Posts by Drew Moore5

Paul Ross2 said:The word "notorious" is quite versatile, isn't it? It can mean something obvious or self-evident, but it also carries that heavy weight of being well-known for something sinister.
I assume Leadbeater was viewed through that more infamous lens. It’s the same way people spoke about Aleister Crowley; they labeled him "the worst man in the world."

You hear similar things regarding Dietrich Eckart or even Landulf II of Capua.

To be honest, having been in that position myself, I can tell you one thing: while it might look like an unenviable spot to be in, it’s actually quite comfortable.

Don't get me wrong, I am no devotee of Leadbeater. I view his books with the same level of scrutiny as I do the works of Milovan Milovanović Slavinsky—who is also considered notorious in certain American circles. But in today’s hyper-materialistic landscape—full of shopping malls, TED speakers, and generations obsessed with nothing but the bottom line—Leadbeater is actually somewhat refreshing. Steiner, especially.

As for Blavatsky... she’s like Däniken to me. You read her because she was there, witnessing it firsthand. You simply bypass the interpretations or approach them with a healthy dose of skepticism.
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/his/...blavatsky.html

Most people's opinions on these matters are largely shaped by fear.
Fear is essentially the backdrop of our entire existence. Someone who believes they've made a purely intellectual decision after some deep thought almost always fails to realize that fear is driving the bus underneath. Intellect is just a nice suit we put on fear.

That's all well and good, but what people say isn't necessarily the point—though that doesn't automatically mean they're wrong. The real question is whether someone possesses a genuine thirst for truth. That isn't just a cliché; it's a thirst "stronger than life," one that isn't intellectual but comes straight from the heart. It isn't about *what* you read, but *how* you read it. And it always matters what kind of spiritual or soulful inclinations a person brought into this life. We don't all start from the same baseline, and karma remains a mystery.

Paul Ross2 said:Exactly. Jazz serves as a perfect example of moving away from classical constraints. In classical theory, when building chord progressions, you generally stick to tones within a specific scale. Jazz doesn't play by those rules; a simple four-chord progression might pull tones from as many as four different scales simultaneously.

Jazz also utilizes harmonies that don't attempt to minimize tension, which is why it can sound so dissonant.

Regarding the physics of beats and interference, there is a decent read on the subject here:
http://www.precisionstrobe.com/apps/...mp/temper.html

Anyway, I’d like to pivot back to Theosophy for a moment.
Why do I hold any affection for Theosophists? It isn't necessarily because of their doctrines—which can be quite cacophonous and bear a striking resemblance to today's New Age movements (it's a bit of a mixed bag, really).

However, a few things about them are genuinely compelling:
1. During H. P. Blavatsky's era, Theosophists were essentially adventurers. They sought out cultures that have since been swallowed by a materialistic world (for instance, one could argue the most aggressive drivers of modern corporate exploitation are certain groups in India). Look at places like Nepal or the Vajra cults, or even the Dugpa mentioned by Blavatsky (the Buddhist sects like Dag Dugpa or Drukpa). They documented these expeditions in their writings, providing us with a historical record we can still study today.

2. They possessed some incredible scientific outliers. Take, for example, Crookes' spiral periodic system, which alternative scientists today use to try and explain that mysterious, degenerate matter they call ORMEs. Sir William Crookes was a Theosophist—or at least closely linked to the movement—and his system was embraced by Theosophists through their occult chemistry.
https://theosophy.wiki/en/William_Crookes

3. Regardless of how one views the man himself, Leadbeater's work describes multiple planes of existence—concepts that later inspired Anthroposophists like Rudolf Steiner.

That sounds like the words of a man in the desert searching for a single drop of water. And honestly, I get it.
But my only interest is finding the truth straight from the source.

I'm only responding to you because of Steiner. To say Leadbeater inspired Steiner is a massive stretch. In modern Theosophical circles—even here in the States—there’s this prevailing idea that Steiner "betrayed" Blavatsky, which is a blatant lie. Now that you've reminded me, I realized I called Leadbeater "notorious," a term I likely picked up from Steiner himself, who once referred to Leadbeater in that exact way.

Paul Ross2 said:Essentially, almost every instrument we use to make music functions harmonically—meaning it's fixed at two points. It isn't really about the granular details of what generates the sound, but rather how those ends are anchored and whether it acts as a harmonic oscillator. The very first "instruments" were likely bows used by hunters to take down prey. A bowstring is tensioned and secured at both ends; it is a harmonic oscillator, and it produces sound.

