Posts by Gregory Jackson

Sandra Murphy33 said:There’s no need to call out His name or invoke Him at all.😉
The logic is straightforward: As long as He exists and we are relying on Him, we remain children. We remain weak.
Psychologically speaking, this is just a classic case of displacing our own authority and power onto something external.

If I worship a god, I am essentially admitting that I am separate from Him. I'm acknowledging that He is something I am not, and I am something He is not. It implies we are two distinct entities rather than one. By doing that, I strip Him of the title of totality; if I have to address Him, then He isn't "All That Is," because I exist outside of Him.

It is more accurate to say that God expresses His creation through me—that He is me—rather than suggesting we are divided.
It is more truthful to accept that I am God, and therefore it is my responsibility as a living being to learn the laws of existence. This is much more grounded than pretending I am some isolated entity just so God can maintain the facade of being omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal—some elusive force on the "other side" that I, as part of this decaying material world, am forever excluded from.

A God who creates a world and then stands outside of it, occasionally intervening just to ensure that His creation pays Him homage, would be a cosmic-scale ego maniac. And a world built on that premise is doomed from the very beginning.

Man, you're totally right, we really are kind of children and pretty helpless in a spiritual sense. If you look at what spiritual evolution actually means and what the whole point of life is, then yeah, that's us. Honestly, most people aren't even kids—they're more like infants. Personally, I feel like I'm still in spiritual diapers, so the walk to preschool is going to be a long one, and the journey past that is probably even longer.

I don't quite get why you're saying we shouldn't call God by His name or how we should address Him according to you? Is it more than just a language thing? Like, some other deeper issue? I can't quite wrap my head around the problem.

Sandra Murphy33 said:There’s no need to call out His name or invoke Him at all.😉
The logic is straightforward: As long as He exists and we are relying on Him, we remain children. We remain weak.
Psychologically speaking, this is just a classic case of displacing our own authority and power onto something external.

If I worship a god, I am essentially admitting that I am separate from Him. I'm acknowledging that He is something I am not, and I am something He is not. It implies we are two distinct entities rather than one. By doing that, I strip Him of the title of totality; if I have to address Him, then He isn't "All That Is," because I exist outside of Him.

It is more accurate to say that God expresses His creation through me—that He is me—rather than suggesting we are divided.
It is more truthful to accept that I am God, and therefore it is my responsibility as a living being to learn the laws of existence. This is much more grounded than pretending I am some isolated entity just so God can maintain the facade of being omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal—some elusive force on the "other side" that I, as part of this decaying material world, am forever excluded from.

A God who creates a world and then stands outside of it, occasionally intervening just to ensure that His creation pays Him homage, would be a cosmic-scale ego maniac. And a world built on that premise is doomed from the very beginning.

You aren't taking anything away from Him by worshipping Him. I mean, I think you might be overthinking the intellectual side of this a little bit.

In a qualitative way, we *are* God, but since we aren't conscious of it, it doesn't really mean much to us. We get all sorts of help along the way (everyone has their angels, or guides in the astral plane, or a little ball of light attached to their aura, stuff like that), but we still have to walk the path individually. It's like a Divine game—what they call "Lila" in the East—and we're just playing it.

Until we actually achieve that union with God, and until we truly live that experience, we stay stuck in this world of separation and duality—meaning, we just *feel* separate. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to fix that. I can know intellectually that I am one with God, but that's just an empty sentence if I'm not actually living it.

St. Paul said, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me." That's something any person can reach, and once you do, you finally get that experience you were talking about.

A Christian life really means being transformed to the point where we start living out the Gospel more and more in this world, and transformation is really just uniting with God and letting go of everything that goes against Him.

Sandra Murphy33 said:There’s no need to call out His name or invoke Him at all.😉
The logic is straightforward: As long as He exists and we are relying on Him, we remain children. We remain weak.
Psychologically speaking, this is just a classic case of displacing our own authority and power onto something external.

If I worship a god, I am essentially admitting that I am separate from Him. I'm acknowledging that He is something I am not, and I am something He is not. It implies we are two distinct entities rather than one. By doing that, I strip Him of the title of totality; if I have to address Him, then He isn't "All That Is," because I exist outside of Him.

It is more accurate to say that God expresses His creation through me—that He is me—rather than suggesting we are divided.
It is more truthful to accept that I am God, and therefore it is my responsibility as a living being to learn the laws of existence. This is much more grounded than pretending I am some isolated entity just so God can maintain the facade of being omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal—some elusive force on the "other side" that I, as part of this decaying material world, am forever excluded from.

A God who creates a world and then stands outside of it, occasionally intervening just to ensure that His creation pays Him homage, would be a cosmic-scale ego maniac. And a world built on that premise is doomed from the very beginning.

But hey, since the world is still spinning around after billions of years, I suppose that means God isn't actually wired that way, maybe.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Every time you bring up God, you default to masculine pronouns.
By doing that, you aren't just claiming that the intelligence, love, kindness, wisdom, and beauty that constitutes All That Is is a "being"—you're also implying that this being possesses gendered, or at least energetic, polarities. Are you suggesting that God is defined? That He is this way rather than that? 🤔

That simply cannot be the Absolute.

You need to realize you’re worshipping a golden calf.
Or more accurately, you're worshipping Vol. 😉

I mean, I guess it's really just about the hopeless limitations of human language, you know? And honestly, it's probably just our own inability to truly grasp the actual nature and attributes of Being. We could call it "The Absolute," or whatever, because we have to call it something somehow, right? I don't think there's any weird gendered conspiracy going on here.
The closest we ever get to understanding Him/Her is through those great spiritual teachers or people with real insight. From that perspective, we know enough—like, an encyclopedic level of knowledge—to give us what we need, considering how much we're capable of grasping about a Being that is so far beyond anything we actually know.

So, hey, feel free not to worship God, or whatever choice you want to make.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Why is God depicted in the masculine gender...?

I mean, I guess a linguist might be able to give you the technical breakdown... but if you look at the deeper stuff, God definitely has a feminine aspect, even though, you know, God doesn't actually have a gender, just like we don't really have one in a spiritual sense. It’s almost like when we’re planning out our next life, we end up picking a specific body with a certain gender.
I think I read somewhere once—maybe it was in an old philosophy book?—that we usually lean toward one gender more than the other, like maybe a 75:25% split, but then as we grow and evolve spiritually, we start moving toward a more balanced ratio.

For some reason, it seems like the Messiah or the Avatar is always born as a man, and it always happens over in Asia. Meher Baba touched on this idea, though he didn't really dive into all the nitty-gritty details.

Paul Ross2 said:I’m liking this. I can’t help but draw a parallel here to the Umbilicus Teluris mentioned in Umberto Eco's *Foucault's Pendulum*. Telluric forces—the navel of the world and all that.
Or perhaps even Wilhelm Reich. For some inexplicable reason, nobody seems particularly interested in mentioning him. His theory of Orgone.

I mean, Reich was honestly way ahead of his time, I guess. People sometimes point to him as a precursor to studying energy phenomena and stuff.
I just haven't gotten around to reading that book by Eco yet... I suppose I'm just not really in the mood for long novels lately.

coastalfalcon61 said:From where I'm standing, I guess paths lead to the spirit rather than to God.
I feel like there's a massive difference there; the spirit is this abstract thing that you can't really define and doesn't necessarily demand faith, whereas God is a very human concept—something defined as almighty or good or a creator—and requires belief just to exist 😉

I think Steiner contributed more to your personal growth in this life because you actually studied him and took his ideas to heart, whereas you didn't do that with religious leaders. It makes sense, I guess. Whatever you feel helps you grow, you should probably just go for it. I didn't find my way to Jesus or Buddha right away either.

