Theosophy

Paul Rogers94 said:A biker makes a pretty sharp observation here:

We’re slaves to our own thoughts—mostly because they’re hardwired to our feelings and desires/actions.

Basically, emotions act as the connective tissue between the mental narrative and physical action.

And that’s where we get trapped—in our own fantasies.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that certain emotions—especially the intense ones—trigger the exact same mental movies every single time.

If you're pissed off, you run the same script: "They screwed me over" or "I'm going to tear them apart"—some cinematic loop centered around a fundamental sense of being wronged.

When it comes to sexual desire, it's the same deal; everyone runs their own specific script based on what they're into.

So, every emotion has its corresponding mental story—and vice versa. It's almost always the same loop for the same feeling.

But notice this: the feeling hits first, and *then* the mental story kicks in. Before that initial spark, the story doesn't even exist in your head.

The story has to be there to anchor the feeling. You don't feel anything about a random flag on a pole—it’s irrelevant and triggers nothing—so you don't waste mental energy on it. You don't dwell on things that don't move you.
...

Carol Ramos2 said:Quote:But you can see the pattern: the feeling hits first, then the mental movie starts playing.

Paul Rogers94 says: Some biker made a pretty sharp point here: We’re basically slaves to our own thoughts because they're hardwired to our feelings and desires. Feelings act as the glue connecting the mental loop to physical action. That’s the trap—we're held hostage by our own fantasies. If you notice, certain moods always trigger the exact same mental movies. If you're pissed off, you run the same "they screwed me over" or "I'll show them" script—always centered on some perceived slight. Same goes for sexual urges; everyone’s got their specific rerun. Every feeling has its go-to mental narrative. It's repetitive.

How do you actually know if your brain hasn't processed those emotions yet?

Paul Rogers94 said:How do I pray? 🤣
I'm out in the middle of nowhere—just asking for a signpost, a compass, some moss to follow, North Star guidance, clarity...

🍿

You say feeling comes first and then the mental chatter follows, but I’m asking you: how do you actually know the mind didn't just process the emotion before you even felt it?
So, can we also talk about what it actually feels like to exist without a mind?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carol Ramos2 said:🍿

You say feeling comes first and then the mental chatter follows, but I’m asking you: how do you actually know the mind didn't just process the emotion before you even felt it?
So, can we also talk about what it actually feels like to exist without a mind?

What kind of damn "feeling without a mind" are we even talking about? A feeling is just a mental construct—it's part of the mind, just like everything else we can actually grasp. We're all stuck in this same loop of things that make sense... the whole point is always found in the stuff that doesn't.

Paul Rogers94 said:What kind of damn "feeling without a mind" are we even talking about? A feeling is just a mental construct—it's part of the mind, just like everything else we can actually grasp. We're all stuck in this same loop of things that make sense... the whole point is always found in the stuff that doesn't.

Depends on who you ask. 🙂

Isn't the point actually part of the mind? 😬🤦
.. Fine, I'm done. Can tell you're getting worked up tripping over your own nonsense.
👋

Carol Ramos2 said:Depends on who you ask. 🙂

Isn't the point actually part of the mind? 😬🤦
.. Fine, I'm done. Can tell you're getting worked up tripping over your own nonsense.
👋

it's all just bad wine 😛

There's no way I'm getting upset—not even on a forum. I just have a colorful way of putting things sometimes. We're all stuck in the same mess, so how could I possibly be bothered?
And what the hell do you mean "you don't sleep"? 🤣

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paul Rogers94 said:I wouldn't say they're just copying and following; there's actual consistency there. It's not like a blind chicken stumbling onto a grain of corn every once in a while—there is a logic to what is being said. They don't contradict themselves without reason, which wouldn't be possible without some foundation of true understanding. You can't fake that.

I don't know about quoting, but here are just a few things that meet resistance despite actually being expressions of deeper insight.

That's how the biker puts it; and there are plenty more wise and profound thoughts:

'stilling the mind allows for direct realization and insight'

'what requires the mind isn't spirituality, but rather exactly what needs to be cast aside'

'I've already written somewhere that I have discarded my beliefs several times—once my faith, and a few times the knowledge I identified with. And I would have no problem discarding my current knowledge again...'

🙏

Would you also be able to discard your current beliefs, knowledge, and practices just as easily if there was any truth to them?

And as you clearly know, reasoning is not the path to realization. Isn't that in itself a rare and respectable thing? Or perhaps the act of casting off current knowledge and beliefs is a serious leap toward realization.