If we were veering into more esoteric territory, I might bring up those ancient Arab historians who claimed the Egyptians possessed a sonic device—a mechanism featuring a set of cymbals atop a staff. The idea was that a priest could slide a piece of papyrus under a massive stone slab, strike the stone with this staff, and the entire weight would levitate off the ground. Apparently, it could be propelled forward up to 50 meters before finally settling back down.

We don't even need to go back that far; let's look beyond Antiquity.

When a tragedian spoke to a crowd in an amphitheater, they would start by striking the strings of an instrument—a lyre, I think, though the exact name escapes me—then follow up with a gesture or a movement, and only then would the speech begin. It was a trinity where every single part was vital. These are the fundamentals of a different era, because people used to experience music in a completely different way; it had the power to momentarily pull them out of physical reality. Nowadays, that's much harder to achieve amidst the cacophony of our materialistic civilization. But what is the essence of music? What is it supposed to provide us? That isn't a question for you, of course—just something I'm asking myself.

Paul Ross2 said:It all comes down to minimizing interference. There is actually a mathematical proof for this—a specific theorem, in fact—demonstrating that for harmonic instruments, our 12-tone scale is the most efficient arrangement possible.
I’m recalling this from a lecture I attended at the Juilliard School quite some time ago, so I am writing this purely from memory.
Essentially, any pleasant chord is one where the beats (that pulsating interference) are minimized relative to the timbre of the instrument (the specific harmonics that constitute its sound). Generally speaking, the deciding factor is whether the instrument is harmonic—meaning it is fixed at two points, whether we are talking about a vibrating string or a column of air.
This is precisely why bells or cymbals aren't tuned the same way as string or wind instruments. There is even a theorem suggesting that for any imaginary, non-harmonic instrument, there exists a specific tuning of the scale—a particular set of pitches—that would allow tones produced by that instrument to sound consonant.

And it works in reverse: if you invent an arbitrary scale and a set of intervals, you can theoretically find a sound source with a harmonic spectrum such that music played on that instrument in that specific scale will sound perfectly harmonious.

The truth is, we simply don't like those acoustic beats. We gravitate toward whatever minimizes them. The most aggressive interference comes from minor and major seconds. Mathematically, consonance and the minimization of beats occur when the frequencies—not just the fundamental tones, but all the overtones that make up a complex instrumental sound—exist in small integer ratios.

Interestingly, planets behave in much the same way; they follow second-order potentials, much like gravity does. The orbital periods of planets relate to one another through these same small integer ratios. Kepler, drawing inspiration from Antiquity, referred to this as the "harmony of the spheres." Even Matila Ghika mentions the harmony of sirens, treating them as planetary heralds of this celestial harmony.
Aleister Crowley sings:

There is no planet in the celestial vault that, like an angel, does not sing as it moves.
In an eternal choir alongside a young cherub.
But until our muddy robes cast off this decaying body,
We shall have no listening.

Ultimately, mathematics is the Logos. If we were to look at Leadbeater's work, mathematics might even sit above the Devahanski Plain. According to the Tetragrammaton, it resides just beneath the Akashic level (which itself isn't the Tetragrammaton), sitting at the highest Tetragrammatonic plane. It doesn't depend on the physical world; rather, the physical world depends on it.

Fair enough. I know a decent amount about music theory, so thanks for the post; it gives me plenty to chew on.
But duty calls, I have to get back to work.

That said, the rule about avoiding beats doesn't always apply. Take the overture to Parsifal, for example; later on, Wagner introduces those specific beats to signal the direct influence of the spiritual realm on the physical one. They don't sound repulsive to me; if anything, I find myself waiting for them with a bit of anticipation.

The real question is how musical instruments originated. Primitive instruments, like strings and winds, weren't born through trial and error or experimentation, but through inspiration. They emerged intuitively, rather than someone sitting down with math problems trying to brute-force a result. Then you have things like the piano, which is a purely human invention built upon the foundations of earlier instruments, much like the saxophone.

Paul Ross2 said:Actually, music *is* mathematics. And mathematics? It is esotericism. The ancient Pythagoreans revered the tetraktys as if it were God. Certain mathematical principles—take the construction of the dodecahedron, or even the pentagon containing the golden ratio—were regarded as the highest mysteries, the revelation of which was punishable by death.

