Spiritual science of Martinus

[Stranger]

All created phenomena are time- and space-dimensional, and cannot therefore be eternal. They must all break down and perish, just as they were once created and built up. As they thus each constitute a created phenomenon, this cannot possibly constitute the living "something" or "I" for which it was a tool. It is not the organism that directs the I, but the I that directs the organism. We have already, in our previous analysis of the universe, seen that this universe constituted an organism and manifestation for a living being or the Godhead. In our own structure and appearance we meet precisely such an analysis of a living being. Here, too, we meet a "something" manifesting or revealing itself through the organism or physical body. As this body in all its details constitutes nothing but a tool through which a "something" can manifest itself, this "something" is thus the real essence of being behind the organism. As this "something" is the same as that which we express as the I, it can in itself have no analysis. If we say it is evil, or if we say it is good, these analyses will only indicate phenomena that the above-mentioned "something" creates through the organism. But the created cannot possibly be identical with the creator. The creator existed before the created and will live when the created no longer exists. The state of eternity that this "something" is in is its analysis. But this analysis can only be nameless and can only be termed "X1". As the above-mentioned "something" has a faculty of creating, this faculty must be just as eternal as this "something" itself, for if there had been a time when it had no faculty of creating how could this faculty have come into existence? It is therefore likewise to be expressed as a nameless "something", which we must then term "X2". But when "X1" and "X2" thus exist eternally, these two X's, just like "X1" and "X2" in the structure of the Godhead, are the source of a reality we must call "X3". Just as "X3" in the Godhead constitutes the eternal result of his manifestation or creation, so too is "X3" in the living beings the result of their manifestation and creation. As these three X's, just like the Godhead, constitute an inseparable unity, which in this case is the same as a living being, the living being is thus absolutely eternal. When the living being is thus an eternal reality, its present existence is not its entire life and appearance. The age that it has now is only the age of its present organism and not the age of its eternal structure itself. The present organism is thus not the only organism that this "something" has used. It must of necessity constitute merely a single link in a chain of organisms or physical bodies that it has had in its preceding eternal existence.
As the above-mentioned "something" can thus create one physical body after another, this, its principle of organism, is likewise eternal or beyond time and space. In this, its eternal state, it constitutes, as previously mentioned, a triune principle in the form of the three X's, just like the Godhead. We thus see here how the terrestrial human being in his eternal structure already appears in "God's image".

Phew... here we go, a perfect coalescence of SS and nonduality. This is a perfect expression of nondual perspective which does not contradict but embraces the structural-evolutionary vision of the Cosmic Organism in SS. I have no doubt that Martinus was describing his first-person spiritual experience here and not just some intellectual knowledge, and that is how we also need to come to the same experiential vision.

Steiner expressed it in a more concise way:

"Thinking must precede ideas" - Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom

And you are right, it does not seem to align with Scott's paradigm, although there may be ways to reconcile them, but I'll leave it for Scott.

This makes me think of Stranger's first post on the forum, last October, about the self-causality of the reality of consciousness. Eugene - I was wondering: How do you relate to that question today - for example when it comes to the sub-question of suffering - with all you have since considered and discussed - would you post it at all today? And if yes, has the standpoint the question was coming from changed in any ways since then?

That was only a hypothesis, I still cannot connect all the dots there, but it may turn out to be true. My intuition is that there are more and deeper mysteries of the Divine Reality which we do not know yet at our current evolutionary stage. But anyway, I don't see how Martinus views would contradict with the self-causality.

Materialistic research will eventually unite with the great truths hidden within the religious mysticism of the world.

"By knowing the self (Atman) as the indwelling Lord of all beings, the wise man sees the same self in all creatures and realizes that all distinctions are false. He sees the one infinite consciousness shining equally in all beings, and thus he attains the supreme bliss of non-dual consciousness."

I saw how every limited thing ... revealed infinity and eternity. ... I became identical with what was "absolute" and "everlasting" and I saw all things from this "absoluteness" and "everlastingness". ... And it is this experiencing faculty that I have called "cosmic consciousness". ... I had experienced an "initiation"... Whereas my consciousness before this experience of mine was an expression of "local consciousness", it had now become an expression of "universal consciousness"

In the little symbol at the bottom the sun symbolizes the cosmically conscious being and its sensory capacity, which encompasses both the eternal and the created or temporal part of the universe.