For me, I started out with Jesus; I was baptized and went through life as a Catholic for a while. Then, eventually, I moved toward spirituality without the religious framework.

There are much simpler religions a person could follow. Take unnamed, for instance—the core teaching is basically just good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. I think a person progresses a lot faster that way than they would through whatever meditations or astral projections they might try.
As Meher Baba used to say:
"No amount of prayer or meditation can do what helping others can do".

I don't really think you need a religion to live like that. Having good thoughts, words, and actions seems to be the fundamental bedrock of spirituality, not necessarily for moral reasons, but perhaps just because of how "spiritual physics" works, if you want to put it that way.
By studying Steiner and Leadbeater, along with some insights that followed later on, I came to understand why that specific approach to "goodness" is so necessary and vital. Before that, I was mostly involved in a sort of "cold" spirituality that gave me some results, but I guess it ultimately led to a plateau.

But honestly, I think God is the spirit; there isn't really a distinction there. God isn't human, that's just how we project things onto Him. For most people, God is an abstraction too, which makes Him pretty hard to wrap your head around. And God doesn't need religion, or faith, or churches to exist; He was just always here, before people and after we're gone.

coastalfalcon61 said:From where I'm standing, I guess paths lead to the spirit rather than to God.
I feel like there's a massive difference there; the spirit is this abstract thing that you can't really define and doesn't necessarily demand faith, whereas God is a very human concept—something defined as almighty or good or a creator—and requires belief just to exist 😉

I think Steiner contributed more to your personal growth in this life because you actually studied him and took his ideas to heart, whereas you didn't do that with religious leaders. It makes sense, I guess. Whatever you feel helps you grow, you should probably just go for it. I didn't find my way to Jesus or Buddha right away either.

For me, I started out with Jesus; I was baptized and went through life as a Catholic for a while. Then, eventually, I moved toward spirituality without the religious framework.

There are much simpler religions a person could follow. Take unnamed, for instance—the core teaching is basically just good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. I think a person progresses a lot faster that way than they would through whatever meditations or astral projections they might try.
As Meher Baba used to say:
"No amount of prayer or meditation can do what helping others can do".

I don't really think you need a religion to live like that. Having good thoughts, words, and actions seems to be the fundamental bedrock of spirituality, not necessarily for moral reasons, but perhaps just because of how "spiritual physics" works, if you want to put it that way.
By studying Steiner and Leadbeater, along with some insights that followed later on, I came to understand why that specific approach to "goodness" is so necessary and vital. Before that, I was mostly involved in a sort of "cold" spirituality that gave me some results, but I guess it ultimately led to a plateau.

I guess I did the same thing. I really love spirituality that isn't tied to religion; I'm just not interested in all the dogmas and rituals. But, I do make a pretty clear distinction between the church and actual teachings. I feel like the core of all religions is basically the same as the core of spirituality itself. It’s just that when someone joins a specific religion, they easily fall into this trap where they get weighed down by a bunch of extra stuff that ends up overshadowing that central truth. That's more the work of the church or some organization, so you really have to separate God from the church. Still, I totally respect anyone who grows spiritually through religion, because you can actually progress quite well that way, provided you have enough love in your heart.

coastalfalcon61 said:From where I'm standing, I guess paths lead to the spirit rather than to God.
I feel like there's a massive difference there; the spirit is this abstract thing that you can't really define and doesn't necessarily demand faith, whereas God is a very human concept—something defined as almighty or good or a creator—and requires belief just to exist 😉

I think Steiner contributed more to your personal growth in this life because you actually studied him and took his ideas to heart, whereas you didn't do that with religious leaders. It makes sense, I guess. Whatever you feel helps you grow, you should probably just go for it. I didn't find my way to Jesus or Buddha right away either.

For me, I started out with Jesus; I was baptized and went through life as a Catholic for a while. Then, eventually, I moved toward spirituality without the religious framework.

There are much simpler religions a person could follow. Take unnamed, for instance—the core teaching is basically just good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. I think a person progresses a lot faster that way than they would through whatever meditations or astral projections they might try.
As Meher Baba used to say:
"No amount of prayer or meditation can do what helping others can do".

I don't really think you need a religion to live like that. Having good thoughts, words, and actions seems to be the fundamental bedrock of spirituality, not necessarily for moral reasons, but perhaps just because of how "spiritual physics" works, if you want to put it that way.
By studying Steiner and Leadbeater, along with some insights that followed later on, I came to understand why that specific approach to "goodness" is so necessary and vital. Before that, I was mostly involved in a sort of "cold" spirituality that gave me some results, but I guess it ultimately led to a plateau.

I'm a fan of Leadbeater, and I think I'll spend a little more time looking into Steiner. There's probably some really useful stuff in there, I imagine.
You definitely don't need religion to have good thoughts, words, and deeds, though every religion seems to have them at its core. I'd say we should respect religious teachings, but everyone can find their own unique path. Actually, I think everyone's path is different; there aren't two identical paths or two identical lives across hundreds of incarnations.

I've found a relatively easy way to support my spiritual efforts, which is visiting places of power—these high-energy spots where you can get some developmental and health benefits. It's funny, because hardly anyone realizes that each of us has what you might call a luminous body or a light sphere (it's hard to find the right name, I guess), this super-intelligent energy structure we're born with that helps us grow, and as we grow, we help it grow too. It's like this developmental symbiosis we aren't even aware of. These places of power contain fully developed spheres that humans don't even need anymore, which hold all the knowledge of the cosmos. Now, their job is to help our spheres, which are still developing, and usually, they need to follow a person's life through several hundred incarnations to reach full maturity. These places of power can jumpstart that development by one whole step, something that would otherwise take a massive amount of effort, prayer, meditation, or other techniques. A sphere that's close to being fully developed will naturally bring its person closer to enlightenment, too. So, that's where this non-religious spirituality comes into play.

But I mean, at that point, it isn't even really Theosophy anymore, I guess.

coastalfalcon61 said:Even if we assume there really is an angel involved, I guess I don't see why that would necessarily prove the existence of God. For all we know, it could be something else entirely that isn't "omnipotent," you know? Maybe there are certain phenomena that trigger other occurrences which we just perceive as angels. I suppose I'd rather leave those possibilities open instead of jumping to conclusions when we're still essentially in the dark.

One should definitely seek out information and experiences wherever possible—I try to look at multiple sources myself—but I feel it's a bit dismissive to cast aside religions entirely or to put Jesus and Steiner on the exact same level, with all due respect. But hey, I guess we all see things differently.

In a way, I agree, because it seems to me that some religions do contain certain fragments of actual, useful spiritual knowledge or practices, and I think a true spiritual seeker ought to study every available source until they can eventually rely on their own direct insight.
But, in my opinion, that specific spiritual element within religion is almost negligible compared to all the unnecessary baggage that leads people astray. Looking at it practically, two thousand years of Christian religion has brought about far too much suffering, violence, and regression, while providing very little actual spiritual progress for humanity. Christianity has sort of created an absurdity out of itself. It feels like it would be much simpler to reach that small, useful portion of spirituality through other teachings that aren't religious—teachings that don't demand dogma and belief, and where the rest of the material is just as deep and useful. To truly receive knowledge, I think you first have to strip away prejudices—those ingrained beliefs and conditioning—which basically make up the entire foundation of religion.

To be specific, Steiner, with his "science," has contributed incomparably more to my own spiritual growth than Jesus has, even though a two-thousand-year legend hasn't been built around his enlightenment.
As I see it, the value of Jesus only exists if someone believes in him, because only then does he represent an ideal worth striving toward. There is very little actual knowledge left behind regarding Jesus after all these years, whereas Steiner left behind a massive body of work filled with concrete information.
Still, I think even Steiner should eventually be set aside, because even he can lead one down a wrong path through the unnecessary accumulation of facts, mysticism, and mythology.