The leading global minds who have studied music would concur. In fact, every harmonic relationship—specifically those methods used to minimize interference, which manifests as harmony or consonance—and the musical scales themselves, which are tuned based on whether an instrument is fixed at both ends or open (like a bell or a cymbal), are essentially mathematical constructs.

Consider our scale as an example. The just scale is formed by selecting any frequency and its double. This is akin to 2^0 and 2^1 (i.e., 1 and 2), which defines the octave. Thus, the octave is simply a range of tones where the higher tone possesses twice the frequency of the lower one.
Between these exponents of 0 and 1, you create twelve equal divisions (meaning from, say, C to C1, there are 12 distinct boundaries). These constitute all the tones, including chromatic and achromatic notes (12 tones separated by 11 intervals, such as the span from C to C1).

When looking at chords, or thirds, fifths, and fourths... one is essentially looking at the minimization of interference (interference being a physical concept in wave theory—I won't digress into an explanation unless someone specifically asks).

Therefore, music is arguably the art form most closely tethered to mathematics. It is also the only one that lacks a material medium; you have clay for sculpture, canvas for painting, building materials for architecture, or film for cinema (one could argue for magnetic tape, but music is performed in the moment, whereas recorded music is something else entirely).

That is very slippery ground. I don't harbor any illusions that I won't be banned by someone out of sheer whim or rage. I likely will be. But at least I try to endure as long as possible in this era of mass hysteria and collective psychosis. From a spiritual standpoint, I am not particularly concerned with the current situation. Rather, I am interested in the behavior of people who seem prone to "losing it," even when it's codified in "statutes." The crux of the matter is that people grant themselves the natural right to harass others with petty grievances, only to scream when someone finally pushes back physically. To me, violence is violence, regardless of the direction. In this specific instance, there were years of appeals for the West to stop doing what it is doing, but everyone turned a deaf ear. And now we see the result. Let the people suffer, I suppose.

As for matters of the heart, that is even more treacherous territory, so I avoid discussing it altogether.

Back in the days of Antiquity, leaking secrets was a capital offense. People were executed for it, plain and simple. It’s nothing out of the ordinary when you look at how strictly things used to be handled.

The dodecahedron serves as a symbol for the entire universe. You have one representing the spiritual realm and the other the physical world, with the two overlapping. There are solid, logical reasons why the dodecahedron specifically holds this position.

Yeah, that’s actually a fair question—specifically regarding why you're seeing twelve different boundaries between C and C1.
Ever wonder why we lean so heavily on the third when building chords? It’s not like fifths aren't important—they definitely provide that foundation—but our subjective musical perception seems hardwired to prioritize the third. To us, the third defines the flavor. A seventh, on the other hand, often just feels restless or unsettled.

You’re approaching this from a purely physical standpoint, but for me, it’s about how the sound resonates internally. No matter how much you analyze the way sound waves propagate through a room, the only thing that actually matters is that internal experience. It’s all about the perception. For instance, a perfect fifth feels right, but a seventh? That just sounds jarring.

Mathematics is an abstraction. But it’s a necessary one. Aside from the obvious connection to the Pythagoreans, there's that famous inscription at Plato's Academy—though, in that context, they were aiming for something entirely different. Think about it this way: when you're building a bridge, you start with a concept. You take that mental image and turn it into a blueprint. That’s where the math comes in. To move from a raw idea to something tangible, you have to step into the realm of mathematical abstraction to make the construction possible. Once the bridge is actually standing and people are driving across it, it becomes reality again. At that point, you can leave the math behind.

Mathematics provides the blueprint for describing our physical reality, but this physical world doesn't exist in a vacuum—it relies on a spiritual foundation. Mathematics is essentially the manifestation of that spiritual support; without that underlying essence, the physical realm wouldn't have a basis to exist in the first place.

Paul Ross2 said:Music is essentially mathematics. As a wise man once put it: "Music is the entertainment of a mind that counts without being aware that it is counting."

So, it doesn't strictly have to be a formal score.

And I'm done talking about Ukraine—if they're jumping down your throat, they're already tracking me on radar.

Music is way more than just mathematics. Math is abstraction and logic, whereas music is pure esotericism. Though, obviously, not all music falls into that category.

It can be a huge help for younger kids when they're learning math—if you introduce certain rhythms and stuff, it makes the concepts click much easier.

