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

[Stranger]

Of course Steiner did investigate the lawful functioning of the human organism - anatomy, chemistry, biology, physiology, etc - in ways most people are completely unaware of and don't suspect, even today, but you expect that research to conform with past and current theories of secular science, which are only aware of dead mineral processes in the human organism, ignoring those of life, soul, and spirit. We can't actually understand the lawful functioning of the human organism without factoring in the last three, which was done extensively by Steiner. You expect that 'clairvoyant abilities' simply extend the past theories with new intellectual factoids which would have anticipated the trajectory of secular research. That is not how it works. If you simply took time to work through the material on the fourfold convolutions presented by Cleric, Steiner, or other Christian esoteric streams, these confusions would not arise for you. Then you would understand that the latest 'laws' of secular science are simply the decohered image of life-soul-spirit laws of an aesthetic and moral nature, including those of the planetary Spheres and Karma, which have been explored for centuries and made scientific through streams such as Anthroposophy.

No, it is the other way around. SS covers both physical and spiritual realms, and therefore has to account for lawful structures of both domains. The laws discovered by physics or biology only remain abstract when they are taken alone and apart from the laws of the spiritual realm. But in SS they have to be integrated, explained and accounted for in harmony with the spiritual laws, and not simply discarded as "abstract". The Schrodinger equation describes the factual behavior of particles, as we observe them in the physical realm, with insane level of accuracy, they cannot be just disregarded as irrelevant and "abstract", even though they are definitely insufficient to describe the reality on the larger scale. That means that the laws of quantum mechanics are still valid and relevant in SS, they are just rooted in deeper structures extending to the spiritual domains and are derived from them. And that in turn means that if anyone claims clairvoyant abilities to know the lawful structures of both spiritual and physical domains in great details, then they have to be able to have knowledge of their lawful structures, including the knowledge of the physical laws governing the physical elemental or biological domains. That is why I asked Cleric about hundred times why the behavior of particles in the physical domain is governed exactly by Schoeninger equation and not by any other equation but never got any answer from him. Again, you cannot get away from this question by claiming that the Schoeninger equation is "abstract" because this equation exactly describes the known facts of the physical domain, and therefore it cannot be discarded as irrelevant and it has to be accounted for and explained in SS in some way. The same argument applies to any other laws known to the secular science (genetics, biochemistry etc) - they all have to be accounted for and explained in SS and not just be discarded as irrelevant or abstract.

So, the bottom line is: if we are talking about just spiritual matters regarding spiritual or meditative practices, inner experiences or knowledge related to only spiritual realms, then we can ignore the laws of physical domain, and that how it was done in the spiritual and religious traditions of the past that were mainly concerned with people's spiritual development. But SS is claiming to be a science relevant to both spiritual and physical domains, and therefore it has to account for and be able to acquire the knowledge of the laws of both domains, or at least account for the currently known laws of the physical domain. But none of it exists in the Steiner's SS, which means that it apparently fails to deliver its claims and promises.

[AshvinP]

Of course Steiner did investigate the lawful functioning of the human organism - anatomy, chemistry, biology, physiology, etc - in ways most people are completely unaware of and don't suspect, even today, but you expect that research to conform with past and current theories of secular science, which are only aware of dead mineral processes in the human organism, ignoring those of life, soul, and spirit. We can't actually understand the lawful functioning of the human organism without factoring in the last three, which was done extensively by Steiner. You expect that 'clairvoyant abilities' simply extend the past theories with new intellectual factoids which would have anticipated the trajectory of secular research. That is not how it works. If you simply took time to work through the material on the fourfold convolutions presented by Cleric, Steiner, or other Christian esoteric streams, these confusions would not arise for you. Then you would understand that the latest 'laws' of secular science are simply the decohered image of life-soul-spirit laws of an aesthetic and moral nature, including those of the planetary Spheres and Karma, which have been explored for centuries and made scientific through streams such as Anthroposophy.