Maybe, maybe... honestly, that chapter was closed for me a long time ago. It was still wide open back when I was just a teenager, though. Everyone picks their own path, and hey, I respect that. All paths eventually lead to God, 🙂 even atheists find Him in the end. And angels too, 😉

coastalfalcon61 said:Even if we assume there really is an angel involved, I guess I don't see why that would necessarily prove the existence of God. For all we know, it could be something else entirely that isn't "omnipotent," you know? Maybe there are certain phenomena that trigger other occurrences which we just perceive as angels. I suppose I'd rather leave those possibilities open instead of jumping to conclusions when we're still essentially in the dark.

One should definitely seek out information and experiences wherever possible—I try to look at multiple sources myself—but I feel it's a bit dismissive to cast aside religions entirely or to put Jesus and Steiner on the exact same level, with all due respect. But hey, I guess we all see things differently.

In a way, I agree, because it seems to me that some religions do contain certain fragments of actual, useful spiritual knowledge or practices, and I think a true spiritual seeker ought to study every available source until they can eventually rely on their own direct insight.
But, in my opinion, that specific spiritual element within religion is almost negligible compared to all the unnecessary baggage that leads people astray. Looking at it practically, two thousand years of Christian religion has brought about far too much suffering, violence, and regression, while providing very little actual spiritual progress for humanity. Christianity has sort of created an absurdity out of itself. It feels like it would be much simpler to reach that small, useful portion of spirituality through other teachings that aren't religious—teachings that don't demand dogma and belief, and where the rest of the material is just as deep and useful. To truly receive knowledge, I think you first have to strip away prejudices—those ingrained beliefs and conditioning—which basically make up the entire foundation of religion.

To be specific, Steiner, with his "science," has contributed incomparably more to my own spiritual growth than Jesus has, even though a two-thousand-year legend hasn't been built around his enlightenment.
As I see it, the value of Jesus only exists if someone believes in him, because only then does he represent an ideal worth striving toward. There is very little actual knowledge left behind regarding Jesus after all these years, whereas Steiner left behind a massive body of work filled with concrete information.
Still, I think even Steiner should eventually be set aside, because even he can lead one down a wrong path through the unnecessary accumulation of facts, mysticism, and mythology.

Well, Steiner helped your growth in this life more because you actually studied him and took his ideas to heart, whereas you didn't do that with religious leaders. That makes sense. Use whatever you feel helps you grow. I didn't just stumble straight into Jesus and Buddha either.

There are simpler ways of living to follow. For example, something like unnamed—the main guide is just: good thoughts, good words, good deeds. A person progresses way faster that way than through, I don't know, some random meditations or astral projections.

Like Meher Baba used to say:
"No amount of prayer or meditation can do what helping others can do".

Just keep going, maybe one day you'll discover the pure words of the avatars. As for me, I'll keep praying to the king of the castle, not the servants.🙂

coastalfalcon61 I guess I should probably start by saying that... well, what Drew Moore5 was getting at earlier really stuck with me, and I’ve been sitting here just mulling it over for a while now, maybe even a little too long if I'm being honest! It’s funny how those things work, isn't it? You think you've moved past a certain idea, but then someone says something just right, and suddenly you're back in that headspace, just wandering through all these thoughts and tangents. Anyway, I was thinking about what they said, and I kind of feel like there might be more to it than we initially realized, though I could be totally off base here, which happens more often than I'd like to admit! It’s just one of those things where you start pulling on a single thread and suddenly the whole sweater starts unraveling in your hands, you know? But yeah, I'm definitely leaning towards that perspective, even if it's a bit messy.
I guess I’d probably suggest starting off with this one, if that makes any sense, but yeah, maybe just dive right in with this. I mean, I was just sitting here thinking about how crazy things get sometimes, you know? It’s like we all go through these phases where everything feels totally disconnected, and then suddenly—bam—everything clicks into place, though I guess that's more of a theory than a fact, right? Anyway, I was reading some stuff earlier, and it really got me wondering if we're all just looking at the same mountain from different sides, or if maybe we're actually on completely different planets altogether. It's a bit much to wrap my head around, honestly, but there's something kind of beautiful about the confusion, I suppose. Like, if we knew everything already, life would be pretty boring, wouldn't it? We'd just be walking around like robots, which sounds kind of exhausting if you ask me. So, yeah, I guess I'm just rambling now, but I really feel like there's a deeper rhythm to all this chaos, even if it feels totally random most of the time. Just a thought!So, I think I’ll just post two of them right here, and then underneath that, I'll add whatever it was that Dragan suggested earlier... I guess.

So, there’s still a massive mountain of Steiner's lectures and books out there floating around, and honestly, I think I’ve got something like fifty of them sitting on my shelf right now, though I can't really say I'd go out of my way to recommend them to anyone, you know? There is definitely some pretty interesting stuff in there if you're into that kind of thing, but for me personally, it just feels like a bunch of unnecessary mental clutter that I don't really need to carry around.
Whatever, I mean, if you're actually interested in reading them, I can totally just post them up here whenever.

Let me take a look at those posts first. Thanks.

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess I’d probably suggest starting off with this one. I guess I might be overthinking this, but I really feel like we should take a moment to consider how much weight we’re putting on these specific arguments. It seems to me that maybe we aren't looking at the full picture when it comes to how these policies actually affect people on the ground, though I could be wrong about that. If you look at what coastalfalcon61 was saying earlier, it feels like there’s a certain logic there, even if it isn't entirely perfect, and I suppose we have to account for that nuance if we want to have a real conversation. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but perhaps we should be a bit more careful about jumping to conclusions before we've weighed all the different sides of the issue.I'll post two entries, and then right underneath those, I'll include what Derek recommended.

There’s still a whole mountain of Steiner's lectures and books out there; I think I have about fifty of them sitting around somewhere, though I can't really say I'd recommend them to anyone. There is definitely some interesting material in there if you dig through it, but for me, I guess it all just feels like an unnecessary burden.
It doesn't really matter, I suppose; if you actually want to read them, I can just post them here.

I feel like I have to say that Steiner doesn't really grasp who I’m actually reaching out to, and honestly, I don't think anyone else quite gets it either. I suppose it's just how the universe operates—if I direct my prayers toward God and that prayer is considered valid or "accepted," God isn't necessarily going to be the one to step in and react immediately. There is this whole spiritual hierarchy in place beneath Him, so it's more likely that a guardian angel or some other kind of energy or entity, something more suited to that specific request or need, will be the one to respond. So, I guess I can't say he's wrong regarding how the prayer actually gets answered, but the initial intention was sent to the right address from the start. Even though a person could choose to pray directly to a guardian angel, I think the first way is probably better because it seems to open up more possibilities for a response.

I’m not really saying that Steiner actually "knows" who you’re talking to, but I suppose it isn't entirely impossible, either. For instance, if there isn't a God like the one you're praying to, and if the way your mind processes prayer works just like anyone else's when they do the same thing, then maybe a person is essentially just talking to themselves and their own convictions.
I guess I personally don't quite wrap my head around the whole concept of prayer. If you’re truly looking to connect with some kind of higher spirit, maybe it would make more sense to focus on your own actions and let your deeds speak for themselves rather than relying on prayer. To me, prayer feels like it might work as a form of quiet contemplation, but I find it hard to believe it can actually serve as a direct line of communication to the divine.

