Spiritual science of Martinus

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 1730
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by Federica »

AshvinP wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 1:30 pm
Federica wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 7:19 am
AshvinP wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 10:19 pm Through imaginative concentration, we are retracing our steps and re-encountering the living contextual relations which brought us to that point, but now from their inner perspective. The relations of our personal soul life are the most proximate context of our concentration, so we re-encounter those first.
Does one have immediate awareness that this is what's happening? For my part I don't recognize the images I see as the inner side of my outward character or history. It's more similar to dream images that have no immediately clear meaning or relation. It might be for example the image of a beautiful tiny waterfall where the water makes 'unreal' slow-motion curls, similar to how they are pictured in ancient mosaics, or even in a Hokusai painting, and the fall of water produces a mist of tiny sparkles. But I have no clue how this might relate to the inner shape of my soul and how the shape came about. Other times I am involved in the images. But the content remain mysterious, I don't recognize it, I can't read relations.
Federica,
I was mostly referring to the underlying principle of meditation which seeks to approach and cross the threshold of death, after which we retrace our steps of life (among other things). This same principle holds good during sleep as well.

Let us think. We have our own daily cycle of life, which we will consider now, not in its correspondence to the Cosmos, but as it presents itself in man, so that we can also include those whose sleeping and waking do not correspond with the alternation of day and night — idlers as well as all those who do not live by rule! Let us consider this daily round of man on the basis already established, that is to say, representing it in thought as a line in which the points of sleeping and waking lie upon one another, as I have pointed out. There are many reasons, but one will suffice for an unprejudiced judgement to understand that we are bound to place the point of waking over that of falling asleep. Consider the remarkable fact that when we look back over our life, it appears to us as an unbroken stream. We do not feel compelled to regard life in such a way as to say: Today I have lived and have been conscious of my environment from the moment of waking; before that all was darkness; before that again, my falling asleep of yesterday was preceded by life, I lived again, back to the moment of waking; but then darkness again. You do not picture the stream of memory like this, you picture it so that the moment of awaking and the moment of falling asleep really unite in your conscious recollection. That is a plain fact. This fact can be expressed in that the curve representing the daily round in man comes out as a spiral, with the point of awaking always crossing the point of falling asleep. If the curve were an ellipse or a circle, then awaking and falling asleep would have to be separate, they could not possibly be joined. In this way alone therefore can we picture the daily round of man.

That is also related to why we do the backward daily review at night - sort of a preparation for what we actually experience during sleep. It does manifest to some extent in my meditative experience, but I imagine the manner of such manifestation can vary quite a bit. I am only at the very first stages and I can't say I have crossed the threshold. I also don't experience such vivid images as you are describing during meditation. Actually I find images are more forthcoming when I am getting sleepy while trying to meditate, bubbling up from my lower regions. That is when I stop, or generally I try to avoid doing meditations when sleepy to begin with. There is a certain mood which streams in through those states which I would call 'oppressive'. It is like my soul-life is being more weighed down by gravity and I am quickly losing consciousness.

For me, when in a wakeful state, it is more like the flashes of intuition that Cleric has described. Sometimes it is accompanied by actual flashes like rapid streaks of inner lightning. This is only after the thought-image expands to fill my inner volume and I manage to hold the concentrated state without grasping at the apple, i.e. analyzing the details of the experience, and thereby collapsing the whole state. There isn't an inner voice or anything which says, 'you have an antipathy for putting effort into your projects'. It is a much more organic and subtle process which carries over into the normal waking state - like seeds which are planted and grow days and weeks later. Perhaps something similar occurs through the images you mention. Through such experiences, I have come to realize that we are not only bringing the waking state into our periods of meditation, but are also bringing the meditative state more into our normal waking periods, i.e. spiraling them together or, conversely, awakening to their superposition. Not that we go around perceiving images or in an altered state of consciousness, but that our inner stream of will, feeling, and thinking is ennobled, strengthened, and enlivened. 

In a general way, I would characterize it as the process of living life more lucidly, effectively, and lovingly. Even if we know nothing of spiritual reality and meditation, we naturally gain these ideal impulses through our cultural inheritance and socialization from parents, teachers, etc. We start to learn how to tame our passions, how to think clearly about problems of life, how to commit to our work, how to establish meaningful relationships, etc. Through the spiritual path, we learn how to discern all the daily opportunities we have to further perfect our latent ideal qualities, talents, capacities, etc. and gain inspiration to actually pursue those opportunities to their completion. We learn that our desires, feelings, and thoughts actually have the most causal power in our evolving experience of the World (within certain higher contextual limits). Memory becomes a tool to not only nostalgically reminisce about past events, but to learn about our core be-ing and thereby participate in manifesting our future. 