[ScottRoberts]

Correspondences:

This morning I was reading Martinus' Meditation, Art. 3 Chapter 8, his demonstration of the immortality of the living being:
(by the way I would be curious to know what ScottRoberts thinks of it )

I have an issue with it, but I think I can say how it can be resolved (see below).

All created phenomena are time- and space-dimensional, and cannot therefore be eternal.
The creator existed before the created and will live when the created no longer exists.

This is what I have an issue with (and with the Steiner quote of Eugene's). But there are also some things I am not following:

The state of eternity that this "something" is in is its analysis. But this analysis can only be nameless and can only be termed "X1". As the above-mentioned "something" has a faculty of creating, this faculty must be just as eternal as this "something" itself, for if there had been a time when it had no faculty of creating how could this faculty have come into existence? It is therefore likewise to be expressed as a nameless "something", which we must then term "X2". But when "X1" and "X2" thus exist eternally, these two X's, just like "X1" and "X2" in the structure of the Godhead, are the source of a reality we must call "X3". Just as "X3" in the Godhead constitutes the eternal result of his manifestation or creation, so too is "X3" in the living beings the result of their manifestation and creation. As these three X's, just like the Godhead, constitute an inseparable unity, which in this case is the same as a living being, the living being is thus absolutely eternal.

This is what I have trouble following (and a terminological issue). First, what is "its analysis"? Who's analysis? Maybe it's a translation problem. But mainly, I don't understand what he means by X3. Isn't the "result of [living beings'] manifestation and creation what he earlier said is impermanent, i.e., not eternal? The terminological issue here is to call "creating" a faculty of X1. Rather, I would say it is X1.

My issue, then, is with saying the creator is prior to the created. That thinking is prior to any thought. (And, as an idealist, I consider "creating" and "thinking" to be synonyms.) Without a created there is no creator. It is the case that my thought "What shall I have for dinner?", considered by itself, is not God. But does it exist "by itself"? No. It exists in relation to other thoughts, which in turn are related to others, and those relations are themselves thoughts.... In short, there is only one ever-expanding Thought (Created), which is in polar relation to the power to Think Create), so I would say the latter is not prior to The Thought. Which means that everything created (thought) is eternal, existing in the Akashic Records, to speak theosophically.

[Stranger]

The eternal nature of the Godhead and all living beings is described here as a triune principle: an I - "X1", the super-consciousness and the ability to create and experience - "X2", and the body that the I has created - which is a tool enabling it to create and experience - "X3". ... The colored triangles attached to them show the eternal organ structure and the ability to use the basic energies to create in the temporal world.

These three aspects (X1,X2,X3) cannot exist as separate entities, they are aspects of one internally indivisible triune principle. As the trinity - the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit - is the fundamental concept in traditional Christianity, in the third Testament it is expressed in the following way:

The Father - the eternal Godhead of the universe. A totally unmoving perfect stillness constitutes all living beings' innermost I and fixed point - X1. The creator, the originator of what is created and therefore beyond the boundaries of time and space.

The Son - the Godhead's ability to create and experience that divides up God's eternal, omnipresent, infinite I into "the many", into an infinite number of eternal "sons of God" - X2.

The Holy Spirit - God's consciousness and organism - X3.

... The organism is made up of living microindividuals each on with its own ability to experience. This is repeated upwards and downwards into infinity. In this way we are also contained within macrocosmos which consists of larger and larger organisms. The macrobeing provides us with out outer living environment (Nature) while the microbeing provides us with our physical organism. At one and the same time everything consists of a unity. "In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28)

Here we can see how in Martinus view the nested hierarchy of the Cosmos is reconciled with oneness and with the fact that we are all directly the "sons of God" and share the same universal Divine I. This is because the nested hierarchy does exist with all its vertical structure of the universe, but only in the aspect of X3 - in the structure of the cosmic organism. At the same time, in the aspects of X1 and X2 the connectedness and fundamental identity of each microbeing to the Godhead is direct and immediate - all beings share the same universal I (Essence of Being) and the same essential/fundamental ability to create and experience (Thinking). And so, in the aspects of X1 and X2 the structure is flat and we are all united into oneness of One I ("being one with the Father" of which Christ taught), while in the aspect of X3 we function as spiritual activities nested within the hierarchically structured cosmic organism.

[Stranger]

This is what I have trouble following (and a terminological issue). First, what is "its analysis"? Who's analysis? Maybe it's a translation problem. But mainly, I don't understand what he means by X3. Isn't the "result of [living beings'] manifestation and creation what he earlier said is impermanent, i.e., not eternal? The terminological issue here is to call "creating" a faculty of X1. Rather, I would say it is X1.

