The Nature of the sensory world or do we really *know* the ultimate ground of reality?

[AshvinP]

Eugene, I was just about to ask you about your position on "the branding problem" of SS. I am stunned. How do you make the branding problem of SS fit the rest of your non-dual statements? What reasons other than sectarian, block-positioning against SS can explain this?

"Branding problem" seems to be too vague of a statement, I don't see it that way. IMO Steiner's version of SS have these particular issues:
- Insufficient regard to non-dual experience.
- Hard to understand for an average human.
- Too much emphasis and stretch into the occultic content
- The representation of Steiner's version of SS on this forum has a significant skew towards defensive sectarianism

And as I said in another thread, Martinus version of SS does not have these issues.

What does "occult" or "occultic" mean, in your view? I really can't figure out how you exclude Martinus from occult science.

[Stranger]

What does "occult" or "occultic" mean, in your view? I really can't figure out how you exclude Martinus from occult science.

Occult Wiki
Occultism
Martinus also reaches to the occultic side but to a reasonable and grounded extent.

[Güney27]

Eugene, I was just about to ask you about your position on "the branding problem" of SS. I am stunned. How do you make the branding problem of SS fit the rest of your non-dual statements? What reasons other than sectarian, block-positioning against SS can explain this?

"Branding problem" seems to be too vague of a statement, I don't see it that way. IMO Steiner's version of SS have these particular issues:
- Insufficient regard to non-dual experience.
- Hard to understand for an average human.
- Too much emphasis and stretch into the occultic content
- The representation of Steiner's version of SS on this forum has a significant skew towards defensive sectarianism

And as I said in another thread, Martinus version of SS does not have these issues.

Maybe there will be a paradigm shift in the forum.
Steiner x Martinus
Have you already studied Martinu's works thoroughly or not?
Maybe there is a connection between the two.

[Stranger]

Maybe there will be a paradigm shift in the forum.
Steiner x Martinus
Have you already studied Martinu's works thoroughly or not?
Maybe there is a connection between the two.

Not thoroughly yet, I just started a few days ago, but I'm reading his works now and so far I'm very impressed.

[Güney27]

Am I living in confusion, or does this writing resemble the writings of the cult leader:

