Theosophy

@coastalfalcon61

None of this teaching matters to anyone, not even a single damn thing.

The only things with any actual value are what someone has truly absorbed into their own being and what they actually live by.
Even with Christ, the doctrine itself isn't the point; that’s just how the Church likes to frame things to keep control. What really matters is the action.

Actions carry weight because they impact other people, and on a personal level, they reflect your true thoughts.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Look, the term "Christianity" itself isn't some divine revelation; it’s just a label concocted by people and institutions to house their own specific set of dogmas, rituals, and hierarchies. 😉
The whole structure carries about as much divine weight as any other organized group with its own arbitrary rules and ceremonies.

Even the word "God" feels inherently heavy—it carries this subconscious association with fear and punishment 😬 that tricks people into a state of false submission, all while providing endless opportunities for manipulation.

It isn't our place, nor is it within our capacity, to attempt to conceptualize or define divinity. We shouldn't be trying to trap the infinite within human contexts of time and space, or writing about it as if we are the masters of the divine rather than its creation.

Nice one, Neo 👍

An aware individual naturally feels the urge to tackle three fundamental questions: where am I, who am I, and why? It’s perfectly reasonable to pursue those as a way to find one's purpose in life.

Christianity is a complicated beast. Looking back, it’s had its moments of genuine good, times when certain things were just historical necessities, and times where it did real damage. Nowadays, though, anything coming out of the Vatican feels purely malicious. Honestly, at this point, the Pope might as well be Satan himself.

But none of that has anything to do with a good man like Father Mike from a small town in rural Kentucky. A decent guy like Father Mike isn't going to hurt anyone. The problem is, he lacks that sense of mystery. It seems like the ones who actually possess a shred of true mystery are the predators—because once you acquire actual knowledge, you face a real test of character, and those are the ones who fold under the pressure.

Christianity is such a dense subject that it’s easy to just write the whole thing off, but that isn't how a spiritual path works. Being spiritual means taking everything into account without being biased and refusing to pass judgment. There was a book where the author started a paragraph by saying: "A massive shift occurred in my life today; I decided to keep every single question open."

By the way, Steiner needs to learn how to actually read. If you approach him thinking, "Okay, I'll just take a quick look at what he wrote and make a judgment call," you're missing the point entirely. You have to read like a true scholar—keeping every single question open-ended. The answers will come eventually, but they won't show up on your schedule.

In the realm of spirituality, patience isn't just a virtue—it’s an absolute necessity.
There used to be a standard rule, and you still see it held by certain circles, where if you hadn't hit forty-two years old, you simply didn't have the standing to speak on these matters. That wasn't just arbitrary tradition, either. We've moved past the era of classic, formal initiations into knowledge; nowadays, true initiation comes to you directly from the spiritual realm as an act of grace, once you've actually earned it.

True knowledge is nothing more than that which possesses life within itself.

It’s probably worth clarifying this point: what exactly makes knowledge "alive"? And conversely, what defines knowledge that is dead?

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...

Gregory Jackson said:

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.🙂

Drew Moore5 said:That's either a consequence of improper exercises you're doing, a habit from this life, a leftover from a past life, or something else entirely.

The body doesn't move; rather, consciousness changes. We all have a built-in mechanism for when this happens, which is that we automatically withdraw from it because it's such an unusual experience, unlike anything we normally encounter.

There's a danger lurking in the near future here: that everyone will "have" their own version of spirituality that they feel satisfied with. For you, it might be something significant that left a mark, but in reality, it isn't anything special. The potential danger is that it could lead you down the wrong path.

Remember, evil is also spiritual; it has a spiritual origin. The nature of good and evil is not a trivial matter at all.

I know nothing of certainty myself. With you, anything is possible... 😉...ugh, I hear you. But these are all just stories, much like my own.