My issue, then, is with saying the creator is prior to the created. That thinking is prior to any thought. (And, as an idealist, I consider "creating" and "thinking" to be synonyms.) Without a created there is no creator. It is the case that my thought "What shall I have for dinner?", considered by itself, is not God. But does it exist "by itself"? No. It exists in relation to other thoughts, which in turn are related to others, and those relations are themselves thoughts.... In short, there is only one ever-expanding Thought (Created), which is in polar relation to the power to Think Create), so I would say the latter is not prior to The Thought. Which means that everything created (thought) is eternal, existing in the Akashic Records, to speak theosophically.

May I suggest a possible resolution? "Prior to" does not mean temporal causality. There was never a moment in time when the Creator existed but the creation did not yet exist. That is because there was no time "prior to" the creation, the time was created together with creation. And in that sense, in time, the Creator always co-exists with and is inseparable from the creation. So, when we observe the reality in time, we always see the formless/emptiness as no other than forms and forms no other than formless (Creator is no other than creation and creation is no other than Creator). Yet, ontologically (and not within the temporal causality) the Creator can be said to be "prior" to the creation.

In philosophy there is pantheism and panentheism. The debates in philosophy between these two camps have been going on for centuries in both West and East.

Pantheism is the philosophical religious belief that reality,[1] the universe and the cosmos are identical to divinity and a supreme being or entity.

Panentheism ("all in God", from the Greek πᾶν, pân, 'all', ἐν, en, 'in' and Θεός, Theós, 'God')[1] is the belief that the divine intersects every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time. The term was coined by the German philosopher Karl Krause in 1828 to distinguish the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) about the relation of God and the universe from the supposed pantheism of Baruch Spinoza,[1] after reviewing Hindu scriptures. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.

In panentheism, the universal spirit is present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created. While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe.

[AshvinP]

Correspondences:

This morning I was reading Martinus' Meditation, Art. 3 Chapter 8, his demonstration of the immortality of the living being:
(by the way I would be curious to know what ScottRoberts thinks of it )

I have an issue with it, but I think I can say how it can be resolved (see below).

All created phenomena are time- and space-dimensional, and cannot therefore be eternal.
The creator existed before the created and will live when the created no longer exists.

This is what I have an issue with (and with the Steiner quote of Eugene's). But there are also some things I am not following:

The state of eternity that this "something" is in is its analysis. But this analysis can only be nameless and can only be termed "X1". As the above-mentioned "something" has a faculty of creating, this faculty must be just as eternal as this "something" itself, for if there had been a time when it had no faculty of creating how could this faculty have come into existence? It is therefore likewise to be expressed as a nameless "something", which we must then term "X2". But when "X1" and "X2" thus exist eternally, these two X's, just like "X1" and "X2" in the structure of the Godhead, are the source of a reality we must call "X3". Just as "X3" in the Godhead constitutes the eternal result of his manifestation or creation, so too is "X3" in the living beings the result of their manifestation and creation. As these three X's, just like the Godhead, constitute an inseparable unity, which in this case is the same as a living being, the living being is thus absolutely eternal.

This is what I have trouble following (and a terminological issue). First, what is "its analysis"? Who's analysis? Maybe it's a translation problem. But mainly, I don't understand what he means by X3. Isn't the "result of [living beings'] manifestation and creation what he earlier said is impermanent, i.e., not eternal? The terminological issue here is to call "creating" a faculty of X1. Rather, I would say it is X1.

My issue, then, is with saying the creator is prior to the created. That thinking is prior to any thought. (And, as an idealist, I consider "creating" and "thinking" to be synonyms.) Without a created there is no creator. It is the case that my thought "What shall I have for dinner?", considered by itself, is not God. But does it exist "by itself"? No. It exists in relation to other thoughts, which in turn are related to others, and those relations are themselves thoughts.... In short, there is only one ever-expanding Thought (Created), which is in polar relation to the power to Think Create), so I would say the latter is not prior to The Thought. Which means that everything created (thought) is eternal, existing in the Akashic Records, to speak theosophically.

