Michael Sternbach

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About Michael Sternbach

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3,737 profile views
  1. simplify

    Guava juice
  2. an affair to remember

    Hi liberale.ironikerin And thank you for this beautiful introduction. As someone who has been around for awhile, I gladly welcome you to this colorful place. Though I can't say with certainty if I was the author of the highlighted part of your quote, it could have been me, at any rate, as it reflects the 'open philosophy' that I advocated on this board for several years now. I certainly sympathize with your quest for answers and the particular way you presented it. Further insight comes to those who admit how little they know and how much more there is to understand - especially about themselves! Whereas those (men and women alike) who claim to know best about themselves have already reached a dead end in their spiritual journey. That said, sure, be discerning when evaluating the suggestions you get on a board like this and accept only those that you resonate with on an internal level. Oh, and beware of adults offering candies! But hey, I am sure you heard that one before! Regarding your question - judging from personal experience - it is certainly possible to be in all kinds of relationships with others on an etheric/astral level, including tantric/sexual ones. How exactly would you define 'tantric' in this context, though? And do you think that your partner may be aware of the interaction? Best, Michael (male, 51)
  3. Pandemic Panic - Transcending the Fear

    Please don't! You are one of just a few voices of reason as regards this matter - on this forum as well as (relatively speaking) on a grand scale. Once those who are still able to see things in proportion have given in to desperation and shut their mouth, the fear mongers and science despots are going to have their way.
  4. simplify

  5. simplify

  6. I agree with you. I have been studying this question for a long time from a perspective of astrology and historical metaphysics. The intellectually and intuitively most satisfying scheme I was eventually able to identify is the one proposed by Gaston Georgel, which is an extension of the work of the famous metaphysicist René Guénon. Georgel suggests an ever repeating sequence of four world ages or yugas (Golden, Silver, Bronze, Iron), which is quite in line with both the ancient Greek and the Hindu view. They relate to each other length-wise according to the proportions 4:3:2:1. At the same time, they tie in with the progression of the twelve astrological ages of 2.160 years duration each. Furthermore, each of the four ages can be subdivided into four phases in its own right in an analogous manner. Comparing this time scheme to known and assumed stages of history yields numerous fascinating insights, ranging all the way back to humanity's lost civilizations such as Atlantis. According to Georgel, both the Age of Aquarius and a new Golden Age are indeed about to begin, with the year 2030 marking the threshould. In fact, this will be the start of a whole new manvantara of 64.800 years. Hopefully the following graph will make the overall conception easy to understand.
  7. Bums I am missing

    I miss myself... 😢
  8. The arts of peace and the arts of war

    Well, they correlate to the left and right hemisphere of the brain. I guess the mention of the neo-cortex must have lured me into posting the above in my bleary-eyed state. However, this might tie in with different political views as well... 🤔
  9. The arts of peace and the arts of war

    How about these dichotomies then: Analytical - synthetical Logical - intuitive Scientific - mystical Deduction - induction
  10. simplify

    The Batman movies
  11. simplify

  12. simplify

    Dao ☯️
  13. What is spirituality

  14. Why not? Truths are always bipolar, so to speak. Your example actually only serves to illustrate, what I have been thinking all along: The Gospel of Thomas represents Jesus' more esoteric teachings, meant for initiates, as opposed to what he was telling the crowd. We can suppose that the apostles were advanced 'cultivators', well familiar with the benefits of fasting, prayer and charity. Yet there may be times when such practices become self-serving and it's best to ease off on them - in order to simply be than to constantly try to become. This is reminiscent of the zen story of a master watching a practitioner meditating in order to become a Buddha. He then started polishing a brick and, when asked by the meditating man what he was doing that for, replied that he was trying to turn the brick into a diamond! Much of what Jesus shared - especially in the Gospel of Thomas! - was that kind of 'zen teaching', seemingly paradoxical and easily misunderstood by his general audience. While either suggestion may seem like sensible advice for certain situations , first off, I don't think Jesus was recommending to literally hate anybody. It could be a poor translation, or a purposeful exaggeration used by Jesus to make sure he gets the message across (alas, the texts tell us nothing about the kind of voice, facial expression and gestures that accompanied his words). Furthermore, the two statements are not contradicting each other, they only differ in pithiness. Either way, the message can be read as: "As long as you follow the ways of those around you [primarily], you will not be fit to follow your divine self [the inner Christ]." Whereas I believe that Gnosticism, in some of its many forms, was in fact the most faithful expression of Jesus' philosophy. In fact, it was at the very root of the latter. Nor was I suggesting that. I only brought this up to underline that we have so little hard evidence for what actually happened back then that there is no reason to reject the Gospel of Thomas on "historical" grounds.
  15. That's no more than one of over a dozen attempts to reconstruct "Q" from commonalities found in Luke and Matthew. For all we know, the actual "Q" was lost to posterity a very long time ago. The history of academic research into the origin of the canonical Gospels is rather involved. The most widely accepted theory today seems to be the so-called Two-Source Hypothesis, stating that Luke and Matthew are based on Mark as their "narrative source" and on that ever elusive "Q" as their "sayings source". But there are proposals that suppose four and more sources as well. Since the Gospel of Thomas was found, the assumption that it constitutes at least one of the source texts also gained lots of support. Moreover, it revived interest in the question of the derivation of the Gospels in general. Personally, I do see many parallels between its contents and Jesus' teachings according to the New Testament. That said, I make no particular claims as to the exact role it may have played in the derivation of other Gospels. Does that mean that, for you, the value of a metaphysical text stands and falls with its apparent "authenticity"? To me, such considerations are of academic interest, at best. What really matters is their intrinsic value for the cultivator today, regardless of their authorship. Well, when it comes to Buddhism, only the Pali canon can seem relevant to you then! And even here you will be confronted with the fact that various schools have different takes on what texts are to be included, not to mention extant variant readings of particular passages. Gnosticism is an umbrella term. In my metaphysical search, I draw on many sources, some of which are indeed expressions of various kinds of Gnosticism. Please note that in my previous post, I referred to the Gospel of Thomas as "Jesus' words of wisdom" to differentiate it from a supposed source of information focussed on his life. Little can be said in the latter regard from a rigorous academic perspective, though. As you probably know, even the very existence of Jesus is sometimes being disputed today. Telling from the content of the Gospel of Thomas without a doubt these are the words of a Sage - timelessly true and relevant in my view. And I see no reason why we should not identify their author with the historical Jesus.