of this process for the organization of relations among inherited elements. In this broader sense, formalization refers to the process through which relations that were historically embedded within particular metaphysical configurations become explicitly differentiable and representable within a common architecture. Within the terminology of Polymetaphysical Cartography, this process is specified more precisely through Functional Reconstruction and Cartographic Localization: Functional Reconstruction establishes the invariant structural operation performed by a concept within its native explanatory framework, while Cartographic Localization positions that reconstructed operation within the MPO topology. The source concept therefore remains intelligible within its native explanatory framework, while the structural operation reconstructed from it becomes available for comparison and localization within MPO. The resulting organization does not replace the original metaphysical configuration; it establishes a further architectural level at which the relations expressed through different systems can be differentiated, compared, and coordinated.
5.1. Formal Differentiation
One of the principal effects of formalization is to make explicit distinctions that may remain integrated within a broader metaphysical configuration. Several distinctions are particularly important for the architecture of Meta-Para-Ontology. Potentiality and the Absolute, for example, can be distinguished as different ontological questions: Meta-Potentiality designates an ontological condition within the four-register architecture, while questions concerning ultimate being, transcendence, or the Absolute may extend beyond that architecture. Formative Causality and Manifestation likewise become distinct ontological positions, allowing the relation between formative determination and formed existence to be represented explicitly. Within this differentiation, formative retention and Recall also acquire distinct structural functions. Formative Causality concerns memory, information, experience, and accumulated determination as conditions participating in the formation of manifestation, whereas Recall concerns the reactivation of already formed organization within manifested continuity. Their relation is therefore preserved while their architectural functions are differentiated. Manifestation and Meta-Actualization are similarly distinguished: R3 concerns formed existence, while R4 concerns the reflexive recognition of the ontological condition of manifestation at its limiting boundary. Formalization consequently makes it possible to represent as distinct relations that may remain integrated within broader metaphysical conceptions without collapsing them into a single undifferentiated ontological category.
A second group of distinctions concerns the status of consciousness and reflexivity. Consciousness is not identified with an emergent product of increasing complexity within Manifestation. The evolutionary development of manifested forms can therefore be represented independently of the ontological status assigned to consciousness within a particular metaphysical system. Recognition of Puruṣa is likewise distinguished from the production of consciousness: recognition concerns a transformation in the relation of awareness to manifestation, while consciousness itself is not thereby produced. Puruṣa can consequently retain its trans-ontological status while its recognition is represented as an ontological transformation at the reflexive limit of manifestation. Finally, ontological relations and metaphysical interpretations become distinguishable. A structural relation can be incorporated into the architecture without making the particular metaphysical interpretation through which a tradition expresses that relation universally binding. These distinctions allow relations identified within historical systems to enter a common ontology while leaving the broader metaphysical configurations through which they were originally interpreted intact.
In the terminology of Polymetaphysical Cartography, this differentiation is grounded in the distinction between Functional Reconstruction and Cartographic Localization. Functional Reconstruction identifies the structural operation performed by a concept within its native explanatory framework, while Cartographic Localization determines its position within the established ontological topology. Formal differentiation therefore describes the broader architectural consequence of these operations: a relation that originally operated within a wider metaphysical conception can become an independently identifiable structural function; a distinction that remained implicit within the organization of a system can become an explicit ontological relation; and a concept whose historical meaning integrates several determinations can be analytically differentiated according to the different functions it performs. The historical meaning of the source concept is not thereby eliminated. What changes is the level at which its constituent relations can be represented and related. Formalization thus establishes a distinction between the differentiated ontological relation and the wider metaphysical system through which that relation was originally interpreted.
5.2. Reorganization of Relations
Formalization does not merely transfer concepts from one metaphysical system into another vocabulary. It changes the organization of relations among the functions, levels, conditions, ontological commitments, and metaphysical interpretations identified within the inherited material. In an integrative metaphysical system, these dimensions may be inseparable within the configuration through which a concept acquires its explanatory meaning. Their formal differentiation makes it possible to represent them as distinct dimensions and to examine the relations among them independently. A function can be distinguished from the level at which it operates; a level from the conditions that make its operation possible; and an ontological relation from the metaphysical interpretation through which it was originally expressed. The resulting reorganization is therefore architectural: elements that were previously related according to the internal organization of a particular metaphysical system can be related according to a different set of ontological distinctions within Meta-Para-Ontology. This reorganization explains why MPO cannot simply be identified with Sāṃkhya or Sri Aurobindo’s philosophical system despite its substantial intellectual continuity with both. The continuity concerns the ontological questions and relations that contributed to the formation of MPO, while the organization of those relations within MPO results from their decomposition, differentiation, and reconstruction, together with their comparison across a wider range of philosophical systems, disciplines, and traditions. A relation that formed part of an integrated metaphysical configuration can acquire a different architectural status when separated from the particular network of commitments through which it was originally interpreted. Formalization therefore changes the relations among inherited elements themselves. It does not merely assign familiar concepts to new coordinates; it reorganizes the conditions under which those elements can be distinguished, related, and compared.