The final mission of prayer in its true divine form

Having obtained this clear-sightedness as to the suppliant's situation, we now have the conditions which enable us in our prayer to begin adjusting ourselves to as to be in contact with God's will. This situation can only manifest itself in the following ways: we either pray for "favours", which from a cosmic viewpoint is the same as praying for favouritism, praying to be one of His "chosen few", or to be in the good graces of this omnipotent being, and our prayer will absolutely never be "granted", or we are completely in accordance with the divine will and live accordingly from dawn to dusk in an eternal "fulfilment of prayers". The fundamental structure and the principle basis of prayer demand that no prayer intended to bring about the satisfaction of a desire to be specially favoured by the Godhead can ever be "granted" or fulfilled, just as every prayer which is solely intended to bring about the satisfaction of the desire that in every instance the divine will be done concerning one's own self can only be fully "granted" or fulfilled. To the extent that the suppliant is not in contact with this, his prayer will be something which is in disharmony with the divine will and remain ungranted. Otherwise the most primitive wishes or will of the son of God or the suppliant would come true and the Godhead's highly intellectual, universal, love-promoting will would have to stop, and the universe, and with it life itself, would be on the highroad to ruin.
      Of what use then is the great and eternal principle of prayer? When the person who prays for the satisfaction of purely selfish desires, because this satisfaction seems to him (her) to be the "one thing needful" or desirable happiness, does not have his prayer granted, of what use is this person's prayer? As "granting of prayers" can take place only in cases where the prayer expresses the desire that God's will be done, the prayer is not necessary, because this will is in all circumstances the winning end-result in any situation; therefore the suppliant's desire is granted. What is there then to pray for?
      Is it not true that prayer here appears to be completely superfluous? No, on the contrary. Here prayer begins to appear in its true, divine form as that which is its final mission, namely as a "living daily conversation or correspondance with the Godhead." Here it reveals that what we have known about its nature up till now was nothing but its embryonic stage, its initial zone. As long as prayer is released as a selfish desire it is still identical with the "animals"'s cry of terror in the jungle although in terrestrial Man it is released in "civilized phrases". The relationship between the suppliant and the Godhead is in reality the same as the relationship between the tiny baby in its cradle and its mother. The tiny baby does not know any other way of appealing to the mother than "screaming" and "crying" whenever something unpleasant happens to it. This "unpleasant something" is usually something vital and natural, such as hunger, need for being changed etc. Here it is a "warning", a cry, a prayer to the mother who is the child's guardian angel in its still helpless situation. Such a cry or such a "prayer" to the mother or others who might be in the place of the mother cannot be included under the concept of "selfishness". On the contrary: the cry is the only means by which the baby can be in contact with the divine will, which means its own vital care and maintenance. Without screaming, crying or wailing it could not beg for assistance from those beings who are essential for the continuation of its physical life.
      Normally such prayer is therefore "granted". But when the child has grown, when he can begin to think, understand or speak on the physical plane, he may have desires or wishes which are not vital ones – they may even be directly harmful to his fellow beings. Such thoughts and desires are selfish and thus they are not expressive of the divine will. This divine will appears through a healthy upbringing which brings about a fight against granting these wishes, no matter how much the child may cry, whimper and wail because its "prayers are not granted". It is just the same as regards the relationship between the son of God and God. All desires that are vital or natural necessities, such as hunger, thirst etc., without which daily life could not possibly be preserved, are not selfish and they are therefore directly in contact with the divine will. It is all right to include these in one's prayer if some inconveniences or obstacles have arisen as regards their satisfaction. But all the desires that are not vital and which can be satisfied only on the basis of more or less destroying the life and health of one's fellow beings are "selfish" and are thus not in contact with the divine will. To include these in one's prayer is the same as appealing for a "granting of prayer" which the Godhead's "upbringing" or the divine world-order is inclined to oppose.
      Just as in the individual's intercourse with its mother or its parents many desires which the parents cannot satisfy may appear, so terrestrial Man's relationship or prayerful intercourse with the Godhead may involve many "prayers" or desires which Providence cannot grant. It is true that it may be difficult for ordinary man to distinguish between false desires and true or natural ones. But here Providence by means of world-redemption, has reached out a helping hand and has given to mankind the "Lord's Prayer". This prayer which I am going to describe here, is a cosmic prayer and it is completely in contact with the things which the divine will wants done as regards the attitude of the son of God himself, life and the Godhead.
-Martinus

[AshvinP]

Am I living in confusion, or does this writing resemble the writings of the cult leader:

