Intuition of the material world

[lorenzop]

Talking about Ss there is a thought that im thinking trough right know.

Every one in the forum here has a intuitive context, which allows us to understand what we are doing and why we are doing these things.

It is the means by which our existence feels lawful.

Let us imagine that we see a stranger, who smokes a cigarette, and we are none smokers.
Maybe we ask ourselves why this person smokes, knowing that it is really harmful.
We can't comprehend it and it is random or silly behavior in our eyes.

If we try out smoking a cigarette a couple years later and start smoking, one day we'll understand from a first perspective, why people smoke and can't stop.

We experience the craving and the pleasure which make us addicted.

Then we understand the first person experience of the stranger, which didn't fit in our context years before.


Now when I think in the described way about Ss, then it is natural, that Ss is either dismissed, or isn't understood correctly.


We have to reorient or context of the World, as a material place (arena) in which we live, inside a body, perceiving the outside, to a point, where we are free of assumptions.

This first step is very important, but difficult.

Then we have to get Ss, but not only as words, for which we then create imagination, in an external-sensory manner, but understand how these concepts are present and structure or experience of the world (including non sensory phenomenon like feeling thinking willing).

Am I correct till to this point ?

I know it will bring disagreement, but this isn't something, which every human being is able to do today.

You must have an interest in understanding the world and our role in it ( the meaning of life).

Then you must have the urge to know it really, and not only from the words of gurus, but trough own experience and understanding.

One must be educated enough to understand the written things (Pof, Cleric's essays or Ashvin's post).

One must be patient and read over and over again ( one must put in much effort) and must have the will to do it so.

There are much more conditions.

Isn't it really occult knowledge for a few, while others are trapped inside a thinking, that is full of wrong assumptions?

And as we talking about this topic, after so much posts, I didn't get how to "read-meditate" and understand how Ss concept shape our experience, let alone how we can verify this without experiencing clairvoyance.

Please don't take this as a criticism of the posts here, i just want to highlight the difficulty of understanding this, and the pain that comes with it, because I can't just say:,, Ok I don't get it, i should focus on something more pleasant instead of wasting my time."

I can understand why so many people on this forum, don't participate anymore.

Ps: steiner himself really describes the occult realities, in a way that we understand them as sensory and space like phenomena.
How can he don't know that people will get it wrong?

For example:

"This is clear to straightforward observation as an inner experience, but for the Initiate the astral body can become an outer reality. The Initiate sees this third member of man as an egg-shaped cloud which not only surrounds the body, but permeates it. If we “suggest away” the physical body and also the etheric body, what we shall see will be a delicate cloud of light, inwardly full of movement. Within this cloud or aura the Initiate sees every desire, every impulse, as colour and form in the astral body. For example, he sees intense passion flashing like rays of lightning out of the astral body.

In animals the basic colour of the astral body varies with the species: a lion's astral body has a different basic colour from that of a lamb. Even in human beings the colour is not always the same, and if you train yourself to be sensitive to delicate nuances, you will be able to recognise a man's temperament and general disposition by his aura. Nervous people have a dappled aura; the spots are not static but keep on lighting up and fading away. This is always so, and is why the aura cannot be painted."

Or

Anyone who wants to know the nature of the etheric body by direct vision must be able to maintain his ordinary consciousness intact and “suggest away” the physical body by the strength of his own will. The gap left will, however, not be empty; he will see before him the etheric body glowing with a reddish-blue light like a phantom, but with radiance a little darker than young peach blossom. We never see an etheric body if we “suggest away” a crystal; but in the case of a plant or animal we do, for it is the etheric body that is responsible for nutrition, growth and reproduction.

If I didn't came across this forum, I would understand this in a total different way.

What I highlighted above in dark green is basic empathy or understanding what another might be going through or experiencing. There are many methods to develop the art\skill of empathy\sympathy, perhaps Ss is one of these methods. Unless I was attempting to council someone with addiction (for example) . . . I don't really see a value in becoming a smoker, plumber, drummer in a rock band, pole dancer, etc. strictly for the purpose of understanding what a particular activity feels like.
I could enjoy watching a raccoon washing its hands in a creek, but I don't see any advantage to becoming a raccoon.