These are all interesting points, and I am not sure whether there is a discrepancy or not. When I read the Martinus passage, I understood it to mean that the 'creation', or thought, is impermanent in its spatially or temporally manifested state, i.e. it always returns to the unmanifest spirit worlds and the Godhead before manifesting in ever-new forms. (of course we are using linear temporal language here, but that's not the actual dynamic). But what is eternal within the creation are the living relationships formed, which in turn change the Godhead (as it also remains changeless). His use of the X1-X2-X3 concept seems analogous to that of the Three Logoi.

https://anthroposophy.eu/The_three_Logoi
"Imagine you want, out of pure love, to sacrifice yourself to your mirror image. Give up your own existence (as spiritual light of the world, say ‘first logos’) and transfer it to your mirror image (call it ‘second logos’). The nature and life of the First Logos that gives itself in sacrifice is pure love.
Through this process the first Logos gets conscious awareness

The Second Logos has received and accepted this sacrifice from the first Logos and now consists of a duality of two things: life and content
1) the reflected mirror image or content, and
2) the existence it has received (and the ability to shine back to the first logos), which is something new that we call life.
The second Logos is the creative substance of Life.

Multiplicity in the cosmos comes through a further sacrifice wherein the above – including the relationship between the two Logoi - is mirrored. A Third Logos gets created and consists of a reflection of the two other Logoi and existing aspects.
1) the mirror image or opposite of the first logos or light, hence: spiritual darkness. We call this aspect 'Tamas'
2) the opposite of pure love and sacrifice, being: absolute desire. We call this aspect 'Rajas'
3) the image of the first logos itself, we call this aspect 'Sattwa'.

Hence:
Tamas, Rajas and Sattwa are called the three Gunas in the Hindu Samkya system and are mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. They correspond to the three aspects in the third Logos. See more about their combinations in the Seven creative spirits
The Third Logos is life manifest in Form."

[Stranger]

This makes me think of Stranger's first post on the forum, last October, about the self-causality of the reality of consciousness. Eugene - I was wondering: How do you relate to that question today - for example when it comes to the sub-question of suffering - with all you have since considered and discussed - would you post it at all today? And if yes, has the standpoint the question was coming from changed in any ways since then?

Here is an interesting insight from Martinus suggesting how God re-creates itself (its own consciousness) through the cyclic temporal process of involution and evolution, which suggests a mechanism of self-creation:

This eternal alteration between involution and evolution out of it again is symbolized by the black and white cycle on the outer rim. ... The purpose of this eternal cycle between light and darkness is to maintain God's consciousness. In this way the cosmic consciousness of God and the sons of God is recreated, maintained and renewed.

[AshvinP]

I want to thank you for calling our attention to Martinus, Eugene. Like Federica, I am gaining a lot of appreciation for his approach to spiritual science and think it can be very helpful for others here who find it difficult to approach Steiner's work at first. It provides a broad overview which will help contextualize the living details of spiritual science, which can get quite complex. I find the use of symbolic images to accompany the teachings very helpful. Anthony, you may especially be interested in watching and contemplating the video above.

Right, I can see a lot of overlap with anthroposophy, but Martinus had a talent to present these ideas in a way that is accessible for average people. It is remarkable that Martinus did not even complete his school education and had no background in philosophy or sciences.

This book is a short introduction to and a good summary of his teachings:
An Introduction to The Work of Martinus: The Third Testament

It's not so much he presents SS in a more accessible way, but that he presents the philosophical and spiritual outlines of an SS which wants to come to expression in him. It is not quite SS yet, because the outlines have not been fleshed out. Of course I haven't read his actual books yet, but if they generally remain at the resolution of his articles and writings accessible on the website, then I would say he possibly developed imaginative cognition through his practice. It is very unlikely someone who developed higher cognition would be satisfied with that resolution. I know you won't like that comment, but it's how I see it at this point.

The work is still extremely valuable for the broad outlines and as an exercise for our spiritual activity. We just shouldn't confuse it for something whole or complete, as we shouldn't with Anthroposophy either. It should be investigated in stages and with an eye towards its holistic principles. Only that way do we protect against the risk of reading into isolated passages what we already want them to mean. Once we get further into the details of Martinus extensive corpus, we get a more and more complete picture of the cosmology he was pointing to, although it may have been fundamentally limited for the reasons above. All of that should only serve as a conceptual aid as we do the spiritual practice necessary to strengthen and enliven our thinking so we can investigate the inner realities for ourselves. In fact we can take the reading and re-reading through his work as a form of mental exercise as well, which pushes our thinking into unfamiliar terrain, rather than only for its content value.