Honestly, it gladdens me when someone truly possesses that kind of understanding. 🙂

That sort of genuine insight usually meets massive resistance from those who simply don't get it.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be put to the test.

The difference is that you, quite rightly, have no desire to engage in an utterly senseless debate with an irrational mind—so you come across like some enlightened autistic. Meanwhile, the biker has a neurotic syndrome or maybe just a "professional deformity"—perhaps some vestige of a certain mental control practice where one stays composed while debating every idiot, even though it's a suicide mission.

Long live the trash. 🤣

Free shrink analysis.

A very subtle analysis indeed.
However, this question of yours is quite crucial to me: “would I also discard my current beliefs, knowledge, and practices just as easily, provided there was any merit to them?”
There is nothing to discard, even if you possess all of it, practice it, believe in it, and think through it systematically, logically, or academically. One is simply beyond all of that. Thoughts, feelings, various types of knowledge, and all that nonsense—none of it is the problem.
What about "mind control" or those programmed spiritual instructions and processes? That is a total illusion. Those are merely mental delusions—original sin, if you will, stripped of its religious connotation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

Paul Rogers94 said:I wouldn't say they're just copying and following; there's actual consistency there. It's not like a blind chicken stumbling onto a grain of corn every once in a while—there is a logic to what is being said. They don't contradict themselves without reason, which wouldn't be possible without some foundation of true understanding. You can't fake that.

I don't know about quoting, but here are just a few things that meet resistance despite actually being expressions of deeper insight.

That's how the biker puts it; and there are plenty more wise and profound thoughts:

'stilling the mind allows for direct realization and insight'

'what requires the mind isn't spirituality, but rather exactly what needs to be cast aside'

'I've already written somewhere that I have discarded my beliefs several times—once my faith, and a few times the knowledge I identified with. And I would have no problem discarding my current knowledge again...'

🙏

Would you also be able to discard your current beliefs, knowledge, and practices just as easily if there was any truth to them?

And as you clearly know, reasoning is not the path to realization. Isn't that in itself a rare and respectable thing? Or perhaps the act of casting off current knowledge and beliefs is a serious leap toward realization.

Honestly, it gladdens me when someone truly possesses that kind of understanding. 🙂

That sort of genuine insight usually meets massive resistance from those who simply don't get it.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be put to the test.

The difference is that you, quite rightly, have no desire to engage in an utterly senseless debate with an irrational mind—so you come across like some enlightened autistic. Meanwhile, the biker has a neurotic syndrome or maybe just a "professional deformity"—perhaps some vestige of a certain mental control practice where one stays composed while debating every idiot, even though it's a suicide mission.

Long live the trash. 🤣

Free shrink analysis.

Thanks, S. P., for the kind words 🙂

I guess I'm not entirely sure I deserve them, though, since I feel like what you mentioned in those quotes is really just the baseline for spirituality—it seems like something that should probably be pretty obvious to anyone who has even a passing interest in the spiritual side of things.

George Wood2 said:An interesting observation, 🤣 indeed; except that I agree with the parts I disagree with, offering a secondary perspective that the aforementioned proud moderator hasn't quite grasped yet. Not yet... Mind you. But he copies and follows 🙂, which is pointless 😁 though admittedly clever. Yet, he truly lacks any sense of tact when he abruptly cuts off a spontaneous dialogue in his own secret. 😬
But all of this, it simply is, It is!

I suppose there’s a reason why I edit certain dialogues. Spirituality is such a vast field, and I don't think it should ever be narrowed down to just one single approach, teaching, or specific goal. To be honest, I sometimes notice a bit of an irritating streak in the way you express yourself and approach things—and please don't take this the wrong way—that feels somewhere between mocking others and acting like you have all the answers from some high horse. I guess I just don't want to risk your style or your perspective killing anyone's desire to join in on a discussion, especially other people here who are interested in spirituality but might be looking at it through different lenses or traditions. I wouldn't want every conversation to turn into a contest of wits or a way to shut people down instead of being constructive and actually building something together.
If someone doesn't understand something, I feel like—well, within this forum environment, since real life is a different story entirely—it’s better to either explain it kindly or just stay quiet... using riddles, asking leading questions meant to highlight how someone else is wrong, or using broken, disjointed sentences that only make sense to the person writing them, isn't really helpful. It just seems to cause more misunderstanding and maybe even a bit of resentment.