Posts by Paul Ross2

Rachel Sanders2 said:You just can't put that mathematical spark into words

I’m lost. What language is this sentence even written in—and is it actually a coherent sentence? While the Greeks certainly valued the Laconic style, "Laconic" feels like a complete misnomer in this context.

Brian Young76 said:It seems like there was a bit of a misunderstanding regarding how we define 'mathematics.' Honestly, now that you’ve provided that extra clarification, I think we’re on the same page.

However, I suspect that if you asked most people what they mean when they say 'math,' they probably wouldn't have anything in mind regarding those non-numerical elements that touch upon the spiritual realm. Perhaps, just to prevent any future confusion, it might be helpful to use a term like 'pure mathematics' or even 'spiritual mathematics.'

It’s a common enough pitfall, really. Most people assume mathematics is strictly limited to whatever they were forced to memorize in high school or during some specialized engineering program at a state university.

Brian Young76 said:If I’m following your train of thought correctly—and please correct me if I’ve missed the mark here—it seems you're suggesting that music is essentially just mathematics in disguise, in the sense that every single note and rhythm could, theoretically, be expressed through numerical values.

If that’s really how you see it, then I’m afraid I have to respectfully disagree. I truly believe there is something inherent in music that simply defies being reduced to mere numerical values or raw data. Of course, I realize that the physical aspects—the frequencies, the decibels, and all that technical stuff—can absolutely be quantified, but there seems to be this profound spiritual component at play as well. It feels like a different quality altogether, something far more elusive than anything we could ever hope to measure with scientific instruments.

I’ve often found myself pondering why music carries such a profound connection to spirituality, and I suppose there is something deeply moving about how a simple sequence of notes can bypass our logic and strike directly at the soul. It feels as though, when we listen to a truly transcendent piece of music, we aren't just hearing sound waves, but rather experiencing a bridge to something much larger than ourselves—something almost divine. Maybe it's because melody has this unique ability to tap into those universal emotions that words simply fail to capture, creating a sort of sacred space within the listener. I guess you could say that music acts as a medium, translating the intangible whispers of the spirit into a language that every human being, regardless of their background, can instinctively understand and feel.

Even within mathematics, not everything can be expressed numerically. What can be quantified is merely "numerical mathematics"—which is really just one subset of the field.
Mathematics itself is also a form of spirituality.

Brian Young76 said:Maybe try taking a solo by Charlie Parker. For instance, take this one:

Just try attempting to transcribe that using standard musical notation.

Now, of course, everything can be expressed mathematically—timbre, Fourier analysis, all of that can map it out. You could technically calculate that he played something like 4.056879877 sixteenth notes here and maybe 3.9234568873 there, but I don't think that's really the point, is it?

Anyway, I'm getting a bit tired of typing this out, so cheers, 🙂

So what’s the actual issue?

Musical consonance usually boils down to ratios of small integers. Now, 4.056879877? That isn't a ratio of small integers.
A minor second is 16:15, a major second is 9:8, a major seventh is 16:9, and a minor seventh is 15:8. Then there’s the tritone—a staple in American jazz—which is 45/32, supposedly forbidden by the Church during the Middle Ages, who went as far as labeling it the "DEMONIC INTERVAL."


Here is another video regarding that notorious tritone (which some people claim is the soul of jazz, if not blues itself):

(At the 5:50 mark, the guy explains why it sounds dissonant, essentially describing the concept of SMALL INTEGER ratios in his own way—for instance, how 3:2 (a fifth) sounds consonant compared to something like sqrt(2)/1. Since sqrt(2) isn't an integer, you might approximate that ratio as 14:10 or 7:5, or even 45:32, given that 1.40625 is quite close to the square root of 2—we are talking about a difference only in the third decimal place here).

And now we arrive at the real question: why does our brain—or our ear—crave these small integer ratios? I won't be answering that, because frankly, the truth would likely disappoint most of you.

Brian Young76 said:I feel like you might have missed my central point, though. We definitely agree that harmony is essentially mathematics. However, I would argue that rhythm—specifically improvised rhythm—and timbre, or what we call phrasing, are entirely different animals. To me, that's where the fundamental distinction lies between jazz and the mathematical precision of classical music.