So, to generally answer your first question, I would say it becomes immediate awareness that this process is occurring after we are accustomed to the organic rhythms in which these things unfold. But the relevant knowledge isn't immediately manifested in my consciousness at the time of meditation itself, at least not for me. It is a more gradual and organic process which manifests through the flow of life itself. We are not only accumulating knowledge of our soul-structure, but at the same time transforming our inner life to be in greater resonance with higher-order intents which structure our stream of becoming, so we begin to perceive these intents all around us and work with the progressive intents to the best of our ability. That is how we gradually transmute our past into our future, our Karmic destiny into our spiritual freedom.

Thank you so much, Ashvin! You have been able to translate things in a remarkably approachable and relatable form! (with this and each of your other most recent posts on polarity)
In this epoch we have to be fighters for the spirit: man must realise what his powers can give way to, unless they are kept constantly under control for the conquest of the spiritual world. In this fifth epoch, man is entitled to his freedom to the highest degree! He has to go through that.
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 1730
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by Federica »

Cleric K wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 1:07 pm Since several people already share that they find Martinuses spiritual science to be more accessible than the anthroposophical, I would like to point out a fundamental reason for this. Please understand right from the start that this is not some right vs. wrong confrontation. Things are very transparent as soon as we understand what we’re speaking of.

Cleric,

Isn’t it possible to realize the truth and necessity of your message in this post (as I think I do) and still find Martinus’ spiritual science more approachable than Steiner’s (which I don’t do, but understand)?

This has to be borne in mind. When we say that we find X’s cosmology more accessible it should be clear that it is more accessible to our intellect, it forms a more convenient picture that we can hold and contemplate in our mind.

I get that, but one needs the intellect to start off on the path. One needs to first find a certain level of intellectual plausibility, in trust. One needs to extract a certain likelihood, a chance to elaborate a first-level assessment, in order to start the attunement somewhere. And it is towards this endeavor that I believe Martinus’ cosmology - if we want to use this term, but I dislike it - can help, offering a less steep starting phase. The goal being to hopefully reconnect with the 'main path of knowledge through living thinking', which - even if we can attempt to decouple from Steiner - has probably not been developed in any finer level of detail than by Steiner. But because the risk of agonizing in a metaphysical limbo is present all the time anyway, also when discussing Steiner, it’s not entirely clear to me why our reaction to Martinus in particular, rather than to other previously discussed authors, prompts you to write this post. For my part, I think it’s possible that Martinus can act as a bridge to reconcile Eugene with Steiner, for example. And as Eugene will consider Steiner less and less as a “pseudo-scientist”, developing more and more trust in his spiritual sight, he will also become more inclined to search for the direct meditative experience of what one first discovers as reported truths. Why cannot Martinus act as a portal, to repurpose a word recently used by both you and Ashvin with regards to thought and concentration?

Of course, people today are quick to fantasize that after death we’ll feel like an orb of light and then other beings will be found as other orbs floating around. This however is nothing but a fantasy extrapolated from the experiences in the sensory spectrum. It is imagined that….

In my case, every time you mention how people must be picturing this or that spiritual experience, I actually never recognize myself in the descriptions. I don’t try out orbs of light, for example. Not that I have other, or better representations or fantasies. I just don’t feel like I can try to picture them, it would be unrespectful and foolish. It would express an attitude in between lack of respect for knowledge and lack of sound reason. Maybe I am not the only one here.

If one feels completely satisfied with such a conception then – and this is what the experiences on the forum show…
Are you speaking specifically to Eugene? But even if it is the case, I don’t think Eugene is satisfied with such a conception. Otherwise he would have stopped gravitating around metakastrup.

It doesn’t take much to see that Martinus presents a cosmology, a testament. But we won’t find there the science of initiation. We won’t find the knowledge of how to be lifted from the senses and brain, then even from the etheric body and experience what it means to exist in a spiritual world where all reality consists of spiritual beings

I am sure there is no comparison possible with Steiner, however Martinus’ work is also a self-defined spiritual science, in that it aims to, not only report a “cosmology”, but also to provide those who feel the thirst for knowledge you speak of, with concrete instructions. Couldn’t these instructions be a valuable first step? In my case for example, I must report that I found the book “The ideal food” particularly helpful. I had been searching for detailed food instructions in Steiner for a long time, in the meantime of developing the living ability to directly know what foods are the most suitable to eat. Right now, I happen to not have this direct intuition, but I still want to trust spiritual scientific directions, apprehend them with my intellect, and implement them. I have never been in a habit of using toxic substances and medicines, and I stopped eating meat years ago. Quite recently, thanks to our discussions, I have stopped consuming alcohol (although I will make rare exceptions) but I still had doubts about certain so-called seafood, for example. Then I read “The ideal food”. It made me cry to realize how unwise and irresponsible I have been by eating some so-called seafood. I have also read the book "Meditation", finding it complementarily useful to the wealth of other illustrations I had the chance to read thanks to you and Ashvin.