No, it is the other way around. SS covers both physical and spiritual realms, and therefore has to account for lawful structures of both domains. The laws discovered by physics or biology only remain abstract when they are taken alone and apart from the laws of the spiritual realm. But in SS they have to be integrated, explained and accounted for in harmony with the spiritual laws, and not simply discarded as "abstract". The Schrodinger equation describes the factual behavior of particles, as we observe them in the physical realm, with insane level of accuracy, they cannot be just disregarded as irrelevant and "abstract", even though they are definitely insufficient to describe the reality on the larger scale. That means that the laws of quantum mechanics are still valid and relevant in SS, they are just rooted in deeper structures extending to the spiritual domains and are derived from them. And that in turn means that if anyone claims clairvoyant abilities to know the lawful structures of both spiritual and physical domains in great details, then they have to be able to have knowledge of their lawful structures, including the knowledge of the physical laws governing the physical elemental or biological domains. That is why I asked Cleric about hundred times why the behavior of particles in the physical domain is governed exactly by Schoeninger equation and not by any other equation but never got any answer from him. Again, you cannot get away from this question by claiming that the Schoeninger equation is "abstract" because this equation exactly describes the known facts of the physical domain, and therefore it cannot be discarded as irrelevant and it has to be accounted for and explained in SS in some way. The same argument applies to any other laws known to the secular science (genetics, biochemistry etc) - they all have to be accounted for and explained in SS and not just be discarded as irrelevant or abstract.

They are integrated, explained, and accounted for, Eugene, just not in the way you expect. Cleric answered your questions many times, but you are expecting an abstract intellectual answer which only relates to dead mineral processes, i.e. fragmented behavior of particles on the screen of your intellectual perception. The physical science is only not accounted for if you separate it from the inner lawfulness and assume the behavior of 'particles', as observed, is something entirely independent of Karmic laws and the overall working of the nested hierarchies. Physical science itself is not abstract, but your understanding of it is. You don't understand it as the outer physiognomy of soul-spirit processes working across the layers of structured Time-potential. The goal of science, which is spiritually informed, is to understand the lawful functioning of the Cosmos as a holistic living organism, in a way that is useful and promoting of health, life, and the moral perfection of inner capacities, which are all interrelated. In fact, the moral perfection of inner capacities is what leads to greater quality of health and life in the most literal sense. The precise dynamics of these interrelations have already been explored, and continue to be explored, and you simply are not aware of these efforts, or ignore them because you expect them to show up as an end-user model which does all the heavy lifting for you.

[Federica]

So my point is: you reject the "occultic stuff" on grounds of it not fitting the criteria of secular science.

I never said that criteria of secular sciences are applicable to spiritual science. But now, what are the criteria for SS? For example, if a random guy tells me that he saw in a clairvoyant vision that Mohammed currently lives on Venus (the higher-dimensional Venus, not the physical one), should I just believe him? Would you? How do we distinguish true clairvoyant occultic experiences from false ones? Same thing applies to our own experiences, we can have a large variety of experiences and visions in meditations (and I did that too), but how do we know if they are the products of fabrications of our own mind or if they actually reflect some objective spiritual realities?

The criterium I use is that if an experience (mine or someone else's) coherently fits to the overall picture of reality, as Cleric said, to the "harmony of facts", then there is more likelihood that it is true. But in general I do not claim that the occultic experiences are all false or true, but I consider them to be contingently true with certain likelihood. Is it possible that Buddha lives on higher-dimensional Mars as Steiner claimed? It is definitely possible, why not? Do I believe it with absolute certainty? I don't. So, what I'm saying is: just believing that any occultic or clairvoyant experience gives us true objective facts about spiritual reality is not spiritual science, we need additional truthfulness criteria to accept them as facts. When Martinus talks about the karmic loops in his symbolic pictures, I can see that in addition to his clairvoyant claims, I can also see how it fits with my inner experience of karmic dependencies, as well as how they manifest in lives of other people, so it all fits into the "harmony of facts" and I have more certainty that his clairvoyant knowledge relates to the objective realities. In general, everything that Martinus describes, including his occultic knowledge, (from what I read so far) makes sense and fits into the harmony of facts of my own inner and outer experience. The extent of his occultic content is reasonable and grounded in the harmony of other facts about the reality. That is not the case with Steiner, his writings are overloaded with wild occultic claims that often barely have any relevance to the harmony of facts (at least of the facts of my inner and outer experience). For example, when Steiner talks about the Buddha living on Mars, I have no references for that claim or any ways to fit it into the harmony of other facts known to me, so it just remains an occultic claim on its own for me. And by the way, what Steiner's claims about the Buddha contradicts to what the Buddhist masters claim about him and his current abode. So why would I believe Steiner more than the Buddhist masters?

