Seekers in the 21st century

The title was a bit dramatic. And by the way, I've been resigning gradually over several decades. Up to twenty-five I was inside the world of thought, but after that I have distanced myself more and more. Ten years when I was less and in opposition. When it was time for master thesis on my education and I couldn't come up with anything better, so I chose to write about "new spirituality" of the kind represented by the likes of Rudolf Steiner, Madame Blavatsky, etc. For me, this work also became a kind of reconciliation work.

The title also does not imply that I have come to a conclusion about the truth content of the esoteric basic ideas, which I am now trying to impress upon others. Reincarnation, karma and the individual's gradual development towards perfection, to sum it up briefly. I still know nothing about this.

I dared to express my feelings on a forum around the Danish mystic Martinus Thomsen (1890-1981) the other day and the conversation that developed from this convinced me even more that - and why - I put the commitment behind me.

But I think I'll start a little earlier! Came into contact with "new spirituality" through a man in the town where I grew up, the yoga and meditation teacher, etc. Sture Emby. Moved to Stockholm in the middle of high school, had various such jobs that one had at that age. Went to all the lectures and courses about Martinus Thomsen that I had time for. Lived in Denmark for six months, attended the so-called "Winter School", at the Martinus Center on Zealand.

Started working at the new spiritual establishment Cafe Pan in Götgatsbacken, Stockholm. Did unarmed service, wrote a book. Continued working at Cafe Pan... Almost every summer I spent 1-2 weeks down at that Martinus Center. In the beginning I participated in study groups and lectures with a good appetite, but gradually it became more and more regular (lovely) holiday stays by the sea.

For the past perhaps twenty years, the Martinus movement has been marked by a bitter conflict over copyright, how the founder's writings should be presented to the outside world.

A more orthodox phalanx who claim that the only right thing is to continue printing the books in facsimile, with any obvious spelling errors and the Danish as it looked before the spelling reform in 1948. A more modern phalanx, who are also those who hold the copyright (Martinus Institute in Copenhagen, with its board which is traditionally called "The Council"), which has been for a gentle update. Those who are familiar with the conflict can fill in what I missed or don't know at all, the rest of you probably don't need to worry about the details. I wouldn't post this post if I didn't perceive the content to be more general.

I reason around a concept that deals with how everything goes in cycles. The seasons are one cycle, the human life course from birth to death, another. But in this author's model of existence, the cycle idea is absolutely central, all-encompassing. So maybe it can then be applied to Martinu's work and the movement that has formed around this for a hundred years, too?

“Council vs… who is it?

Have to say I stopped caring about this conflict because, what is it, how long has it been going on? Fifteen, twenty years? Personally, I think it has less to do with the Council or those who are dissatisfied. I think that Martinu's big project has reached some kind of phase of decay, old age, decay. The last push as well. Sad in a way, but... It's the "circulation principle" as well. I think his ideas will live on and be able to inspire one or another in the future, but then more in a molten form, via secondary literature and free thinkers.

I have the warmest feelings for Martinus as a person, and the history of the cause.”

Based on the response I received, both support and rebuttal, I thought further, and wrote:

"Does not take a position on whether Martinu's world view will have a renaissance and great importance. But in any case, it is ONE cycle that is now coming to an end. You don't even have to think metaphysically to see it that way, I think.

First, there is a founder with talent, enthusiasm, confidence (whether this is justified or not, whether he really has the abilities he claims to have, or not). In a period when such things are also 'in time'. A movement arises around him. What is written and said is in step with the spiritual currents of the period, feels relevant and fresh, can interest relatively many people.

Envy is aroused, to some extent phalanxes arise. Some are provoked by and challenge the founder himself, some are content to position themselves in relation to other interested parties, the 'crowd' who have not really understood him as well as themselves.

Eventually the creator disappears. The field is now open for battle, polarization is growing. The building weathers and collapses. Those around you wonder what the hell is going on with that little inspired circle? As one did not understand what they were really interested in, but they seem to have had something exciting going on for themselves in any case.