I said elswhere that, to me, nothing compares to Steiner, and I would have zero hesitation if I hypothetically had to limit myself to only one source. But even if there isn’t any complete science of initiation to be found in Martinus, can’t the indications available in his work, serve as complementary elements of spiritual science?
In this epoch we have to be fighters for the spirit: man must realise what his powers can give way to, unless they are kept constantly under control for the conquest of the spiritual world. In this fifth epoch, man is entitled to his freedom to the highest degree! He has to go through that.
User avatar
Güney27
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:56 am
Contact:

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by Güney27 »

Federica wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:18 pm
Cleric K wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 1:07 pm Since several people already share that they find Martinuses spiritual science to be more accessible than the anthroposophical, I would like to point out a fundamental reason for this. Please understand right from the start that this is not some right vs. wrong confrontation. Things are very transparent as soon as we understand what we’re speaking of.
Cleric,

Isn’t it possible to realize the truth and necessity of your message in this post (as I think I do) and still find Martinus’ spiritual science more approachable than Steiner’s (which I don’t do, but understand)?

This has to be borne in mind. When we say that we find X’s cosmology more accessible it should be clear that it is more accessible to our intellect, it forms a more convenient picture that we can hold and contemplate in our mind.

I get that, but one needs the intellect to start off on the path. One needs to first find a certain level of intellectual plausibility, in trust. One needs to extract a certain likelihood, a chance to elaborate a first-level assessment, in order to start the attunement somewhere. And it is towards this endeavor that I believe Martinus’ cosmology - if we want to use this term, but I dislike it - can help, offering a less steep starting phase. The goal being to hopefully reconnect with the 'main path of knowledge through living thinking', which - even if we can attempt to decouple from Steiner - has probably not been developed in any finer level of detail than by Steiner. But because the risk of agonizing in a metaphysical limbo is present all the time anyway, also when discussing Steiner, it’s not entirely clear to me why our reaction to Martinus in particular, rather than to other previously discussed authors, prompts you to write this post. For my part, I think it’s possible that Martinus can act as a bridge to reconcile Eugene with Steiner, for example. And as Eugene will consider Steiner less and less as a “pseudo-scientist”, developing more and more trust in his spiritual sight, he will also become more inclined to search for the direct meditative experience of what one first discovers as reported truths. Why cannot Martinus act as a portal, to repurpose a word recently used by both you and Ashvin with regards to thought and concentration?

Of course, people today are quick to fantasize that after death we’ll feel like an orb of light and then other beings will be found as other orbs floating around. This however is nothing but a fantasy extrapolated from the experiences in the sensory spectrum. It is imagined that….

In my case, every time you mention how people must be picturing this or that spiritual experience, I actually never recognize myself in the descriptions. I don’t try out orbs of light, for example. Not that I have other, or better representations or fantasies. I just don’t feel like I can try to picture them, it would be unrespectful and foolish. It would express an attitude in between lack of respect for knowledge and lack of sound reason. Maybe I am not the only one here.

If one feels completely satisfied with such a conception then – and this is what the experiences on the forum show…
Are you speaking specifically to Eugene? But even if it is the case, I don’t think Eugene is satisfied with such a conception. Otherwise he would have stopped gravitating around metakastrup.

It doesn’t take much to see that Martinus presents a cosmology, a testament. But we won’t find there the science of initiation. We won’t find the knowledge of how to be lifted from the senses and brain, then even from the etheric body and experience what it means to exist in a spiritual world where all reality consists of spiritual beings

I am sure there is no comparison possible with Steiner, however Martinus’ work is also a self-defined spiritual science, in that it aims to, not only report a “cosmology”, but also to provide those who feel the thirst for knowledge you speak of, with concrete instructions. Couldn’t these instructions be a valuable first step? In my case for example, I must report that I found the book “The ideal food” particularly helpful. I had been searching for detailed food instructions in Steiner for a long time, in the meantime of developing the living ability to directly know what foods are the most suitable to eat. Right now, I happen to not have this direct intuition, but I still want to trust spiritual scientific directions, apprehend them with my intellect, and implement them. I have never been in a habit of using toxic substances and medicines, and I stopped eating meat years ago. Quite recently, thanks to our discussions, I have stopped consuming alcohol (although I will make rare exceptions) but I still had doubts about certain so-called seafood, for example. Then I read “The ideal food”. It made me cry to realize how unwise and irresponsible I have been by eating some so-called seafood. I have also read the book "Meditation", finding it complementarily useful to the wealth of other illustrations I had the chance to read thanks to you and Ashvin.