I guess it feels like a lot of people who go around criticizing Christianity don't actually know what they’re even talking about. I mean, sure, you can criticize the Church, or the clergy, or even the Holy Scriptures—since they were written by imperfect human beings—and you can certainly take issue with certain practices or specific traditions, but that’s not really the point. At its core, Christianity is a teaching, a roadmap toward God, and a way to find the ultimate purpose of one's life. If someone can't see that essential truth, or if they fail to figure out how to orient their own life because they feel like the Church or the priests are getting in the way, then maybe they should just look inward and question their own spiritual maturity instead.

I wouldn't exactly say that everyone out there is criticizing things they don't truly understand. I used to be a Christian myself, but I moved past the phase of attacking the Church or the clergy a long time ago. To me, Christianity is really just the teachings of those specific people and that institution; it isn't some entity that exists entirely on its own. I suppose the only part of Christianity worth holding onto is the actual teaching of Jesus, which is where you might find some genuine spiritual components. Even so, I feel like those teachings still lack the depth and breadth required to justify the massive circus that grew out of them and continues to exist today, even if we assume Jesus became Christ.
Since we’re on the subject, I guess I honestly feel like studying someone like Steiner, or maybe even another spiritual teacher, holds more weight for me than trying to study Jesus, especially considering how much of a myth and legend people have built around his potential enlightenment or devotion.

The whole concept of prayer is actually pretty simple, I mean, you ask and you receive, right? Though, I guess it’s not quite as straightforward as I made it sound in my last post because there are definitely some conditions involved. Like, if you haven't reached a certain minimum spiritual level—which, you know, comes from your thoughts, your words, and the actual things you do that you're praying about—then you probably aren't going to get anything at all. And it makes me wonder, too, like, where would that angel Steiner talks about come from if God didn't exist?

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess I’d probably suggest starting off with this one. I guess I might be overthinking this, but I really feel like we should take a moment to consider how much weight we’re putting on these specific arguments. It seems to me that maybe we aren't looking at the full picture when it comes to how these policies actually affect people on the ground, though I could be wrong about that. If you look at what coastalfalcon61 was saying earlier, it feels like there’s a certain logic there, even if it isn't entirely perfect, and I suppose we have to account for that nuance if we want to have a real conversation. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but perhaps we should be a bit more careful about jumping to conclusions before we've weighed all the different sides of the issue.I'll post two entries, and then right underneath those, I'll include what Derek recommended.

There’s still a whole mountain of Steiner's lectures and books out there; I think I have about fifty of them sitting around somewhere, though I can't really say I'd recommend them to anyone. There is definitely some interesting material in there if you dig through it, but for me, I guess it all just feels like an unnecessary burden.
It doesn't really matter, I suppose; if you actually want to read them, I can just post them here.

I feel like I have to say that Steiner doesn't really grasp who I’m actually reaching out to, and honestly, I don't think anyone else quite gets it either. I suppose it's just how the universe operates—if I direct my prayers toward God and that prayer is considered valid or "accepted," God isn't necessarily going to be the one to step in and react immediately. There is this whole spiritual hierarchy in place beneath Him, so it's more likely that a guardian angel or some other kind of energy or entity, something more suited to that specific request or need, will be the one to respond. So, I guess I can't say he's wrong regarding how the prayer actually gets answered, but the initial intention was sent to the right address from the start. Even though a person could choose to pray directly to a guardian angel, I think the first way is probably better because it seems to open up more possibilities for a response.

I’m not really saying that Steiner actually "knows" who you’re talking to, but I suppose it isn't entirely impossible, either. For instance, if there isn't a God like the one you're praying to, and if the way your mind processes prayer works just like anyone else's when they do the same thing, then maybe a person is essentially just talking to themselves and their own convictions.
I guess I personally don't quite wrap my head around the whole concept of prayer. If you’re truly looking to connect with some kind of higher spirit, maybe it would make more sense to focus on your own actions and let your deeds speak for themselves rather than relying on prayer. To me, prayer feels like it might work as a form of quiet contemplation, but I find it hard to believe it can actually serve as a direct line of communication to the divine.

I guess it feels like a lot of people who go around criticizing Christianity don't actually know what they’re even talking about. I mean, sure, you can criticize the Church, or the clergy, or even the Holy Scriptures—since they were written by imperfect human beings—and you can certainly take issue with certain practices or specific traditions, but that’s not really the point. At its core, Christianity is a teaching, a roadmap toward God, and a way to find the ultimate purpose of one's life. If someone can't see that essential truth, or if they fail to figure out how to orient their own life because they feel like the Church or the priests are getting in the way, then maybe they should just look inward and question their own spiritual maturity instead.

I wouldn't exactly say that everyone out there is criticizing things they don't truly understand. I used to be a Christian myself, but I moved past the phase of attacking the Church or the clergy a long time ago. To me, Christianity is really just the teachings of those specific people and that institution; it isn't some entity that exists entirely on its own. I suppose the only part of Christianity worth holding onto is the actual teaching of Jesus, which is where you might find some genuine spiritual components. Even so, I feel like those teachings still lack the depth and breadth required to justify the massive circus that grew out of them and continues to exist today, even if we assume Jesus became Christ.
Since we’re on the subject, I guess I honestly feel like studying someone like Steiner, or maybe even another spiritual teacher, holds more weight for me than trying to study Jesus, especially considering how much of a myth and legend people have built around his potential enlightenment or devotion.

So, I guess people tend to jump on one specific religion and just tear it apart in general, right? And honestly, if you look closely at any faith out there, there’s always going to be some kind of dogma or weird ritual that feels like it could use a little critique, I suppose. But maybe the thing is, those rituals and rules aren't actually the core or the heartbeat of the whole thing, you know? Like, the real essence lies in the actual teachings—you know, the stuff taught by Jesus or Buddha—which eventually became the foundation for organized religions. It seems to me that over time, all these distortions happened, where the formal dogmas and the repetitive ceremonies started becoming way more important to the average person than the actual spiritual wisdom, mostly because most folks aren't really looking for deep spirituality anyway, I guess.

I mean, I have to respectfully disagree here, because I feel like religious truths exist on their own merit, you know? Like, they've been around since the dawn of time, existing long before any specific religion even started and continuing long after, just because they're absolute. So, like, love God and love your neighbor, right? Because that’s really the path to enlightenment and actually making something of your life. But then again, there’s always that eternal, nagging question of which parts of a religion are actual truth and which parts are just... well, lies.

I definitely think we should be looking for information and personal experiences wherever we can find them—I personally try to pull from all sorts of different sources—but I just don't think it's quite right to dismiss religions entirely, or to put someone like Jesus and Steiner on the exact same level, if you'll excuse my bluntness. But hey, I guess we all see things differently. And since this thread is about Theosophy, it's interesting to think about how *theosis* in Eastern Orthodox traditions refers to the soul joining with God. If you look at where the term "theosophy" itself comes from, it probably isn't that far off from that concept either...

Sandra Murphy33 said:I need to dig through my collection to find which specific book Steiner used to describe the transition between death and rebirth. I'll have to refresh my memory on his exact framework before I come back here to weigh in. 🙂

Oh, please do!

Sandra Murphy33 said:Actually, the phrase should have been "clinically precise."
I don't want anyone getting the impression that I consider Steiner (or anyone else) an "expert" on the 😁 otherworldly
in the way we define human expertise.
By the way, word choice matters; the terminology we select when communicating with others isn't trivial. Language needs to be a shared, universal foundation—not a situation where a word means one thing to me and something entirely different to you. If that happens, you aren't having a conversation; you're just delivering a monologue in a kingdom of pure subjectivity...

See, this notion of a "right address," along with the idea of a 😉 supreme overlord and a centralized Universe, is something I find fundamentally alien. It feels far too much like a patriarchy and everything associated with that structure for me to accept it.