Re what I highlighted in light green - again there are many methods to work on this - and perhaps Ss is one such method. I'm reading a book called "The Four Agreements" A Toltec (New World Shaman) manner of looking at this concern.

Re what I highlighted in light orange - heaven forbid. Resist placing additional burdens in your way.

Re the quotes from Steiner . . . Steiner is suggesting astral bodies and special abilities, which may exist and may be within reach, but he's putting the cart before the horse. First realize your true nature, then, if interested, pursue astral travel and clairvoyance. Keeping it simple is hard enough.

[Federica]

Talking about Ss there is a thought that im thinking trough right know.

Every one in the forum here has a intuitive context, which allows us to understand what we are doing and why we are doing these things.

It is the means by which our existence feels lawful.

Let us imagine that we see a stranger, who smokes a cigarette, and we are none smokers.
Maybe we ask ourselves why this person smokes, knowing that it is really harmful.
We can't comprehend it and it is random or silly behavior in our eyes.

If we try out smoking a cigarette a couple years later and start smoking, one day we'll understand from a first perspective, why people smoke and can't stop.

We experience the craving and the pleasure which make us addicted.

Then we understand the first person experience of the stranger, which didn't fit in our context years before.


Now when I think in the described way about Ss, then it is natural, that Ss is either dismissed, or isn't understood correctly.


We have to reorient or context of the World, as a material place (arena) in which we live, inside a body, perceiving the outside, to a point, where we are free of assumptions.

This first step is very important, but difficult.

Then we have to get Ss, but not only as words, for which we then create imagination, in an external-sensory manner, but understand how these concepts are present and structure or experience of the world (including non sensory phenomenon like feeling thinking willing).

Am I correct till to this point ?

I know it will bring disagreement, but this isn't something, which every human being is able to do today.

You must have an interest in understanding the world and our role in it ( the meaning of life).

Then you must have the urge to know it really, and not only from the words of gurus, but trough own experience and understanding.

One must be educated enough to understand the written things (Pof, Cleric's essays or Ashvin's post).

One must be patient and read over and over again ( one must put in much effort) and must have the will to do it so.

There are much more conditions.

Isn't it really occult knowledge for a few, while others are trapped inside a thinking, that is full of wrong assumptions?

And as we talking about this topic, after so much posts, I didn't get how to "read-meditate" and understand how Ss concept shape our experience, let alone how we can verify this without experiencing clairvoyance.

Please don't take this as a criticism of the posts here, i just want to highlight the difficulty of understanding this, and the pain that comes with it, because I can't just say:,, Ok I don't get it, i should focus on something more pleasant instead of wasting my time."

I can understand why so many people on this forum, don't participate anymore.

Ps: steiner himself really describes the occult realities, in a way that we understand them as sensory and space like phenomena.
How can he don't know that people will get it wrong?

For example:

"This is clear to straightforward observation as an inner experience, but for the Initiate the astral body can become an outer reality. The Initiate sees this third member of man as an egg-shaped cloud which not only surrounds the body, but permeates it. If we “suggest away” the physical body and also the etheric body, what we shall see will be a delicate cloud of light, inwardly full of movement. Within this cloud or aura the Initiate sees every desire, every impulse, as colour and form in the astral body. For example, he sees intense passion flashing like rays of lightning out of the astral body.

In animals the basic colour of the astral body varies with the species: a lion's astral body has a different basic colour from that of a lamb. Even in human beings the colour is not always the same, and if you train yourself to be sensitive to delicate nuances, you will be able to recognise a man's temperament and general disposition by his aura. Nervous people have a dappled aura; the spots are not static but keep on lighting up and fading away. This is always so, and is why the aura cannot be painted."