On a side note, does anyone know if there was ever a theosophist who also happened to be a jazz musician? Let's get back to our main topic. 😁

Timbre is essentially the harmonic spectrum, which can be broken down into fundamental and higher harmonics via Fourier analysis.
Any complex sound—that complexity being what we perceive as timbre—is composed of a multitude of harmonics (sine waves), which are simply multiples of a fundamental frequency. This base frequency constitutes the fundamental harmonic, while the higher harmonics split into even and odd components, given that the Fourier transform can be represented through sine and cosine transforms, where sines and cosines serve as odd and even functions, respectively.
Think of it this way: when you strike a key on a piano, the string doesn't just vibrate at a single frequency. If you hit an A, say at 880Hz, that's merely the fundamental harmonic. The string is simultaneously vibrating with numerous higher harmonics (multiples of that frequency). On top of that, the intensities of these individual components shift over time—transients, envelopes, and so on. What we hear collectively as a piano tone is the summation of all those vibrations. And why does that same pitch sound nothing like a trumpet? Because the trumpet has a completely different distribution of harmonic intensities, even if the fundamental tone is identical at 880 Hz. In a piano, you have a string fixed at both ends; in a trumpet, you have a column of air within a tube, also constrained by two ends.

So, there is your math. When analyzing strikes, one must analyze the impact on all the higher harmonics, not just the fundamentals. This is precisely why chords exist and sound consonant to us—we play harmonic instruments (where the vibrating medium is fixed at both ends), which makes these specific intervals sound harmonious.

As for rhythm? Rhythm is arguably even more mathematical; it just operates at much lower frequencies. We deal with 3/4 time signatures, and you'll find that certain folk traditions, like those found in parts of the North America, love variations involving 3/4 and 7/8. Their traditional music is built on this, and any seasoned folk percussionist can nail these complex rhythms that would trip up even the most elite rock drummers. For instance, take a rock drummer like Garabet (Gara) Tavitjan from Leb and Sol; he sounds exotic to the uninitiated, but if you asked a professional percussionist from a traditional jazz ensemble or a folk band, they’d probably roll their eyes and say, "If my apprentice can't play that, he's not joining the band."

The ratios of 4/3 or 7/8 are still just ratios of small integers.

Give him a listen (Aber Dojde Donke, Leb and Sol):

It’s actually quite similar to:


And here is a folk drummer playing on handmade drums:

Paul Rogers94 said:And those worlds he describes don't exist—at least, not in the way he claims they do. I'm not saying the Devachan or astral planes aren't real, but his descriptions have zero correlation with reality. I picked up that little pamphlet on the Devachan variety last night just to flip through it—I wasn't interested in it even when I was a kid—and honestly? It’s useless. First off, it doesn't actually explain anything about the Devachan variety; once you finish reading, you aren't any closer to understanding it—you're just confused. The West only heard about the Devachan level through Leadbeater, and they swallowed it whole without any other framework or way to compare it to anything else. The only thing in his little book that actually connects to the Devachan is the title itself, and then people spend all their time debating whether he actually understood what the Devachan was or if he was just playing around with astral planes. Leadbeater didn't know anything about anything; he was just spinning his own theories regarding the Devachan, the astral planes, and so on. I've read several of his other booklets, and they are all equally pointless—at best, you walk away with wrong impressions because someone with no clue can just ramble about whatever pops into their head... which is exactly what happens here. Everything he wrote is worthless and explains nothing. I reread the Devachan variety again last night, and if someone were to ask me, "Okay, you read it, so what does it say about the Devachan level?" 🤔🤔🤔 I wouldn't be able to summarize it for them, because it says absolutely nothing.
My two previous posts on this thread contain more substance and sense regarding the Devachan variety—offering at least a hint of an actual impression—than you could ever find in Leadbeater's entire body of work.

I’m genuinely curious: what basis do people have for judging whether Leadbeater "mastered" the Devachan or the astral planes? He only knows what the Devachan and astral planes are because he learned it from Leadbeater, which means he knows absolutely nothing and is completely muddled on the subject.

I truly see no contribution from Leadbeater to anything whatsoever, let alone to our understanding of the astral, the astral planes, the Devachan, etc. In fact, he just created a massive mess, leaving us with people who use his nonsense to claim he mastered certain things when he actually mastered nothing. If anyone thinks otherwise, feel free to try and convince me.

Since we're discussing Theosophy and its literature: back in the day, I actually liked Blavatsky's *The Secret Doctrine*—regardless of whether she received those messages from Ascended Masters or just sent them to herself—just so it doesn't seem like I have some blanket vendetta against Theosophy.

