Spiritual science of Martinus

[Stranger]

How can one get to know one's own soul constitution by dissolving one's own perspective into one of the cosmic viewer? These are mostly hidden and are real forces. How does meditation lead to realization of these when it puts us in a panoramic state in which we distance ourselves from and observe our known feelings and thoughts. R's meditation is really about differentiation of one's own activities, with those who steer them, so to speak, the paths. We focus our own activity, and then the pathways "that do not belong to us" (that we have not created ourselves from our day-consciousness) will show up as imprints on our activity, as Cleric has often described.

In the nondual state we do not dissolve into a soup of "cosmic viewer", we remain within our own spiritual activity but along with it we gain a different "cosmic" perspective on ourselves and the world that brings a different vector/curvature of our further spiritual evolution. It also brings more transparency and awareness in inner knowing of our own activity and the paths/forces that steer them and how they interplay with the forces and activities of the cosmic organism. In the video above at 6:00 and after it is explained how, in the Martinus views, the realization of oneness changes the perspective on the reality and the vector of development without disrupting or ending the evolutionary path.

[Federica]

Eugene, in this related post on the other thread, I have argued that Steiner and Martinus were able to experience and report the same absolute reality, and that the very reason that makes you dislike Steiner’s report should make you dislike Martinus' as well, whose reports are just as much spiritually experienced from above (occultic, you would say) as Steiner’s. Clearly, the fact that such views are not yet encompassed within the spectrum of standard science (your reason for rejecting them in Steiner):

1. should lead you, in your own logic, to reject Martinus' science just as well as Steiner’s

2. can’t be claimed indeed as a valid reason, regardless of what spiritual scientist is in question, because spiritual science - the complete view, from above through the below - simply cannot be evaluated by the standards of secular science - partial view from below only.


For example, Steiner’s spiritual scientific view of the planets - physical and spiritual - has been in question in this respect. You and Anthony have stated that such a view is unsatisfactory - occultic, small, pagan, pseudo-scientific. Now, I would like to hear from you: how do you react to Martinus’ report on the same aspect of reality - the planets - and to the fact that the report naturally matches Steiner’s? (they report from living experience of the same objective field of spiritual reality)

Here you may object that in daily life we see many "dead things" move themselves. We see the clouds moving across the sky, we see the water roaring in rivers and streams, we experience the noisy breakers of the ocean, just as we have also become familiar with the course of the planets and stars amongst each other. But are all these realities now "dead things" too?
No! It is naturally only in the primitive or spiritually un-enlightened human being's imagination that they are perceived as "dead" and, as such, are expressed as "the forces of Nature". But the truth is that all these movements, or the collective macrocosmos, are also expressions of living beings or life-units. Just as our organs, cells and other bodily material are life-units within us, so are we ourselves organs within a greater being's organism. This greater being is the earth. The earth is also a life-unit with an I and a physical body. The physical earth is thus the physical body of this life-unit. The earth constitutes in turn an organ in the solar system, which is also a life-unit, whose physical body is made up of its physical solar body with the planets belonging to it. The solar system is in turn an organ in the galaxy, which in the same way also appears as a life-unit with an I and a physical body. This being, or gigantic life-unit, is in turn an organ in an even greater system or being, and so on continuously into infinity. So no living beings can exist without being organs in a larger being, just as they themselves equally cannot exist without being built up of an ocean of smaller beings or life-units.

(Martinus, The Ideal Food, Chapter 17. See complete illustration here)

[Stranger]

Eugene, in this related post on the other thread, I have argued that Steiner and Martinus were able to experience and report the same absolute reality, and that the very reason that makes you dislike Steiner’s report should make you dislike Martinus' as well, whose reports are just as much spiritually experienced from above (occultic, you would say) as Steiner’s. Clearly, the fact that such views are not yet encompassed within the spectrum of standard science (your reason for rejecting them in Steiner):

1. should lead you, in your own logic, to reject Martinus' science just as well as Steiner’s

2. can’t be claimed indeed as a valid reason, regardless of what spiritual scientist is in question, because spiritual science - the complete view, from above through the below - simply cannot be evaluated by the standards of secular science - partial view from below only.