Or

Anyone who wants to know the nature of the etheric body by direct vision must be able to maintain his ordinary consciousness intact and “suggest away” the physical body by the strength of his own will. The gap left will, however, not be empty; he will see before him the etheric body glowing with a reddish-blue light like a phantom, but with radiance a little darker than young peach blossom. We never see an etheric body if we “suggest away” a crystal; but in the case of a plant or animal we do, for it is the etheric body that is responsible for nutrition, growth and reproduction.

If I didn't came across this forum, I would understand this in a total different way.

Güney,
To me, your list of necessary requirements makes more sense when considered in reverse. I would start with:

You must have an interest in understanding the world and our role in it ( the meaning of life).

Then you must have the urge to know it really, and not only from the words of gurus

True - but in our times of individualized consciousness, every scientist - spiritual and natural alike - every modern enquirer has to have this urge to understand the world for oneself, and not through blind faith. And those who, by preference-destiny, live a more instinctive life wouldn’t approach an intentional path of inner development, no matter what the requirements may be. In this sense, these are like minimum requirements.

One must be educated enough to understand the written things

One must be patient and read over and over again

Yes, but this is true for any endeavor of importance in life, for any aspiration to acquire knowledge, no matter the form. It takes close to 2 decades of study and practice, from start to finish, to become an expert in many fields. It surely includes plenty of reading, and practicing many gestures again, and again, and again… So, to the extent that one feels the urge to understand reality directly (not through belief) and accepts that it takes a long-term path of continuous learning (like one does in all professions), then the remaining items on your list are more like focus areas in the ‘course syllabus’ and projects to complete during the 'traineeship':

We have to reorient or context of the World

Then we have to get Ss, but not only as words

I would say, for those who feel the urgency to know, and are pointed by their karma toward this path (for example by stumbling upon this forum) the most difficult requirement is to activate the will and engage in the daily work with child-like wholeheartedness, before the karmic opportunity wanes. Once one is riding that wave, then the difficulties of the course syllabus and practical projects could become the most felicitous and joyously embraced journey of discovery.

What is your underlying thought behind the urge to write a post about the difficulties on the path, and that many people are not interested or won’t go very far?

[Lou Gold]

OK, I looked at the your images more deeply, which brought forth some words and an image of mine.

Your images seem very thoughtful.

For myself, I would try to portray the child.

Where might I learn how to do this AI stuff? It seems like an intriguing sandbox.

I named this image "Looking Deeply" >>>

Here: https://www.bing.com/images/create (you need Microsoft account)

For example, the prompt for the last pictures was something like 'human form made of ethereal energy with flowers growing from it, sitting in etheric forest, warm color'.

Thanks Cleric!

I would like to post one at my Facebook page to see how people might respond. Is it OK with you? If yes how would you like it to be credited?

[Cleric K]

Thanks Cleric!

I would like to post one at my Facebook page to see how people might respond. Is it OK with you? If yes how would you like it to be credited?

Credited? You think you can get away with this by just crediting me? I want to be paid full royalties!

Please, Lou, use the images in any way you like, they are not 'mine' If someone's interested just point them to the website. But it might be a fun experiment to first post them without any mention and see if someone will guess their origin.

[Lou Gold]

Thanks Cleric!

I would like to post one at my Facebook page to see how people might respond. Is it OK with you? If yes how would you like it to be credited?

Credited? You think you can get away with this by just crediting me? I want to be paid full royalties!

Please, Lou, use the images in any way you like, they are not 'mine' If someone's interested just point them to the website. But it might be a fun experiment to first post them without any mention and see if someone will guess their origin.

OK, let's see.

Meanwhile, this image of mine that I posted might be called "Looking Deeply" or "Seeing From Within." Does it resonate for you?

[Güney27]

Talking about Ss there is a thought that im thinking trough right know.

Every one in the forum here has a intuitive context, which allows us to understand what we are doing and why we are doing these things.

It is the means by which our existence feels lawful.

Let us imagine that we see a stranger, who smokes a cigarette, and we are none smokers.
Maybe we ask ourselves why this person smokes, knowing that it is really harmful.
We can't comprehend it and it is random or silly behavior in our eyes.