This also explains how formalization makes heterogeneous metaphysical systems structurally comparable without requiring their conceptual convergence. Different traditions may express related functions through different concepts, connect them to different metaphysical commitments, or situate them at different explanatory levels. Once the relevant functions and relations have been differentiated through Functional Reconstruction and localized within the ontological topology, these differences can be represented without forcing the systems into a common substantive description. The resulting commonality lies in the organization of the relations, while the metaphysical interpretations remain associated with their respective systems, and heterogeneous systems can be compared while preserving the differences that constitute their historical and metaphysical identity.
Epistemically, the differentiation of historically embedded relations makes previously integrated or implicit distinctions explicit and renders them available for systematic comparison. Architecturally, Functional Reconstruction and Cartographic Localization make it possible to separate and reconnect functions, levels, conditions, and ontological commitments according to their reconstructed structural roles. The resulting ontology preserves identifiable genealogical relations to its sources while possessing an organization that cannot be reduced to any one of them. The reorganization of relations within MPO therefore provides the architectural condition through which inherited metaphysical material can participate in a universal ontology while remaining distinct from the historical systems through which those relations were originally articulated.
Conclusion: From Integrative Metaphysics to Open Ontology
The central methodological problem is to identify fundamental ontological relations within integrative metaphysical systems without importing all of their tradition-specific metaphysical commitments. The integrative character of these systems made it necessary to distinguish the ontological relations expressed through their concepts from the broader metaphysical configurations in which those relations acquired their historical meaning. The formation of Meta-Para-Ontology proceeded through a movement from integrative metaphysical configurations to ontological decomposition, identification of structural functions, differentiation of relations, reconstruction, and the formation of an open universal ontology. Through this process, ontological relations and structural functions were distinguished from the broader metaphysical commitments through which they were originally embedded, architectural requirements were separated from tradition-specific interpretations, and the resulting relations were reconstructed within a differentiated ontology capable of remaining open to alternative metaphysical interpretations.
The resulting architecture preserves genealogical continuity without architectural identity. Sāṃkhya and Sri Aurobindo contribute important ontological problems, distinctions, and conceptual resources to the formation of MPO, but their complete metaphysical systems do not become the architecture of MPO. The reorganization of inherited material changes the relations, levels, and architectural status through which these elements can be represented, allowing relations historically embedded within particular systems to become components of a more general ontology. Universal ontological construction can therefore proceed without selecting a single metaphysical system and extending its principles across all domains. It can instead proceed through the identification of ontological relations within historically situated systems, the analytical differentiation of those relations from tradition-specific interpretations, and their reconstruction within an architecture capable of accommodating further configurations. The result is an ontology whose genealogy remains identifiable without making any particular historical metaphysics universally binding.
Universality in this sense is inseparable from openness. An ontology becomes capable of incorporating further metaphysical and ontological material when its architectural commitments are distinguished from interpretations that belong to particular historical systems. Openness is therefore not a deficiency of an unfinished ontology; it is partly a consequence of the differentiation through which the architecture was constructed. The formation of MPO can consequently be understood as a movement from integrative metaphysical configurations toward a formally differentiated and deliberately open ontology. Its genealogy remains visible in the metaphysical systems from which its problems and distinctions emerged, while its architecture is organized at a level that allows those inheritances to be related, compared, and further reconstructed without making any one of them universally binding.
Meta-Para-Ontology is therefore articulated as a Universal Meta-System and as an instrument of transdisciplinary analysis. It establishes a meta-paradigmatic architecture in which ontological relations developed within different metaphysical systems, disciplines, and paradigms can be identified, differentiated, related, and reconstructed within a common universal framework. This changes the orientation of universal inquiry: instead of extending the explanatory scope of a particular paradigm toward an ever broader account of reality, universality becomes a matter of meta-paradigmatic construction—the construction of an architecture capable of organizing relations across paradigmatic, disciplinary, and metaphysical difference. In this form, Meta-Para-Ontology provides a universal ontological framework whose openness is itself a condition of its transdisciplinary scope.
Bibliography:
Larson, Gerald James. 1979. Classical Sāṃkhya: An Interpretation of Its History and Meaning. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Purani, A. B. 1982. Evening Talks with Sri Aurobindo. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.
Shapoval, Oleksandr. 2026a. “Meta-Para-Ontology as a Universal Meta-System: Criteria for a Meta-Level Theory of Everything and Transdisciplinary Analysis.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22943509.
Shapoval, Oleksandr. 2026b. “Meta-Para-Ontology: The Architecture of Reality Across Four Ontological Registers.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18524550.
Sri Aurobindo. 1997. Essays on the Gita. CWSA, vol. 19. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.
Sri Aurobindo. 2005. The Life Divine. CWSA, vols. 21–22. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.
Sri Aurobindo. 2012. Letters on Yoga I. CWSA, vol. 28. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.