When you approach the question whether this or that being lives within this or that spiritual environment in terms of likelihood, probability, you are implicitly applying a secular science type of reasoning. This cannot lead us very far. The reasoning is toothless to grasp spiritual reality. That side of reality does not lend itself to be examined through the categories of standard statistics, which imply standard time, and so on and so forth. Another completely different approach needs to be developed and worked out. We cannot foresee the new approach before we start developing it. We can only be open to the new cognitive nuance to bleed onto us, and change us. That's the difficulty. You can't foresee where exactly you will land, nor who exactly will be landing.


And you are right, this difficulty also means that one will only obtain the indisputable proof of the truthfulness and accuracy of that complete view of reality after having developed those skills, and after having experienced it for oneself. So yes, until one gets there, the motivation to engage the way and to constantly deliver the necessary effort, must be sustained by some form of inclination, belief, trust. If one lacks that inclination completely, one will not "take the risk of believing a random guy".


Conversely, in case one has a tiny bit of inclination, supported by the realization that something indeed is missing from current understanding, and that there must be more to be realized before death comes, then there is consistent validation available to integrate all along the way. It's not that one is required to blindly believe for years, until one suddenly will have completed clairvoyant development, and found oneself enabled to see everything all of a sudden. Instead, one can get tiny but regular recognitions and confirmations, soon after the path is trustfully initiated. Not of the sort that would enable you to check what's going on on spiritual Mars, but at least of the sort that confirms the validity of the approach, and the progression, tiny bit by tiny bit. It's like when you take a hike in a secluded area, and you are not really sure the steps you are taking are on the true path, or if you are diverting, off path. Then you see an orange mark on the trunk of a tree and you know for sure: "At least I am on track, this is the marked path." From there, the evidence will only become more extensive, concurrent and compelling. It goes without saying, this is my position today. I certainly have zero living experience of Mars, Venus, and the vertiginous depths of the nested hierarchies. But I do see orange marks along the path of inner experience.


Nontheless it's true that if there's zero affinity and trust for spiritual science to start with, then it's going to be hard to reach even only the first orange mark. And one can certainly prefer Martinus language rather than Steiners, but I don't believe it's possible to follow one and disregard the other completely for long, for the simple reason that they speak of the same reality.
But do continue with Martinus. You will see whether you will keep on appreciating him - and if so, that appreciation will necessarily make you change your opinion on Steiner for the good - or you will end up finding his vision obscure and unhelpful after a while.

[AshvinP]

Since you translated the following passage as "Buddha lives on Mars", it is difficult to conclude something other than a reductive physical understanding. But, given your extensive practice and experience, what is your understanding of the passage below?

And you have spoken many times of Masters transcending the Earthly incarnation cycle and going on missions in other spheres - is it not possible to scientifically verify the details of such missions through occult vision? If it possible, then how do you imagine one would go about it?

As I said above, it is possible that Buddha lives on (higher-dimensional) Mars, but it contradicts with clairvoyant accounts of Buddhist masters and has no relevance with my own inner meditative experience. So, I have no reasons to believe that it is true, but likewise, cannot claim that it is definitely wrong.

Please share or summarize one of these clairvoyant accounts with us. It would be seriously interesting to compare. Where is the Buddha and what is he doing now, according to those accounts? If something "contradicts" a detailed account from sources you respect, then you certainly have reason to say it is wrong or inaccurate, even if not with 100% certainty.