I said elswhere that, to me, nothing compares to Steiner, and I would have zero hesitation if I hypothetically had to limit myself to only one source. But even if there isn’t any complete science of initiation to be found in Martinus, can’t the indications available in his work, serve as complementary elements of spiritual science?
Hi Federica,

I also think martinus' work is relevant, but there are clear differences between his and steiner's work, which leads me to wonder why he "saw" things differently than steiner through his intuitional ability.

For example, he says that mankind will reach the cosmic state of consciousness in 3000 years, unlike Steiner, who postulates a longer period.
No 12-level hierarchy is mentioned in his work.
He does not see Jesus as God, but as a perfect man (according to my present knowledge).
He interprets the Lord's Prayer differently than Steiner did.
He does not give any specific training path, but he taught the Lord's Prayer as a meditation.

There is the thought that Martinus is the person predicted by Steiner.

In any case, there are clear differences.
Martinu's followers will say that he saw the whole truth and anthroposophists will claim the opposite.

This should imply that when we experience the living realities behind the works, we have different perceptions.

I think it would be absurd to say that steiner is the only one who could correctly "see" the truth.
How can I understand these differences?
I think it doesn't need to be argued that truth is universal.
Also to say that both use different terminology is not enough to explain away the differences in my opinion.

What's your opinion?
~Only true love can heal broken hearts~
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by Cleric K »

Federica wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:18 pm Cleric,

Isn’t it possible to realize the truth and necessity of your message in this post (as I think I do) and still find Martinus’ spiritual science more approachable than Steiner’s (which I don’t do, but understand)?
Federica, thank you for your feedback. I apologize that I won't have the time to answer your questions one by one right now.

I tried to explain that the post was not intended to demean in any way the work of Martinus. As I have mentioned occasionally, my own daily practices are largely based on teachings like those of OMA's, which are of immense practical value to me even though they don't in the least enter the specifics of higher cognition.

The post was supposed only to point attention to the full spectrum of higher cognition. Ashvin actually sensed very precisely that through Martinus we can stimulate Imaginative cognition tremendously but to ascend to Inspiration and Intuition something else is needed also. We have to move from the imaginative grasping of laws and principles of spiritual reality towards the living spiritual beings. And here I'm afraid that this won't be taken by everyone in its real significance. I guess that it sounds just like abstract replacing of one axiomatic basis with another. Instead of speaking of quarks we speak of super strings or something like that. But this is not it. It is moving from the Imaginative physiognomy of the beings, which we grasp as the laws and principles of the spiritual world, towards merging with their intuitive intents. This will never be understood if we imagine that reality is some kind of neutral container within which beings exist (thus feeling that if we seek the beings we lose sight of the container), instead of realizing that reality is the beings themselves and their deeds.

I understand that at the moment this is mentioned, people get the impression that something is off, that we're moving away from unity and into multiplicity. And this was part of the reason for the previous post. We need to make a distinction between thinking about beings and picturing them as some unity, and having the actual spiritual interaction.

The goal was only to hint at the direction where Imaginative cognition goes further. Nothing more. For example, the Tarot meditations that Ashvin shares are a perfect example of developing the glyphs of Imagination. Laws and principles - the physiognomy of the spiritual world - are encoded in these images. Does this mean that there's no value in them? Of course not! But if we stop there reality will forever remain on the other side of the images. And this is a real problem when we don't realize that something is missing. This is apparent when we look at people who are versed with occult sciences like Astrology, Kabbalah, Taro and so on. They indeed grasp in powerful imaginations the laws and principles of the spiritual world but in the end it all remains within the panorama of the soul.

Such hints are necessary because otherwise we may remain with the impression that spiritual reality is experienced at its foundations through the imaginative experience of its laws and principles. But the true foundations are only found when we unite with the World Thoughts of the beings.
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 1730
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by Federica »

Güney27 wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 7:57 pm Hi Federica,

I also think martinus' work is relevant, but there are clear differences between his and steiner's work, which leads me to wonder why he "saw" things differently than steiner through his intuitional ability.