The final mission of prayer in its true divine form

Having obtained this clear-sightedness as to the suppliant's situation, we now have the conditions which enable us in our prayer to begin adjusting ourselves to as to be in contact with God's will. This situation can only manifest itself in the following ways: we either pray for "favours", which from a cosmic viewpoint is the same as praying for favouritism, praying to be one of His "chosen few", or to be in the good graces of this omnipotent being, and our prayer will absolutely never be "granted", or we are completely in accordance with the divine will and live accordingly from dawn to dusk in an eternal "fulfilment of prayers". The fundamental structure and the principle basis of prayer demand that no prayer intended to bring about the satisfaction of a desire to be specially favoured by the Godhead can ever be "granted" or fulfilled, just as every prayer which is solely intended to bring about the satisfaction of the desire that in every instance the divine will be done concerning one's own self can only be fully "granted" or fulfilled. To the extent that the suppliant is not in contact with this, his prayer will be something which is in disharmony with the divine will and remain ungranted. Otherwise the most primitive wishes or will of the son of God or the suppliant would come true and the Godhead's highly intellectual, universal, love-promoting will would have to stop, and the universe, and with it life itself, would be on the highroad to ruin.
      Of what use then is the great and eternal principle of prayer? When the person who prays for the satisfaction of purely selfish desires, because this satisfaction seems to him (her) to be the "one thing needful" or desirable happiness, does not have his prayer granted, of what use is this person's prayer? As "granting of prayers" can take place only in cases where the prayer expresses the desire that God's will be done, the prayer is not necessary, because this will is in all circumstances the winning end-result in any situation; therefore the suppliant's desire is granted. What is there then to pray for?
      Is it not true that prayer here appears to be completely superfluous? No, on the contrary. Here prayer begins to appear in its true, divine form as that which is its final mission, namely as a "living daily conversation or correspondance with the Godhead." Here it reveals that what we have known about its nature up till now was nothing but its embryonic stage, its initial zone. As long as prayer is released as a selfish desire it is still identical with the "animals"'s cry of terror in the jungle although in terrestrial Man it is released in "civilized phrases". The relationship between the suppliant and the Godhead is in reality the same as the relationship between the tiny baby in its cradle and its mother. The tiny baby does not know any other way of appealing to the mother than "screaming" and "crying" whenever something unpleasant happens to it. This "unpleasant something" is usually something vital and natural, such as hunger, need for being changed etc. Here it is a "warning", a cry, a prayer to the mother who is the child's guardian angel in its still helpless situation. Such a cry or such a "prayer" to the mother or others who might be in the place of the mother cannot be included under the concept of "selfishness". On the contrary: the cry is the only means by which the baby can be in contact with the divine will, which means its own vital care and maintenance. Without screaming, crying or wailing it could not beg for assistance from those beings who are essential for the continuation of its physical life.
      Normally such prayer is therefore "granted". But when the child has grown, when he can begin to think, understand or speak on the physical plane, he may have desires or wishes which are not vital ones – they may even be directly harmful to his fellow beings. Such thoughts and desires are selfish and thus they are not expressive of the divine will. This divine will appears through a healthy upbringing which brings about a fight against granting these wishes, no matter how much the child may cry, whimper and wail because its "prayers are not granted". It is just the same as regards the relationship between the son of God and God. All desires that are vital or natural necessities, such as hunger, thirst etc., without which daily life could not possibly be preserved, are not selfish and they are therefore directly in contact with the divine will. It is all right to include these in one's prayer if some inconveniences or obstacles have arisen as regards their satisfaction. But all the desires that are not vital and which can be satisfied only on the basis of more or less destroying the life and health of one's fellow beings are "selfish" and are thus not in contact with the divine will. To include these in one's prayer is the same as appealing for a "granting of prayer" which the Godhead's "upbringing" or the divine world-order is inclined to oppose.
      Just as in the individual's intercourse with its mother or its parents many desires which the parents cannot satisfy may appear, so terrestrial Man's relationship or prayerful intercourse with the Godhead may involve many "prayers" or desires which Providence cannot grant. It is true that it may be difficult for ordinary man to distinguish between false desires and true or natural ones. But here Providence by means of world-redemption, has reached out a helping hand and has given to mankind the "Lord's Prayer". This prayer which I am going to describe here, is a cosmic prayer and it is completely in contact with the things which the divine will wants done as regards the attitude of the son of God himself, life and the Godhead.
-Martinus

Guney,

What did you find objectionable in the above? It seems a quite reasonable understanding of the role of prayer to me, on first read.

[Stranger]

Am I living in confusion, or does this writing resemble the writings of the cult leader:

Not to me, I think it's a very good description of prayer as a living inner connection with the Godhead, and it gets to the key point:

Here prayer begins to appear in its true, divine form as that which is its final mission, namely as a "living daily conversation or correspondance with the Godhead."

A cult leader would never write something like this:

As my work .... has begun to awaken an interest and create a movement, it is, in this respect, absolutely necessary that this movement is not led astray into limiting, encasing or crystallizing itself into a faith-based community, sect or association, thereby having a narrow-minded monopoly on "the one and only road to salvation".

[Federica]

"Branding problem" seems to be too vague of a statement, I don't see it that way. IMO Steiner's version of SS have these particular issues:
- Insufficient regard to non-dual experience.
- Hard to understand for an average human.
- Too much emphasis and stretch into the occultic content
- The representation of Steiner's version of SS on this forum has a significant skew towards defensive sectarianism

And as I said in another thread, Martinus version of SS does not have these issues.

Maybe there will be a paradigm shift in the forum.
Steiner x Martinus
Have you already studied Martinu's works thoroughly or not?
Maybe there is a connection between the two.