If we try out smoking a cigarette a couple years later and start smoking, one day we'll understand from a first perspective, why people smoke and can't stop.

We experience the craving and the pleasure which make us addicted.

Then we understand the first person experience of the stranger, which didn't fit in our context years before.


Now when I think in the described way about Ss, then it is natural, that Ss is either dismissed, or isn't understood correctly.


We have to reorient or context of the World, as a material place (arena) in which we live, inside a body, perceiving the outside, to a point, where we are free of assumptions.

This first step is very important, but difficult.

Then we have to get Ss, but not only as words, for which we then create imagination, in an external-sensory manner, but understand how these concepts are present and structure or experience of the world (including non sensory phenomenon like feeling thinking willing).

Am I correct till to this point ?

I know it will bring disagreement, but this isn't something, which every human being is able to do today.

You must have an interest in understanding the world and our role in it ( the meaning of life).

Then you must have the urge to know it really, and not only from the words of gurus, but trough own experience and understanding.

One must be educated enough to understand the written things (Pof, Cleric's essays or Ashvin's post).

One must be patient and read over and over again ( one must put in much effort) and must have the will to do it so.

There are much more conditions.

Isn't it really occult knowledge for a few, while others are trapped inside a thinking, that is full of wrong assumptions?

And as we talking about this topic, after so much posts, I didn't get how to "read-meditate" and understand how Ss concept shape our experience, let alone how we can verify this without experiencing clairvoyance.

Please don't take this as a criticism of the posts here, i just want to highlight the difficulty of understanding this, and the pain that comes with it, because I can't just say:,, Ok I don't get it, i should focus on something more pleasant instead of wasting my time."

I can understand why so many people on this forum, don't participate anymore.

Ps: steiner himself really describes the occult realities, in a way that we understand them as sensory and space like phenomena.
How can he don't know that people will get it wrong?

For example:

"This is clear to straightforward observation as an inner experience, but for the Initiate the astral body can become an outer reality. The Initiate sees this third member of man as an egg-shaped cloud which not only surrounds the body, but permeates it. If we “suggest away” the physical body and also the etheric body, what we shall see will be a delicate cloud of light, inwardly full of movement. Within this cloud or aura the Initiate sees every desire, every impulse, as colour and form in the astral body. For example, he sees intense passion flashing like rays of lightning out of the astral body.

In animals the basic colour of the astral body varies with the species: a lion's astral body has a different basic colour from that of a lamb. Even in human beings the colour is not always the same, and if you train yourself to be sensitive to delicate nuances, you will be able to recognise a man's temperament and general disposition by his aura. Nervous people have a dappled aura; the spots are not static but keep on lighting up and fading away. This is always so, and is why the aura cannot be painted."

Or

Anyone who wants to know the nature of the etheric body by direct vision must be able to maintain his ordinary consciousness intact and “suggest away” the physical body by the strength of his own will. The gap left will, however, not be empty; he will see before him the etheric body glowing with a reddish-blue light like a phantom, but with radiance a little darker than young peach blossom. We never see an etheric body if we “suggest away” a crystal; but in the case of a plant or animal we do, for it is the etheric body that is responsible for nutrition, growth and reproduction.

If I didn't came across this forum, I would understand this in a total different way.

Güney,
To me, your list of necessary requirements makes more sense when considered in reverse. I would start with:

You must have an interest in understanding the world and our role in it ( the meaning of life).

Then you must have the urge to know it really, and not only from the words of gurus

True - but in our times of individualized consciousness, every scientist - spiritual and natural alike - every modern enquirer has to have this urge to understand the world for oneself, and not through blind faith. And those who, by preference-destiny, live a more instinctive life wouldn’t approach an intentional path of inner development, no matter what the requirements may be. In this sense, these are like minimum requirements.