For example, he says that mankind will reach the cosmic state of consciousness in 3000 years, unlike Steiner, who postulates a longer period.
No 12-level hierarchy is mentioned in his work.
He does not see Jesus as God, but as a perfect man (according to my present knowledge).
He interprets the Lord's Prayer differently than Steiner did.
He does not give any specific training path, but he taught the Lord's Prayer as a meditation.

There is the thought that Martinus is the person predicted by Steiner.

In any case, there are clear differences.
Martinu's followers will say that he saw the whole truth and anthroposophists will claim the opposite.

This should imply that when we experience the living realities behind the works, we have different perceptions.

I think it would be absurd to say that steiner is the only one who could correctly "see" the truth.
How can I understand these differences?
I think it doesn't need to be argued that truth is universal.
Also to say that both use different terminology is not enough to explain away the differences in my opinion.

What's your opinion?


Hi Güney,

I don't have the textual knowledge to realize the differences in their bodies of work, not in the least. And even if I did know their complete works, it would be arduous to 'judge', without direct knowledge. My intuition is that both are trustworthy, at their level of 'definition', and arguably the level of definition in Steiner is much finer, even if we restrict the look to the "cosmologies'' only. Maybe much or the difference is simply a difference in depth, rather than effective contradictions. For example, if something that Steiner covers is not addressed in Martinus, I wouldn't call that a difference.

But regarding the Lord's Prayer, would you please share the source you are referring to in Steiner? I actually never read what he said of the Lord's Prayer, and I would like to read it and see what sort of difference we are talking about.


Also, I am not aware of this person predicted by Steiner - can you explain more?
Besides, do you really have evidence of "controversy" between anthroposophists and followers of Martinus? I am surprised to hear that, because, as I understand it, Martinus had his first experiences of the spiritual world after reading an anthroposophical book, called Meditationen, by Hermann Rudolph, and he didn't rely on texts besides that first reading.
In this epoch we have to be fighters for the spirit: man must realise what his powers can give way to, unless they are kept constantly under control for the conquest of the spiritual world. In this fifth epoch, man is entitled to his freedom to the highest degree! He has to go through that.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5474
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by AshvinP »

Güney27 wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 7:57 pm Hi Federica,

I also think martinus' work is relevant, but there are clear differences between his and steiner's work, which leads me to wonder why he "saw" things differently than steiner through his intuitional ability.

I would like to offer a couple thoughts here, which is not intended to challenge anything written by others. Or mainly, just one - the difference generally resides in our approach to these different individualities and their spiritual understanding. If we automatically assume they are comparable and speaking of the same exact things because they have similar ideas and call what they do 'spiritual science', then we are being presumptuous. As I stated earlier to Eugene, I think it's clear that Martinus did not go through spiritual training for higher modes of cognition, which is why his resolution is so low. If we confuse these radically incomplete teachings for something complete-in-itself, then we are bound to reach misleading conclusions about spiritual reality. It is like a person doing a jigsaw puzzle, throwing half of the pieces away, and then remaining satisfied with the half-complete puzzle. This person forgets he threw half the other pieces away (by way of some theoretical abstraction or another) and says, 'I don't see any possible way to render a more complete picture here, so this must be the best we can do'.  

Unfortunately, experience does show that this is generally the way people approach all philosophical and spiritual systems which resonate with them. They take its ease of understanding and approachability as an invitation to rest comfortable with what has been presented, tying everything together in a neat low-resolution package, rather than a prompting to ascend further in their own cognitive development and explore new unfamiliar avenues of spiritual seeking. It is then assumed that all one needs to know during this lifetime is basically in that system and everything else can wait until after death.  I mentioned the laws of reincarnation and Karma before because that is clearly a case where, if we decide these are details that we can wait to become inwardly familiar with only after death, we are forsaking many opportunities to actually increase our level of consciousness after death in the Spheres where the threads of our next incarnation will be woven. These things have tremendous practical ramifications in our stream of becoming.

Now, to the extent Martinus and/or his main followers stated he 'saw the whole truth' and that is reflected in the teachings (and I'm not sure they did), that is a real problem. I have shared several passages where Steiner makes explicitly clear that is not the case with him or Anthroposophy. But, again, regardless of what the followers say, we have to take responsibility for our own approach to the teachings and separate the wheat from the chaff, and not to simply assume we are speaking of horizontal alternatives of 'spiritual science' which can be placed side by side. There is vertical depth involved and, generally, the Anthroposophical path is currently the one which gives us the most detailed insight into how and why all these other ones have arisen at this most critical juncture in humanity's spiritual evolution. Above all, it cultivates the mindset that our spiritual journey is just beginning and we should continuously move through all the conceptual outlooks with fluidity and flexibility, using them to kindle our higher faculties but never confusing them for those faculties.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 1730
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by Federica »

Cleric K wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 8:30 pm Federica, thank you for your feedback. I apologize that I won't have the time to answer your questions one by one right now.
Thank you, Cleric, for considering my post. Please be assured I respect your time, and while I am always very thankful for your replies, I don't expect them, right now or ever.