That said, I’m not insisting that I’m right and that it couldn't possibly be otherwise.

I honestly feel like the universe is just one big, centralized system, you know? It’s just the way things are. If it wasn't organized like that, everything would probably just spiral into total chaos, especially when you start thinking about how massive and incredibly complicated the cosmos actually is. I mean, there are endless spiritual energies and these fixed energy centers everywhere, not to mention all the different spiritual beings floating around... it really makes you realize that our entire material world is actually tiny compared to the higher-vibration cosmos that exists above the physical plane. All these connections are so delicate and interconnected, too—it's pretty wild. Honestly, if anyone is actually interested in diving deep into cosmology, it's a super fascinating rabbit hole to go down. I think Ljubiša Stojanović actually tapped into a ton of this information and even wrote entire books about it, mostly just from his own deep meditation sessions, I guess.

So, I was just thinking about how some people find it hard to wrap their heads around the idea that a certain Being, you know, a Creator, might not be exactly what they personally imagine it to be. It’s like, if this Creator isn't the specific God from the Old Testament who rules through fear and all that heavy stuff, then people kind of lose it, I guess. But honestly, that's just nonsense, right? It feels totally absurd to me when someone talks all about reincarnation and angels and different energy levels or the astral plane and Devahans, but then turns around and acts like God doesn't even exist. Like, you can't really have one without the other, maybe? It just doesn't make sense to me.

So, I guess if you really strip everything back to the basics, it’s basically just God and the void, right? Like, there’s only God—this one singular being that exists as this massive, egg-shaped field of energy, which is honestly just this unfathomable explosion of consciousness, power, and pure intelligence. I mean, it's hard to even wrap your head around it, I guess. But then, at some point, this being decided to actually manifest itself, you know? It decided to bring other forms into existence, starting with these other intelligent energy forms that were basically handed certain functions and "rights" by the original source, and that process has just kept rolling along ever since. From what I understand, this whole act of creation happened within about two-thirds of that "egg," and that specific part of God is what we call the Creator. Meanwhile, the remaining third stayed in its original state, which is like this pure "Potential." So, when you think about it, everything that exists—every single thing ever created—is tucked away inside the being of God. We’re kind of like fish swimming through the water, wondering if the ocean even exists, which is such a wild thought, isn't it?

I mean, I totally get where people are coming from, like, all those religious practices and heavy-handed dogmas can really cloud the whole picture, right? It’s kind of like this massive barrier for people who haven't quite reached that next level yet, so they just can't seem to push past it. But I guess, maybe one day when their inner sensors finally sharpen up—you know, when they get better at actually telling what's vital from what's just noise—they'll be able to find something to love in every single religion, since, honestly, every one of them has these little pearls of wisdom tucked away inside. Anyway, at the end of the day, it seems like most enlightened folks actually find their way there by following the actual essence of a religion, rather than just going through the motions of rituals and rules, if you catch my drift.

Man, when I was just a kid, I was honestly such a pain in the neck because I just couldn't wrap my head around the whole idea of God, you know? I mean, I just couldn't see past all that heavy church stuff and those rigid old dogmas that everyone seemed so obsessed with back then. But, I guess, little by little, things are starting to click, and it feels like my eyes are finally opening up to everything.

So, here’s my two cents on "The Right Address"—whatever people want to think about it, I honestly believe prayers definitely work, but there are some catches, I guess. There's this big, overarching rule that seems to be at play: the answer you get from above is pretty much proportional to how much you've actually grown spiritually. Like, I mean, there’s a massive difference between when Gregory Jackson is praying versus when Jesus is doing the praying, right? It’s just not the same level. Sadly, it feels like a huge amount of requests just go unanswered, and maybe that's because someone hasn't quite done the inner work yet, or perhaps—and this is a big one—the prayer isn't actually noble, but is instead just wrapped up in some selfish, ego-driven desire. But, if you look at it, prayer always finds its way to the right destination; even back in the day, when ancient civilizations were praying to the sun, the moon, the stars, or some totem, they still got an answer... though, obviously, it wasn't coming directly from the sun itself, if you know what I mean.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Steiner describes it with almost clinical precision. He provides a stunningly detailed account of how a person (again) experiences their life within the etheric body before returning that body to the ether, and how the memories of those who have passed actually linger everywhere around us... then he covers how one continues through the astral plane, navigating desires, attractions, and repulsions, before finally reaching the mental realm... where only the "I" remains, stripped bare: the core of a person, their fundamental will.
Compared to Steiner, the other authors feel more like they're writing fiction.

Why call it "angelic literature"? I love B. Brennan; she’s brilliant when it comes to healing. She’s one of the few people you can find insights on Hari, the central star, and other obscure matters. Barbara sees energies, and she does it exceptionally well.

Try resonating with the East as well. Meher Baba, an avatar, speaks simply and clearly on a vast array of topics (including death, in part). The most vital thing to remember from Baba is that if we focus our thoughts on God at the moment of death, we go to God, and there are no more births on Earth.🙂 To be able to do that, however, we have to keep Him in our thoughts every single day.

Brennan suggests that we are God—that we are a part of Him. She doesn't carry that heavy religious undertone that Baba does; there isn't a cult of personality involved, which makes her more credible to me (personally, I am anti-religious and anti-follower 😎 ).

Her description of a surgery was particularly striking; she saw how everything was being handled by angels. She described it so vividly that it stuck with me. Add to that the testimony of Lorna Byrne, who has been socializing with angels since birth (they thought she was slow, she barely got into school, plus she has dyslexia), and the stories of these two wonderful women overlap perfectly. For me, the fact that they both refer to them as angels is a reality.😬
I have this habit—though I'm not sure if it's a serious practice or just my way of finding a laugh—where for any important task, I call upon the angels who specialize in or wish to work in that field to come help me. In fact, I delegate entire tasks to them, leaving it to those for whom that work is a "passion." I can't list enough examples where this has proven how much it helps. They do help. I don't know why, but it simply works.

In one of his critiques of Christianity, Steiner noted that when people pray to God, they are actually just addressing their guardian angel (or perhaps that was Martinus; I don't recall exactly).

So, I guess, does he have any specific book you'd recommend?

Sandra Murphy33 said:Steiner describes it with almost clinical precision. He provides a stunningly detailed account of how a person (again) experiences their life within the etheric body before returning that body to the ether, and how the memories of those who have passed actually linger everywhere around us... then he covers how one continues through the astral plane, navigating desires, attractions, and repulsions, before finally reaching the mental realm... where only the "I" remains, stripped bare: the core of a person, their fundamental will.
Compared to Steiner, the other authors feel more like they're writing fiction.

Why call it "angelic literature"? I love B. Brennan; she’s brilliant when it comes to healing. She’s one of the few people you can find insights on Hari, the central star, and other obscure matters. Barbara sees energies, and she does it exceptionally well.

Try resonating with the East as well. Meher Baba, an avatar, speaks simply and clearly on a vast array of topics (including death, in part). The most vital thing to remember from Baba is that if we focus our thoughts on God at the moment of death, we go to God, and there are no more births on Earth.🙂 To be able to do that, however, we have to keep Him in our thoughts every single day.

Brennan suggests that we are God—that we are a part of Him. She doesn't carry that heavy religious undertone that Baba does; there isn't a cult of personality involved, which makes her more credible to me (personally, I am anti-religious and anti-follower 😎 ).