Güney, the connection between the two is the Truth they both have seen, from their own individual perspective.


Eugene, so far, it's clear to me that Martinus is just as much concerned with the interpaly of the above with the below, the interplay of the spiritual with the physical, as Steiner is. You will find "Mars questions" in his work too. The language is different and the nuances are different from Steiner's, so if you prefer Martinus' nuance of spiritual science, that's perfect, but you will have to let that nuance bleed onto you, and change you, otherwise you will bump into the same issues you have with Steiner (or turn a blind eye to them, but that I hope you will not do... I will not let you anyway )

[Güney27]

Am I living in confusion, or does this writing resemble the writings of the cult leader:

The final mission of prayer in its true divine form

Having obtained this clear-sightedness as to the suppliant's situation, we now have the conditions which enable us in our prayer to begin adjusting ourselves to as to be in contact with God's will. This situation can only manifest itself in the following ways: we either pray for "favours", which from a cosmic viewpoint is the same as praying for favouritism, praying to be one of His "chosen few", or to be in the good graces of this omnipotent being, and our prayer will absolutely never be "granted", or we are completely in accordance with the divine will and live accordingly from dawn to dusk in an eternal "fulfilment of prayers". The fundamental structure and the principle basis of prayer demand that no prayer intended to bring about the satisfaction of a desire to be specially favoured by the Godhead can ever be "granted" or fulfilled, just as every prayer which is solely intended to bring about the satisfaction of the desire that in every instance the divine will be done concerning one's own self can only be fully "granted" or fulfilled. To the extent that the suppliant is not in contact with this, his prayer will be something which is in disharmony with the divine will and remain ungranted. Otherwise the most primitive wishes or will of the son of God or the suppliant would come true and the Godhead's highly intellectual, universal, love-promoting will would have to stop, and the universe, and with it life itself, would be on the highroad to ruin.
      Of what use then is the great and eternal principle of prayer? When the person who prays for the satisfaction of purely selfish desires, because this satisfaction seems to him (her) to be the "one thing needful" or desirable happiness, does not have his prayer granted, of what use is this person's prayer? As "granting of prayers" can take place only in cases where the prayer expresses the desire that God's will be done, the prayer is not necessary, because this will is in all circumstances the winning end-result in any situation; therefore the suppliant's desire is granted. What is there then to pray for?
      Is it not true that prayer here appears to be completely superfluous? No, on the contrary. Here prayer begins to appear in its true, divine form as that which is its final mission, namely as a "living daily conversation or correspondance with the Godhead." Here it reveals that what we have known about its nature up till now was nothing but its embryonic stage, its initial zone. As long as prayer is released as a selfish desire it is still identical with the "animals"'s cry of terror in the jungle although in terrestrial Man it is released in "civilized phrases". The relationship between the suppliant and the Godhead is in reality the same as the relationship between the tiny baby in its cradle and its mother. The tiny baby does not know any other way of appealing to the mother than "screaming" and "crying" whenever something unpleasant happens to it. This "unpleasant something" is usually something vital and natural, such as hunger, need for being changed etc. Here it is a "warning", a cry, a prayer to the mother who is the child's guardian angel in its still helpless situation. Such a cry or such a "prayer" to the mother or others who might be in the place of the mother cannot be included under the concept of "selfishness". On the contrary: the cry is the only means by which the baby can be in contact with the divine will, which means its own vital care and maintenance. Without screaming, crying or wailing it could not beg for assistance from those beings who are essential for the continuation of its physical life.
      Normally such prayer is therefore "granted". But when the child has grown, when he can begin to think, understand or speak on the physical plane, he may have desires or wishes which are not vital ones – they may even be directly harmful to his fellow beings. Such thoughts and desires are selfish and thus they are not expressive of the divine will. This divine will appears through a healthy upbringing which brings about a fight against granting these wishes, no matter how much the child may cry, whimper and wail because its "prayers are not granted". It is just the same as regards the relationship between the son of God and God. All desires that are vital or natural necessities, such as hunger, thirst etc., without which daily life could not possibly be preserved, are not selfish and they are therefore directly in contact with the divine will. It is all right to include these in one's prayer if some inconveniences or obstacles have arisen as regards their satisfaction. But all the desires that are not vital and which can be satisfied only on the basis of more or less destroying the life and health of one's fellow beings are "selfish" and are thus not in contact with the divine will. To include these in one's prayer is the same as appealing for a "granting of prayer" which the Godhead's "upbringing" or the divine world-order is inclined to oppose.
      Just as in the individual's intercourse with its mother or its parents many desires which the parents cannot satisfy may appear, so terrestrial Man's relationship or prayerful intercourse with the Godhead may involve many "prayers" or desires which Providence cannot grant. It is true that it may be difficult for ordinary man to distinguish between false desires and true or natural ones. But here Providence by means of world-redemption, has reached out a helping hand and has given to mankind the "Lord's Prayer". This prayer which I am going to describe here, is a cosmic prayer and it is completely in contact with the things which the divine will wants done as regards the attitude of the son of God himself, life and the Godhead.
-Martinus