I tried to explain that the post was not intended to demean in any way the work of Martinus.
That try was successful with me. Sadly I haven't been able to communicate that with similar efficacy.


We have to move from the imaginative grasping of laws and principles of spiritual reality towards the living spiritual beings.
I would have been foolish to question that. I haven't questioned that. I only asked about Martinus' possible usefulness as "first step".


The goal was only to hint at the direction where Imaginative cognition goes further.
This goal, however, was not clear to me. What I read was a warning against the risk of remaining stuck at the level of intellect, not at the level imagination, by resting satisfied with the picture of that cosmology.
In this epoch we have to be fighters for the spirit: man must realise what his powers can give way to, unless they are kept constantly under control for the conquest of the spiritual world. In this fifth epoch, man is entitled to his freedom to the highest degree! He has to go through that.
User avatar
Güney27
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:56 am
Contact:

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by Güney27 »

Federica wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 8:42 pm
Güney27 wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 7:57 pm Hi Federica,

I also think martinus' work is relevant, but there are clear differences between his and steiner's work, which leads me to wonder why he "saw" things differently than steiner through his intuitional ability.

For example, he says that mankind will reach the cosmic state of consciousness in 3000 years, unlike Steiner, who postulates a longer period.
No 12-level hierarchy is mentioned in his work.
He does not see Jesus as God, but as a perfect man (according to my present knowledge).
He interprets the Lord's Prayer differently than Steiner did.
He does not give any specific training path, but he taught the Lord's Prayer as a meditation.

There is the thought that Martinus is the person predicted by Steiner.

In any case, there are clear differences.
Martinu's followers will say that he saw the whole truth and anthroposophists will claim the opposite.

This should imply that when we experience the living realities behind the works, we have different perceptions.

I think it would be absurd to say that steiner is the only one who could correctly "see" the truth.
How can I understand these differences?
I think it doesn't need to be argued that truth is universal.
Also to say that both use different terminology is not enough to explain away the differences in my opinion.

What's your opinion?


Hi Güney,

I don't have the textual knowledge to realize the differences in their bodies of work, not in the least. And even if I did know their complete works, it would be arduous to 'judge', without direct knowledge. My intuition is that both are trustworthy, at their level of 'definition', and arguably the level of definition in Steiner is much finer, even if we restrict the look to the "cosmologies'' only. Maybe much or the difference is simply a difference in depth, rather than effective contradictions. For example, if something that Steiner covers is not addressed in Martinus, I wouldn't call that a difference.

But regarding the Lord's Prayer, would you please share the source you are referring to in Steiner? I actually never read what he said of the Lord's Prayer, and I would like to read it and see what sort of difference we are talking about.


Also, I am not aware of this person predicted by Steiner - can you explain more?
Besides, do you really have evidence of "controversy" between anthroposophists and followers of Martinus? I am surprised to hear that, because, as I understand it, Martinus had his first experiences of the spiritual world after reading an anthroposophical book, called Meditationen, by Hermann Rudolph, and he didn't rely on texts besides that first reading.

Federica,

Steiner speaks about the Lord's Prayer in various places.
In GA 96 (The lords prayer 1) he goes into the meaning of the sentences.

,,Also, I am not aware of this person predicted by Steiner - can you explain more?"

In GA 118 Steiner said: What is beginning is slowly preparing men for new faculties of soul.

The first indications of these new faculties will be noticeable in isolated souls comparatively soon now, and they will become more clearly apparent in the middle of the thirties of this century, approximately in the period between 1930 and 1940. The years 1933, 1935 and 1937 will be particularly important. Very special faculties will then reveal themselves in human beings as natural gifts. Great changes will take place during this period and biblical prophecies will be fulfilled. Everything will change for souls who are living on earth and also for those who are no longer in physical bodies. Whatever their realm of existence, souls are on the way to possessing entirely new faculties. Everything is changing — but the happening of supreme importance in our time is a deeply incisive transformation of the faculties of the human soul.

These criteria roughly fit martinus, and that is why there are some people, e.g. Uwe Todt (a German author who deals with martinus and steiner), who think that martinus was announced


,,Besides, do you really have evidence of "controversy" between anthroposophists and followers of Martinus?"