One must be educated enough to understand the written things

One must be patient and read over and over again

Yes, but this is true for any endeavor of importance in life, for any aspiration to acquire knowledge, no matter the form. It takes close to 2 decades of study and practice, from start to finish, to become an expert in many fields. It surely includes plenty of reading, and practicing many gestures again, and again, and again… So, to the extent that one feels the urge to understand reality directly (not through belief) and accepts that it takes a long-term path of continuous learning (like one does in all professions), then the remaining items on your list are more like focus areas in the ‘course syllabus’ and projects to complete during the 'traineeship':

We have to reorient or context of the World

Then we have to get Ss, but not only as words

I would say, for those who feel the urgency to know, and are pointed by their karma toward this path (for example by stumbling upon this forum) the most difficult requirement is to activate the will and engage in the daily work with child-like wholeheartedness, before the karmic opportunity wanes. Once one is riding that wave, then the difficulties of the course syllabus and practical projects could become the most felicitous and joyously embraced journey of discovery.

What is your underlying thought behind the urge to write a post about the difficulties on the path, and that many people are not interested or won’t go very far?

What is your underlying thought behind the urge to write a post about the difficulties on the path, and that many people are not interested or won’t go very far?

Its hard to say Federica.

We all often talk to ourselves, when engaging in a conversation.

I Often write my thoughts down.
Before that I condense my intuition in certain thouht forms.
Sometimes I can't get a 'hold' on certain intuitions.

Another variable is that I have certain persons in my life, whit which I want to talk about occult teachings, but somehow they find it inaccessible and think that im crazy.

A mixture of frustration and talking to myself i would say

[AshvinP]

Ps: steiner himself really describes the occult realities, in a way that we understand them as sensory and space like phenomena.
How can he don't know that people will get it wrong?

For example:

"This is clear to straightforward observation as an inner experience, but for the Initiate the astral body can become an outer reality. The Initiate sees this third member of man as an egg-shaped cloud which not only surrounds the body, but permeates it. If we “suggest away” the physical body and also the etheric body, what we shall see will be a delicate cloud of light, inwardly full of movement. Within this cloud or aura the Initiate sees every desire, every impulse, as colour and form in the astral body. For example, he sees intense passion flashing like rays of lightning out of the astral body.

In animals the basic colour of the astral body varies with the species: a lion's astral body has a different basic colour from that of a lamb. Even in human beings the colour is not always the same, and if you train yourself to be sensitive to delicate nuances, you will be able to recognise a man's temperament and general disposition by his aura. Nervous people have a dappled aura; the spots are not static but keep on lighting up and fading away. This is always so, and is why the aura cannot be painted."

Or

Anyone who wants to know the nature of the etheric body by direct vision must be able to maintain his ordinary consciousness intact and “suggest away” the physical body by the strength of his own will. The gap left will, however, not be empty; he will see before him the etheric body glowing with a reddish-blue light like a phantom, but with radiance a little darker than young peach blossom. We never see an etheric body if we “suggest away” a crystal; but in the case of a plant or animal we do, for it is the etheric body that is responsible for nutrition, growth and reproduction.

If I didn't came across this forum, I would understand this in a total different way.

Guney, these are interesting questions you pose. I will just comment on this one for now, with a quote I recently came across:

In the purely spiritual state, we do not experience a physical and etheric human organism as belonging to us as we do when we are sleeping. We experience these organisms in a totally different way. We experience their foundations in cosmic worlds. We experience how these organisms evolve out of the spiritual cosmos. We behold a spiritual cosmos. This spiritual cosmos is the spiritual part of the germ of the physical earthly organism with which we will be united in future. When we speak of a germ in this context we are describing something that is the opposite of what we call a germ in the physical sense. Usually, when we speak of “germ” in this connection, we mean the minute physical beginning of a growing, expanding organism or structure. But the spiritual organism, made up of powers or forces, which one sees in one's pre-earthly spiritual existence in connection with one's essence, is huge and continually contracts, as it were, until finally it grows together with the physical germ. We use the terms huge and minute in this context, but we must always bear in mind that the events in the spiritual world are spiritual. Space in the physical sense does not exist there. The terms are therefore used only as images for something spiritual, entirely non-spatial, and purely qualitative.