BTW, it is not lost on me how you reversed from claiming Steiner is unreasonable and unscientific for providing too many weird occultic details, to claiming he is for not providing enough prophetic utterances about the course of purely physical research

That happened right when I asked for the 'contradictory accounts' you mentioned. Are those forthcoming?

[Stranger]

Nontheless it's true that if there's zero affinity and trust for spiritual science to start with, then it's going to be hard to reach even only the first orange mark. And one can certainly prefer Martinus language rather than Steiners, but I don't believe it's possible to follow one and disregard the other completely for long, for the simple reason that they speak of the same reality.
But do continue with Martinus. You will see whether you will keep on appreciating him - and if so, that appreciation will necessarily make you change your opinion on Steiner for the good - or you will end up finding his vision obscure and unhelpful after a while.

Well, in secular sciences there are scientists and there are pseudo-scientists, and both attempt to address and speak about the same physical reality. But that does not mean that they both are able to describe it with the same level of accuracy and relevancy. So far, the real scientists have been greatly more successful in doing so, which the practical progress of the secular science demonstrates, and that is one of the criteria how we can decipher secular science from secular pseudo-science. The same applies to the spiritual realms.

[Federica]

I will let Federica respond more or clarify, but I think she was pointing to an even more fundamental issue than whether you use the criteria of secular science. The issue is that you only understand what the 'facts' are in terms of physical cognition, which of course is the only sort of cognition currently employed by secular science (otherwise it would automatically be spiritual science). Your understanding of the 'fact', "Buddha lives on Mars", is a physical cognitive understanding. Perhaps you don't imagine the 'fact' means he is a physical being walking around the terrain of Mars, but instead imagine it conveys that he lives in a more ethereal form in the atmosphere or something of that nature. That is still a physical cognitive understanding. Cleric has also tried to convey this to you and Lou and others many times. The only way to begin deconditioning from such a physical understanding, if one insists on judging the facts conveyed by spiritual science, is to actually start enlivening one's own thinking.

Yes, Ashvin, thanks, that's much better expressed - the point is the physical cognitive understanding which lies upstream the given criteria of secular science.

[Federica]

Nontheless it's true that if there's zero affinity and trust for spiritual science to start with, then it's going to be hard to reach even only the first orange mark. And one can certainly prefer Martinus language rather than Steiners, but I don't believe it's possible to follow one and disregard the other completely for long, for the simple reason that they speak of the same reality.
But do continue with Martinus. You will see whether you will keep on appreciating him - and if so, that appreciation will necessarily make you change your opinion on Steiner for the good - or you will end up finding his vision obscure and unhelpful after a while.

Well, in secular sciences there are scientists and there are pseudo-scientists, and both attempt to address and speak about the same physical reality. But that does not mean that they both are able to describe it with the same level of accuracy and relevancy. So far, the real scientists have been greatly more successful in doing so, which the practical progress of the secular science demonstrates, and that is one of the criteria how we can decipher secular science from secular pseudo-science. The same applies to the spiritual realms.

No, the same does not apply to the spiritual realms, because, as Martinus puts it, these latter realms are only accessible from a "thought process from above" that incorporates the below. When one emerges from the other side of it, through the turning inside out of the physical, there is no need for any guesswork, in standard scientific sense. I don't think there is trial and error, as it is inherent in secular science. You are implicitly equating the methods of intellectual cognition with those of higher cognition, but what gives you credit to do so? Again, you are extending your familiar reality to the realms of higher cognition. But it would be enough to simply be in a positive disposition towards the path, to realize this has no chance to work. You are not ready to be transformed. Nothing fruitful can happen in such disposition, as far as spiritual science is concerned.

[Stranger]

BTW, it is not lost on me how you reversed from claiming Steiner is unreasonable and unscientific for providing too many weird occultic details, to claiming he is for not providing enough prophetic utterances about the course of purely physical research

That's because these two are directly related. A true clairvoyant would be able to provide prophetic utterances about the course of purely physical research instead of providing unreasonable and unscientific weird occultic details.

That happened right when I asked for the 'contradictory accounts' you mentioned. Are those forthcoming?