Guney,

What did you find objectionable in the above? It seems a quite reasonable understanding of the role of prayer to me, on first read.

Ashvin,

Actually nothing.
I was shocked how similar the sect leader (steiner) and Martinus talk about certain topics.
In contrast to Steiner, Martinus sees (to the best of my knowledge)
Prayer (Our Father) as divine and safe meditation, in contrast to other forms of meditation. With Steiner, prayer is not part of the main exercises.

But it is not easy to develop a deep understanding of these issues. It takes time and changes in one's being.

[AshvinP]

Actually nothing.
I was shocked how similar the sect leader (steiner) and Martinus talk about certain topics.
In contrast to Steiner, Martinus sees (to the best of my knowledge)
Prayer (Our Father) as divine and safe meditation, in contrast to other forms of meditation. With Steiner, prayer is not part of the main exercises.

But it is not easy to develop a deep understanding of these issues. It takes time and changes in one's being.

Right. As Federica noted, they are clairvoyantly viewing the same spiritual reality from different angles, although given the recent temporal context, the angles are not all that different either. From what I can tell so far, Martinus also pursues a Christ-centered esoteric approach which is rooted in higher modes of cognition. What mostly differs is the degree of resolution they attain, and it's practically impossible to top Steiner in that respect. The latter was also thoroughly versed in history, philosophy, and science to an extent most historians, philosophers, and scientists are not. All of that fleshes out and adds greater insight into the intuitive reality explored through spiritual sight.

I would not say Steiner makes prayer secondary or is not included in 'main' exercises, although given the amount of material he provided to us, sometimes that emphasis can be missed. In a certain sense, a prayerful attitude and regular prayer is presupposed in all of the other exercises. He also lectures explicitly on prayer in various places. For instance he has a lecture on the deeper esoteric significance of the Lord's Prayer, which is what Martinus was also discussing in that quote. You will notice the similarties in what follows:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/LorPry_index.html

It should be noted by the way that what passes for prayer today would by no means have been considered such in early Christian times, least of all by the Founder of Christianity, Christ Jesus Himself. For if it were to happen that someone were really to gain the gratification of his personal wishes by prayer or entreaty, he would soon entirely disregard the all-embracing effect that the granting of the prayer should bring. He would assume that the Deity granted his wishes rather than those of others. One peasant might pray for sunshine for a particular crop; another for rain for another crop. What would Divine Providence then do?

Or suppose two opposing armies are facing each other, with each side praying for victory and supposing its cause alone to be just. Such an instance makes immediately obvious how little universality and sense of brotherhood attach to prayers arising out of personal wishes, and the granting of such prayers by God can satisfy only one group of supplicants. People so praying disregard the prayer in which Christ Jesus set forth the fundamental attitude of mind that should prevail in all prayer: “Father, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done.” This is the Christian attitude of prayer.
...
The three higher members of the human being — the eternal portion — may thus be looked upon as the three highest principles in man, but equally as three principles in the Godhead Itself. Actually, the three highest principles of human nature are at the same time the three lowest principles of the Divinity nearest to man. An enumeration of man's principles must start with the physical body, continue with the etheric body, astral body and ego, thence from spirit self to spirit man. But a corresponding enumeration of the principles of those Divine Beings who gave a drop of their own soul nature to man at the time of which we are speaking in the far-off past, must begin with spirit self, continue with life spirit and spirit man, and thence proceed to principles above spirit man, of which contemporary man can only conceive when he is a pupil of Initiates.