We will find many similar comments throughout the lectures, but given the sheer volume of material, it will seem like they are few and far between. This just means that it is up to us to make the effort to remember the proper relation here - spiritual relations are non-spatial, purely ideal/qualitative, yet these relations clearly can be condensed into sense-like, spatial phenomena. Consider how we can take temporal events of our lives and condense them into a photobook of images, side by side in space. Or imagine how you could take purely inner states of emotions, desires, and ideas and record them in a journal over the course of time. Then you have access to these temporally extended inner states in space. It is a similar principle at work with the quotes you shared above.

Imagine if Steiner put this bolded caveat into every other paragraph of a lecture he was giving - then people would complain the lectures take forever to get through and are too repetitive! Furthermore, a major part of our spiritual development comes from working through the resistance of ingrained spatial thinking habits so we develop much stronger inner forces. Remember, this is the whole telos of spiritual evolution - that beings gradually perfect their inner forces, take up their productive roles in Cosmic evolution, and provide the ideal support for new waves of beings to awaken and develop. It is because these concepts can so easily be taken in the wrong way that they can also become so inwardly productive when we orient toward them properly.

I would also remind of this post - viewtopic.php?p=22825#p22825. Did it make sense for you at the time?

[Federica]

What is your underlying thought behind the urge to write a post about the difficulties on the path, and that many people are not interested or won’t go very far?

Its hard to say Federica.

We all often talk to ourselves, when engaging in a conversation.

I Often write my thoughts down.
Before that I condense my intuition in certain thouht forms.
Sometimes I can't get a 'hold' on certain intuitions.

Another variable is that I have certain persons in my life, whit which I want to talk about occult teachings, but somehow they find it inaccessible and think that im crazy.

A mixture of frustration and talking to myself i would say

Güney,

I understand what you mean, I’ve also had conversations in which my worldview and choices have been questioned, sometimes with curiosity or irony, sometimes with concern about my wellbeing and sanity, though nobody has called me crazy to my face yet

Sure it can be frustrating. It’s very difficult to convey to another person sensible insights into the nature of reality and to keep it simple, brief and convincing at the same time, especially in the middle of casual conversations, as it often happens.
But let’s face it, situations of this sort will probably happen regularly. Change takes time, and this path will surely not become a popular one in the turn of a few years or decades. I say ‘path’ since we know it can’t work only as a worldview. Life conduct has to be part of it, which may raise additional questions from the people around us. But these conversations, although difficult and possibly frustrating in the moment, can also work as a beneficial, and maybe liberating, inner reality check. They help us clarify a few things. We can ask and evaluate:

> Have I integrated this understanding at least to the point that I can pinpoint what initial questions drew me to it, and how the questions have changed in me / how I have changed along these questions so far?

> Do I feel the presence of an inner source that keeps refreshing my motivation to maintain this quest at the center of my existence? Or is it more like a random general feeling grounded in uncertainty that could be drastically shaken by a disappointing discussion?

> How do I approach relationships with my close ones: are my feelings and actions towards them primarily directed by certain conditions, mutual needs and expectations? What determines those feelings and actions?

For me, the number one way in which I feel I learn in these discussions is in the contextual control of feelings and how I respond. I got better, but there’s so much more work. For you it may be something completely different. Another thing to keep in mind, on a more practical level, is that (unless you want to) you don’t have to tackle the nature of the physical world to start a meaningful, non-casual discussion with a close one. You could start from feeling or will activity as well. Probably it would make for a smoother, less confrontational discussion.

And a last one: if someone means that your arguments are pure nonsense, you could invite them in turn to describe their own view of reality: what is the meaning of (their) existence? If it turns out that they don’t prefer, or never found time to, pause and ask themselves these deep questions, then they may realize that it makes little sense to judge and draw conclusions with respect to a completely uncharted territory in their life map. And when questioning comes from a little voice inside, I guess most of the above still applies.

[Cleric K]

OK, let's see.

Meanwhile, this image of mine that I posted might be called "Looking Deeply" or "Seeing From Within." Does it resonate for you?