The thing about Theosophists is that they are salon spiritualists—much like many socialists tend to be salon intellectuals.
I don't view that as a negative, per se. Sometimes a person needs a certain kind of salon movement where one can seek out intellectual nourishment over a morning coffee in a New York cafe.

In all honesty, I’d love to travel back to Blavatsky’s era just to rub elbows with that crowd.

Drew Moore5 said: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.

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

Brian Young76 said:Well, I suppose if we’re strictly talking about Western classical music, Bach would be the absolute gold standard for that argument.

But jazz... man, there simply aren't any notes on a page that could ever truly capture what someone like Charlie Parker was doing. First off, you have the rhythm—that incredible rhythmic variety—and standard Western notation, which relies on those rigid integer divisions of time, just isn't equipped to document it. And then you have to account for the subtle shifts in timbre, those delicate ghost notes, and the way a phrase is shaped...

To my mind, jazz is fundamentally spiritual music; it carries this profound emotional message that can't be reduced to ink on paper. You really have to hear it live to actually grasp its essence.

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.

Drew Moore5 said: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.

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.

Drew Moore5 said: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.

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.

Drew Moore5 said: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.

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).

Drew Moore5 said: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.

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.

Drew Moore5 said: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.

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.

Charles Wood73 said:Look, I’m certainly no cheerleader for the whole startup culture, but I suppose they represent a slight step up from literal starvation.

He didn't die because he lacked resources. No, startups are arguably one of the greatest evils humanity has ever had to endure—second only, perhaps, to gambling. Why? Because they systematically destroy the human spirit.

Drew Moore5 said: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.

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.

lonestag15 said:Look, the situation has always been this way and it isn't changing... there's always just a tiny percentage of people who actually "get" the spiritual and mystical stuff. That's why the story of Jesus remains universal and serves as a lesson for everyone—you can't move the masses, and any sincere attempt to do so is basically doomed from the start. No one can grasp a teaching that sits outside their own capacity for understanding. It’s always been like that, and it always will be...

I have zero ambition to change the masses. I am talking about individuals. We live in an era defined by the shopping mall. People pilgrimage to temples of consumerism, and because they exist entirely outside the realm of the non-material, they aren't capable of grasping anything else. There used to be inventors, spiritual seekers, people genuinely interested in personal growth...
Nowadays, even when someone is an inventor or engages with spirituality, they view it primarily as a business venture that needs to be monetized immediately. I had a friend who actually starved to death because he poured every single cent into the materials needed to build his concepts and models. Today, everyone is just trying to launch some new startup and convinced themselves that this constitutes progress.

lonestag15 said:Gotta have those spiritual "eyes," lol

And maybe a few Theosophy masters could serve as a bit of a benchmark,
kind of like Maitreya. According to tradition, he’s the closest thing to a descent onto Earth and—get this—actually available to us right now...

Man, who's actually going to separate the wheat from the chaff here? The stuff in Theosophy and Anthroposophy—especially after Steiner gets involved—is packed with so much nonsense built into the general system that I honestly don't know if it's even worth digging deeper into their cosmogonies and pseudo-science...

Spirituality isn't necessarily science—and frankly, trying to force them into the same box is a bit of a fool's errand. There’s really no point in attempting to categorize spiritual realms as either "hard science" or mere "pseudoscience." They simply operate in two entirely different worlds.

coastalfalcon61 said:I figured I’d breathe some life back into this thread by sharing some reading material to help everyone get acquainted with Theosophy. Since we're dealing with spiritual literature, I guess my best advice would be to avoid taking everything at face value or accepting every single word as absolute fact. It might be better to just focus on certain core ideas and concepts, and then maybe try to synthesize those with other spiritual teachings and wisdom you encounter along the way.
You can find a whole collection of Theosophical books available for download over at https://www.teozofija.net/knjige/

Frlan - theosophical training and yoga

Frlan - written and unwritten theosophy

Frlan - daily life of aspirant

Frlan - great path return

Leadbeater - visible and invisible man

Leadbeater - ego

Leadbeater - theosophy manual

Leadbeater - power and use of thought

Leadbeater - clairvoyance

Leadbeater - astral

Thanks for this. I would love to discuss Theosophy here, but I fear that times have shifted so drastically over the last twenty years that people today seem to lack any real sense for the spiritual or the mystical.