No. I wanted to say that followers of certain people naturally also defend the Scriptures. One will believe in what Steiner said, the other in Martinus, the other in Gurdiyeff .......
Who sees the truth and can describe it to us and show us a path to knowledge?
Ashvin addressed this question well in his post.
~Only true love can heal broken hearts~
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 1730
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by Federica »

AshvinP wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 8:45 pm
Güney27 wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 7:57 pm Hi Federica,

I also think martinus' work is relevant, but there are clear differences between his and steiner's work, which leads me to wonder why he "saw" things differently than steiner through his intuitional ability.

I would like to offer a couple thoughts here, which is not intended to challenge anything written by others. Or mainly, just one - the difference generally resides in our approach to these different individualities and their spiritual understanding. If we automatically assume they are comparable and speaking of the same exact things because they have similar ideas and call what they do 'spiritual science', then we are being presumptuous. As I stated earlier to Eugene, I think it's clear that Martinus did not go through spiritual training for higher modes of cognition, which is why his resolution is so low. If we confuse these radically incomplete teachings for something complete-in-itself, then we are bound to reach misleading conclusions about spiritual reality. It is like a person doing a jigsaw puzzle, throwing half of the pieces away, and then remaining satisfied with the half-complete puzzle. This person forgets he threw half the other pieces away (by way of some theoretical abstraction or another) and says, 'I don't see any possible way to render a more complete picture here, so this must be the best we can do'.  

Unfortunately, experience does show that this is generally the way people approach all philosophical and spiritual systems which resonate with them. They take its ease of understanding and approachability as an invitation to rest comfortable with what has been presented, tying everything together in a neat low-resolution package, rather than a prompting to ascend further in their own cognitive development and explore new unfamiliar avenues of spiritual seeking. It is then assumed that all one needs to know during this lifetime is basically in that system and everything else can wait until after death.  I mentioned the laws of reincarnation and Karma before because that is clearly a case where, if we decide these are details that we can wait to become inwardly familiar with only after death, we are forsaking many opportunities to actually increase our level of consciousness after death in the Spheres where the threads of our next incarnation will be woven. These things have tremendous practical ramifications in our stream of becoming.

Now, to the extent Martinus and/or his main followers stated he 'saw the whole truth' and that is reflected in the teachings (and I'm not sure they did), that is a real problem. I have shared several passages where Steiner makes explicitly clear that is not the case with him or Anthroposophy. But, again, regardless of what the followers say, we have to take responsibility for our own approach to the teachings and separate the wheat from the chaff, and not to simply assume we are speaking of horizontal alternatives of 'spiritual science' which can be placed side by side. There is vertical depth involved and, generally, the Anthroposophical path is currently the one which gives us the most detailed insight into how and why all these other ones have arisen at this most critical juncture in humanity's spiritual evolution. Above all, it cultivates the mindset that our spiritual journey is just beginning and we should continuously move through all the conceptual outlooks with fluidity and flexibility, using them to kindle our higher faculties but never confusing them for those faculties.

Ashvin,

I agree with everything you said, however let's recall that nobody stated or suggested that Martinus' teachings should be taken as the final and only truth. For my part, I have invariably considered them as helpful "first steps", as you obviously also did when you recommended to Anthony a certain Martinus symbol for contemplation. Then you didn't warn him that there was a risk of throwing away half of the puzzle pieces, nor did you do that when commenting on my symbol recommendation to Eugene. You didn't say "be careful though", you said "great post". So, well, what's going on here?
In this epoch we have to be fighters for the spirit: man must realise what his powers can give way to, unless they are kept constantly under control for the conquest of the spiritual world. In this fifth epoch, man is entitled to his freedom to the highest degree! He has to go through that.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5474
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Spiritual science of Martinus

Post by AshvinP »

Federica wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 9:39 am
AshvinP wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 8:45 pm
Güney27 wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 7:57 pm Hi Federica,

I also think martinus' work is relevant, but there are clear differences between his and steiner's work, which leads me to wonder why he "saw" things differently than steiner through his intuitional ability.

I would like to offer a couple thoughts here, which is not intended to challenge anything written by others. Or mainly, just one - the difference generally resides in our approach to these different individualities and their spiritual understanding. If we automatically assume they are comparable and speaking of the same exact things because they have similar ideas and call what they do 'spiritual science', then we are being presumptuous. As I stated earlier to Eugene, I think it's clear that Martinus did not go through spiritual training for higher modes of cognition, which is why his resolution is so low. If we confuse these radically incomplete teachings for something complete-in-itself, then we are bound to reach misleading conclusions about spiritual reality. It is like a person doing a jigsaw puzzle, throwing half of the pieces away, and then remaining satisfied with the half-complete puzzle. This person forgets he threw half the other pieces away (by way of some theoretical abstraction or another) and says, 'I don't see any possible way to render a more complete picture here, so this must be the best we can do'.  