[Stranger]

Once we get further into the details of Martinus extensive corpus, we get a more and more complete picture of the cosmology he was pointing to, although it may have been fundamentally limited for the reasons above.

IMO all teachings and knowledge revealed and known to humans so far are limited in certain ways, be it spiritual traditions, secular philosophy and science, anthroposophy or Martines Third testament, modern nondual teachings, or any other. From that perspective, they all have insights and knowledge into some facets of Truth while may be erroneous or imprecise in their other aspects. If we accept this humble and open approach, we can always remain attentive to insights contained and acquired in all these areas of knowledge - spiritual traditions of the past, secular science and philosophy, and more recent developments and variants of spiritual science and nonduality. But of course, the difficulty is in distinguishing the facets of Truth from erroneous and incoherent content. But from what Martinus texts I read so far I could not find a single sentence with which I would disagree (which is not to say that it is the final Truth or that it does not have certain limitations).

[AshvinP]

Once we get further into the details of Martinus extensive corpus, we get a more and more complete picture of the cosmology he was pointing to, although it may have been fundamentally limited for the reasons above.

IMO all teachings and knowledge revealed and known to humans so far are limited in certain ways, be it spiritual traditions, secular philosophy and science, anthroposophy or Martines Third testament, modern nondual teachings, or any other. From that perspective, they all have insights and knowledge into some facets of Truth while may be erroneous or imprecise in their other aspects. If we accept this humble and open approach, we can always remain attentive to insights contained and acquired in all these areas of knowledge - spiritual traditions of the past, secular science and philosophy, and more recent developments and variants of spiritual science and nonduality. But of course, the difficulty is in distinguishing the facets of Truth from erroneous and incoherent content. But from what Martinus texts I read so far I could not find a single sentence with which I would disagree (which is not to say that it is the final Truth or that it does not have certain limitations).

Yes but there are also clear indicators of what principles can be fleshed out further. For instance, Martinus clealy discerned the principle of reincarnation and Karmic laws which govern the manifestation of incarnations. I am curious to know whether Martinus did any further research into these laws and what they are, exactly, and how we can trace their effects. Mary's one or two examples in that video indicated a rather shallow understanding, but it's possible that simply reflects the limited time she had to work with.

Either way, to remain open is to acknowledge that these principles can be fleshed out further and, therefore, have been fleshed out further. It would be quite the curiously convenient circumstance if the level of resolution we happened to have right now was the max possible level of resolution that had already been attained. I think it's truly humble to admit the opposite, assuming we have not blocked out the possibility of such knowledge with something akin to the Kantian divide, and then go seeking to acquire this already attained knowledge for ourselves.

We must always proceed with caution and make sure what we learn along the way is tested against the harmony of experiential facts, also realizing the aperture of our experience is always limited and therefore we need to visit and revisit facts encountered with energetic thinking and persistence, and prayerful petition to attune with the Will of the indwelling Spirit. Certain facts of the higher planes will remain practically meaningless to us until we have a corresponding ascent in our own thinking. For those we should simply withhold judgment, one way or the other. If we approach any domains of spiritual science with an attitude of radical skepticism or cynicism, then it most assuredly will remain veiled to us.

[Stranger]

Of course I haven't read his actual books yet, but if they generally remain at the resolution of his articles and writings accessible on the website, then I would say he possibly developed imaginative cognition through his practice. It is very unlikely someone who developed higher cognition would be satisfied with that resolution. I know you won't like that comment, but it's how I see it at this point.

On another note, I'd like to point that, when someone else's views are in disagreement with your own views, you often use this argument that the views of the other person are incorrect because they have not sufficiently developed higher cognition or do not speak from first-person experience (well, you did it multiple times with respect to me, so I know ...). However, it is illegitimate to use such argument as part of your argumentation, and there are multiple reasons for that. First, all of us humans, including Steiner or Martinus, have only developed our cognition to certain limits, and it is only the Godhead who has no limits to its cognition. Second, the level of cognitive development or whether or not some knowledge was acquired through a direct first-person experience is something that can only be known through first-person experience and cannot be judged or known by other persons. And third, even regardless of these two above reasons, saying that someone's views are wrong because they are intellectually or spiritually deficient it is just a bad argument. I know that you disrespect secular sciences and trades, but you can never find people using such argument in professional scientific or technological societies, it is considered there as completely unprofessional. So, if you are going to claim that Martinus was wrong here or there because he did not sufficiently developed his higher cognition, then I would suggest that you would rather find some better arguments.