But music has many different faces. You have Bach and Wagner. Bach is great for clearing your head; if someone is struggling to think straight or maintain a consistent train of thought, some of his pieces are perfect for that. But Bach is like the Old Testament. One note follows the next in a way that there simply isn't any other option. That's the mathematical side. Mozart was similar; he’d get an inspiration and just 'pour' the score out.

But that kind of music hits the brain. A person's essence is in their heart, not just their head. For instance, Wagner hits you right in the heart.
To really appreciate any of this, though, you need what people call a "musical ear."

You could argue that mathematics is identical to the music that engages the intellect. But the music that touches the soul goes far beyond that.

Paul Ross2 said:It’s a sharp observation, though it leads us straight back to Leadbeater. In this day and age, justice isn't found on the side of truth; it resides with whoever can whip a crowd of emotionally volatile people into a frenzy. The masses. When the mob decides someone needs to be cast out, they simply do it. They can sell a narrative, or slap on whatever label they choose.

Nowadays, even mentioning Ukraine to the unwashed masses is a risky endeavor.

Now, I have a certain fondness for Leadbeater, but I actually quite enjoy your post despite its opposition to him. After all, we occasionally need to get a closer look at the things we claim to love, and your argument is grounded in a significant amount of fact. Though, I must disagree with one point—or rather, I don't believe it qualifies as a fact: the notion that he lacked a deep understanding of the Devahanski Plain. If anything, I would argue that his work on that subject is his finest achievement.

Well, I'll take that as a win if you can handle my perspective; I'm pretty used to people jumping down my throat.

The situation with Ukraine isn't new; this kind of stuff has been going on for hundreds of years, it's just hitting a fever pitch right now. There's an old saying that goes around:

Bankers will do anything to keep you in debt,
Big Pharma will do anything to keep you sick,
The media will do anything to keep you from the truth,
And the government will do everything to make sure it's all perfectly legal.

It is genuinely difficult to break through the media web that the West has woven. Some people are actually decent and try a little, but they don't go far enough, and that’s just not enough to pierce through to the actual truth.

Knowledge and spiritual truths aren't anyone's private property. If Leadbeater described the Devahanski Plain well, who else has done it? Is he the only one?

To truly describe the Devahanski Plain, one should probably communicate through musical scores rather than language. I can't prove that, but I mean it seriously when I say that even he would likely agree he didn't capture it perfectly. He did a good job describing thoughts and the realm of thought—which is spiritually close to us—but the Devahanski Plain is much further away than that.

bluemason3 said:I’m talking more about para-masonry—groups that borrowed Masonic rituals and structures but weren't part of any legitimate, traditional organizations. They were just doing their own thing.

Honestly, most of them are barely serious. They feel more like low-level social clubs than anything deep. It doesn't seem fair to lump them in with those hallucinogenic, fraud-filled cult circles run by theosophists.😁

Sure, but he still wrote a book providing guidelines for Masons.
Masons are basically generalists; they have a massive reputation, but there isn't much to them. Besides, they're all just sitting around waiting for a Messiah.

casualtiger2 said:What exactly are you basing that on? Saying his "devotion was totally off" and he "wasn't exactly shining morally"—where's the proof?

Look, unlike many other theosophists, Leadbiter actually had genuine insight into the astral plane, which was widely recognized. However, that doesn't apply to Devahan, which operates on an entirely different level.
The astral plane is essentially a realm of images that sit behind reality. Devahan, on the other hand, is a realm of sound behind reality. Even if his description of Devahan isn't perfect, I suspect he would agree with that distinction. Honestly, Devahan can't really be described systematically; you can only approach it through certain outlines or principles.

To recap: Leadbiter was an Anglican priest who joined the Theosophical Society, got kicked out, then got let back in, eventually becoming a bishop for the so-called Free Catholic Church in Australia. He was also initiated into Freemasonry during that time.

He faced accusations regarding teaching boys assigned to him about masturbation. Without passing judgment ourselves, we should look at the consensus of his contemporaries. A significant number of Theosophical Society members, including Annie Besant, pushed for his expulsion. And he was expelled. We won't dwell on the specific accusation from one boy regarding his sexuality, but the fact remains: Besant, who basically ran the Society, eventually changed her mind and allowed him back in.
Aleister Crowley wrote in 'The Equinox' that he was a "senile sexual maniac."