Unfortunately, experience does show that this is generally the way people approach all philosophical and spiritual systems which resonate with them. They take its ease of understanding and approachability as an invitation to rest comfortable with what has been presented, tying everything together in a neat low-resolution package, rather than a prompting to ascend further in their own cognitive development and explore new unfamiliar avenues of spiritual seeking. It is then assumed that all one needs to know during this lifetime is basically in that system and everything else can wait until after death.  I mentioned the laws of reincarnation and Karma before because that is clearly a case where, if we decide these are details that we can wait to become inwardly familiar with only after death, we are forsaking many opportunities to actually increase our level of consciousness after death in the Spheres where the threads of our next incarnation will be woven. These things have tremendous practical ramifications in our stream of becoming.

Now, to the extent Martinus and/or his main followers stated he 'saw the whole truth' and that is reflected in the teachings (and I'm not sure they did), that is a real problem. I have shared several passages where Steiner makes explicitly clear that is not the case with him or Anthroposophy. But, again, regardless of what the followers say, we have to take responsibility for our own approach to the teachings and separate the wheat from the chaff, and not to simply assume we are speaking of horizontal alternatives of 'spiritual science' which can be placed side by side. There is vertical depth involved and, generally, the Anthroposophical path is currently the one which gives us the most detailed insight into how and why all these other ones have arisen at this most critical juncture in humanity's spiritual evolution. Above all, it cultivates the mindset that our spiritual journey is just beginning and we should continuously move through all the conceptual outlooks with fluidity and flexibility, using them to kindle our higher faculties but never confusing them for those faculties.

Ashvin,

I agree with everything you said, however let's recall that nobody stated or suggested that Martinus' teachings should be taken as the final and only truth. For my part, I have invariably considered them as helpful "first steps", as you obviously also did when you recommended to Anthony a certain Martinus symbol for contemplation. Then you didn't warn him that there was a risk of throwing away half of the puzzle pieces, nor did you do that when commenting on my symbol recommendation to Eugene. You didn't say "be careful though", you said "great post". So, well, what's going on here?

Right, and that's why I said the point above was not a challenge to any points made by you or Guney.

We just discovered Martinus a week ago, so our understanding and approach is still in early development. As stated, the tendency of modern thinking is clearly to latch onto these systems in a rigid way over time, so it never hurts to reiterate these cautions in the early stages. Eugene was positively insulted when I suggested the teachings are low resolution and incomplete due to lack of higher cognitive development. Of course it's easy for people to say, at any given time, 'this isn't the final truth, only a tool on my spiritual journey', but what is their concrete disposition and approach over time? I did and do recommend the basic teachings/images because they seem to point in a helpful direction, but I probably should have added some more cautions about their limitations at the same time.

I also agree with Cleric that the reasons why Martinus teachings' are more approachable and digestible at first, which a few people voiced, including me, need to be clarified. It needs to be understood exactly why that is the case, so we don't mistake the reason as being that Martinus took a more sensible and clear-headed approach to the same spiritual science while Steiner took a more convoluted approach. The way I see it, their tasks to fulfill were quite different and Anthroposophy is clearly intended as not only a cosmology or set of practical teachings, but as a way of spiritual life which anticipates and inaugurates the Christ impulse inflowing humanity for the next few centuries and beyond. Simply put, it works on higher planes and with higher-order progressive intents for the course of human evolution towards spiritual freedom.

The intent is that we are to come meet the Christ in the 'clouds' with our higher thinking consciousness on his new descent (which is not to the physical plane). This requires us to strain the intellect and energetically work our thinking through the spiritual realities. We should always pay attention to our first person thinking experience of these things - does it feel like we are mostly passive, almost like we are watching a movie about spiritual cosmology and evolution? Or does every sentence or paragraph require a corresponding striving upwards on our part, which impels us to read and re-read and revisit? That energetic effort is probably more important than even understanding the content of what is written at first. The latter will naturally fall into place at its proper time if we are devoted and persistent. There is also room for more 'relaxed reading', which is how I would characterize the website texts of Martinus (I haven't ordered any books yet), but it should be pursued more sparingly in my view and only as a complement to the more energetic thinking through spiritual realities.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Post Reply