Philosophical Speculations

findingblanks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:50 pm "Do you feel that the spiritual world exists, that our true being is one with that world, and it is in principle knowable just like we know our head's interior, but at our present age any artistic forms (our spiritual-scientific thought forms are such art forms modulated over the greater flow) that reflect the intuitive activity of our higher self, are too cumbersome and one-sided, and thus they can only lead to illusionary or at best very limited understanding?"

I will say, and this is when I will TRY to mirror you way of communicating: the fact that you asked this question does indicate a deep blockage (numb?) in you and I wonder if and when you will awaken to this and see what caused you to ask with those presuppositions and inner curvatures.

Ick. I don't like inhabiting that modality. But I also know that there is value in trying other dance moves. Anyway, more in my style: I'm shocked you just asked me that! I've explictly addressed exactly that. No, I'm not shocked. I've seen this pattern; but, I do always trick myself when you say certain things that you really will remember you've said them. But the loop has a value that I think is more important that the content of these Teachings.

In response: nope. Like I've said, I see great value because it isn't 'very limited.' It's okay if we have a few hundred years of limited versions and attemps of Anthroposohia to find firm purchase. That's actually quite beautiful in my opinion and experience. An analogy is watching the Christian churches attempt to 'make space' for their Host. Some SUCKED even though they were trying. Other's distorted in some ways but really carried forward for a time. And the complex interweaving is what we'd expect.

Just when I thought we're finally grasping at a common ground ...

Well, please try to see the picture that has been building out of your communications.

You say things like:

findingblanks wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 9:42 pm In terms of Old Saturn and the rest; I haven't talked to anybody who would be explaining those to me unless they had read Steiner's core text and lectures. That doesn't mean they are useless. It doesn't mean they don't come from real interactions Steiner had with reality. But it does matter to me that the only people who teach me about those things wouldn't be teaching me about them unless they had read and meditated on Steiner's book. And the few who have claimed they can now independently verify everything Steiner said in OC, well, I've found them to be fairly unstable. That said, I know there are Anthroposphists who have small followings of people who claim they are directly verifying most of Steiner's cosmology. I don't want to debate which of these folks are crazy, who are frauds, and who are people who have some degree of intutions and have come to find deep meaning in the symbols, able to experience them dynamically.

And:

findingblanks wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 4:46 pm In each tradition, the student ends up experiencing the spiritual world much like their teacher told them they would. Outsiders call it pure fantasy. Insiders know they are having objective experience.

It is clear from what you say, that you are concerned that Old Saturn, etc. are not things that are universally reported from all traditions but only from those emerging from the Thosophical stream (which emerged through Blavatsky as a re-introduction of ancient Oriental Wisdom in the West).

My whole art analogy was based on the above. I simply rephrased it.
"In each tradition, the student ends up experiencing the spiritual world much like their teacher told them they would"
became:
"The concern is now that those who are indoctrinated in sculpting will only grasp the spiritual world (thus their own true being) in Imaginations that look like sculptures. Others will grasp Imaginations that look like paintings, music, dancing, and so on."

Then I pointed out that at the vista of this, it's natural that one may feel more secure if they don't overcommit themselves to any one specific art form. And this you have confirmed many times. For example:

findingblanks wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 3:16 pm My experience mixed with my understanding mixed with my studies indicate that the human experiences after death vary greatly, much more than Steiner indicated; however, I am 100% convinced that what Steiner described was drenched with reality from many different angles, and 'angels'

In fact, there could be so much more that in its light it may turn out that, for example, Old Sun, or the astral body, are not quite the things that we could grasp them to be, were we to approach things only through SS lens. As you have said, you are open to the possibility that there could be no such things as Saturn Sphere, Sun Sphere, etc. - at least not in the way SS speaks of them. As you have explained, this doesn't mean that Steiner didn't experience some thing, but only that through the artistic tools of his tradition it could be expressed only in such a form - spheres of inner conscious experience expanding into Cosmic scales.

And I haven't said in the previous post anything that contradicts anything of what you have already said. In a way - I'm shocked that you are shocked because of my post I was only trying to put things into a more manageable analogy so that we could continue further.

My final question in the post was simply this: If none of the present spiritual schools offers a satisfactory way of reaching the spiritual world (and instead their pupils only repeat the shapes that their teacher has given them), what do you expect the future to bring? Do you have any vision of what should change in the way we approach the spiritual world if it has to cure itself of these one-sidednesses? We can make it even more specific: do you have any vision of what should change in you if you are to gain similar consciousness as your departed friend, such that not only you can feel his presence and tell that he exists in some spiritual condition but experience that condition, its dynamics and environment, by awakening here and now that part of your higher being through which you would otherwise live in that condition only after death?

This question doesn't presuppose anything about your views. I'm asking a perfectly honest and open question. What prevents human beings of today to live and be conscious in both the bodily spectrum and also in the one in which your friend moves right now? Is it that there are no reliable teachings (since they only make parrots of their students)? Is that man hasn't yet reached the required stage of evolution? Is it that in principle it will always be impossible to bridge these spectrums as long as we live in the bodily one?

"It's not that my exact clairvoyance is or isn't reaching into such practical applications, but I am gradually cultivating the humility to know what I don't know yet."

Same page!

Cleric,

"It is clear from what you say, that you are concerned that Old Saturn, etc. are not things that are universally reported from all traditions but only from those emerging from the Thosophical stream (which emerged through Blavatsky as a re-introduction of ancient Oriental Wisdom in the West)."

Nope. The reason I've never stated that as my concern is because that's not my concern. I've said why I find it interesting and the degree to which I won't be surprised if it isn't the frame work that Anthroposophists, and others, are sharing in the future. But, nope, you're wrong, that isn't my concern. And interesting whenever things are so 'clear' to you like this.