Then there's Krishnamurti, which is a whole different story. As the son of a Theosophical Society member (convenient, right?), he was intended to be the vessel for some sort of Messiah, though nobody was quite sure which one. After a few years, he walked away and headed to Australia. Once Krishnamurti matured, he tried to reject the labels people forced upon him, but it was a losing battle. He practically had no choice. Fortunately, Krishnamurti himself was a decent person, even if his personality was crushed under a massive burden.

Since your avatar is the Ukrainian flag, it suggests that your emotions are driving your logic. That’s not necessarily a catastrophe at your level—that's how most people operate. But it becomes dangerous if those emotions push you toward action (like changing an avatar, for instance), because emotions are the easiest things to manipulate.

Gregory Jackson said:"Notorious"? I don't know, man, we really shouldn't be judging other people's morality like that. I suppose that's a divine privilege.

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.

Gregory Jackson said:Yeah, I totally see that too. For the vast majority of people, spirituality isn't even on the radar. At most, it's just some little hobby or a way to relax, without ever really diving deep or asking the big "how" and "why" questions.

I also notice that the spiritual folks who turn it into a business—like those yoga instructors and whatnot—are constantly competing with one another. They often end up in these messy rivalries fueled by their own ego, mostly because they think they're all fighting over the exact same group of clients...

Not to get too far off-topic here, but I really love Leadbeater and the way he lays everything out. His descriptions of Devachan are especially great, along with how much he covers regarding the astral plane. He talks so well about thoughts and the elementals that emerge from them... it’s honestly pure gold for anyone who actually wants to listen.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. The notorious Leadbeater only had partial astral vision. His grasp of the astral level might be okay, but he completely missed the mark on Devachan. Not to mention, his moral standing wasn't exactly stellar.

coastalfalcon61 said:That was really beautifully put 👍

I didn't just pull this out of thin air. It’s common sense—obvious to some, sure, but available to anyone willing to look. You won't find it laid out in some glossy documentary or textbook. Every person possesses an inherent "sense for truth," but you actually have to work to develop it.

There are certain elements in our nature that are far more permanent than others.

For instance, passions, impulses, and fleeting desires—the things that trigger immediate bursts of joy or sudden waves of sadness—those are all transient parts of our makeup.

On the other hand, you have temperament and character. These are much more enduring traits, and they're significantly harder to shift. They're deeply tied to things like your heritage and your family upbringing.

I like this analogy where it’s compared to the hands on an analog clock. The hour hand represents those steady, lasting traits; it moves slowly and is incredibly difficult to change. The minute hand, however, represents those fleeting impulses and desires that race forward much faster. I assume most of you know what clock hands look like—hopefully, you haven't lived your whole life staring at nothing but digital displays.

True spirituality doesn't even begin until you start addressing these more static, stubborn characteristics. Anything centered purely on passions, whims, or temporary impulses? That isn't spirituality.

Jason Jones40 said:Critical thinking is essential, certainly. But so is balance. Finding that sweet spot between being a dreamer and keeping your feet on the ground... honestly, you could spend a lifetime trying to master that. ☕ At least, that's my experience. 😛

That said, I don't really have the luxury of time for "entertainment," though I can certainly make room for a little humor.

Jason Jones40 said:For me, it was the exact opposite. I spent a long time doubting my own gut while putting all my trust in external factors.
Now, the pendulum has swung the other way.

It isn't easy, it really isn't. 🙂

So, honestly, you probably need to question both yourself and the world around you.

Be critical, but make sure it's a moral kind of criticism—and try not to jump to conclusions too quickly.

Jason Jones40 said:I can take a guess at what she meant when she said that once you have everything, the problems start rolling in. Since material things can't provide lasting satisfaction—and frankly, no single pleasure lasts forever—it stands to reason that even someone who seemingly has "everything" won't find true contentment.

Problems are everywhere. Everyone deals with them, including those who seem to have hit the jackpot.

It really comes down to distinguishing between satisfaction and fulfillment on an internal versus an external level.

Even if you check every box for your "external" needs, there’s always something brewing deep down inside. Not to mention, the more you own, the more you have to manage and worry about, which just increases the surface area for potential trouble.

A person might have a great career, a healthy salary, a solid marriage, and kids who are doing well, yet they’re still dealing with a hundred tiny irritations that we simply don't see.

That’s why the highest spiritual goal—the real internal one—is to achieve a sense of balance and peace. It’s about reaching a state where, regardless of the chaos happening around you, you remain steady because you've already found that center within yourself.