Her description of a surgery was particularly striking; she saw how everything was being handled by angels. She described it so vividly that it stuck with me. Add to that the testimony of Lorna Byrne, who has been socializing with angels since birth (they thought she was slow, she barely got into school, plus she has dyslexia), and the stories of these two wonderful women overlap perfectly. For me, the fact that they both refer to them as angels is a reality.😬
I have this habit—though I'm not sure if it's a serious practice or just my way of finding a laugh—where for any important task, I call upon the angels who specialize in or wish to work in that field to come help me. In fact, I delegate entire tasks to them, leaving it to those for whom that work is a "passion." I can't list enough examples where this has proven how much it helps. They do help. I don't know why, but it simply works.

In one of his critiques of Christianity, Steiner noted that when people pray to God, they are actually just addressing their guardian angel (or perhaps that was Martinus; I don't recall exactly).

Well, I mean, the idea of us and God within us is definitely a religious element 🙂 Worshipping God is one of the spiritual paths—probably the most important and "widest" one, if you ask me. I suppose you're emphasizing a kind of spirituality that has existed forever, totally independent of organized religion. Like what Meher Baba used to say—"God doesn't belong to any religion; all religions belong to God."

Sandra Murphy33 said:Steiner describes it with almost clinical precision. He provides a stunningly detailed account of how a person (again) experiences their life within the etheric body before returning that body to the ether, and how the memories of those who have passed actually linger everywhere around us... then he covers how one continues through the astral plane, navigating desires, attractions, and repulsions, before finally reaching the mental realm... where only the "I" remains, stripped bare: the core of a person, their fundamental will.
Compared to Steiner, the other authors feel more like they're writing fiction.

Why call it "angelic literature"? I love B. Brennan; she’s brilliant when it comes to healing. She’s one of the few people you can find insights on Hari, the central star, and other obscure matters. Barbara sees energies, and she does it exceptionally well.

Try resonating with the East as well. Meher Baba, an avatar, speaks simply and clearly on a vast array of topics (including death, in part). The most vital thing to remember from Baba is that if we focus our thoughts on God at the moment of death, we go to God, and there are no more births on Earth.🙂 To be able to do that, however, we have to keep Him in our thoughts every single day.

Brennan suggests that we are God—that we are a part of Him. She doesn't carry that heavy religious undertone that Baba does; there isn't a cult of personality involved, which makes her more credible to me (personally, I am anti-religious and anti-follower 😎 ).

Her description of a surgery was particularly striking; she saw how everything was being handled by angels. She described it so vividly that it stuck with me. Add to that the testimony of Lorna Byrne, who has been socializing with angels since birth (they thought she was slow, she barely got into school, plus she has dyslexia), and the stories of these two wonderful women overlap perfectly. For me, the fact that they both refer to them as angels is a reality.😬
I have this habit—though I'm not sure if it's a serious practice or just my way of finding a laugh—where for any important task, I call upon the angels who specialize in or wish to work in that field to come help me. In fact, I delegate entire tasks to them, leaving it to those for whom that work is a "passion." I can't list enough examples where this has proven how much it helps. They do help. I don't know why, but it simply works.

In one of his critiques of Christianity, Steiner noted that when people pray to God, they are actually just addressing their guardian angel (or perhaps that was Martinus; I don't recall exactly).

Yeah, I really love those descriptions and images of hers too. You have to keep in mind that those are all spiritual energies (angels are just some of them) that react to requests for healing or even just to the intention of a healer, provided they're as spiritually developed as Barbara. I hope she's still doing okay; she must be getting up there in years. I actually stumbled upon her third major book recently, though I haven't quite gotten around to reading it yet.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Steiner describes it with almost clinical precision. He provides a stunningly detailed account of how a person (again) experiences their life within the etheric body before returning that body to the ether, and how the memories of those who have passed actually linger everywhere around us... then he covers how one continues through the astral plane, navigating desires, attractions, and repulsions, before finally reaching the mental realm... where only the "I" remains, stripped bare: the core of a person, their fundamental will.
Compared to Steiner, the other authors feel more like they're writing fiction.

Why call it "angelic literature"? I love B. Brennan; she’s brilliant when it comes to healing. She’s one of the few people you can find insights on Hari, the central star, and other obscure matters. Barbara sees energies, and she does it exceptionally well.

Try resonating with the East as well. Meher Baba, an avatar, speaks simply and clearly on a vast array of topics (including death, in part). The most vital thing to remember from Baba is that if we focus our thoughts on God at the moment of death, we go to God, and there are no more births on Earth.🙂 To be able to do that, however, we have to keep Him in our thoughts every single day.

Brennan suggests that we are God—that we are a part of Him. She doesn't carry that heavy religious undertone that Baba does; there isn't a cult of personality involved, which makes her more credible to me (personally, I am anti-religious and anti-follower 😎 ).

Her description of a surgery was particularly striking; she saw how everything was being handled by angels. She described it so vividly that it stuck with me. Add to that the testimony of Lorna Byrne, who has been socializing with angels since birth (they thought she was slow, she barely got into school, plus she has dyslexia), and the stories of these two wonderful women overlap perfectly. For me, the fact that they both refer to them as angels is a reality.😬
I have this habit—though I'm not sure if it's a serious practice or just my way of finding a laugh—where for any important task, I call upon the angels who specialize in or wish to work in that field to come help me. In fact, I delegate entire tasks to them, leaving it to those for whom that work is a "passion." I can't list enough examples where this has proven how much it helps. They do help. I don't know why, but it simply works.

In one of his critiques of Christianity, Steiner noted that when people pray to God, they are actually just addressing their guardian angel (or perhaps that was Martinus; I don't recall exactly).

Oh wow, thanks so much for sharing that! I totally get that you should probably ask for some support or guidance before diving into anything major, though I’ve only really tried doing that a couple of times myself. I think I might try to 🙂 a bit more often now. You're basically asking them to take over the heavy lifting for you, haha...
Anyway, from what I gather, spiritual energies won't even budge a finger unless a person is already actively working toward a goal; that's when the assistance finally flows in. It's not like they just do everything for us while we sit around; we have to put in our part, at least the small bits that are within our control. Just a little side thought there, but you probably know better than anyone how much they've helped you.

I feel like I should mention that Steiner doesn't really grasp who I'm actually talking to, or really anyone else for that matter. It's just how the universe operates—if I reach out to God and the prayer is sincere, God isn't necessarily going to be the one to jump in immediately because there's this entire spiritual hierarchy beneath Him. Instead, a guardian angel or some other energy or entity that's a better fit for that specific request or need will respond. So, I guess he isn't wrong about how the response happens, but the request definitely went to the right address first. Even though a person could pray directly to a guardian angel, that first method seems a bit better and opens up way more possibilities for getting an answer.

And honestly, I feel like a lot of people who criticize Christianity don't even realize what they're actually criticizing. Sure, you can critique the church, the priests, certain practices, or even the holy books (since they were written by imperfect humans), but at its core, Christianity is a teaching, a roadmap toward God, and a way to find your life's purpose. If someone misses that essence and can't figure out how to direct their own life because they feel the church or the clergy is blocking their view, then they're really just critiquing their own spiritual level.

Sandra Murphy33 said:On an intellectual and informational level, the best explanations I've found came from Tibetan teachings (The Book of Life and Death) and Steiner’s lectures regarding the interval between death and rebirth.👍

Later, I "supplemented" that knowledge with certain pieces of so-called angelic literature😁—specifically the works of Barbara B. Brennan. Her perspective felt credible to me precisely because she approaches things as a physicist. I’ve never been able to resonate with those gurus from the East; I’ve always gravitated toward Western thinkers. It makes me wonder if I was simply "learning" through a different channel back then.🙄

I think I’m gonna go hunt down some Steiner, though honestly, I’ve only really skimmed a little bit of his stuff online so far. There’s also that Sylvia Braun lady with her book *Life After Life* and a few others that are pretty solid, plus Michael Newton too. And man, Daskalos is just such a totally realized, enlightened mystic—his Truth Seekers group is honestly top-tier. Oh, and Leadbiter as well! I feel like all of them add their own little flavor to the whole mystery of what actually happens between lives. I mean, even that *Emerald* stuff by those two Frenchmen who are like astral travelers... yeah, all that. Anyway, I just really want to dive into Steiner and see how he pieces his version of the puzzle together.