For example, Steiner’s spiritual scientific view of the planets - physical and spiritual - has been in question in this respect. You and Anthony have stated that such a view is unsatisfactory - occultic, small, pagan, pseudo-scientific. Now, I would like to hear from you: how do you react to Martinus’ report on the same aspect of reality - the planets - and to the fact that the report naturally matches Steiner’s? (they report from living experience of the same objective field of spiritual reality)

Here you may object that in daily life we see many "dead things" move themselves. We see the clouds moving across the sky, we see the water roaring in rivers and streams, we experience the noisy breakers of the ocean, just as we have also become familiar with the course of the planets and stars amongst each other. But are all these realities now "dead things" too?
No! It is naturally only in the primitive or spiritually un-enlightened human being's imagination that they are perceived as "dead" and, as such, are expressed as "the forces of Nature". But the truth is that all these movements, or the collective macrocosmos, are also expressions of living beings or life-units. Just as our organs, cells and other bodily material are life-units within us, so are we ourselves organs within a greater being's organism. This greater being is the earth. The earth is also a life-unit with an I and a physical body. The physical earth is thus the physical body of this life-unit. The earth constitutes in turn an organ in the solar system, which is also a life-unit, whose physical body is made up of its physical solar body with the planets belonging to it. The solar system is in turn an organ in the galaxy, which in the same way also appears as a life-unit with an I and a physical body. This being, or gigantic life-unit, is in turn an organ in an even greater system or being, and so on continuously into infinity. So no living beings can exist without being organs in a larger being, just as they themselves equally cannot exist without being built up of an ocean of smaller beings or life-units.

(Martinus, The Ideal Food, Chapter 17. See complete illustration here)

I answered in another thread. Regarding this Martinus quote, I do believe that everything is a living organism, including trees and planets and all their ecosystems, building hierarchically up to the whole Cosmos. But this is not a "nested hierarchy" in a rigid way, but rather a hierarchy of ecosystems based on symbiosis of members and interactions between different layers and organs based on cooperation and free will. And the higher is the consciousness development level, the more awareness and free will is enabled in this symbiosis. At lower levels, such as elemental or animal, there is no or very little awareness and free will and the life of the beings and their ecosystems systems is guided mostly by the laws. But as consciousness evolves into higher forms, the awareness and free will becomes stronger factor in shaping the life of the beings while still being interconnected with the ecosystems on all levels.

[Federica]

Eugene, in this related post on the other thread, I have argued that Steiner and Martinus were able to experience and report the same absolute reality, and that the very reason that makes you dislike Steiner’s report should make you dislike Martinus' as well, whose reports are just as much spiritually experienced from above (occultic, you would say) as Steiner’s. Clearly, the fact that such views are not yet encompassed within the spectrum of standard science (your reason for rejecting them in Steiner):

1. should lead you, in your own logic, to reject Martinus' science just as well as Steiner’s

2. can’t be claimed indeed as a valid reason, regardless of what spiritual scientist is in question, because spiritual science - the complete view, from above through the below - simply cannot be evaluated by the standards of secular science - partial view from below only.


For example, Steiner’s spiritual scientific view of the planets - physical and spiritual - has been in question in this respect. You and Anthony have stated that such a view is unsatisfactory - occultic, small, pagan, pseudo-scientific. Now, I would like to hear from you: how do you react to Martinus’ report on the same aspect of reality - the planets - and to the fact that the report naturally matches Steiner’s? (they report from living experience of the same objective field of spiritual reality)

Here you may object that in daily life we see many "dead things" move themselves. We see the clouds moving across the sky, we see the water roaring in rivers and streams, we experience the noisy breakers of the ocean, just as we have also become familiar with the course of the planets and stars amongst each other. But are all these realities now "dead things" too?
No! It is naturally only in the primitive or spiritually un-enlightened human being's imagination that they are perceived as "dead" and, as such, are expressed as "the forces of Nature". But the truth is that all these movements, or the collective macrocosmos, are also expressions of living beings or life-units. Just as our organs, cells and other bodily material are life-units within us, so are we ourselves organs within a greater being's organism. This greater being is the earth. The earth is also a life-unit with an I and a physical body. The physical earth is thus the physical body of this life-unit. The earth constitutes in turn an organ in the solar system, which is also a life-unit, whose physical body is made up of its physical solar body with the planets belonging to it. The solar system is in turn an organ in the galaxy, which in the same way also appears as a life-unit with an I and a physical body. This being, or gigantic life-unit, is in turn an organ in an even greater system or being, and so on continuously into infinity. So no living beings can exist without being organs in a larger being, just as they themselves equally cannot exist without being built up of an ocean of smaller beings or life-units.