There is another great lecture on the mood of prayer here, which Eugene may gloss over - https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA059/En ... 17p02.html

During recent centuries, the nature of prayer has been misunderstood in all sorts of ways by this or that spiritual movement, and to gain a true understanding of it will not be easy. If, however, we remember that these centuries have been marked especially by the emergence of egotistic spiritual trends which have laid hold of wide circles of people, we shall not find it surprising that prayer has been dragged down to the level of egotistic wishes and desires. And it must be said that prayer can hardly be more utterly misunderstood than when it is permeated by some form of egotism. In this lecture we shall try to study prayer entirely in the light of spiritual science, free from any sectarian or other influence.

As a first approach, we might say that while the mystic assumes that he will find in his soul some kind of little spark which his mystical devotion will cause to shine ever more brightly, prayer is intended to engender the spark. And prayer, from whatever presuppositions it proceeds, proves its effectiveness precisely by stirring the soul either to discover gradually the little spark, if it is there, gleaming but hidden, or to kindle it.
...
If in this way we observe how past and future flow into the present, we can see how the life of the soul grows beyond itself. When the soul, on looking back over the past, becomes aware — whether as a judgment or with regret or shame — of a power from the past which is playing into the present but which is greater than itself, this realisation will evoke in the soul a reverence towards the divine. And this reverence, which we can feel working upon us but which is more than we can consciously grasp, evokes one mode of prayer — for there are two which bring the soul into an intimate relationship with God. For if the soul surrenders itself in innermost calm to the feelings engendered by the past, it will begin to wish that the power it had left unused, which it had not penetrated with its ego, might now become a present reality. Then the soul can say to itself. If this power were within me, I should be different now. The divine element I aspire to did not belong to my inner life; that is why I failed to make myself into something of which I could approve today. Having come to this realisation, the soul might continue: How can I draw into myself the unknown which indeed lived in all my actions and experiences, but without my being aware of it, for I was not able to grasp it with my ego? When the soul is brought to this frame of mind, whether through a feeling, a word or an idea, we have the prayer directed to the past. This means that the soul is seeking to draw near to the divine along one devotional path.

Now we will turn to the gleam of the divine that comes with the stream from the unknown future. Here a different frame of mind is evoked. As we have just seen, when we look back over the past we realise that we have not developed our innate capabilities; we see how our shortcomings have prevented us from responding to the divine light that shines in on us, and this feeling leads us to the prayer of devotion, prompted by the past. What, then, is the influence coming from the future that in a similar way makes us aware of our defects which restrict our ascent to the spiritual?

We need only to remember the feelings of fear and anxiety that gnaw at our soul-life in face of the unknown future. Is there anything that can give the soul a sense of security in this situation? Yes, there is. It is what we may call a feeling of humbleness towards anything that may come towards the soul out of the darkness of the future. But this feeling will be effective only if it has the character of prayer. Let us avoid misunderstanding. We are not extolling something that might be called humbleness in one sense or another; we are describing a definite form of it — humbleness to whatever the future may bring. Anyone who looks anxiously and fearfully towards the future hinders his development, hampers the free unfolding of his soul-forces. Nothing, indeed, obstructs this development more than fear and anxiety in face of the unknown future. But the results of submitting to the future can be judged only by experience. What does this humbleness mean?

Ideally, it would mean saying to oneself: Whatever the next hour or day may bring, I cannot change it by fear or anxiety, for it is not yet known. I will therefore wait for it with complete inward restfulness, perfect tranquillity of mind. Anyone who can meet the future in this calm, relaxed way, without impairing his active strength and energy, will be able to develop the powers of his soul freely and intensively. It is as if hindrance after hindrance falls away, as the soul comes to be more and more pervaded by this feeling of humbleness toward approaching events.