Sandra Murphy33 said:On an intellectual and informational level, the best explanations I've found came from Tibetan teachings (The Book of Life and Death) and Steiner’s lectures regarding the interval between death and rebirth.👍

Later, I "supplemented" that knowledge with certain pieces of so-called angelic literature😁—specifically the works of Barbara B. Brennan. Her perspective felt credible to me precisely because she approaches things as a physicist. I’ve never been able to resonate with those gurus from the East; I’ve always gravitated toward Western thinkers. It makes me wonder if I was simply "learning" through a different channel back then.🙄

So, I was just thinking about why people even use that whole "angelic literature" label, you know? Like, what does that even mean really? Personally, I’m such a huge fan of Barbara B. Brennan—she is honestly just incredible when it comes to all that healing stuff. It feels like she’s the only one who really dives deep into things like Hari, that central star, and those more obscure details you just don't see everywhere else. She has this way of seeing energies that is just... wow, it's so incredibly good. I guess it's just her unique gift or something.

Maybe you could try tapping into that connection with the East, you know? I mean, Meher Baba—he was such an incredible avatar—he had this way of talking about all sorts of heavy topics, like life and death, in a way that just felt so simple and direct. It’s kind of wild when you think about it. But honestly, if there's one big thing I think we should all hold onto from what he taught, it's this: if we can just focus our thoughts on God at the exact moment of death, then we go straight to Him, and I guess that means there's no more being reborn here on Earth. Just total peace, maybe. 🙂 I mean, if we actually want to pull that off, I guess we’d pretty much have to keep Him on our minds every single day, you know? Like, it's not just a once-in-a-while thing, maybe we really need to be thinking about Him constantly if we're serious.

Paul Ross2 said:Out-of-body experience. An out-of-body experience.
My apologies if that was intended as a rhetorical question and I managed to misinterpret the intent.

Thanks, I always just thought of that as an astral projection thing. I'd love to hear some stories though—like, what did you actually see or where did you end up going?

darkraven said:There’s definitely some truth to that. Sometimes I have these... weird 'dreams.' They aren't lucid, or even semi-lucid; I never once stopped to wonder if I was actually dreaming while it was happening. Instead, I’d just suddenly become aware that I was experiencing something that felt phenomenologically identical to an out-of-body experience, where I could move around and think completely freely. But I wasn't trying to trigger them, and I definitely wasn't attempting any kind of intentional "separation" from my body.

I have this one vague memory of briefly waking up during one of these episodes and feeling this unintentional 'surge' upward, but honestly, I have no clue how to recreate it, and it's nothing like my usual way of inducing an OBE.

Can someone please refresh my memory—what exactly is an OBE and what's the best way to induce one?

Paul Rogers94 said:it hit me hard back when I thought nothing could impress me anymore

You need some prior knowledge—there’s probably some kind of glossary involved...

And you always have to know what's being discussed. If you're reading something like Jacob Boheme's Morning Glow in the East, you won't understand a thing unless you study the spirit of the language used at that time. For instance, if you don't immediately link the bitterness, acidity, and sweetness he constantly mentions back to the gunas (tamas, rajas, and sattva), then the whole reading experience is completely pointless...

Dammit, you have to have some points of reference to compare things against; you have to be able to recognize them within a broader context and find where they actually fit.

It took me about ten years to truly grasp a little booklet that was written in just three days—to the point where I can say I "see through it"—but it was worth it. 🙂

Just pick up the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying; I'm sure you won't have any trouble with it.

Speaking of Tibet... 🙂 Honestly, after I managed to survive my first 24 hours over there while chugging four liters of water and basically climbing mountains without any oxygen, I think I can probably handle this book too, I guess.

Charles Wood73 said:It seems to me we’re talking about the exact same state of being; the distinction is really just a matter of semantics. Personally, I tend to lean toward the term 'lucid dreaming' simply because it avoids those heavy-handed paranormal connotations, plus the induction techniques for lucid dreams are much more clearly documented and plentiful compared to the various methods suggested for astral travel.

As for the Theosophists, I suspect they truly did perceive and interact with those layers, those entities, and those elementals... but I also suspect those things don't exist in the same concrete, objective sense that our material reality does.

I mean, sure, but there's such a super thin line between a lucid dream and astral travel because, if you really think about it, a lucid dream *is* basically astral travel. And it's not even just about the lucid part. We’re actually heading out into the astral realm every single night, though we do it totally unconsciously, and since our brains aren't really trained to handle jumping through dimensions, we just end up dragging back this messy jumble of fragments—if we remember anything at all. Meanwhile, while we're out there, these spiritual energy forces (some might call them Archangels of the elements, I guess) are busy working on repairing our physical bodies.

Charles Wood73 said:It seems to me we’re talking about the exact same state of being; the distinction is really just a matter of semantics. Personally, I tend to lean toward the term 'lucid dreaming' simply because it avoids those heavy-handed paranormal connotations, plus the induction techniques for lucid dreams are much more clearly documented and plentiful compared to the various methods suggested for astral travel.

As for the Theosophists, I suspect they truly did perceive and interact with those layers, those entities, and those elementals... but I also suspect those things don't exist in the same concrete, objective sense that our material reality does.

Well, they do exist within a non-material reality—sort of a world with a slightly higher vibration than this physical one. This material world we're in is kind of like the tiniest little nesting doll in a massive set, wrapped in an astral layer, then a mental layer, and then who knows what else beyond that. We already have all these different bodies surrounding our physical one right now, and I guess you could say each body corresponds to the next realm we'll inhabit after this one. That seems pretty straightforward to me, anyway.

Paul Rogers94 said:Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Sogyal Rinpoche

I mean, honestly, it feels like every other Buddhist teacher you come across goes by the name Rinpoche, I guess.👍

Thanks, I’ll definitely give that a look. I’m really hoping Rinpoche goes a bit deeper than just the immediate post-mortem stuff, and honestly, I’m crossing my fingers that the language isn't too heavily tied to strict Buddhist terminology—otherwise, I might be stuck hovering over a dictionary the whole time.

I'm mostly curious about the actual roadmap of progress after we leave this material life, you know? Like, the whole process of moving through various astral planes after death while working through the exhaustion of desires, eventually hitting that second death, reaching Devachan, and all that good stuff... basically, what life and development actually look like in those spaces between incarnations.