(Martinus, The Ideal Food, Chapter 17. See complete illustration here)

I answered in another thread. Regarding this Martinus quote, I do believe that everything is a living organism, including trees and planets and all their ecosystems, building hierarchically up to the whole Cosmos. But this is not a "nested hierarchy" in a rigid way, but rather a hierarchy of ecosystems based on symbiosis of members and interactions between different layers and organs based on cooperation and free will.

So you mean the lung-being in your chest that Martinus is speaking of - and I understand that you, with Martinus, also believe it is a being, with an "I" - can decide out of free will that it doesn't want to cooperate in the Eugene-ecosystem anymore, and can defect any moment, fly away, and go breathe somewhere else?

[Stranger]

So you mean the lung-being in your chest that Martinus is speaking of - and I understand that you, with Martinus, also believe it is a being, with an "I" - can decide out of free will that it doesn't want to cooperate in the Eugene-ecosystem anymore, and can defect any moment, fly away, and go breathe somewhere else?

I answered here:

At lower levels, such as elemental or animal, there is no or very little awareness and free will and the life of the beings and their ecosystems systems is guided mostly by the laws.

so no, they can't "fly away" because they have no or too little self-awareness and free will and ability to move beyond certain limits defined by the laws of the system since they exist on low elemental/material level. But I, being a human, have more awareness and free will, so I can by a flight ticket and fly wherever I want but only within the limits of the Earth, because there are still some lawful limitations to my freedom and awareness.

[Federica]

So you mean the lung-being in your chest that Martinus is speaking of - and I understand that you, with Martinus, also believe it is a being, with an "I" - can decide out of free will that it doesn't want to cooperate in the Eugene-ecosystem anymore, and can defect any moment, fly away, and go breathe somewhere else?

I answered here:

At lower levels, such as elemental or animal, there is no or very little awareness and free will and the life of the beings and their ecosystems systems is guided mostly by the laws.

so no, they can't "fly away" because they have no or too little self-awareness and free will and ability to move beyond certain limits defined by the laws of the system since they exist on low elemental/material level. But I, being a human, have more awareness and free will, so I can by a flight ticket and fly wherever I want but only within the limits of the Earth, because there are still some lawful limitations to my freedom and awareness.

So you see, you dislike the hierarchy to be "nested in a rigid way" but when you are forced to look at some details, then you appeal to the "laws of the system" and all that symbiotic, fluid, ecosystem ruled by free will is revealed as an "in-principle" loved characterization. Please look at this disconnect that pops up, even within the most basic example like the one I suggested. Your preferred characterization is just that - preferred - but not matched with a living reality in meditation, just because you want to dedicate meditation to "higher practices" that don't include those "trivial" spiritual scientific details. But Steiner, Martinus, Cleric and Ashvin are telling you: if you don't go that way, you leave an enormous gap open. You cannot go by guesswork to fill it in. Do you see the thing Eugene? Please

[Stranger]

So you see, you dislike the hierarchy to be "nested in a rigid way" but when you are forced to look at some details, then you appeal to the "laws of the system" and all that symbiotic, fluid, ecosystem ruled by free will is revealed as an "in-principle" loved characterization. Please look at this disconnect that pops up, even within the most basic example like the one I suggested. Your preferred characterization is just that - preferred - but not matched with a living reality in meditation, just because you want to dedicate meditation to "higher practices" that don't include those "trivial" spiritual scientific details. But Steiner, Martinus, Cleric and Ashvin are telling you: if you don't go that way, you leave an enormous gap open. You cannot go by guesswork to fill it in. Do you see the thing Eugene? Please

Our existence is interplay of laws created by other beings, of mutual interconnections on vertical and horizontal levels, and the awareness and free will of each being on each level depending on the level of consciousness development of each being. The higher is the developmental level, the more is the role of free will and awareness, and the higher is the level, the more the free will and awareness act in harmony with the Cosmos on all levels. On higher developmental levels it becomes more free, aware and voluntary symbiosis as opposed to symbiosis more strictly governed by laws on lower levels. Disregard the role of lawful structures and interactions, and we get into the extreme of atomic voluntarism, disregard the role of awareness and free will, and we get to the extreme of fully deterministic hierarchical system. The ecosystem is never fully ruled by free will, it is always ruled by an interplay of lawful structures and free will, and the role of free will depends on the level of consciousness development (the higher is the level, the more is the role of awareness and free will). It is only on the level of the Godhead where there is a complete freedom of will not governed by lawful structures.