Someone lacking material wealth might be convinced that having it all is the ultimate point, but anyone who has explored a spiritual path knows that accumulating stuff isn't the endgame. That’s why they keep searching.

I know plenty of people with perfect marriages and luxury homes who don't have to work jobs they hate, yet they still look completely miserable.

Sometimes I feel like telling them to go out and chop some wood or find something difficult to do. Life is getting a little too easy for them, and they could use a reality check.

Well, that's basically common sense.

There is definitely an internal and external component. Initially, we tend to doubt everything external while putting total faith in the internal because it comes from within ourselves. But the moment we start doubting our own nature, the real journey of self-discovery begins—and trust me, it's much harder than it looks.

You’re a melancholic, though other temperaments are always present to some degree. You did mention phlegmatics earlier.

Most people today lean toward being phlegmatic. It’s their dominant trait, which also makes it the "most desirable" temperament to have. But within any category, there are higher and lower types. Just like in general human nature—I won't bore you by quoting Goethe, but even modern science and psychology agree—there are higher and lower iterations. So, being phlegmatic isn't an absolute, fixed state.

Temperament is essentially the balance between what is eternal and what is fleeting within a person. You have the personality you were born with, and then you have your parental heritage and bloodline. Those two forces collide to shape your temperament.

Since you're a melancholic, the physical body tends to dominate your other faculties. The body resists that internal sense of well-being that is supposed to come from within. That’s where the pain and the depression stem from. This might not apply specifically to you, but as a general rule: you don't hold your head up high, and your gait is more sluggish than decisive, even if it remains steady.

It is almost certain that your attempts at logic and distraction are both futile and unnecessary. You're wasting your time.

There are objective opportunities in this world to witness suffering, and noticing them is vital. You’ve become quite accustomed to your own suffering; therefore, it is a significant thing if you can objectively recognize the suffering existing in the world around you.

The keyword for melancholics is compassion. Through that, you shift the focus away from your own suffering and toward the suffering of the world or others.

Given that you've mentioned twice how much you help others, I'm "not worried" about you.

By the way, it’s much easier to handle melancholy when you can recognize that same kind of life-weariness in others.
I’m guessing you can’t stand seeing that "managerial" ego in people, especially when they get all choleric about it.

Anyway, I’ve got some news for you: every sane person suffers; the only real question is whether they’re aware of it or not. We aren't some "finished product" because evolution implies constant development. Humans are still going to change significantly, just as we already have. Even if you look at the ancient Greeks, for instance—Roman historians suggest they actually perceived colors differently than we do. So, we undergo changes even on a physical level over relatively short spans of time.
That's one of those subtle forms of suffering most people overlook, but it’s the fundamental reason why people are drawn to spirituality.

In life, there’s something massive about being able to make peace with destiny—and actually knowing how to do it. It isn’t about sitting back and being passive; quite the opposite. It’s about accepting life as your own personal path at a much deeper level.

By the way, those questions you're asking? They're pretty classic for someone with a melancholic temperament.

Carl Rivera43 said:Look, I don't know much about spirituality myself. I'm really just curious to hear what people who actually know their stuff think. What's your take?

Isn't it a good thing if we can help someone out, even just a little bit?

Sure, but you have to consider whether you're actually helping, making things worse, or just doing nothing at all.
Personally, before I'd offer advice, I’d have to feel capable of giving it—and even then, I'd do it humbly. I'm not going to give you some cliché instruction like "grab your left ear, take a deep breath, and exhale."

The questions you're asking are perfectly legitimate, though they hit on very fundamental issues. I'm not offering advice so much as an invitation to reflect, because the fact that you're asking is likely the first step itself. Anything that comes from a place of genuine life experience is positive. Ultimately, it's up to you whether you decide to really lean into these questions. I could hand you a direct answer, but you wouldn't truly grasp or accept it.

Generally speaking, humans are multi-layered beings shaped by countless different factors. We wouldn't survive a single moment on this planet if other beings weren't constantly providing us with support. Otherwise, you'd just bump your head and mistake the whole thing for a miracle.

Often, the major decisions we make in life happen without us even realizing it. Sometimes we act logically based on our circumstances, and other times we act against all reason. But if you look back ten years later, you realize that a specific moment shifted your entire life path in a direction you didn't expect—and usually, it turns out to be for the better. Everything in life has a cause; it's just that the cause isn't always immediately visible. A lot of it depends on your individual temperament and mental disposition.