Man, I was just thinking about this earlier, but honestly? It’s such a scruffy little thing. Like, seriously, just a total ragamuffin of a pup. I guess you could say it’s looking a bit rough around the edges, if you know what I mean, maybe even a little bit bedraggled. Just one of those messy, unkempt little creatures that somehow still manages to be kind of endearing in its own weird way, I suppose. kaže:
I mean, those worlds he’s always going on about... they don't actually exist, at least not any the way he describes them, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying things like Devahan or astral planes aren't real concepts out there somewhere, but his descriptions just don't have anything to do with the reality of it all. I actually have that little pamphlet, Devahan Enterprises, sitting around—honestly, I wasn't even interested in it when I was a kid, but I decided to flip through it again last night just to see if it hit differently now that I'm older, but yeah, it was pretty much nothing. For starters, it doesn't really connect to Devahan Enterprises at all; it doesn't offer a single coherent idea about what any of this is, and once you finish reading it, you're probably just left feeling more confused than when you started. It feels like West only heard about the Devahan level from Leadbeater, and then he just took it at face value without having any sort of context or anything else to compare it to, which is kind of wild. The only thing in that whole booklet that actually relates to Devahan is the title itself, and then everyone starts debating whether he actually understood what Devahan meant or if he was just throwing around terms like astral planes to sound smart. But honestly, I don't think Leadbeater knew anything about any of it; he was just spinning his own theories about Devahan and these various planes and whatnot. I've even poked through some of his other writings, and they're all pretty much useless and nonsensical, too. At best, you might walk away with a totally wrong impression because, I suppose, if you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you can just ramble about whatever pops into your head, right? Everything he wrote is just kind of empty and doesn't explain a single thing. I was rereading Devahan Enterprises again last night, and if anyone were to ask me, "Hey, so you read it, what does it actually say about the Devahan level?" I'd probably just stare at them blankly. 🤔🤔🤔 I mean, I guess you couldn't really try to summarize that for anyone, because honestly, there's just nothing there to work with, you know? It’s like trying to explain a blank sheet of paper or something, which probably wouldn't be much of a conversation starter either, I suppose.
I honestly feel like my two previous posts on this thread actually managed to capture more of the essence of Devahan Enterprises—like, you know, that specific aftertaste, the actual flavor profile, even the scent of it all—than what you could ever hope to find in the entirety of Leadbeater's whole body of work, I guess.

I mean, I’ve been sitting here thinking about this, and I’m honestly just so curious, you know? Like, how can anyone even begin to claim that Leadbeater has "mastered Devahan," or maybe just partially mastered those astral planes, when the whole thing is kind of a loop? It’s like, if someone is basing their entire understanding of what Devahan actually is—or even what those astral realms are even about—strictly on what they’ve heard from Leadbeater himself, then doesn't that basically mean they don't actually know anything at all? It feels like they might just be completely and utterly confused on those specific points, I guess.

I mean, I guess I just don't really see any actual contribution from Leadbeater to anything at all, if that makes sense? Like, I've been sitting here thinking about it, and honestly, maybe I'm just missing something, but I truly can't wrap my head around what they're actually bringing to the table.So, look, this guy clearly doesn't have the slightest clue about the astral plane, or how those layers actually work, or even what Devahan is really all about, but he’s managed to stir up such a massive mess that now we’ve got people out here making all these wild claims based on his total nonsense. It's like, they're trying to argue about what he supposedly controlled or didn't control, which is just silly because, honestly, he didn't rule over anything at all, I guess. But hey, if anyone thinks I'm totally off base here, feel free to try and change my mind, I suppose!

So, what are we even supposed to do if we haven't had any of those astral experiences yet, and we don't have any Devahan training either? I mean, I guess you’re probably out there hunting for some kind of super reliable source to guide you, even if that means digging through something like Leadbeater's work. Honestly, there’s actually a lot of good stuff tucked away in his writings, and I really think there's something useful for everyone, regardless of where they are on their path. Like, maybe you can find a specific instruction from a master or just a more advanced student that fits your current vibe, whether you're looking for deep spiritual insights or just something practical that works for someone managing a household or something along those lines. It's all in there somewhere, I suppose.
I mean, Daskalos is honestly incredible and he really speaks from the heart based on his own lived experiences, which I love, but you know, I guess there just isn't any place where you can find his deep dives or concentrated writings specifically about the astral plane or that noetic realm—what he calls the Devahan level. It’s more like you just pick up little bits and pieces of insight here and there while he’s busy explaining other topics, so you have to kind of piece the puzzle together yourself, I suppose.
I mean, honestly, I guess most people don't actually need to get bogged down in all the gritty, nitty-gritty details of the theory itself, you know? It’s more like... maybe they just need that little nudge of perspective regarding what happens after we leave this physical plane, which I suppose could have all sorts of huge implications—hopefully positive ones, anyway—on how we choose to view the world we're living in right now.

Man, I actually had this one experience back when I was a college student that felt totally surreal, like I was caught in some kind of lucid dream or maybe even an astral projection session—I was playing around with this specific technique at the time, you know?—but honestly, by the time I woke up the next morning, I wasn't even sure if I’d just had a wild dream or what actually happened. I never really managed to pull it off again, though I guess I didn't exactly go out of my way to try either, since there are plenty of other ways to level up your practice anyway. But yeah, I always love hearing about what you guys are going through and catching those firsthand accounts from people who actually do this stuff.

Just to jump in and stick up for Leadbeater for a second, I mean, the guy basically said multiple times that trying to put those worlds into words is an almost impossible task, and that any description is probably going to feel pretty hollow or just totally incomplete. So, I guess it’s kind of easy to nitpick if someone really wants to be critical, right? It might actually be more helpful if we could get some recommendations for someone else who maybe handled that kind of world-building a bit better.

Charles Wood73 said:Cheers. There’s a passage in the Gospel... let me paraphrase because I can't be bothered to go hunting for the exact wording... you cast that certain Devil out of a house (or a person), you clean up all the mess he left behind... and then that Devil returns to a tidy, organized space, settles in, and tells you, "Alright, big shot, try kicking me out now."

Of course, we aren't talking about exorcisms or anything like that. It's more that once you discard the contents of the mind—the knowledge, the beliefs, the structures, the ego, the trivial nonsense—you achieve that peace, that insight, that realization... well, then you might get a day or two of enjoying that 'emptiness' before the trash starts piling up again. It settles back in, becomes stronger, more structured, more organized. And then it happens again. And again. And again. It's a bit like breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

So, when someone goes through this process multiple times—which is evident from the fact that they can speak about it in their own words (which, by the way, are much clearer and more transparent than mine)—they need something a little more potent to shock them and kick them out of the structure. If the mold won't do it, the trolls will; that's just how nature works.

Those are the Elementales, or what Jesus referred to as the mute and deaf spirits. We basically manufacture them with our thoughts, project them out into the world, and then they either latch onto someone else or, more often than not, they loop right back to us. Depending on what they were made of—since they mimic the nature of the thoughts that birthed them (whether that's good or bad, angelic or demonic)—they either help us out or they just make life miserable for us and everyone around us. Every time we fall back into the same old patterns, like obsessing over a specific fear, that same Elemental gets stronger because we're essentially feeding it new energy. And its feedback loop on us just gets more powerful. That's how habits and phobias and so much other stuff get baked in. Honestly, it's super hard to beat Elementales; you can't really destroy them, you can only de-energize them, and they tend to stick with us through life and maybe even into the astral plane. Daskalos used to say that our entire personality is basically just a collection of all our Elementales. If you have the gift of sight, you might see them as nasty or beautiful animals, weird creatures of every shape, or even tiny versions of people (if we're thinking about ourselves or someone else), though the Theosophists described them as various neutral shapes in all sorts of colors. I think there's actually a little book about Elementales by Leadbiter and Besant, and Leadbiter also talked about the elemental field being this essence shaped by thought that serves as the "source" for these elemental forms.

If someone learns how to actually steer their own thoughts, they can consciously manage the Elementales and even create positive ones for a noble purpose, probably through visualization and focus.

Jesus cast the bad Elementales out of Mary Magdalene, and she was transformed instantly. But then again, Jesus is Jesus, whereas for the rest of us, it feels like this long, exhausting struggle with ourselves.

Drew Moore5 said:That isn't a judgment, though. It's just a fact.

By making this post, you're essentially passing judgment yourself. You're picking a side.

I guess I'm not really judging, though... I mean, you're the one who wrote those things about Leadbiter yourself. Maybe just watch out so people don't start judging you back.