"If none of the present spiritual schools offers a satisfactory way of reaching the spiritual world (and instead their pupils only repeat the shapes that their teacher has given them), what do you expect the future to bring?"

Seems to me that many of the spiritual schools offer very satisfying ways of reaching the spiritual world. This is why I say I'm open and excited IF someday there are spiritual scientists in the form that Steiner predicted. Just because I don't think that is necessary for his carrying forward of Anthroposophia to be fruitful doesn't mean I think it is impossible.

"Do you have any vision of what should change in the way we approach the spiritual world if it has to cure itself of these one-sidednesses? We can make it even more specific: do you have any vision of what should change in you if you are to gain similar consciousness as your departed friend, such that not only you can feel his presence and tell that he exists in some spiritual condition but experience that condition, its dynamics and environment, by awakening here and now that part of your higher being through which you would otherwise live in that condition only after death?"

It is changing in me. That is why I was able to see how my earlier blind-spots were shaping the experience in various ways. That doesn't mean that when I was interacting with my dead friend, it was all fake. I keep saying this to you guys I think there was objectivity even then. So the changing is happening and I hope it never stops.

To the first part; there will be more and more folks who love and respect Steiner and who are very developed themselves and show the blind-spots in his development, how and why they evolved (not that it will be complete) and how they shaped the way in which he experienced the spiritual world. They won't be mad. They won' be haters. They will just be much more like it has always been in lineages and streams of thought. But depending on what happens with the formal Anthroposophcial movement in the next 30 years or so, maybe not. Maybe these folks will not even bump into Steiner's work enough to form that kind of relationship. Hard to tell from here. But there will be some within Anthroposophy who thinks this suggets that everything is wrong if they aren't making major changes to their practices. I don't think so. You can still learn a hell of a lot out of an earlier telescope. No need to chuck something just because there is an evolving ecology. I want your exact clairvoyance to get published and be avaiable for all to learn from, especially the ways you are using your clairvoyance to innovate new social forms and educational methods. To me, it's not a big deal if in your next life you go, "Whoa, I really shaped that stuff in a weird way that wasn't necessary and I can now see blah blah blah". It won't suggest in the least that your objectivity today should be ignored by those who are hungry for it.

And I'm glad you have students who are hungry to learn from you. Either way, they will carry forward the best of your work or they will modify it based, largely, on your insights. We all win.

findingblanks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:10 pm "If none of the present spiritual schools offers a satisfactory way of reaching the spiritual world (and instead their pupils only repeat the shapes that their teacher has given them), what do you expect the future to bring?"

Seems to me that many of the spiritual schools offer very satisfying ways of reaching the spiritual world. This is why I say I'm open and excited IF someday there are spiritual scientists in the form that Steiner predicted. Just because I don't think that is necessary for his carrying forward of Anthroposophia to be fruitful doesn't mean I think it is impossible.

You say we are on the same page (!), but then repeat exactly this same sentiment. "Because I am not personally familiar with spiritual scientists who meet my (highly questionable) expectations of 'clairvoyance', they must not exist, and I will simply remain excited that somehow, someway, this will emerge in the future, without any clear vision of how. But if anyone else comes along in the here and now and points toward how we can verify everything of spiritual science ourselves, I will assume they are just parroting Steiner's artforms because I have already decided it cannot exist in the present. Why? Because it doesn't exist within my sphere of knowledge in the present."

Ashvin,

I've said the opposite. I've said that I personally know there are Anthroposophists having the same perceptions as Steiner. I think it is possible that we will have a future with loads of these people doing mutual exact clairvoyant research and being open about their experiences. That doesn't mean it is a guarantee.

The 'same page' comment was about knowing how little we know.

findingblanks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:10 pm Seems to me that many of the spiritual schools offer very satisfying ways of reaching the spiritual world.

Can you explain what exactly you imply with "satisfying"? Satisfying for who? For those who quench their thirst for non-ordinary experiences regardless of whether they lead to consistent comprehension of reality? For example, one school (following their teacher's shapes) may feel very satisfied that they don't find any such thing as Karma in their non-ordinary experiences (and as such, feel the great relief of not bearing any moral responsibility in life). Others may be satisfied with the vision of Heaven that awaits them after death if they live a righteous life. And so on.

Or satisfying for you? Which would leave me somewhat confused. To this date, I don't think you have signaled that there's anything derived from experiences in the spiritual world (I'm no longer sure we imply the same meaning in that term) that you don't find to be more than a conjecture which may or may not turn out true. The only thing for which I have heard you expressing some conviction is that death is not the end and something of the incarnated individuality moves on (reinforced by the experience of your friend's presence). Can you give an example of something else that you find satisfying (in case you were implying that it is satisfying to you)? Or maybe 'satisfying' in this context doesn't have anything at all to do with the pursuit of Truth, but is what the narrow meaning implies: satisfying (pleasant) to the senses with no deeper meaning sought, let alone Truth?

Ashvin, in the same way you've shared your way of imagining a field of experience in which there is no meaning yet attached to any percepts, could you share your experience of the etheric body of plants? I have questions about how this manifests in different contexts, and I obviously don't always get a chance to talk to somebody who has developed this first stage of clairvoyance. I've often met folks who talk about achieving this stage, folks who up till that point were not shy at all about sharing their understandings of Occult Science, but then get so quiet about sharing their direct experience of etheric bodies. You've asked me lots of questions. If I promise to make my questions very specific and less than 7, would you be willing to answer them? I'm trying to not write too many paragraphs so that things don't get lost.

"Can you explain what exactly you imply with "satisfying"?"

I was using it as a synonym for Ashvin's 'satisfactory.' However, some people would not be satisfied by satisfaction, so we could really drill down spiritually on this. Let me meditate on it.