[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.

Particularly this part is of importance to understand:





Here, Mary describes the 'Karma waves' which work from incarnation to incarnation and how experiencing and cognitively unveiling these connections is the process of developing empathy and love and becoming truly human -"the more we experience the unpleasant Karma that we have inflicted on others, the more we begin to get empathy for all people, and the more we learn not to have the heart to be so nasty and unpleasant." In other words, there are not two different parallel processes - one of experiencing-knowing our Karmic inheritance via higher cognition and one of embodying empathy-love via mystical experience. Instead the former is the evolutionary process of progressively embodying the high ideals. This process unfolds over many rhythms of incarnation and death-rebirth.

(she also mentions how certain thoughts-deeds do not dissolve completely but come back again in the plant kingdom in a higher spiral, which is a deep spiritual scientific teaching we also encounter in Anthroposophy)

Mary also emphasizes that we are still emerging from the 'sphinx' state - we are still part animal and part human, so to speak. She emphasizes that it will take many more incarnations before the animalistic nature is fully sublimated, for ex. in the 1st part of the Q&A. Of course there are differentiated rates of evolution for various portions of humanity and individuals, but she is speaking of even herself, who is someone spiritually qualified to disseminate the teachings of Martinus. Overall, there is a great focus by Martinus and Mary on how the Earthly thinking experience is the ongoing portal to our spiritual evolution into ever-higher stages of our true humanity, our Christ nature.

PS - I really appreciate this image of the Karma waves. It gives a sense of the vertical depth and how our first-person experience of the personality in any given incarnation is an interference of many overlapping waves of spiritual activity along the depth structure, i.e. the nested hierarchical gradient of influences.



(Symbol 18, The Arcs of Fate of the Living Being)

The living being is the source of and centre for the creation of manifestation and movement. Through causing movement the being creates its way of being It promotes this way of being with its manifestations or creations, thus forming its relationship to other living beings. These manifestations return to their source in the form of effects. Martinus describes the passage of the movements - from their source outwards into manifestation, outwards into life and back again to their source - as arcs of fate. Our fate is the connection of our present life with our past and present.

The main details of the symbol:

-The white triangle with the star cross symbolises the living being.
-The orange and violet section around the star cross, which is framed by the two vertical white lines, constitutes its present terrestrial life.
-The rectangular orange sections symbolise the being’s various physical lives on Earth. The white sections symbolise its spiritual lives between its physical lives. Together these sections symbolise the being’s principle of reincarnation.
-The orange and white rays that emanate from the white triangle or the I of the being indicate the being’s eternal connection with its physical and spiritual lives respectively.
-The yellow section symbolises the being’s past and the green its future.
-The network of violet semicircles or arcs at the top of the symbol constitutes the arcs of fate that the being sends out through its behaviour, and which return to its source. They contain the effects of the being’s conduct towards itself, towards its surroundings and its fellow beings. The number of the arcs of fate and their various sizes symbolise that the living being is always part of a great number of cycles of fate with more or less profound effects, some of which are completed quickly, others later in the same life, other in the next life and yet others in subsequent lives.

[Stranger]

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

[Federica]

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 )

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".

Now I am reading from Max Leyf's Substack "how to get a hold of the I?" to find the same "something" in question, flown by different wings to the same point of arrival:

No one can know the Father except the one whom he hath sent.10 “If you would know God…you must be the Son yourself.”11 The I is Christ in us, but to see this, it must be this for the reason indicated above. The eye cannot see itself and neither can the I. The eye sacrifices itself to see. In the same way, must the I sacrifice everything it thinks it is including every one of its self-conceptions and theories and prejudices and everything it knows about Christianity and all other things because, in each of these things, “we see through a mirror, darkly.”12 To be Christ, the I must “put away childish things”13 and die to everything that prevents it from being this. Then it can see this. Everything has been revealed, even “things hidden since the foundation of the world.”

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?