I resonate in the sense that I can follow the states that can be depicted in such a way. It is literally 'looking deeply'. Yet we have to distinguish the depth of our organic nature and the ideal (or archetypal) depth. For example, when we enter clairvoyantly the the folded stomach lining it is possible to experience these structures Imaginatively in such manifold pictures.

For example, you can compare the kind of states from which the above image has proceeded and the kind of states that can be experienced as something similar to your avatar here.

[Cleric K]

Imagine if Steiner put this bolded caveat into every other paragraph of a lecture he was giving - then people would complain the lectures take forever to get through and are too repetitive! Furthermore, a major part of our spiritual development comes from working through the resistance of ingrained spatial thinking habits so we develop much stronger inner forces. Remember, this is the whole telos of spiritual evolution - that beings gradually perfect their inner forces, take up their productive roles in Cosmic evolution, and provide the ideal support for new waves of beings to awaken and develop. It is because these concepts can so easily be taken in the wrong way that they can also become so inwardly productive when we orient toward them properly.

I have often thought about this. Something that I've been considering but haven't tried it yet, is to make certain clarification, say, something like Steiner's quote, and place it in a colored frame. Then later in the text when we want to emphasize the caveats, we simply color the text in the same color. Maybe this could be a less intrusive way to remind the reader that they need to watch out for the usual cognitive habits.

Steiner wrote:
In the purely spiritual state, we do not experience a physical and etheric human organism as belonging to us as we do when we are sleeping. We experience these organisms in a totally different way. We experience their foundations in cosmic worlds. We experience how these organisms evolve out of the spiritual cosmos. We behold a spiritual cosmos. This spiritual cosmos is the spiritual part of the germ of the physical earthly organism with which we will be united in future. When we speak of a germ in this context we are describing something that is the opposite of what we call a germ in the physical sense. Usually, when we speak of “germ” in this connection, we mean the minute physical beginning of a growing, expanding organism or structure. But the spiritual organism, made up of powers or forces, which one sees in one's pre-earthly spiritual existence in connection with one's essence, is huge and continually contracts, as it were, until finally it grows together with the physical germ. We use the terms huge and minute in this context, but we must always bear in mind that the events in the spiritual world are spiritual. Space in the physical sense does not exist there. The terms are therefore used only as images for something spiritual, entirely non-spatial, and purely qualitative.

For those who may still struggle with terms like spiritual world, let it be reminded that this has nothing to do with parallel universes of non-spatial nature. If we don't understand this, we fall in a characteristic duality where we imagine that we're presently entirely in the physical world (including our psyche) and thus the spiritual world is a speculative realm that can only be allegedly accessed by certain gifted individuals.

But we live in the non-spatial spiritual world all the time. Imagine that you think about literature. Now you switch to politics. How did you reach that new topic? By turning left, right, up, down? When we try to understand the ways in which our states of being metamorphose we clearly see that we're following lawful relations which we can't say are spatial. Nevertheless, we can speak metaphorically of these relations and even try do depict them, for example by drawing a mind map. In this sense, there's nothing speculative in terms like 'non-spatial' and 'purely qualitative'. We don't have to become clairvoyant in order to discover these non-spatial spiritual world. It's only a matter of recognizing that our ideal activity already lives in non-spatial and qualitative world.

The physical world is only the intersection of the various spiritual streams (what has been often called 'the lowest common denominator'). Things become problematic only when we're still under the spell of reductionism and we imagine that our ideal life is only epiphenomenon proceeding from the interaction of the intersection points. Then we naturally consider our psychic life to be part of the physical lattice, and the spiritual, correspondingly to some fantastic other world. Things become clear when we realize that the spiritual world refers to the ideal 'space' within which all our thoughts live all the time. Becoming clairvoyant is not about going to another world but learning to live cognitively along the whole gradient, without automatically reducing everything to the LCD. Then we can trace how these non-spatial ideal relations naturally determine the way in which the intersection points move (since they themselves are intrinsic part of the ideal, they are only highly constrained ideal).