In the Buddhist tradition it is believed that the beings that achieved the full buddhahood do not incarnate into the races or realms in the same way as the beings in samsara incarnate. They exist in a different way as individuated expressions of Trikaya (dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, nirmanakaya ) and from there manifest/emanate their nirmanakaya bodies into the samsaric realms without really incarnating there and leaving the dharmakaya and sambhogakaya. So, it is in principle possible that the Buddha Shakyamuni has an emanated body on Mars, but no such accounts are known in the Buddhist tradition. Here is a quote from Padmasambhava who is considered "the second Buddha" in the Buddhist tradition.

Out of this space-like continuity that is dharmakaya the cloud-like sambhogakaya appear adorned with major and minor marks within the experience of bodhisattvas on the ten levels. Like rain, the nirmanakaya benefit whoever needs to be inspired in whichever way is necessary by means of boundless emanations. Within the continuity of empty sky they take shape like rain clouds by sharing down theirs rain, they nurture the greenery and forests. Likewise, from the inconceivable dharmakaya, the domain realized by the buddhas, appears sambhogakaya, the domain of the bodhisattvas of the greater vehicle, and from there appear the nirmanakayas in the domain of all fortunate beings.

[Stranger]

No, the same does not apply to the spiritual realms, because, as Martinus puts it, these latter realms are only accessible from a "thought process from above" that incorporates the below. When one emerges from the other side of it, through the turning inside out of the physical, there is no need for any guesswork, in standard scientific sense. I don't think there is trial and error, as it is inherent in secular science. You are implicitly equating the methods of intellectual cognition with those of higher cognition, but what gives you credit to do so? Again, you are extending your familiar reality to the realms of higher cognition. But it would be enough to simply be in a positive disposition towards the path, to realize this has no chance to work. You are not ready to be transformed. Nothing fruitful can happen in such dispisition, as far as spiritual science is concerned.

True, but that does not mean that anyone who claims to have the occultic knowledge accessible from a "thought process from above" indeed has such knowledge. In other words, not anyone who claims to be a spiritual scientist is indeed the one and not just a wanna-be pseudo-scientist. And for us average Joes who have either none or only a very limited access to such knowledge, how would we distinguish one from the other?

[Federica]

No, the same does not apply to the spiritual realms, because, as Martinus puts it, these latter realms are only accessible from a "thought process from above" that incorporates the below. When one emerges from the other side of it, through the turning inside out of the physical, there is no need for any guesswork, in standard scientific sense. I don't think there is trial and error, as it is inherent in secular science. You are implicitly equating the methods of intellectual cognition with those of higher cognition, but what gives you credit to do so? Again, you are extending your familiar reality to the realms of higher cognition. But it would be enough to simply be in a positive disposition towards the path, to realize this has no chance to work. You are not ready to be transformed. Nothing fruitful can happen in such dispisition, as far as spiritual science is concerned.

True, but that does not mean that anyone who claims to have the occultic knowledge accessible from a "thought process from above" indeed has such knowledge. In other words, not anyone who claims to be a spiritual scientist is indeed the one and not just a wanna-be pseudo-scientist. And for us average Joes who have either none or only a very limited access to such knowledge, how would we distinguish one from the other?

There is only one way. By the inner orange marks. The how comes from within, not by external proof. And one can only reach the first mark by inhabiting a certain inner disposition. There is no way to first receive a formal guarantee that there will be marks, and only later start the path. Therefore, a minimum level of unconditioned inner disposition of trust is necessary. I'm repeating myself, I tried to express this a couple of posts above in more details. As Martinus puts it:

My words are thus directed towards those beings who long for a higher and purer form of existence and whose entire attitude of consciousness is concerned with transforming themselves so as to be fit for being pervaded by the very highest energy of consciousness or "the holy spirit"; to beings who have a real hunger and thirst for knowing "what they should do in order to be blessed". My words are for those beings who want to train themselves to be the highest instruments for the unfolding of wisdom and love, and who wish to take part in making "the kingdom of God" or the real human kingdom a fact on Earth.