That experience—it all happened spontaneously. Out of thin air. There was no mental effort, no guided visualization, no precognition... none of that. You are taking yourself far too seriously.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Your Ego core (Steiner) shifted away from your physical body along with the etheric and astral layers (though you remained present as an observer...), but it likely snapped back, pulled by that famous silver cord that "links" and holds the various bodily levels together. 🙂

I have always had memories of having my tonsils removed when I was four years old. To me, it was perfectly normal to remember the surgical mask, the scalpels, the gloved hands, and so on—until I grew up and learned that, theoretically, you aren't supposed to remember anything that happens while under anesthesia.

1. My memory of it is as sharp as if it happened today. That "displaced body" functions much like an eye, though it lacks the brain's capacity for deduction.
That "displaced" state perceives the physical body, matter, birth, the intervals between, and the death of the body; just as it does with all other mental theories regarding knowledge.

2.
🙂 "Consciousness" is perpetually active. Even if what it perceives is merely an illusion.

George Wood2 said:I know nothing of certainty myself. With you, anything is possible... 😉...ugh, I hear you. But these are all just stories, much like my own.

That experience—it all happened spontaneously. Out of thin air. There was no mental effort, no guided visualization, no precognition... none of that. You are taking yourself far too seriously.

A long time ago, on some old internet message board, there was this guy talking about having a similar sensation out in a field somewhere, claiming he felt this and that.
Fast forward twenty years, and once he’s aged a bit, he’ll probably still be sitting there, obsessing over the same thing, stuck in the exact same spot he started in. He won't have moved an inch.

When it comes to spirituality, you need to be a hundred times more skeptical than you would be about anything else. Anyway, congrats, I guess—though I'm not entirely sure what I'm congratulating you for.

Drew Moore5 said:A long time ago, on some old internet message board, there was this guy talking about having a similar sensation out in a field somewhere, claiming he felt this and that.
Fast forward twenty years, and once he’s aged a bit, he’ll probably still be sitting there, obsessing over the same thing, stuck in the exact same spot he started in. He won't have moved an inch.

When it comes to spirituality, you need to be a hundred times more skeptical than you would be about anything else. Anyway, congrats, I guess—though I'm not entirely sure what I'm congratulating you for.

I agree.
🙂 Thanks, but there really isn't anything to thank me for.

Gregory Jackson said: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, 😉

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.🙂

👍
You’ve actually piqued my interest enough to look into that unnamed faith.
Even the Dalai Lama once made a similar point, suggesting that his religion is quite simply kindness.

Gregory Jackson said: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, 😉

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.🙂

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.

George Wood2 said:I agree.
🙂 Thanks, but there really isn't anything to thank me for.

I just remembered what I was thinking of, but it’s too late now.

You can’t really have a conversation about God if you don't first define what you actually mean by the term. Any decent theologian will tell you that without that clarity, you just end up hitting a dead end.

Most people judge faith based on the institutions and the believers themselves. Anyone with even a shred of a moral compass sees the flaws there, which naturally leads to a lot of resentment and rebellion. But here's the thing: morality is a deep, spiritual category, yet it isn't what most people think it is. We've all been raised with such a narrow definition of it that anyone with common sense can see the disconnect. You have two groups: those who ignore the hypocrisy out of sheer habit because they're too lazy to change, and those who clearly see the rot but always manage to find some intellectual loophole to justify staying put.
Ultimately, the Church as we know it has run its course. Within the next century, it’s going to undergo a massive transformation. Whether that turns out to be for better or for worse remains to be seen.

On top of all that, the media is pretty much censored on almost everything. For instance, there’s a group of bishops over in Europe who have officially broken away from the Pope and renounced his authority, but you won't find a single thing about it in the mainstream news outlets. Behind these bishops, there's a significant group of believers who have actually declared Archbishop Vigan as their own Pope.

Drew Moore5 said:I just remembered what I was thinking of, but it’s too late now.

🙂 Well, you certainly are a unique character.
He is always lagging behind when it comes to interpreting current events. It stands to reason, given that his slowest natural "flaw." 😉