Then if someone digs the books out of the rubble in a hundred years and finds something of value there, that remains to be seen. But clearly what has been going on now means that many who could potentially be interested in this Danish mystic's world of thought do not want to approach. It gives a little too much of an impression of old-fashioned religious warfare, something that seems to be on its way out, a phenomenon that has entered its 'autumn'. At least that's what I think,"

I think that Martinu's texts, whether they are in facsimile, in Old Danish or carefully revised, have in some sense become irrelevant. So both sides are wrong. I've been trying to come up with an analogy.

The old large Swedish company Facit was successful with its typewriters and calculators. (Didn't they even fly in the Brazilian national team to kick a ball with Åtvidaberg FK?) I got a picture of how towards the end rival product teams were bickering about whether the typewriters should be green-grey like before, the "original", or spruced up a bit, to attract new , younger buyers.

While the truth was that the world outside Åtvidaberg had turned half a turn and no one wanted a typewriter anymore. At all.

By the way, when I think about it, there are several reasons why I distanced myself from the esoteric world explanation. What I bring up above in the post is not even the most important.

Another side of it all, which I am reminded of in the exchange I refer to, is the view of the esoteric foreground figures. Their perfection. Within the movement around Martinus Thomsen, this has been an existing, although I would hardly call it a living, discussion. "Could Martinus be wrong?"

This is something that rubbed off over the years. But it hasn't been the most decisive either. Or it's kind of baked in, a facet, of what probably had the most importance because I wanted to keep esotericism/new spirituality at arm's length.

But what is the most important reason then? It's a bit tricky to describe. But is the theme of many other posts here on the website. It's about "mental hygiene", for lack of better words.

A basic thought for me today is that the esoteric/neo-spiritual understanding of life can both pressure and attract the individual to function at a lower, "simpler" developmental level than what is actually hers. And that this has nothing to do with whether the fantasy world is true or not. It might sound strange.

If I were to venture to formulate the basic problem/basic challenge, it would be that esoteric neo-spirituality is working with "absolute greatness" (complete love, perfect knowledge, perfect people, total responsibility for one's own destiny via the "law of karma", etc.), as it the human psyche in the vast majority of cases is not equipped to handle. It risks doing something to one, so to speak.

Fifteen years ago I did a dozen interviews with people who embraced the esoteric-neo-spiritual notions of reincarnation, karma and the individual's gradual development towards emotional and cognitive perfection. I then put the answers and statements I received against the human "existential conditions" as these had been formulated by an experienced psychoanalyst, Adrzej Werbart:

Werbart (2000) writes that we humans are "irretrievably doomed to live as separate 'in-dividuals', dependent on each other, divided into two sexes and several generations, vulnerable and mortal...". Elsewhere, the same author writes that we have to "accept the existential conditions of man: our separateness as separate individuals, our division into two sexes and the impossibility of being both, the division into the parent and child generations, our aging and our mortality" (Werbart, 1996 ).

In conclusion: We humans are separate, alone. We are divided into two genders (in which case we cannot be "everything"). Furthermore, we are included and arranged in parent and child generations. We are dependent on others and each other throughout life in various ways. We are all limited in terms of talent, abilities, strength, etc. Subjected to aging, we become weaker and eventually die.

The result? My impression was that the group actually denied all the existential conditions. The esoteric-neo-spiritual worldview seemed to offer reasoning or answers that invalidated them all. However, the interviewees still seemed to be able to be divided into three groups, which I once formulated roughly like this:

1. Those who are very disoriented (“deny the existential conditions”) even before the encounter with the neo-spirituality and the neo-spirituality allow them to remain in this state.
2. Those who are normally healthy/normally ill ("wrestling with the existential conditions") and the new spirituality may be tempted to avoid continuing to wrestle.
3. Those who are psychologically more mature (“have come to terms with the existential conditions”) and can find a healthy balance between theory and practice, between belief and emotional reality.

My conclusions can be read in more detail in the discussion section to the study, whoever wants to.

This may seem academic and distant. Who do I think I really am (who have I been)? Group 2 I would say. Incidentally, the very largest of the groups. That is my assessment. But Group 3 exists (Group 1 included for that matter). These psycho-spiritual unicorns!